• Udugama, Isuru
• Gernaey, Krist V.
• Dickson, Rofice
• Fabbri, Serena
• Ullah, Humzaa Imtiaz
• Vishwanath, Srikanth
• Mansouri, Seyed Soheil
• Mancini, Enrico
• Luo, Jianquan
• Pinelo, Manuel

Abstract

Many recent attempts to commercialize bio-succinic acid (bio-SA) endedto be unsuccessful after a start flourishing moment. Furthermore, theimproved environmental performance of bio-SA production processescompared to petroleum-based SA is still uncertain. In this study atechno-economic analysis was conducted comparing four bio-SAmanufacturing processes in terms of net present value and minimumselling price. Two of the simulated processes are based on patentsreleased by bio-SA manufacturing companies (I) Roquette/DSM (Reverdia)and (II) DNP Green Technology /ARD (BioAmber). A third process is basedon a Michigan State University patent (III) and a fourth process isconceptual (IV). The conceptual process IV was demonstrated to have &lt;50% lower capital costs and ∼40 to 55% lower manufacturing costs thanthe other processes. With a minimum selling price of 1.4 USD kg^-1, process IV would be cheaper than petroleum based succinic acid (∼2.0 USD kg^-1).The Reverdia-based process can also be competitive, while process IIIand particularly the BioAmber-based process II are not profitable.Ion-exchange columns, nanofiltration and anion exchange membranes areshown to be key technologies for lowering bio-SA manufacturing costs.Continuous bio-SA fermentation with <em>in situ</em>-like extraction canchange the bio-SA market, but the environmental sustainabilityassessment reveals only marginal differences compared withpetroleum-based SA. Low pH “aerobic fermentation” is likely to be a moresustainable strategy compared to neutral pH “aerobic fermentation”.

Topics

• impedance spectroscopy
• extraction
• fermentation