Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study on Cyanobacteria and Maize as Feedstock for Polylactic Acid

  • Maresa Bussa
  • Cordt Zollfrank
  • Hubert RöderEmail author
Part of the Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management book series (SPLCEM)


The move towards a bioeconomy requires to overcome the lack of biomass and to develop new processes for the production of chemicals and materials. Cyanobacteria can play a key role in the bioeconomy due to their fast growth and year-round production possibilities. In this study the life cycle assessment approach is applied in order to address three goals: (i) to evaluate the potential of cyanobacterial biomass as a replacement of maize as feedstock for polylactic acid; (ii) to identify the drivers of the environmental impacts; (iii) to assess three different improvement scenarios. Results show that cyanobacteria are currently not environmentally competitive with maize. The high electricity demand, the carbon dioxide requirements as well as urea are identified as crucial factor for the environmental impacts of cyanobacterial biomass. Replacing the electricity mix by wind power, reducing the carbon dioxide supply as well as upscaling of the lab-scale system reduces the environmental burden considerably. Further research is however necessary to optimize the production chain and to use biomass residues for valuable co-products.


Life cycle assessment Cyanobacteria Microalgae PLA 



This work was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (Grant number ETZ 2014-2020 INTERREG V A 41).


  1. 1.
    Standing Committee on Agricultural Research, European Bioeconomy Panel (2014) Where next for the European bioeconomy?: The latest thinking from the European Bioeconomy Panel and the Standing Committee on Agricultural Re-search Strategic Working Group (SCAR). Publications Office, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan L, Owende P (2010) Biofuels from microalgae—a review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14(2):557–577. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheel J, Urajová P, Hájek J et al (2017) Separation of cyclic lipopeptide puwainaphycins from cyanobacteria by countercurrent chromatography combined with polymeric resins and HPLC. Anal Bioanal Chem 409(4):917–930. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banat IM, Franzetti A, Gandolfi I et al (2010) Microbial biosurfactants production, applications and future potential. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87(2):427–444. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh P, Cameotra SS (2004) Potential applications of microbial surfactants in biomedical sciences. Trends Biotechnol 22(3):142–146. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites (2017) Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castro-Aguirre E, Iñiguez-Franco F, Samsudin H et al (2016) Poly(lactic acid)-Mass production, processing, industrial applications, and end of life. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:333–366. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chisti Y (2016) Large-scale production of algal biomass: raceway ponds. In: Bux F, Chisti Y (eds) Algae biotechnology: products and processes, 1st edn. Springer, Switzerland, pp 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker CGJ, McKenzie KA (2005) Energy consumption of industrial spray dryers. Drying Technol 23(1–2):365–386. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Business Economics of Biogenic ResourcesWeihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences, TUM Campus Straubing for Biotechnology and SustainabilityStraubingGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Biogenic PolymersTechnical University of Munich, TUM Campus Straubing for Biotechnology and SustainabilityStraubingGermany

Personalised recommendations