Advertisement

Electrification of Biotechnology: Quo Vadis?

  • Dirk HoltmannEmail author
  • Falk HarnischEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology book series (ABE, volume 167)

Abstract

Electrobiotechnology has come a long way and has gained much interest among researchers all over the world. In the previous chapters of this book, an abundance of successful developments of lab-scale electrobiosynthesis and their underlying fundamentals are described. Thereby the individual needs and lines of research are highlighted. In this final chapter we will try to shed light on the overall performance of electrobiosynthetic processes with regard to their technological maturity, as well as the potential ecological and economic incentives for their industrial implementation.

The evaluation of technical maturity, in particular, clearly demonstrates that electrobiosynthesis is still in its infancy. Bridging the “valley of death” between promising lab-scale results and first industrial applications as a market opener can only be achieved by the joint efforts of researchers from different disciplines in academia and industry, as well as by public funding and venture capital.

Unfortunately, among other factors, the low degree of technical maturity hampers ecological evaluation, which so far has been limited to a small number of complete life cycle assessments. Therefore, we suggest using simplified evaluation tools (e.g., the environmental E-factor) to at least acquire clues about different parameters that influence the ecological impact. Ultimately, money makes the world go round and, hence, economic aspects will determine whether or not electrobiotechnological processes are implemented in industry. The existing examples show that different production routes based on electrobiosynthesis can become economically feasible.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Electrobiotechnology Electroenzymatic synthesis Green chemistry Life cycle assessment Microbial electrosynthesis Technology readiness level/technology maturity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Concerning this chapter, both authors thank Dr. Karsten Schürrle (DECHEMA e.V.), Dr. Sofia Milker (DFI), and Dr. Luis F. M. Rosa (UFZ) for their discussions. In regard to the entire book: First of all we thank all the authors and referees. Any merit should be assigned to the authors of the individual chapters and all flaws should be addressed to both of us. We thank Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) for the funding of the workshop series (AZ: 31382/01) that certainly partially inspired this book and fostered the interaction of the authors. Additionally, we gratefully acknowledge DECHEMA’s support of the initiative to establish the national working party “Electrobiotechnology”, which played an important role in the emergence of this book. Finally, we hope that the DECHEMA working party can establish itself as the heart of electrobiotechnology in Germany, as the International Society for Microbial Electrochemistry and Technology (ISMET) has done worldwide.

References

  1. 1.
    Mankins JC (1995) Technology readiness levels: a White Paper, NASAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission (2014) Technology readiness levels (TRL), General Annexes G, Horizon 2020 – Work Programme 2014-2015. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/annexes/h2020-wp1415-annex-g-trl_en.pdf
  3. 3.
    Nevin KP et al (2011) Electrosynthesis of organic compounds from carbon dioxide is catalyzed by a diversity of acetogenic microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(9):2882–2886PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horst AEW et al (2016) Electro-enzymatic hydroxylation of ethylbenzene by the evolved unspecific peroxygenase of Agrocybe aegerita. J Mol Catal B Enzym 133:S137–S142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simonte F et al (2017) Extracellular electron transfer and biosensors. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vidakovic-Koch T (2017) Electron transfer between enzymes and electrodes. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmitz LM, Rosenthal K, Lutz S (2017) Enzyme-based electrobiotechnological synthesis. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerzenmacher S (2017) Engineering of microbial electrodes. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenbaum MA et al (2017) Microbial electrosynthesis I: pure and defined mixed culture engineering. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ter Heijne A et al (2017) Mixed culture biocathodes for production of hydrogen, methane, and carboxylates. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krieg T et al (2018) Reactors for microbial electrobiotechnology. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korth B, Harnisch F (2017) Modeling microbial electrosynthesis. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tanne CK, Schippers A (2017) Electrochemical applications in metal bioleaching. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halan B, Tschortner J, Schmid A (2017) Generating electric current by bioartificial photosynthesis. Adv Biochem Eng BiotechnolGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haas T et al (2018) Technical photosynthesis involving CO2 electrolysis and fermentation. Nat Catal 1(1):32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harnisch F, Urban C (2018) Electrobiorefineries: unlocking the synergy of electrochemical and microbial conversions. Angew Chem Int EdGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tommasi T, Lombardelli G (2017) Energy sustainability of microbial fuel cell (MFC): a case study. J Power Sources 356:438–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Corbella C, Puigagut J, Garfi M (2017) Life cycle assessment of constructed wetland systems for wastewater treatment coupled with microbial fuel cells. Sci Total Environ 584–585:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bogosh M et al (2015) life cycle environmental assessment comparison of microbial electrochemical cells and conventional technologies for wastewater treatment at forward operating bases. Proc Water Environ Fed 2015(2):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pant D et al (2011) An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy and product generation: relevance and key aspects. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(2):1305–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foley JM et al (2010) Life cycle assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells. Environ Sci Technol 44(9):3629–3637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shemfe M et al (2018) Life cycle, techno-economic and dynamic simulation assessment of bioelectrochemical systems: a case of formic acid synthesis. Bioresour Technol 255:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Christodoulou X et al (2017) The use of carbon dioxide in microbial electrosynthesis: advancements, sustainability and economic feasibility. J CO2 Util 18:390–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harnisch F, Holtmann D (2017) Electrification of biotechnology: status quo. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anastas PT, Warner JC (1998) Green chemistry: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sheldon RA (2008) E factors, green chemistry and catalysis: an odyssey. Chem Commun (29):3352–3365Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ni Y, Holtmann D, Hollmann F (2014) How green is biocatalysis? To calculate is to know. ChemCatChem 6(4):930–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ni Y et al (2016) Peroxygenase-catalyzed oxyfunctionalization reactions promoted by the complete oxidation of methanol. Angew Chem Int Ed 55(2):798–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fernández-Fueyo E et al (2016) Towards preparative peroxygenase-catalyzed oxyfunctionalization reactions in organic media. J Mol Catal B Enzym 134(Part B):347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Friedrich S et al (2014) Optimization of a biocatalytic process to gain (R)-1-phenylethanol by applying the software tool Sabento for ecological assessment during the early stages of development. J Mol Catal B Enzym 103(Supplement C):36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pohlmann A et al (2006) Genome sequence of the bioplastic-producing “Knallgas” bacterium Ralstonia eutropha H16. Nat Biotechnol 24(10):1257–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sydow A et al (2017) Growth medium and electrolyte—how to combine the different requirements on the reaction solution in bioelectrochemical systems using Cupriavidus necator. Eng Life Sci 17(7):781–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schlegel H, Lafferty R (1964) Submerskultur von Hydrogenomonas mit elektrolytischer Knallgaserzeugung im Kulturgefäss. Zentrabl Bakteriol Parasitenk Infektionskr Hyg Abt II 118:483–490Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li H et al (2012) Integrated electromicrobial conversion of CO2 to higher alcohols. Science 335(6076):1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torella JP et al (2015) Efficient solar-to-fuels production from a hybrid microbial-water-splitting catalyst system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(8):2337–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu C et al (2016) Water splitting-biosynthetic system with CO(2) reduction efficiencies exceeding photosynthesis. Science 352(6290):1210–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Al Rowaihi IS et al (2018) Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production in an integrated electromicrobial setup: investigation under stress-inducing conditions. PLoS One 13(4):e0196079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krieg T et al (2018) CO2 to terpenes: autotrophic and electroautotrophic α-humulene production with Cupriavidus necator. Angew Chem Int Ed 57(7):1879–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xafenias N, Kmezik C, Mapelli V (2017) Enhancement of anaerobic lysine production in Corynebacterium glutamicum electrofermentations. Bioelectrochemistry 117:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vassilev I et al (2018) Anodic electro-fermentation: anaerobic production of L-lysine by recombinant Corynebacterium glutamicum. Biotechnol Bioeng 115(6):1499–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peam C et al (2016) Economic risk analysis and critical comparison of optimal biorefinery concepts. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 10(4):435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Harnisch F et al (2015) Electrifying white biotechnology: engineering and economic potential of electricity-driven bio-production. ChemSusChem 8(5):758–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DECHEMA-Forschungsinstitut, Industrial BiotechnologyFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Department of Environmental MicrobiologyHelmholtz-Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations