Biorefinery pp 639-654 | Cite as

Techno-economic Analysis for the Production of Novel Bio-derived Elastomers with Modified Algal Proteins as a Reinforcing Agent

  • Tomasz Bochenski
  • Wui Yarn Chan
  • Bradley D. Olsen
  • Jens Ejbye SchmidtEmail author


Shifting from a fossil fuel-dependent economy to modern, sustainable development requires not only the introduction of biofuels but should also include novel and sustainable materials from renewable feedstocks. In this study, the viability of producing polyurethane-inspired elastomers manufactured through copolymerization of modified proteins from microalgae with the synthetic monomer poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (PEGMA) is investigated. Techno-economic evaluation of the process reveals great potential for the technology to be economically feasible, resulting in an investment payback rate of 8.4 years under the given conditions. Sensitivity analysis shows that the process feasibility is highly dependent on the protein availability, price of copolymer, and protein concentration. Conversely, the relatively minor influence that the price of residual proteins plays in the process economics is very beneficial from the perspective of justifying algal biofuel production. A positive economic balance for the technology is achieved for a variety of different product formulations, prices, and processing techniques.


Microalgae Proteins Biomaterials Biorefinery Biopolymer 



This work was funded by the Cooperative Agreement between the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (Masdar Institute), Abu Dhabi, UAE, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA—Reference BIOREFINERY 02/MI/MI/CP/11/07633/GEN/G/00 for work under the Second Five-Year Agreement.


  1. Alagi P, Hong SC (2015) Vegetable oil-based polyols for sustainable polyurethanes. Macromol Res 23(12):1079–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang BW, Choong WL, Ng TS (2014) Energy security: definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:1077–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahadar A, Bilal Khan M (2013) Progress in energy from microalgae: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 27:128–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahr M, Mulhaupt R (2012) Linseed and soybean oil-based polyurethanes prepared via the non-isocyanate route and catalytic carbon dioxide conversion. Green Chem 14(2):483–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baur X, Marek W, Ammon J, Czuppon AB, Marczynski B, Raulfheimsoth M, Roemmelt H, Fruhmann G (1994) Respiratory and other hazards of isocyanates. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 66(3):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bioplastics Market Data (2016) European bioplastics, Nova-Institute. Accessed 30 June 2017
  7. Bochenski T (2017) Techno-economic analysis of microalgae biorefinery in arid environments for co-production of biofuels and value-added compounds. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab EmiratesGoogle Scholar
  8. Bochenski T, Torres AI, Ashraf MT, Schmidt JE, Stephanopoulos G (2016) Evaluation of the production of lipids for fuels and proteins from microalgae using a two-level Lagrangian decomposition. Comput Aided Chem Eng 38:1635–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brennan L, Owende P (2010) Biofuels from microalgae—a review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:557–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr M (2015) Algae industry project book, Algae Biomass Organization.
  11. Chan WY, Bochenski T, Schmidt JE, Olsen BD (2017) Peptide domains as reinforcement in protein-based elastomers. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5(10):8568–8578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Correa Altafim RA, Murakami CR, Neto SC, Ribeiro Araujo LC, Chierice GO (2003) The effects of fillers on polyurethane resin-based electrical insulators. Mater Res 6(2):187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Figovsky O, Shapovalov L, Leykin A, Birukova O, Potashnikova R (2013) Recent advances in the development of non-isocyanate polyurethanes based on cyclic carbonates. PU Mag Int 10(4):256–263Google Scholar
  14. Gouveia L (2011) Microalgae as a feedstock for biofuels. In: Springer briefs in microbiologyGoogle Scholar
  15. Guan J, Song Y, Lin Y, Yin X, Zuo M, Zhao Y, Tao X, Zheng Q (2011) Progress in study of non-isocyanate polyurethane. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(11):6517–6527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heintz AM, Dffy DJ, Hsu SL (2003) Effects of reaction temperature on the formation of polyurethane prepolymer structures. Macromolecules 36:2695–2704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hook M, Tang X (2013) Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—a review. Energy Policy 52:797–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howard GT (2002) Biodegradation of polyurethane: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 49(4):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Javni I, Hong DP, Petrovic ZS (2008) Soy-based polyurethanes by nonisocyanate route. J Appl Polym Sci 108(6):3867–3875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar S, Hablot E, Garcia Moscoso JL, Obeid W, Hatcher PG, DuQuette BM, Graiver D, Narayan R, Balan V (2014) Polyurethanes preparation using proteins obtained from microalgae. J Mater Sci 49(22):7824–7833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mata TM, Martins AA, Caetano NS (2010) Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK (2010) Production of first and second generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(2):578–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Percentage of global research and development spending in 2017, by industry, Statista—the statistics portal. Accessed 25 Feb 2018
  24. Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD (1991) Plant design and economics for chemical engineers, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Reisch MS (2016) Chemical makers hold research spending steady, but capital spending will stall in 2016. Chem Eng News 94(16):18–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soroudi A, Jakubowicz I (2013) Recycling of bioplastics, their blends and biocomposites: a review. Eur Polym J 49:2839–2858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tabata T, Zhang O, Yamanaka Y, Tsai P (2016) Estimating potential disaster waste generation for pre-disaster waste management. Clean Techn Environ Policy 18:1735–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton PK, Ericksen PJ, Herrero M, Challinor AJ (2014) Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: a review. Glob Chang Biol 20:3313–3328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomasz Bochenski
    • 1
  • Wui Yarn Chan
    • 2
  • Bradley D. Olsen
    • 2
  • Jens Ejbye Schmidt
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryKhalifa University of Science and Technology, Masdar CampusAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.SDU-Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Environmental TechnologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations