Difference between revisions of "Template:Groningen/Applied Design"

 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
<div class="column">
 
<div class="column">
  
        <h1>Applied Design</h1>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/7/7e/T--Groningen--banner_applieddesign.png" class="responsive-img">
<p>For Applied Design, we had a look into the world of Bioplastics. We wanted to know how they are produced now and if there are people looking to get better bioplastics. Next to this, we looked into the different sources of biomass.</p>
+
<p>Traditionally, university education is often theoretical and focussed on fundamental research, in iGEM we saw an opportunity to use our knowledge in science to make an impact on the world. One of the biggest challenges humanity will face in the coming decades is climate change. To have a big impact we sought to reduce the carbon footprint of a product everyone uses and uses a lot: plastic. At the same time we aimed to utilize an underused waste stream. </p>
 +
<h4>Two challenges...</h4>
 +
<p>Two challenges…
 +
Cellulosic waste is an underused waste stream. A lot of cellulose is “lost” as it is burned for energy [1] [2], because there are currently no alternatives. Sources of cellulosic waste can be in the form of e.g. wood, algae or toilet paper. Current methods, as designed by <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#avantiuminterview">Avantium</a> for example, use acids to degrade cellulose to glucose.
 +
However, global desire for a biobased economy is influencing the industry; therefore the interest in bioplastics is growing. Polylactic acid, polyhydroxurethanes and polyethylene are being produced as bioplastics, but through <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#porterinterview">expert</a> interviews we discovered that these do not meet the current demands of the plastic industry. Conversely Styrene, one of the most used plastic monomers in the world, styrene, is not being produced in the biobased way.</p>
 +
<h4>... one solution</h4>
 +
<p>Through interdisciplinary brainstorming sessions we aimed to merge these two challenges into an opportunity.: using vast amounts of cellulosic waste for the production of bio based styrene (StyGreen). Due to our enzymatic approach, we bypass the need for acidic degradation</p>
  
<h4>Two problems...</h4>
+
<h4 id="source">The Resource</h4>
<p>The first problem is the underusage of cellulose. A lot of cellulose is lost by burning it. This can be in the form of wood, algae or toilet paper. Recent methods, proposed by Avantium for example, use acids to degrade cellulose to glucose. There is a lot of interest in a biobased economy, and the interest in bioplastics is growing. Polylactic acid, polyhydroxurethanes and polyethylene are being produced as bioplastics, but can be fitted as well in the existing industry. Styrene, one of the most used plastic monomers in the world, is not being produced in the biobased way.</p>
+
<p>We thoroughly investigated different biomass sources in order to find the source most suitable for our project. After comprehensive research, we found three potential sources; wood, algae and toilet paper.</p>
 +
<p>Our first idea was to process wood (lignocellulosic biomass). We approached Avantium, a company experienced with converting wood chips into glucose. Additionally, we analyzed the financial aspects surrounding wood pulp. We quickly found that the kraft technique[3], which is used for the conversion, is financially and environmentally expensive. If we wanted to use wood chips as our biomass source, StyGreen would not be environmentally friendly or economically feasible.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The second possible cellulosic biomass source was algae. We interviewed <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#niozinterview">prof. Dr. Klaas Timmermans of NIOZ</a> about their extensive research on algae. It is argued that future use of algae as a biomass source may be highly promising. However, as the industry is still in its infancy, lack of scale puts upward pressure on pricing. Therefore, this is currently not an attractive possible cellulosic biomass source. </p>
 +
</div>
  
<h4 id="source">… One solution</h4>
+
<div class="clear_extra_space"></div>
<p>By combining these problems, we use the vast amounts of cellulose, and use this to produce a biobased styrene (StyGreen). Due to our enzymatic approach, we do not need big amounts of acids, and will not use energy expensive heating techniques. </p>
+
  
<h4>The resource</h4>
+
<div class="column two_thirds_size">
<p>We looked into different biomass sources to use, to find the one that is most applicable to our project. After a lot of searching, we came up with three potential candidates; wood, algae  and toilet paper. Out of these three we continued with toilet paper, and found a supplier who was eager to work with us. </p>
+
<p>Thirdly, we investigated “sludge:” toilet paper waste streams. Toilet paper is a second generation biomass source. It is underused and virtually valueless. This makes it a promising biomass source. <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#knninterview">KNN cellulose</a> was enthusiastic about our project and provided us with their recycled toilet paper product (Recell): this consists of cellulosic biomass (99% cellulose) filtered out of sewage locally in the Wastewater Treatment Plant. To further investigate the environmental impact of this potential cellulosic source we looked into its production.</p>
<p>Our first idea to work with was wood. We had contact with Avantium, who has experience turning wood chips into glucose. Next to that, we had a look at the prices of wood pulp, which is produced by the kraft technique. We quickly found that the kraft technique is financially and environmentally expensive. If we wanted to use this, StyGreen would not be environmentally better and also too expensive. </p>
+
</div>
<p> The second possibility were algae. We talked with NIOZ about their research on algae. In the future we expect this to be our main source of biomass. However, as the research is not yet very sophisticated, we needed a more direct source of biomass.</p>
+
<div class="column third_size">
<p> The final idea was toilet paper. The recycled toilet paper that is provided by our partner KNN, is filtered out of the sewage. This is done locally in the Wastewater Treatment Plant. We looked into this process to see where our source is coming from, and get a clear idea of our product line. <a target="_blank" href=" http://www.cell-vation.com/">Source</a></p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/4/48/T--Groningen--knn.jpg">
<ol>
+
</div>
<li>Wastewater Treatment Plant. At this place the toilet paper is gathered.</li>
+
<li>Grit Removal. The solids such as sands and grit are removed.</li>  
+
<li>Cellulose washer. The organic contaminants are removed.</li>
+
<li>Salsnes Filter. The cellulose particles are filtered by a cloth filter.</li>
+
<li>Cell Press. The cellulose particles are dewatered.</li>
+
<li>Hygienization. The product is hygenized to a EPA class A rating, so it’s safe to use.</li>
+
</ol>
+
  
<p>In cooperation with KNN Cellulose, we received monsters of their product to test in the lab. To break down the cellulose to glucose, we couldn't get our enzymes working right away. To preprocess the toilet paper, we ran tests with Ball Milling and Phosphorylation. We had very promising results with this. </p>
+
<div class="clear_extra_space"></div>
  
<h4 id="bioreactor">Upscaling</h4>
+
<figure><img class="responsive-img" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/5/53/T--Groningen--ReCell_production_process.JPEG"><figcaption><i>Figure 1: The process as depicted is developed by a joint venture between KNN Cellulose and CirTec called Cellvation. They use a cost efficient process to extract toilet paper from waste water [4]</i></figcaption></figure>
<p>Together with one of our parters (EV Biotech), we designed a bioreactor to make upscaling possible in the future. To implement our microorganism in a working technology we need to find the best way of upscaling the production. For this we designed a bioreactor that enables our yeast to grow under ideal circumstances while optimizing styrene yield. The two main complications tackled through our design are difficulties of bringing cellulose into solution and extracting styrene from the system. Cellulose consists of many long chains of cellobiose polymers that from many hydrogen bonds. The contribution of apolar stacking interactions to the difficulties when dissolving cellulose should not be underestimated either. Both the polar as well as the apolar interactions of cellulose strains can be decreased through phosphorylation of the 6 position or methylation of the 2, 3 or 6 position. These alterations however require chemical conditions and preparations steps that would greatly reduce the profitability as well as the carbon footprint of our final product. Hence we decided to keep these alterations to a minimum. The solubility of cellulose can already be increased significantly when only 30 % of the 6 positions are phosphorylated. On top of that we aim to employ dry ball milling to reduce particle size and crystallinity of the cellulose while increasing the amount of amorphous regions. This is important as amorphous cellulose doesn’t form strong apolar interactions, which increases the solubility while also being the only sites where the cellulose binding domain of our enzyme scaffold can actually bind to cellulose.</p>
+
 
 +
<div class="column">
 +
<p>KNN Cellulose provided us with monsters of their product, which we tested in our lab. Degrading Recell without any preprocessing proved to be challenging. After literature review and expert interviews we decided to use Ball Milling [5]. We successfully degraded ball milled Recell using one of our cellulases. Read all about that <a target="_blank" href="Results">here</a></p>
 +
 
 +
<h4>Carbon Footprint Analysis</h4>
 +
<p>We performed a thorough analysis of the carbon emission of a potential toiletpaper derived StyGreen, and compared these to the emissions of petrochemically produced styrene. Naturally, our primary emissions were caused by the energy which is used during the production process. However, due to the high energy consumption of the production of regular styrene, we are able to potentially improve the carbon emission by 71%! We'll explain the calculations in more detail <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#carbonfootprint">here</a>. Local availability, a favorably predicted carbon footprint analysis, proven degradation and under utilization of waste toilet paper make this the perfect source of cellulose.  
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<h4>Upscaling</h4>
 
<p>
 
<p>
The second problem our strain faces is, that the apolar styrene is likely to localize into the lipid bilayer which will eventually destroy the membrane (link MathijsT MD), limiting the amount of styrene that can be produced in a single batch before the cells die. We considered that styrene might get actively transported out of the cell, using the s.cerevisiae native Pleiotropic Multidrug Resistance system as styrene can also be toxic to the DNA through intercalation and covalent binding. Although the PDR5 system seems to be able to export styrene it cannot be expected to export large quantities of styrene at an efficient rate. Hence we decided to employ a biphasic medium in our bioreactor. In a biphasic medium an insoluble, organic phase is added to the aqueous medium. Ethyl acetate was an apparent choice as it can donate hydrogen bonds while not accepting them, making it immiscible in water while not denaturing extracellular proteins. Styrene has a high preference for the apolar phase (log P = 2,8) and hence will likely localize into the ethyl acetate phase which can then be siphoned off the system after phase separation which can be introduced simply by stopping of the fermenter stirring.  The apolar phase will likely contain many extracellular, apolar impurities which can be removed through reverse extraction with water as styrene is the most apolar compound in the entire mixture. The styrene can be separated from the ethyl acetate through evaporation. The ethyl acetate and the reverse extract can be recycled into the bioreactor system so no fresh apolar phase is required.</p>
+
One of the factors which influences the carbon emission of our production process is the mass balance: the amount of biomass required to produce a kilogram of StyGreen. Due to increased efficiency of “economies of scale”, upscaling our process to the bioreactor level is important. With the input of one of our partners (EV Biotech); we designed a bioreactor to make upscaling possible in the future, that enables our yeast to grow under ideal circumstances while optimizing styrene yield. The two main challenges we tackle through our design are difficulties of bringing cellulose into solution and extracting styrene from the system.
<p>
+
</p>
Our metabolic modeling suggested that trading viability and culture growth for more styrene yield is only possible at a very bad ratio as most knockouts in the ARO5 pathways from shikimate to phenylalanine and eventually to trans-cinnamate and styrene introduce sizable metabolic stress onto the strain. Therefore we aim to limit growth and biomass by introducing tryptophan deficiency thorough a knock out which is beneficial as tryptophan competes with phenylalanine synthesis for the ARO5 substrates chorismate, thereby increasing the flow to phenylalanine.
+
Because of the relatively slow growth on cellulose in general, the tryptophan knockout and most importantly the biphasic medium with easy styrene removal, continuous fermenting has many advantages over a batch or fed-batch approach. Running the bioreactor system therefore requires continuous cooling, stirring, phosphorylated and ball milled cellulose, tryptophan and other essential chemicals for medium. The system produces heat, yeast biomass and styrene.</p>
+
  
<h4>Alternatives</h4>
+
<figure><img class="responsive-img" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/5/59/T--Groningen--bennie-3.png"><figcaption><i>Figure 2: Our blueprint of a StyGreen Production Plant
<p>Other options for creating bio aromatics and bioplastics we found in Avantium and BioBTX. These innovative companies explained their technologies, and showed us around in their pilot plants. Avantium showed us their new pilot plant in Delfzijl, where they turn wood chips in glucose, and after that to PEF, a new alternative to PET. BioBTX has found a new way to create aromatics out of waste. They don't need cellulosic waste however. Due to the insight in these companies, we understood our place in the world better. The big difference between Avantium and BioBTX, and us, is that those companies work with chemicals instead of microorganisms. The disadvantage of working with microorganisms, these firms told us, is that biological processing is less robust. However, when it works, it has chance of being a lot more sustainable than working in a chemical way.</p>
+
</i></figcaption></figure>
  
<h4>Potential Buyers and plastic waste</h4>
+
<p>Cellulose consists of many long chains of cellobiose polymers held together by hydrogen bonds. Apolar stacking interactions also contribute to insolubility. Both the polar and apolar interactions of cellulose strains can be decreased through phosphorylation of the 6 position or methylation of the 2, 3 or 6 position. However, this requires chemicals and preparations steps that greatly reduce profitability and increases the carbon footprint of StyGreen. Hence, we decided to keep these alterations to a minimum. The solubility of cellulose can be increased significantly when only 30% of the 6 positions are phosphorylated. On top of that we aim to employ dry ball milling to reduce particle size and crystallinity of the cellulose while increasing the amount of amorphous regions. This is important as amorphous cellulose doesn’t form strong apolar interactions, which increases the solubility while also being the site where the cellulose binding domain of our enzyme scaffold binds to cellulose.
<p>To get the best possible link with our customers, we had contact with several potential buyers and discussed the possibilities with them. Ludos Imaginem agreed to share the datasheets of the granulate that they order, giving us new insights on what kind of plastics is used in the toy industry. You can find the ideas and conversations with the customers <a target="_blank" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:Groningen/stakeholderengagement">here</a>. We aimed to find only non-single use users for our StyGreen. Due to the price of the product, it is not possible to use it for single use products. Therefore we aim for toys, such as Lego and Ludos Imaginem. These are used a lot, and it is not a problem if the plastics are a bit more expensive. Also, these products stay in the family for more generations and are not left behind on the street. </p>
+
</p>
  
<h4>Carbon Footprint Analysis</h4>
+
<p>The second challenge we faced is, that the apolar styrene is likely to localize into the lipid bilayer which will eventually destroy the membrane, limiting the amount of StyGreen that can be produced in a single batch before the cells die. Styrene may get actively transported out of the cell, using the s.cerevisiae native Pleiotropic Multidrug Resistance system as styrene can be toxic to the DNA through intercalation and covalent binding. The PDR5 system is be able to export styrene, although it cannot yet be expected to efficiently export large quantities. Therefore, we decided to employ a biphasic medium in our bioreactor. In a biphasic medium an insoluble, organic phase is added to the aqueous medium. Ethyl acetate can donate hydrogen bonds while not accepting them, making it immiscible in water while not denaturing extracellular proteins. Styrene has a high preference for the apolar phase (log P = 2,8) and hence will likely localize into the ethyl acetate phase which can then be siphoned off the system after phase separation. This can simply be introduced by terminating fermenter stirring. The apolar phase contains extracellular, apolar impurities which can be removed through reverse extraction with water: styrene is the most apolar compound in the entire mixture. The styrene is separated from the ethyl acetate through evaporation. The ethyl acetate and the reverse extract are recycled into the bioreactor system: no fresh apolar phase is required.
<p>To see if our project has a positive influence on the environment, we analyzed the Carbon emission of StyGreen, and compared this to the emission of regular styreen. Our main emissions were caused by energy which is taken by the process. However, due to the high energy consumption of the production of regular styreen, we are able to improve the carbon emission by 71%! We'll explain the calculations in more detail <a target="_blank" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:Groningen/Human_Practices#carbonfootprint">here</a>.</p>
+
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Through use of our <a target="_blank" href="https://2018.igem.org/Team:Groningen/Model/Flux_Based_Analysis">metabolic modelling</a> we discovered that trading culture growth for styrene production was not beneficial. We aim to limit growth and biomass by introducing tryptophan deficiency thorough a knock out which is beneficial as tryptophan competes with phenylalanine synthesis for the ARO5 substrate chorismate, thereby increasing the flow to phenylalanine.  Continuous fermenting has many advantages over a batch or fed-batch approach, because of the relatively slow growth on cellulose, the tryptophan knockout and most importantly the biphasic medium with easy styrene removal. Running the bioreactor system therefore requires continuous cooling, stirring, phosphorylated and ball milled cellulose, tryptophan and other essential chemicals for medium. The system produces heat, yeast biomass and styrene.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h4>Investigating bio-commodity alternatives</h4>
 +
<p>In order to consider how well StyGreen addresses the problem versus other potential solutions we investigated bio-commodity alternatives. We contacted <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#avantiuminterview">Avantium</a> and <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#biobtxinterview">BioBTX</a>, producers of bio-aromatics and biopolymers. These innovative biotech companies explained their technologies, and gave us a tour of their pilot plants. The pilot plant of Avantium turns wood chips in glucose, which is used to produce PEF, a new alternative to PET. BioBTX has found a novel method to produce aromatics from waste. Avantium and BioBT work with chemicals to, where as we work with microorganisms exclusively. The disadvantage of working with microorganisms, these firms told us, is that biological processing is less robust. However, when it works, it has the chance to be a lot more sustainable than working in a chemical way.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="clear_extra_space"></div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="column third_size">
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/4/4d/T--Groningen--ludos.jpg">
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="column two_thirds_size">
 +
<h4>Potential Buyers of StyGreen</h4>
 +
<p>To understand the needs of our customers, we had contact with several potential buyers and discussed the possibilities with them. <a target="_blank" href="Human_Practices#ludosinterview"> Ludos Imaginem</a> agreed to share the datasheets of the granulate that they order, giving us new insights on the kind of plastics used in the toy industry. Next to a start-up, we also talked to a multinational in toy producing. You can find that conversation <a href="Human_Practices#toyinterview">here</a>. We aimed to find producers of durable non-single use plastics for our StyGreen. The price point, as well as the ideology, of the product makes it more suitable for use in durable products. Therefore we work together with toy manufacturers such as Lego and Ludos Imaginem. </p>
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="clear_extra_space"></div>
 +
<div class="column">
 +
<h4>Investigating possible downside</h4>
 +
<p>No plastic solution can be presented without taking into considering the downside of plastic usage: plastic waste. Our oceans and environment are being filled with the consequence of our plastic addiction. Throughout our project we have had many discussions about this obvious problem, even presenting a Ted talk on the <a href="https://www.noorderzon.nl/programma-2018/programma-items/owen-terpstra">“Cause, Size and Solution to our Plastic Problem”</a> at “Noorderzon Festival.”. Here we educated the public on the negative consequences of plastic use. Feedback from public engagement further motivated us to focus on durable plastic solutions. In the foreseeable future plastics, because of their broad applicability, are still highly in demand for durable applications. These do not only include Lego, but also medical equipment and precision electronic devices. For these purposes, we are determined to provide a durable viable solution: StyGreen.</p>
  
 
<h4>Conclusion</h4>
 
<h4>Conclusion</h4>
<p>The styreen consumption has been growing and growing over the last few years. More and more fossil fuels are needed to create these vast amounts of styreen. Be recycling toilet paper, we are able to create StyGreen, a new way of saturating the plastic market. The price will increase, but the CO2 emissions will go down. Due to the interest of both buyers and suppliers, we expect this technology to turn the plastics market from black, to green.  
+
<p>Humanity’s hunger for styrene has been steadily increasing over the past decades. More and more fossil fuels are needed to create these vast amounts of styrene [6]. By recycling toilet paper, we are able to create StyGreen: a modern and sustainable solution to our “plastic problem.Due to interest from both buyers and suppliers, we expect this technology to turn the plastics market from black, to green. </p>
Of course there is a very big downside of plastic usage. The waste. The oceans and environment are being filled with the different polymers. We think single use plastics are very bad, and there should be a solution for this. But we also know that we will always need plastics for other, more important purposes. These do not only  include Lego, but also medical equipment and precision electrics. For these purposes, we want to create StyGreen. </p>
+
 
 +
 
 +
<h4>References</h4>
 +
<p>
 +
[1] Saini, J. K., Saini, R., & Tewari, L. (2015, August). Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production: Concepts and recent developments. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522714/ <br>
 +
 
 +
[2] Knauf, M., Köhl, M., Mues, V., Olschofsky, K., & Frühwald, A. (2015, December). Modeling the CO2-effects of forest management and wood usage on a regional basis. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464641/<br>
 +
 
 +
[3] Sjöström, E. (1993). Wood Chemistry: Fundamentals and Applications. Academic Press. ISBN: 0-12-647480-X.<br>
 +
 
 +
[4] Cellvation | Van Afval Naar Asfalt. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cell-vation.nl/en/<br>
 +
 
 +
[5] Tianjiao Qu et al.: Ball Milling for Biomass Fractionation and Pretreatment with Aqueous Hydroxide Solutions. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 5, 7733-7742 (2017)<br>
 +
 
 +
[6] Mckenna, R., Thompson, B., Pugh, S., & Nielsen, D. R. (2014). Rational and combinatorial approaches to engineering styrene production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbial Cell Factories,13(1). doi:10.1186/s12934-014-0123-2<br>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
 
  
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 00:40, 18 October 2018

Traditionally, university education is often theoretical and focussed on fundamental research, in iGEM we saw an opportunity to use our knowledge in science to make an impact on the world. One of the biggest challenges humanity will face in the coming decades is climate change. To have a big impact we sought to reduce the carbon footprint of a product everyone uses and uses a lot: plastic. At the same time we aimed to utilize an underused waste stream.

Two challenges...

Two challenges… Cellulosic waste is an underused waste stream. A lot of cellulose is “lost” as it is burned for energy [1] [2], because there are currently no alternatives. Sources of cellulosic waste can be in the form of e.g. wood, algae or toilet paper. Current methods, as designed by Avantium for example, use acids to degrade cellulose to glucose. However, global desire for a biobased economy is influencing the industry; therefore the interest in bioplastics is growing. Polylactic acid, polyhydroxurethanes and polyethylene are being produced as bioplastics, but through expert interviews we discovered that these do not meet the current demands of the plastic industry. Conversely Styrene, one of the most used plastic monomers in the world, styrene, is not being produced in the biobased way.

... one solution

Through interdisciplinary brainstorming sessions we aimed to merge these two challenges into an opportunity.: using vast amounts of cellulosic waste for the production of bio based styrene (StyGreen). Due to our enzymatic approach, we bypass the need for acidic degradation

The Resource

We thoroughly investigated different biomass sources in order to find the source most suitable for our project. After comprehensive research, we found three potential sources; wood, algae and toilet paper.

Our first idea was to process wood (lignocellulosic biomass). We approached Avantium, a company experienced with converting wood chips into glucose. Additionally, we analyzed the financial aspects surrounding wood pulp. We quickly found that the kraft technique[3], which is used for the conversion, is financially and environmentally expensive. If we wanted to use wood chips as our biomass source, StyGreen would not be environmentally friendly or economically feasible.

The second possible cellulosic biomass source was algae. We interviewed prof. Dr. Klaas Timmermans of NIOZ about their extensive research on algae. It is argued that future use of algae as a biomass source may be highly promising. However, as the industry is still in its infancy, lack of scale puts upward pressure on pricing. Therefore, this is currently not an attractive possible cellulosic biomass source.

Thirdly, we investigated “sludge:” toilet paper waste streams. Toilet paper is a second generation biomass source. It is underused and virtually valueless. This makes it a promising biomass source. KNN cellulose was enthusiastic about our project and provided us with their recycled toilet paper product (Recell): this consists of cellulosic biomass (99% cellulose) filtered out of sewage locally in the Wastewater Treatment Plant. To further investigate the environmental impact of this potential cellulosic source we looked into its production.

Figure 1: The process as depicted is developed by a joint venture between KNN Cellulose and CirTec called Cellvation. They use a cost efficient process to extract toilet paper from waste water [4]

KNN Cellulose provided us with monsters of their product, which we tested in our lab. Degrading Recell without any preprocessing proved to be challenging. After literature review and expert interviews we decided to use Ball Milling [5]. We successfully degraded ball milled Recell using one of our cellulases. Read all about that here

Carbon Footprint Analysis

We performed a thorough analysis of the carbon emission of a potential toiletpaper derived StyGreen, and compared these to the emissions of petrochemically produced styrene. Naturally, our primary emissions were caused by the energy which is used during the production process. However, due to the high energy consumption of the production of regular styrene, we are able to potentially improve the carbon emission by 71%! We'll explain the calculations in more detail here. Local availability, a favorably predicted carbon footprint analysis, proven degradation and under utilization of waste toilet paper make this the perfect source of cellulose.

Upscaling

One of the factors which influences the carbon emission of our production process is the mass balance: the amount of biomass required to produce a kilogram of StyGreen. Due to increased efficiency of “economies of scale”, upscaling our process to the bioreactor level is important. With the input of one of our partners (EV Biotech); we designed a bioreactor to make upscaling possible in the future, that enables our yeast to grow under ideal circumstances while optimizing styrene yield. The two main challenges we tackle through our design are difficulties of bringing cellulose into solution and extracting styrene from the system.

Figure 2: Our blueprint of a StyGreen Production Plant

Cellulose consists of many long chains of cellobiose polymers held together by hydrogen bonds. Apolar stacking interactions also contribute to insolubility. Both the polar and apolar interactions of cellulose strains can be decreased through phosphorylation of the 6 position or methylation of the 2, 3 or 6 position. However, this requires chemicals and preparations steps that greatly reduce profitability and increases the carbon footprint of StyGreen. Hence, we decided to keep these alterations to a minimum. The solubility of cellulose can be increased significantly when only 30% of the 6 positions are phosphorylated. On top of that we aim to employ dry ball milling to reduce particle size and crystallinity of the cellulose while increasing the amount of amorphous regions. This is important as amorphous cellulose doesn’t form strong apolar interactions, which increases the solubility while also being the site where the cellulose binding domain of our enzyme scaffold binds to cellulose.

The second challenge we faced is, that the apolar styrene is likely to localize into the lipid bilayer which will eventually destroy the membrane, limiting the amount of StyGreen that can be produced in a single batch before the cells die. Styrene may get actively transported out of the cell, using the s.cerevisiae native Pleiotropic Multidrug Resistance system as styrene can be toxic to the DNA through intercalation and covalent binding. The PDR5 system is be able to export styrene, although it cannot yet be expected to efficiently export large quantities. Therefore, we decided to employ a biphasic medium in our bioreactor. In a biphasic medium an insoluble, organic phase is added to the aqueous medium. Ethyl acetate can donate hydrogen bonds while not accepting them, making it immiscible in water while not denaturing extracellular proteins. Styrene has a high preference for the apolar phase (log P = 2,8) and hence will likely localize into the ethyl acetate phase which can then be siphoned off the system after phase separation. This can simply be introduced by terminating fermenter stirring. The apolar phase contains extracellular, apolar impurities which can be removed through reverse extraction with water: styrene is the most apolar compound in the entire mixture. The styrene is separated from the ethyl acetate through evaporation. The ethyl acetate and the reverse extract are recycled into the bioreactor system: no fresh apolar phase is required.

Through use of our metabolic modelling we discovered that trading culture growth for styrene production was not beneficial. We aim to limit growth and biomass by introducing tryptophan deficiency thorough a knock out which is beneficial as tryptophan competes with phenylalanine synthesis for the ARO5 substrate chorismate, thereby increasing the flow to phenylalanine. Continuous fermenting has many advantages over a batch or fed-batch approach, because of the relatively slow growth on cellulose, the tryptophan knockout and most importantly the biphasic medium with easy styrene removal. Running the bioreactor system therefore requires continuous cooling, stirring, phosphorylated and ball milled cellulose, tryptophan and other essential chemicals for medium. The system produces heat, yeast biomass and styrene.

Investigating bio-commodity alternatives

In order to consider how well StyGreen addresses the problem versus other potential solutions we investigated bio-commodity alternatives. We contacted Avantium and BioBTX, producers of bio-aromatics and biopolymers. These innovative biotech companies explained their technologies, and gave us a tour of their pilot plants. The pilot plant of Avantium turns wood chips in glucose, which is used to produce PEF, a new alternative to PET. BioBTX has found a novel method to produce aromatics from waste. Avantium and BioBT work with chemicals to, where as we work with microorganisms exclusively. The disadvantage of working with microorganisms, these firms told us, is that biological processing is less robust. However, when it works, it has the chance to be a lot more sustainable than working in a chemical way.

Potential Buyers of StyGreen

To understand the needs of our customers, we had contact with several potential buyers and discussed the possibilities with them. Ludos Imaginem agreed to share the datasheets of the granulate that they order, giving us new insights on the kind of plastics used in the toy industry. Next to a start-up, we also talked to a multinational in toy producing. You can find that conversation here. We aimed to find producers of durable non-single use plastics for our StyGreen. The price point, as well as the ideology, of the product makes it more suitable for use in durable products. Therefore we work together with toy manufacturers such as Lego and Ludos Imaginem.

Investigating possible downside

No plastic solution can be presented without taking into considering the downside of plastic usage: plastic waste. Our oceans and environment are being filled with the consequence of our plastic addiction. Throughout our project we have had many discussions about this obvious problem, even presenting a Ted talk on the “Cause, Size and Solution to our Plastic Problem” at “Noorderzon Festival.”. Here we educated the public on the negative consequences of plastic use. Feedback from public engagement further motivated us to focus on durable plastic solutions. In the foreseeable future plastics, because of their broad applicability, are still highly in demand for durable applications. These do not only include Lego, but also medical equipment and precision electronic devices. For these purposes, we are determined to provide a durable viable solution: StyGreen.

Conclusion

Humanity’s hunger for styrene has been steadily increasing over the past decades. More and more fossil fuels are needed to create these vast amounts of styrene [6]. By recycling toilet paper, we are able to create StyGreen: a modern and sustainable solution to our “plastic problem.” Due to interest from both buyers and suppliers, we expect this technology to turn the plastics market from black, to green.

References

[1] Saini, J. K., Saini, R., & Tewari, L. (2015, August). Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production: Concepts and recent developments. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522714/
[2] Knauf, M., Köhl, M., Mues, V., Olschofsky, K., & Frühwald, A. (2015, December). Modeling the CO2-effects of forest management and wood usage on a regional basis. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464641/
[3] Sjöström, E. (1993). Wood Chemistry: Fundamentals and Applications. Academic Press. ISBN: 0-12-647480-X.
[4] Cellvation | Van Afval Naar Asfalt. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cell-vation.nl/en/
[5] Tianjiao Qu et al.: Ball Milling for Biomass Fractionation and Pretreatment with Aqueous Hydroxide Solutions. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 5, 7733-7742 (2017)
[6] Mckenna, R., Thompson, B., Pugh, S., & Nielsen, D. R. (2014). Rational and combinatorial approaches to engineering styrene production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbial Cell Factories,13(1). doi:10.1186/s12934-014-0123-2