Gas Fermentation of C1 Feedstocks: Commercialization Status and Future Prospects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Review Gas fermentation of C1 feedstocks: commercialization status and future prospects Leonardo V. Teixeira, Liza F. Moutinho, and Aline S. Romão-Dumaresq, SENAI Innovation Institute for Biosynthetics, Technology Center for Chemical and Textile Industry, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Received December 04, 2017; revised June 04, 2018; accepted June 05, 2018 View online at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1912; Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018) Abstract: The increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and carbon oxide (collectively referred as C1 compounds) are likely to configure a major contribution to global warming and other envi- ronmental issues. The implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a crucial strategy to prevent global warming, but the overall costs of currently available CCS technologies are still prohibitive for its large-scale deployment. Using microorganisms capable of assimilating C1 com- pounds for producing value-added products could be an important driver for mitigating emissions and minimizing their deleterious consequences, while simultaneously deriving additional economic benefits from these compounds. This review summarizes the main microorganisms and metabolic routes being investigated, with special focus on both the products targeted and the current industrial initiatives. There are a number of companies investing in these routes and in some instances commercial deploy- ment was identified. Despite the variety of commercially-appealing products, genetic manipulation of microorganisms to maximize yields and the design of technologies capable of efficiently using the gas- eous feedstocks are major challenges yet to be overcome to fully unlock the potential of C1 microbio- logical routes. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Keywords: technology status; carbon dioxide; methane; biotechnology; greenhouse gas; C1 feedstock Introduction effect of countries’ mitigation pledges in terms of annual emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) does not seem to Many of the world’s ecosystems are already overexploited suffice.2 and unsustainable. With the expected increase in both Based on 2016 figures, carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts global population and its average per capita income, for the largest proportion of GHG emissions on a CO2 demand for natural resources will rise accordingly. In equivalent basis, surpassing 90% of emissions, followed by addition, climate change derived from human activities methane (CH4) (Fig. 1). In absolute values, CO2 emissions, could aggravate environmental issues by affecting agricul- which were at 28.8 Gt in 2007, could reach 40.2 Gt in 2030.5 tural productivity and water supplies.1 Despite the urgent The implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is need to restrain the increase in global average temperature considered a crucial strategy to combat global warming, but emphasized in the 2015 Paris Agreement, the aggregate the overall costs of currently available CCS technologies are Correspondence to: Leonardo V. Teixeira, ISI for Biosynthetics, Technology Center for Chemical and Textile Industry, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1 LV Teixeira, LF Moutinho, AS Romão-Dumaresq Review: Commercialization status of gas fermentation of C1 feedstocks ecules, the knowledge of attainable products is relevant for informed decision making. In a related matter, it would be desirable to identify meta- bolic pathways in which versatile metabolic intermediates are reached, as a way of unlocking different molecules of interest. Another alternative to achieve versatility is by producing the so-called platform chemicals, that is, chemical intermedi- ates capable of yielding a large set of derivatives through physical and/or chemical transformations, targeting several distinct end uses.14 Note that this definition is similar to that of a metabolic building block, but the former is generally transformed via chemical reactions, whereas the latter is bio- chemically transformed (within the microbial host). The present paper is organized as follows. First, we describe C1 feedstocks, their sources and generation data (focusing on Brazil and the USA). Then, we provide an overview of available biochemical routes and microbial hosts using each feedstock, as well as the product applica- Figure 1. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions tions and players involved. We finalize by outlining the breakdown on a GtCO2 equivalent basis (based on 2016 most advanced initiatives, opportunities and challenges data).3Notes: (1) CO and H are excluded from the chart 2 related to C1 feedstock bioconversion. because they are not direct GHGs. However, they have indirect effects on global warming and climate change.4 C1 Feedstocks still prohibitive for its large-scale deployment.6 Using CO 2 Many of the efforts to attain sustainable production of and other one-carbon feedstocks such as CH and carbon 4 fuels, chemicals, and materials envision the use of biomass monoxide (CO) (collectively referred to as C1 feedstocks) feedstocks.15 First-generation sugars, obtained mainly for obtaining value-added products could be an important from sugarcane and corn, are already well established and driver for mitigating GHG emissions and minimizing their used in fermentative processes such as the production of deleterious consequences. The latter approach is known as ethanol. However, there is a concern that an expansion carbon capture and utilization (CCU). in fermentation processes could impose pressure on food Other than the use of CH as an energy source (in natural 4 supplies.16 Second-generation sugars derived from ligno- gas) and as feedstock for synthesis gas (or syngas, a mixture cellulosic residues are an alternative to overcome this issue of CO, CO and H ), it is also employed as a precursor to 2 2 but their widespread use is still hindered by the general chemicals, especially ammonia and methanol.7 The uses absence of cost-effective technologies for overcoming the of CO include the production of urea, inorganic carbon- 2 residues’ recalcitrance17 and also by difficulties related ates and pigments, methanol, salicylic acid and propylene to logistics and storage.18 Besides the sugars in lignocel- carbonate, besides direct use in carbonated beverages and lulosic residues, they also contain lignin ranging from in food processing and preservation.8,9 Finally, CO is used 10% to 35% of the biomass19 and, despite initiatives to add as a fuel, as a metallurgical reducing agent, and to pro- value to lignin,20 it is mostly burned for energy generation. duce methanol, acetic acid, phosgene, and oxo alcohols.10 Alternative C1-based feedstocks for biochemical processes Biological production systems relying on either photosyn- do not compete with food supplies or underutilize the thetic or nonphotosynthetic microorganisms that assimilate feedstock and also have a significantly lower cost. The C1 feedstocks could significantly broaden this spectrum.11 main ones being investigated are described below. Some excellent reviews focus on the related microorgan- 11–13 isms, metabolic routes and process advances, but there Syngas and CO-rich industrial Off-gases is no current product-oriented review highlighting tech- nologies at commercialization status. Considering the very A possible solution to use nearly all of the biomass content cost-intensive and time-consuming nature of developing a is its gasification to syngas, a mixture ranging from 30% microbial strain capable of feasibly producing target mol- to 60% CO, 25% to 30% H2, 5% to 15% CO2 and 0% to 5% 2 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2018); DOI: 10.1002/bbb Review: Commercialization status of gas fermentation of C1 feedstocks LV Teixeira, LF Moutinho, AS Romão-Dumaresq 21 3 CH4, followed by its biochemical processing. Syngas is around 52 billion m per year according to recent esti- a traditional raw material for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, mates.33 The current production of biogas is only between which consists of the catalytic polymerization and hydro- 0.2 and 0.6 billion m3 annually.34 For the sake of com- genation of CO to a multiphase mixture of hydrocarbons, parison, the current US production of CH4 from these oxygenates, and water (syncrude). Syncrude refining yields secondary sources is nearly 13.9 billion m3 per year.12 transportation fuels and other drop-in chemicals.22 The Fischer–Tropsch process has some drawbacks when com- Carbon dioxide (CO2) pared with biological processes, such as high reaction tem- The use of CO as a feedstock for fermentative processes peratures (150–350 °C) and pressures (up to 30 bar), low 2 is also being envisioned. Although being a major, concen- product selectivity, greater susceptibility of the inorganic trated source of CO emissions, fossil-fuel power-plant catalysts to poisoning by sulfur, chlorine and tars, and ele- 2 emissions present low concentrations of CO and many vated costs.23 In contrast, when performing fermentation 2 impurities including NO and SO compounds (especially with syngas, a relevant issue is the presence of hydrogen x x in coal-fired units),35 which makes CCS a more suitable cyanide,24,25 which is toxic to microorganisms. option in this case. Oil refineries emit around 900 mil- Besides agricultural waste, municipal solid waste and lion tons of CO per year, approximately the same amount organic industrial