Comparative life cycle assessment of a commercial algal multiproduct biorefinery and wild caught fishery for small pelagic fish

CHALLENGES AND BEST PRACTICE IN LCAS OF SEAFOOD AND OTHER AQUATIC PRODUCTS

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the environmental impacts of omega-3 fatty acid (n-3), high protein feed and biofuel production from algae to the impacts of the production of those products from fish.

Methods

The functional unit was the production of one metric ton of omega-3 fatty acids from algae (fish) and the accompanying co-products of biofuel and high protein feed. This was a cradle to gate LCA. Four scenarios were used in this model. The algae multiproduct model (MPM) scenario was the baseline using only unit operations currently in use at the reference facility (Cellana LLC). A low-energy centrifuge replaced the existing conventional centrifuge (MPM (LE)) to reduce energy consumption. The MPM was improved in a different manner, employing membrane filtration prior to centrifugation (MPM (MF)). These three scenarios were compared to the conventional production of the same products from fish (conventional product model: CPM). This life cycle assessment investigated the following impacts: ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, smog formation potential, acidification potential, and eutrophication potential.

Results and discussion

The environmental impacts of producing omega-3 fatty acids from algae were higher than producing omega-3 fatty acids from fish if membrane filtration was not used. Membrane filtration reduced most of the environmental impacts of the algae system by more than 50%. Fuel consumption was the only factor that caused the fish systems to change by greater than 10% from the baseline. Productivity, membrane filtration electricity, and annual operating days could each affect the environmental impacts of the algae system by greater than 10% from the baseline. Improvements to the algae system depend on improvements to cultivation and harvesting, with the impacts from processing being very small.

Conclusions

This study presented results comparing the environmental impacts from a multiproduct system from algae and from fish. The results of this study can serve as a benchmark for the environmental impacts of an algal multiproduct biorefinery compared to the conventional production of those same products from fish. Areas of improvement have been identified for the algae production system for dewatering and cultivation. The amount of n-3 had little impact on the n-3 market but had a significant effect on the existing algal n-3 market. The amount of fuel and feed produced had a negligible effect on both markets.

Keywords

Algae Biofuel Life cycle assessment Omega-3 fatty acids 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully thank funding from the Arizona State University Lightworks, Arizona Center for Algae Technology and Innovation, ASU Dissertation Fellowship, NSF CBET (#0932606/1241697 and 124697) and More Graduate Education at Mointain States Alliance program. The authors also thank Cellana LLC for providing input data for this life cycle assessment.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1395_MOESM1_ESM.docx (124 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 123 kb).

References

  1. Adarme-Vega TC, Thomas-Hall SR, Schenk PM (2014) Towards sustainable sources for omega-3 fatty acids production. Current Opinion Biotech 26:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida C, Vaz S, Cabral H, Ziegler F (2014) Environmental assessment of sardine (Sardina pilchardus) purse seine fishery in Portugal with LCA methodology including biological impact categories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avadí A, Fréon P (2013) Life cycle assessment of fisheries: a review for fisheries scientists and managers. Fisheries Res 143:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bare JC (2002) Traci. JIE 6:49–78Google Scholar
  5. Beal CM, Gerber LN, Sills DL, Huntley ME, Machesky SC, Walsh MJ, Greene CH (2015) Algal biofuel production for fuels and feed in a 100-ha facility: a comprehensive techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Alg Res 10:266–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigelow B (2015) Algal biofuel icon sapphire energy moves to diversify product line Retrieved from http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2015/02/03/algal-biofuel-icon-sapphire-energy-moves-to-diversify-product-line/
  7. Chauton MS, Reitan KI, Norsker NH, Tveterås R, Kleivdal HT (2015) A techno-economic analysis of industrial production of marine microalgae as a source of EPA and DHA-rich raw material for aquafeed: research challenges and possibilities. Aquaculture 436:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen H-W, Yang T-S, Chen M-J, Chang Y-C, Lin C-Y, Wang EIC, Chao LK-P (2012) Application of power plant flue gas in a photobioreactor to grow Spirulina algae, and a bioactivity analysis of the algal water-soluble polysaccharides. Bioresour Technol 120:56–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng Z, Hardy R, Blair M (2003) Effects of supplementing methionine hydroxy analogue in soybean meal and distiller’s dried grain-based diets on the performance and nutrient retention of rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum)]. Aquaculture Res 34:1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarens AF, Resurreccion EP, White MA, Colosi LM (2010) Environmental life cycle comparison of algae to other bioenergy feedstocks. Env Sci Technol 44:1813–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collet P, Helias A, Lardon L, Ras M, Goy R-A, Steyer J-P (2011) Life-cycle assessment of microalgae culture coupled to biogas production. Bioresour Technol 102:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis R, Aden A, Pienkos PT (2011) Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae for fuel production. Appl Energ 88:3524–3531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis R, Fishman DB, Frank ED, Johnson MC, Jones SB, Kinchin CM, Wigmosta MS (2014a) Integrated evaluation of cost, emissions, and resource potential for algal biofuels at the national scale. Environ Sci Technol 40:6035–6042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis R, Kinchin CM, Markham J, Tan ECD, Laurens LML (2014b) Process design and economics for the conversion of algal biomass to biofuels: algal biomass fractionation to lipid- and carbohydrate-derived fuel products. Retrieved from Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  15. Driscoll J, Tyedmers P (2010) Fuel use and greenhouse gas emission implications of fisheries management: the case of the New England Atlantic herring fishery. Mar Policy 34:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godiganur S, Murthy CS, Reddy RP (2010) Performance and emission characteristics of a Kirloskar HA394 diesel engine operated on fish oil methyl esters. Renew Energ 35:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guy Jr NG, Blankenship C, Wiley N, Ellinor D, Barham R, Pausina R, Robinson L (2015) The Gulf Menhaden Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico: a regional management plan. Retrieved from Ocean Springs, MIGoogle Scholar
  18. IFFO (2009) The production of fishmeal and fish oil from Peruvian anchovyGoogle Scholar
  19. Ismail A (2013) Trends in the Omega-3 market. Presentation. Global organization for EPA and DHA omega-3s. Retrieved from http://micnorway.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/3-B1-Adam-Ismael.pdf
  20. Kissinger KR, García-Ortega A, Trushenski JT (2016) Partial fish meal replacement by soy protein concentrate, squid and algal meals in low fish-oil diets containing Schizochytrium limacinum for longfin yellowtail Seriola rivoliana. Aquaculture 452:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lardon L, Helias A, Sialve B, Steyer J-P, Bernard O (2009) Life-cycle assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 43:6475–6481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacDougall C (2017) Solix Algredients’ pivot from biofuels to natural-food additives pays off Retrieved from http://bizwest.com/2017/06/16/solix-algredients-pivot-pays-off-fort-collins-company-shifted-biofuels-natural-food-additives/
  23. Manganaro JL, Lawal A (2016) CO2 life-cycle assessment of the production of algae-based liquid fuel compared to crude oil to diesel. Energy Fuel 30:3130–3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manganaro JL, Lawal A, Goodall B (2015) Techno-economics of microalgae production and conversion to refinery ready oil with co-products credits. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefining 9:760–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olesen E, Nielsen P (2003) LCA food database: fishmeal and oil production Retrieved from: http://gefionau.dk/lcafood/processes/industry/fishmealproduction.htm
  26. Parker RWR, Vázquez-Rowe I, Tyedmers PH (2015) Fuel performance and carbon footprint of the global purse seine tuna fleet. J Clean Prod 103:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Razon LF, Tan RR (2011) Net energy analysis of the production of biodiesel and biogas from the microalgae: Haematococcus pluvialis and Nannochloropsis. Appl Energ 88:3507–3514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothermel MC, Landis AE, Barr WJ, Soratana K, Reddington KM, Weschler MK, Harper WF (2013) A life cycle assessment based evaluation of a coupled wastewater treatment and biofuel production paradigm. J Environ Protect 4:1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Santos-Sánchez N, Valadez-Blanco R, Hernández-Carlos B, Torres-Ariño A, Guadarrama-Mendoza P, Salas-Coronado R (2016) Lipids rich in ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from microalgae. Appl Microb Biotech 100:8667–8684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sills DL, Paramita V, Franke MJ, Johnson MC, Akabas TM, Greene CH, Tester JW (2012) Quantitative uncertainty analysis of life cycle assessment for algal biofuel production. Environ Sci Technol 47:687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soratana K, Barr WJ, Landis AE (2014) Effects of co-products on the life-cycle impacts of microalgal biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 159:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soratana K, Landis AE (2011) Evaluating industrial symbiosis and algae cultivation from a life cycle perspective. Bioresour Technol 102:6892–6901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ushakov S, Valland H, Æsøy V (2013) Combustion and emissions characteristics of fish oil fuel in a heavy-duty diesel engine. Energy Conv Man 65:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vaughan DS, Shertzer KW, Smith JW (2007) Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico: fishery characteristics and biological reference points for management. Fisheries Res 83:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vázquez-Rowe I, Villanueva-Rey P, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2014) Life cycle assessment of European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) consumption. A case study for Galicia (NW Spain). Sci Total Environ 475:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ward OP, Singh A (2005) Omega-3/6 fatty acids: alternative sources of production. Process Biochem 40:3627–3652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weschler MK, Barr WJ, Harper WF, Landis AE (2014) Process energy comparison for the production and harvesting of algal biomass as a biofuel feedstock. Bioresour Technol 153:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yin H, Sathivel S (2010) Physical properties and oxidation rates of unrefined menhaden oil (Brevoortia patronus). J Food Sci 75:E163–E168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu L (2015) Biorefinery as a promising approach to promote microalgae industry: an innovative framework. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:1376–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built EnvironmentArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations