PRODUCTION OF 50 MTPA POLYHYDROXYBUTYRATE FROM JATROPHA OIL

PRODUCTION OF 50 MTPA POLYHYDROXYBUTYRATE FROM JATROPHA OIL

by

NURUL AIN BT IBRAHIM QASTALANI BT GHAZALI SHOBANA A/P SINNIAH NUR FATIN NADIAH BT FAUZI

KE12004 KE11004 KE11058 KE11042

A design project submitted to the Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Chemical Engineering (Biotechnology)

Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering Universiti Malaysia Pahang

DECEMBER 2014

Universiti Malaysia Pahang Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering for acceptance, a design project entitled Production of 50 MTPA Polyhydroxybutyrate from Jatropha Oil submitted by NURUL AIN BT IBRAHIM QASTALANI BT GHAZALI SHOBANA A/P SINNIAH NUR FATIN NADIAH BT FAUZI

KE12004 KE11004 KE11058 KE11042

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Chemical Engineering in Biotechnology.

Dr. Nur Hidayah Bt Mat Yasin

Date:

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, we would like to express our greatest gratitude and sincere appreciation to our plant design supervisor, Dr. Nur Hidayah Binti Mat Yassin for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the process to complete this Plant Design Project. We appreciated all efforts of supervisor in advising and be available at right time besides providing valuable insights leading to the successful completion of our plant design project. Without her guidance and help of overseeing the whole progress of the team works until the end, we would not be able to accomplish this design project successfully. Besides, we would like to take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to Dr Mior Ahmad Khusairi Bin Mohd Zahari and Mr. Rozaimi Abu Samah for their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped us in completing this task through various stages especially in simulation. Furthermore, we are obliged to thank all panels during 3 stages of plant design presentations for the valuable comments and information provided by them in their respective fields. All these useful comments help a lot in improving our plant design project. In addition, sincere thankful is also extended to our lecturers who had provided us with assistance and encouragements at any occasions. In addition, we would like to thank our parents for their unconditional love in giving us support and motivation which enable us to be determined and without giving up in completing the plant design project. Last but not least, to our beloved course mates and acquaintance, constant encouragement and exchange of knowledge throughout our struggles in completing this design project. May this report will benefits all readers not only us in designing new plant for production of Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) for overall stages.

ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Litter is a problem with a very negative social and environmental impact. One way to tackle this problem is to use biodegradable plastics as an environmentally-friendly solution for things such as plastic bags. Biodegradable plastics are plastics that can be broken down by microorganisms (bacteria or fungi) into water, carbon dioxide (CO2) and some bio-material. Polyhydroxybutyrate is a polymer belonging to the polyesters class that are of interest as bio-derived and biodegradable plastics. Therefore the objective of this plant and process design is to develop a new (PHB) plant using Jatropha oil as the main carbon source and Cupriavidus necator H16 as the biomass or the microorganism. Urea is selected as nitrogen source as it could produce high PHB content. According to a new study by World Bioplastics from The Freedonia Group. Inc, it stated that global demand for biodegradable and bio-plastics will be more than triple to more than 1.1 million tons in 2015, valued at $2.9 billion. Demand for biodegradable polyesters is said to be growing by about 27.9% for a five years. This is due to customer demand for more environmentally-sustainable products, development of bio-based feed stocks for commodity plastic resins, increasing restrictions on the use of non-degradable plastic products and high rise of crude oil and natural gas prices. Frost & Sullivan have examined current and future of the bioplastics market in Southeast Asia for the period 2004 to 2014. It stated that the bioplastics market is at a developing stage. The total market for engineering plastics in Southeast Asia in 2007 was 12 tons. These units are forecast to grow at a rate of about 129.8 percent per year and reach about 4063 tons by 2014 (Sullivan, 2008). Malaysia‟s first fully automated PHA Bioplastics Pilot Plant was launched and scaled-up to 2,000 L, the bioreactor facilities and integrated manufacturing process of the plant are able to produce various options of PHA materials from crude palm kernel oil and palm oil mill effluent. Bioplastics based on PHA in 2013 has been projected to reach 0.5 billion kg. According to observation of market survey, it is proposed to produce 50 metric ton PHB per annum. The location is decided to produce 50 MTPA of PHB which is at Sungai Bako area Kuching, Sarawak.

iii Plant layout which consists of administration building, operational building, waste treatment plant, laboratory and research center, and other ancillary buildings has been sketched. Based on the calculation, the total power usage in plant is 719.008 kWh. Average industrial tariff for electricity from Sarawak is 33.70 sen /kWh. By applying the industrial tariff of electricity 33.70 sen /kWh, the total electricity cost per year is equal to RM 4797652.781/year with operation hours of 8000 per year. All the calculation is based on CEPCI 2014. The total steam usages for main equipment are 1,186.67kg/h. Based on calculation using the standard steam charges, the total steam cost is about RM 9140191.175 /year with operation hours of 8000 per year. By conversion, the total steam cost is RM 9140191.175 /year. The total water consumption for bioreactors and seed fermenters is 12,849.51 kg/batch. Through calculation the total cost of water is RM 7454515.37/year with operation hours 8000 per year. RM 7454515.37/year is needed for water cost. By addition of total cost by electricity, steam and water cost, the total cost of utilities is RM 4797652.781 + RM 9140191.175 + RM 7454515.37 = RM 21392359.33 /year. This plant consists of five major equipment. There are seed fermenter, fermenter, blending storage, disk stack centrifuge and spray dryer. Each of the equipment has their own hazard. Hazard identification procedure is used to identify the types of adverse health effects that can be caused by exposure to some agent in question, and to characterize the quality and weight of evidence supporting this identification. Risk assessment includes determination of the events that can produce an accident, the probability of those events, and consequences that could include human injury or loss of life, damage to the environment, or loss of production and capital equipment. Hazard identification can be performed independent of risk assessment, but it would obtain best result if they are done together. Economic and profitability analysis in the form of discounted cash flow will be evaluated in this report as an effort to estimate profit or loss of this PHB plant. Grass root capital (GRC) is the cost of equipment installation in a plant and it costs major portion of total fixed capital cost. From

iv calculation, it is determined that GRC for this PHB plant is approximately RM3, 570,000.00. While as for the total capital investment (TCI) for this PHB plant is approximately RM5, 378, 000.00. Profitability analysis will be determined in this report by evaluating operating margin. Operating margin is the ratio of operating profit to sales and it indicates how much of each Malaysian Ringgit is left after operating expenses. A high operating margin means that the plant has good cost control and that sales are increasing faster than costs.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ ix CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Plastics ......................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Biodegradable plastics ................................................................. 2 1.1.3 Poly-(3-hydroxybutyrate), PHB ................................................... 2 1.1.4 Physical and chemical properties of PHB .................................... 3 1.1.5 Biodegradability of PHB.............................................................. 4 1.1.6 Storage and Handling ................................................................... 5 1.2 Applications of PHB ........................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Medical ........................................................................................ 6 1.2.2 Aquaculture .................................................................................. 6 1.2.3 Pharmaceutical ............................................................................. 7 1.3 Market Survey ..................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Global Market Demand................................................................ 7 1.3.2 Asian market demand .................................................................. 8 1.3.3 Malaysia market demand ............................................................. 8 1.3.4 Global production ........................................................................ 9 1.3.5 Future Prospect of PHB ............................................................. 10 1.3.6 Prices of Products, Raw Materials and Chemicals .................... 11 1.3.7 Jatropha Oil ................................................................................ 12 1.4 Screening of Synthesis Routes .......................................................... 15 1.4.1 Synthesis routes for PHB production ......................................... 15 1.4.2 Selected synthesis route ............................................................. 24 1.4.3 Utilization of Jatropha oil .......................................................... 24 1.4.4 Type of Microbial Production Strain ......................................... 24 1.4.5 Feeding source of nutrient supply .............................................. 26 1.4.6 PHB synthesis ............................................................................ 26 1.4.7 Downstream Process .................................................................. 27 CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................... 28 PROCESS FLOW SHEETING ....................................................................... 28 2.1 Selection of raw material and impurities management ..................... 28 2.2 Input and Output Flow Sheeting ....................................................... 28 2.2.1 Mechanical Equipment Description ........................................... 33 2.3 Material and Energy Balances ........................................................... 35 2.3.1 Material Balance ........................................................................ 36 2.3.2 Energy Balance .......................................................................... 64 2.4 Economic Potential ........................................................................... 71 2.4.1 Economic Potential 2 Based On Input and Output Structure .... 71 2.4.2 Economic Potential 3 Based On Recycle Structure .................. 75 2.5 Comparison of Simulation (SuperPro) and Manual Calculation Results .......................................................................................................... 78

vi CHAPTER 3.................................................................................................. 79 UTILITIES & HEAT INTERGRATION ........................................................ 79 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 79 3.2 Utilities .............................................................................................. 79 3.2.1 Electricity ................................................................................... 79 3.2.2 Steam.......................................................................................... 80 3.3 Heat Integration ................................................................................. 81 3.4 Economic Potential Level 5: Heat Integration System ..................... 84 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................... 85 EQUIPMENT SIZING .................................................................................... 85 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 85 4.2 Heat Sterilizer (ST-101 & ST-102) ................................................... 85 4.3 Media Preparation Tank (P-09) ......................................................... 86 4.4 Splitter (FSP-101 & FSP-102) .......................................................... 86 4.5 Gas Compressor (G-101)................................................................... 87 4.6 Air Filter (AF-101 & AF-102) .......................................................... 87 4.7 Seed Fermenter (V-101) .................................................................... 87 4.8 Main Fermenter (V-103) ................................................................... 89 4.9 Storage Tank (V-104)........................................................................ 90 4.10 Centrifuge (DS-101, DS-102 & DS-103) .......................................... 90 4.11 Pumps ................................................................................................ 91 4.12 Spray Dryer (SDR-101) .................................................................... 92 4.13 Economic Potential Level 4 (EP4): Separation System .................... 92 4.13.1 General Structure of the Separation System .............................. 92 CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................... 94 PROCESS CONTROL & SAFETY ................................................................ 94 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 94 5.2 Identification of Hazard..................................................................... 94 5.2.1 Material Safety Data Sheet ........................................................ 95 5.2.2 DOW Fire and Explosion Index ................................................ 97 5.2.2 Toxicity .................................................................................... 104 5.3 Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) of Major Equipment .... 106 5.4 Major Equipment Control ............................................................... 108 5.4.1 Objectives of Control System .................................................. 109 5.4.2 Process Control of Major Equipment....................................... 110 5.5 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram .............................................. 113 CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................. 114 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLUTION CONTROL ......................... 114 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 114 6.1.1 Higher Up the Hierarchy .......................................................... 115 6.1.2 Waste Minimization ................................................................. 116 6.1.3 Objective of Waste Minimization ............................................ 117 6.1.4 Waste Sources and Effect to Human and Environment ........... 117 6.1.5 Waste Management Option for Each Waste Produced ............ 118 6.2 JABATAN ALAM SEKITAR (JAS) Schedule B and EQA ENVIRONMETAL QUALITY ACT, 1974 .............................................. 122 6.2.1 Gaseous Emission .................................................................... 122 6.2.2 Sewage, Industrial Effluent and Leachate Discharge .............. 125 6.3 Waste Treatment Option ................................................................. 128 6.3.1 Biological Method ................................................................... 128

vii 6.3.2 Chemical Method ..................................................................... 129 6.3.3 Physical Method....................................................................... 130 6.3.4 Selection of Method ................................................................. 130 6.4 Process Description ......................................................................... 131 6.5 Waste in Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) Plant ................................... 132 CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................. 135 SITE SELECTION AND PLANT LAYOUT ............................................... 135 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 135 7.2 General Consideration of Plant Location ........................................ 135 7.3 Type of Industry Preferred and Location ........................................ 136 7.3.1 Availability of Raw Material ................................................... 136 7.3.2 Utilities ..................................................................................... 137 7.3.3 Water Supply ........................................................................... 137 7.3.4 Electricity Supply..................................................................... 138 7.3.5 Land Selling Price and Area Still Available ............................ 138 7.3.6 Transportation System ............................................................. 139 7.3.7 Availability of Manpower ........................................................ 140 7.3.8 Research and Development Organization ................................ 140 7.3.9 Geography, Climate and Environment .................................... 140 7.3.10 Government Incentive .............................................................. 141 7.3.11 Waste and Effluent Disposal Facilities .................................... 141 7.4 Site Selection analysis ..................................................................... 141 7.5 Plant Layout .................................................................................... 142 7.5.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 142 7.5.2 Definition ................................................................................. 142 7.5.3 Objectives of Plant Layout....................................................... 143 7.5.4 Factors Affecting the Plant Layout .......................................... 144 CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................. 150 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 150 8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 150 8.2 Grass Root Capital .......................................................................... 150 8.3 Capital Investment........................................................................... 152 8.4 Manufacturing Cost ......................................................................... 153 8.5 Cash Flow Analysis ......................................................................... 159 8.5.1 Payback Period Analysis.......................................................... 159 8.6 Profitability Analysis....................................................................... 165 8.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 166 CHAPTER 9 .................................................................................................. 167 9.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 167 9.2 Recommendation ............................................................................. 168 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. vi APPENDICES .................................................................................................. vi

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 1: Chemical Structure of Polyhydroxybutyrate .................................. 3 Figure 1. 2: Global Production capacities of bioplastics in 2012 (by region) ... 9 Figure 1. 3: World Biodiesel Production, 2005-2017 (Millions of gallons) in Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, U.S, and Europe. ............................................... 10 Figure 1. 4: TEM of Cupriavidus necator showing PHB inclusion bodies ..... 14 Figure 1. 5: Total acreage of jatropha oil plantations in selected countries (Extracted from: http://www.jatropha-alliance.com) ....................................... 20 Figure 2. 1: Block Flow Diagram of PHB Production..................................... 30 Figure 2. 2: Block Flow Diagram of Upstream Process .................................. 31 Figure 2. 3: Block Flow Diagram from Downstream Process ......................... 32 Figure 2. 4: Process Flow Diagram of PHB plant ........................................... 33 Figure 2. 5: Process Flow Diagram Simulation in SuperPro ........................... 34 Figure 2. 6: Input-output structure of PHB production process....................... 71 Figure 2. 7: Graph of concentration versus conversion of Jatropha oil ........... 73 Figure 2. 8: Diagram of Recycle ...................................................................... 75 Figure 2. 9: Graph of product, biomass, recycled biomass, Jatropha oil, and urea concentration versus Jatropha oil conversion. ......................................... 76 Figure 2. 10: Graph of economic potential at the second level (EP2), economic potential at the third level with recycle and economic potential at the third level without recycle. ....................................................................................... 78 Figure 5. 1: Procedure of hazard identification and risk assessment. (Source: Guidelines for Hazards Evaluation Procedures: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1985) .............................................................................. 95 Figure 5. 2: General steps in determining DOW Fire and Explosion Index .... 99 Figure 5. 3: Form used in DOW Fire and Explosion Index ........................... 100 Figure 5. 4: Section of P & ID of Seed Fermenter......................................... 111 Figure 5. 5: Section of P & ID of Main Fermenter ........................................ 112 Figure 5. 6: Section of P & ID of Disc Stack Centrifuges ............................. 112 Figure 5. 7: Section of P & ID of Spray Dryer .............................................. 113 Figure 6. 1: Waste management hierarchy .................................................... 114 Figure 6. 2: Conceptual Flow Diagram for Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment System .......................................................................................... 131 Figure 7. 1: Plant Layout of PHB plant ......................................................... 146 Figure 8. 1: Undiscounted Cash Flow............................................................ 161 Figure 8. 2: Discounted Cash Flow................................................................ 163

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 1: Chemical properties of PHB ............................................................ 4 Table 1. 2: World Bioplastic Demand for 2005 – 2015 ..................................... 7 Table 1. 3: Media for the production of PHB .................................................. 11 Table 1. 4: The prices of the material components .......................................... 11 Table 1. 5: Properties of Jatropha oil from Bionas Sdn. Bhd. ......................... 13 Table 1. 6: Characteristics of urea ................................................................... 14 Table 1. 7: Raw materials and their prices for production of 50 MTPA PHB using soybean oil as carbon source. ................................................................. 17 Table 1. 8: Raw materials and their prices for production of 50 MTPA PHB using crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) as carbon source. ................................... 18 Table 1. 9: Raw materials and their prices for production of 50 MTPA PHB using Jatropha oil as carbon source. ................................................................ 21 Table 1. 10: Comparison between soybean oil, jatropha oil, and crude palm kernel oil based on its availability of raw materials, yield of PHB, concerns, cost and operation mode. ................................................................................. 22 Table 1. 11: comparison between promising microorganisms in PHB cultivation, an analysis from Choi and Lee (1997). ......................................... 25 Table 2. 1: Input and Output of Heat Sterilizer (ST-101&ST-102) ................. 36 Table 2. 2: Density of Each Components ........................................................ 38 Table 2. 3: Summary of materials used in blending tank................................. 42 Table 2. 4: Amount of input of Seed Fermenter and Main Fermenter ............ 43 Table 2. 5: Input and Output of Compressor (G-101) ..................................... 43 Table 2. 6: Input and Output of Air Filter (AF-101)........................................ 44 Table 2. 7: Summary of material used in seed fermenter ................................ 47 Table 2. 8: Summary of materials used in main fermenter .............................. 48 Table 2. 9: Summary amount of input into Seed Fermenter and Main Fermenter ......................................................................................................... 54 Table 2. 10: Summary amount of output from fermenter ................................ 55 Table 2. 11: Overall material balance of Seed Fermenter................................ 55 Table 2. 12: Summary of Overall Material Balance of main fermenter .......... 56 Table 2. 13: Input and output of Air Filter (AF-102) ...................................... 57 Table 2. 14: Input and Output of Flat Bottom Tank (V-104) .......................... 57 Table 2. 15: Input and output of Centrifugal (C-101) ...................................... 58 Table 2. 16: Input and Output of Blending Tank (C-101) ............................... 59 Table 2. 17: Input and output streams of mixer (MX-101).............................. 59 Table 2. 18: Input and Output Stream of Disc-stack Centrifuge (P-13/DS-102) .......................................................................................................................... 61 Table 2. 19: Input and Output Stream of Blending Tank (P-14/V-103) .......... 62 Table 2. 20: Input and output of Disc-stack Centrifugal (C-03) ...................... 62 Table 2. 21: Summary Input Stream of Spray Dryer (P-16/SDR-101)............ 63 Table 2. 22: Summary Output of Spray Dryer (P-16/SDR-101) ..................... 63 Table 2. 23: Summary of energy balance of each stream ................................ 65 Table 2. 24: Heat of formation ......................................................................... 68 Table 2. 25: Heat duty for each equipment ...................................................... 70 Table 2. 26: Values for EP2 calculation .......................................................... 74

x Table 2. 27: Graph of EP2 versus Jatropha oil conversion .............................. 74 Table 2.27: Table 2. 28: Data for EP2 and EP3 at both with recycle and without recycle. ................................................................................................ 77 Table 2. 29: Comparison between Simulation and Manual Balance ............... 78 Table 3. 1: Total Power consumption of equipment used in plant design ....... 79 Table 3. 2: Total steam consumption of equipment used in plant design ........ 80 Table 3. 3: Total water consumption of equipment used in plant design ........ 81 Table 4. 1: Sizing Summary of Heat Sterilizer ................................................ 85 Table 4. 2: Sizing Summary of Media Preparation Tank ................................ 86 Table 4. 3: Sizing Summary of Splitter............................................................ 86 Table 4. 4: Sizing Summary of Gas Compressor ............................................. 87 Table 4. 5: Sizing Summary of Air Filter ........................................................ 87 Table 4. 6: Bare Module Cost (CBM) for Centrifuges .................................... 93 Table 5. 1: Degree of Hazard based on DOW Fire and Explosion Index (FEI) ........................................................................................................................ 103 Table 5. 2: Toxicity level ............................................................................... 104 Table 5. 3: Toxicity rating system ................................................................. 105 Table 5. 4: General Guide Words for HAZOP procedures (Crowl and Louvar, 2002) .............................................................................................................. 106 Table 6. 1: Source and Waste Generated in PHB plant ................................. 117 Table 6. 2: Waste Management Options by Our Company ........................... 118 Table 6. 3: Malaysian Standard Guidelines for Air Gaseous Pollutants ........ 119 Table 6. 4: Malaysia, Canada and USA Ambient Air Quality Guidelines .... 120 Table 6. 5: Characterization of Waste Type According to MIDA ................. 121 Table 6. 6: Comparison of Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatment (Mittal, 2011) ........................................................................................................................ 128 Table 6. 7: Total Gaseous Waste ................................................................... 133 Table 6. 8: Total Waste Summary ................................................................. 133 Table 6. 9: Costing for Waste Treatment Option Employed in Our Company ........................................................................................................................ 134 Table 7. 1: Water Provider Based on Location .............................................. 137 Table 7. 2: Electricity Provider Based On Location ...................................... 138 Table 7. 3: Building and Location in the Plant Layout .................................. 147 Table 8. 1: Bare Module Cost of Equipment in PHB Plant ........................... 150 Table 8. 2: Estimation of Grass Root Capital, GRC. ..................................... 152 Table 8. 3: Fixed and Total Capital Investment ............................................. 153 Table 8. 4: Estimation of Operating Labor Cost ............................................ 155 Table 8. 5: Summary of Manufacturing Cost ................................................ 156 Table 8. 6: Cash Flow Analysis for Undiscounted Rate, I% ......................... 160 Table 8. 7: Discounted Cash Flow Summary ................................................ 162

xi Table 8. 8: Net Present Value for Discounted Rate ....................................... 164 Table 8. 9: Discounted Cash Flow at DCFRR=28.35% ................................ 165

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background This chapter will provides overview of Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) as

well as other components involved in the plant. The demand and supply of PHB also was discussed.

1.1.1

Plastics Plastics are man- made long chain polymeric molecules similar in

many ways to natural resins found in trees and other plants (Scott, 1999). On the other hand, plastics are uniquely flexible materials that have seen them occupy a huge range of functions, from simple packing materials to complex engineering components (Jim and Alexandre et al., 2013). The history of plastic begins from 1862 by Alexander Parkes. The main raw material in plastic production is petroleum. The properties of plastic which is high molecular weight and tightly bonded together make the plastic not degradable, their disposal become difficult and give negative impact on the environment (Sharmila et al., 2011). During the 1980s, the solid waste problem emerged as a potential crisis in many areas of the US because of increasing amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW), shrinking landfill capacity, rising costs and strong public opposition to new solid waste facility sittings (Regan et al., 1990). In 1960 plastics made waste less than half a percent of US MSW generation. By 2010 they made up to 12.4% and only 8.2% is recovered (US EPA, 2011).

2 1.1.2

Biodegradable plastics Biodegradable plastics were introduced in the 1980‟s to find ways to

produce non-petroleum based plastics as well as to reduce the environmental effects because of the increased landfill (Gironi and Piemonte, 2010). According to European Bioplastics, a plastic material is defined as a bioplastic if it is either biobased, biodegradable, or features both properties. The term “biobased” means that the part of material or product is derived from biomass. Meanwhile, biodegradation is a chemical process which could be degraded by the microorganism in the environment when proper conditions such as the sunlight, moisture, oxygen and so forth are available convert materials into natural substances such as water, carbon dioxide, and composition (Abe and Doi, 2002).

1.1.3

Poly-(3-hydroxybutyrate), PHB Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is a polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), a

polymer belong to the polyesters class that was first isolated and characterized in 1925 by French microbiologist Maurice Lemoigne. PHB is produced by microorganisms (like Ralstonia eutropha or recombinant Escherichia coli) apparently in response to conditions of physiological stress. The polymer is primarily a product of carbon assimilation (from glucose or starch) and is employed by microorganisms as a form of energy storage molecule to be metabolized when other common energy sources are not available. Microbial biosynthesis of PHB starts with the condensation of two molecules of acetylCoA

to

give

acetoacetyl-CoA

which

is

subsequently

reduced

to

hydroxybutyryl-CoA. This latter compound is then used as a monomer to polymerize PHB (Lemoigne, 2009). Since 1925, PHB has been produced through bacterial fermentation (Rosa, 2004), being synthesized under limited culture conditions, and it is usually produced through the use of microorganisms that belong to genres Alcaligenes, Azobacter, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas (Ugur, 2002).

3 The poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (P3HB) form of PHB is probably the most common type of polyhydroxyalkanoate, but many other polymers of this class are produced by a variety of organisms: these include poly-4hydroxybutyrate (P4HB), polyhydroxyvalerate (PHV), polyhydroxyhexanoate (PHH), polyhydroxyoctanoate (PHO) and their copolymers (Lemoigne, 2009). Poly-(3-hydroxybutyrate), PHB is one of the most important members of PHAs. According to Li et al. (1999), PHB is an intracellular carbon and energy storage material produced by many microorganisms under unfavorable growth condition such as limitation of (NH4)2SO4, PO32-, Mg2+ and oxygen. PHB is synthesized from acetyl-CoA using three enzymatic steps (Paramjit and Nitika, 2011). It is a biodegradable thermoplastic polyester which can be used in various ways like the conventional non-degradable plastics (Li et al., 1999). The chemical structure of PHB is shown as in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1. 1: Chemical Structure of Polyhydroxybutyrate

1.1.4

Physical and chemical properties of PHB The physical properties of PHB are elastomeric, insoluble in water,

nontoxic, biocompatible, and piezoelectric, with high degree of polymerization (Samantary et al, 2011). Besides, PHB is also resistant to water and ultraviolet radiation and impermeable to oxygen. In addition, PHB is a partially crystalline material with high melting temperature and high degree of crystallinity. PHB is stiff and brittle. PHB does not contain any residues of catalyst and is perfectly isotactic and does not include any chain branching. It is not water soluble but is 100% biodegradable. PHB has low permeable for O2, H2O and CO2 (Samantary et al, 2011). Chemical properties of PHB is summarized in Table 1.1.

4 Table 1. 1: Chemical properties of PHB Parameter

Value

Melting point (oC)

171-182

Glass transition temperature (oC)

5-10

Crystallinity (%)

65-80

Density (g cm-3)

1.23 - 1.25

Molecular weight (g/mol)

6600000

Molecular weight distribution

2.2 – 3

Heat capacity (kJ/kg.K)

1.465

Tensile strength [MPa]

40

Extension to break [%]

6–8

UV resistance

Good

Solvent resistance

Poor

Oxygen permeability [cm3m-2atm-1d-1]

45

Biodegradability

Good

1.1.5

Biodegradability of PHB Biodegradation of PHB is dependent upon a number of factors such as

the microbial activity of the environment and the exposed surface area. In addition, temperature, pH, molecular weight and crystallinity are important factors. Biodegradation starts when microorganisms begin growing on the surface of the plastic and secrete enzymes that break down the polymer into its molecular building blocks, called hydroxyacids. The hydroxyacids are then taken up by the microorganisms and used as carbon sources for growth. In aerobic environments the polymers are degraded to carbon dioxide and water. The environmental degradation behavior of PHB-g-VAc films (Xg: 0%, 5% and 15%) before and after saponification assessed by the BOD method in environmental water. Many kinds of PVA-utilizing microorganisms have been found in the water of major rivers (Matsumura et al., 1994), and it was confirmed that PVA could be degraded in environmental water from the lake at the Takasaki Advanced Radiation Research Institute.

5 Biodegradation of PHA has also been tested in various aquatic environments. In one study in Lake Lugano, Switzerland, items were placed at different depths of water as well as on the sediment surface. A life span of 510 years was calculated for bottles under these conditions (assuming no increase in surface area), while PHA films were completely degraded in the top 20 cm of sediment within 254 days at temperatures not exceeding 6ºC.

1.1.6

Storage and Handling PHB is non-toxic biopolymer. Therefore, it is biocompatible and hence

is suitable for medical applications. It is important to minimize premature PHB degradation during fabrication and storage. This is because PHB are biodegradable polymer and its biodegradation is dependent upon a number of factors such as the microbial activity of the environment and the exposed surface area. In addition temperature, pH, molecular weight and crystallinity are also play an important role. In one report, the maximum biodegradation rates were observed at moisture level of 55% and temperatures of around 60ºC. Therefore, it is well advised to packed PHB in airtight, aluminumbacked, or plastic foil pouches and kept it in the refrigerator.

1.2

Applications of PHB There are many applications of PHB besides it is been used in the

production of biodegradable plastic. PHB have been chosen as petroleum derived plastic replacement because of its properties that possess high durability and endurance similar like regular plastics but unlike regular plastics, it can be decomposed to water and carbon dioxide aerobic microorganisms existing from sewage, sea or soil without forming any toxic products. PHB can be used as wrapping materials like bags, containers and throwaway items such as cup, plates and diapers.

6 1.2.1

Medical Since biodegradability and biocompatibility are properties of PHB, the

combination of PHB with hydroxyapatite (HA) were used as scaffolding material in tissue engineering (Brigham, 2012). For instance, the medical practitioners use PHB scaffolding material to treat bone defects. While the combinations of copolymer of polyglycolic acid (PGA) and PHB was used to produce pulmonary valve leaflets and pulmonary artery scaffolds in sheep. PHB also used in medical devices such as for dental and skin surgery (Bonartsev, 2007). The efficiency of these devices in term of biocompatibility, biodegradation and therapeutic is still in progress.

1.2.2

Aquaculture PHB was used as a food add-on to aquaculture animals in order to

control the enormous deaths caused by pathogenic contaminations. Larvae of the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana serve as important feed in fish and shellfish larviculture however, they are subject to bacterial diseases that devastate entire populations and consequently hinder their use in aquaculture. It was found that PHB might shield the fish meal which is gnotobiotic brine shrimp Artemia franciscana against pathogenic vibriosis (Schryver, 2010). The release of the PHB monomer β-hydroxybutyric acid was suggested to inhibit the growth and/or the activity of the pathogens (Schryver, 2010). By integrating the accumulation of PHB in bio-flocs, this technique can possibly decrease the rate of death during larval and young stages of aquaculture animals and can therefore become all the more cost effective. No adverse effects were observed when the feed is introduced for about 10% to the diet of the fish.

7 1.2.3

Pharmaceutical In pharmaceutical, PHB is applied into slow-released carrier for lasting

drug delivery due to their biocompatibility and biodegradability properties. It is also used as cell and tablet packaging material. PHB, 3-hydroxyhexanoate (PHBHHx), and polylactic acid (PLA) were used to study drug sustained release. The results showed that over a period of at least 20 days for PHB and PHBHHx nanoparticles, while PLA nanoparticles and free drug lasted only 15 days and a week, respectively (Xiong, 2010).

1.3

Market Survey

1.3.1

Global Market Demand Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and similar polymers have obtained

worldwide interest because of their biodegradability in addition to their durability and plasticity. Industrial production of PHA and other biodegradable plastics is shown in Table 1.2. Table 1. 2: World Bioplastic Demand for 2005 – 2015 WORLD BIOPLASTICS DEMAND (thousand metric tons) Item

2005 2010 2015

%Annual Growth 2005 - 2010

2010-2015

Bioplastics Demand

130

300

1025

18.2

27.9

North America

34

80

242

18.7

24.8

Western Europe

60

125

347

15.8

22.7

Asia/Pacific

33

83

320

20.3

31.0

Other Regions

3

12

116

32.0

57.4

According to a new study, World Bioplastics, from The Freedonia Group, Inc; it stated that global demand for biodegradable and bio-plastics will

8 more than triple to more than 1 million metric tons (1.1 million tons) in 2015, valued at $2.9 billion. Demand for biodegradable polyesters is said to be growing by about 27.9% for a five years, and North America is belatedly catching up with other regions for about 24.8 % of annual growth for 2010 to 2015. This is due to customer demand for more environmentally-sustainable products, development of bio-based feed stocks for commodity plastic resins, increasing restrictions on the use of non-degradable plastic products and high rise of crude oil and natural gas prices.

1.3.2

Asian market demand Frost & Sullivan have examined the bioplastics markets in Southeast

Asia. The research service presents current and future of the bioplastics market in Southeast Asia for the period 2004 to 2014. It stated that the bioplastics market is at a developing stage. The total market for engineering plastics in Southeast Asia in 2007 was 12 tons. These units are forecast to grow at a rate of about 129.8 percent per year and reach about 4063 tons by 2014 (Sullivan, 2008).

1.3.3

Malaysia market demand Malaysia‟s first fully automated PHA Bioplastics Pilot Plant was

launched by Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Maximus Johnity Ongkili at Jalan Beremban. Scaled-up to 2,000 L, the bioreactor facilities and integrated manufacturing process of the plant are able to produce various options of PHA materials from crude palm kernel oil and palm oil mill effluent. Bioplastics based on PHA in 2013 has been projected to reach 0.5 billion kg (First-Of-Its-Kind Sirim Bioplastics Pilot Plant Launched in 2011).

9 1.3.4

Global production

Figure 1. 2: Global Production capacities of bioplastics in 2012 (by region)

Bioplastics production capacities are growing fastest outside of Europe. In 2012 production capacities amounted to approximately 1.4 million tons. Market data of European Bioplastics forecasts production capacities will multiply by 2017 – to more than 6 million tons. Based on the figure above, it has shown that Asia has dominated the production of bioplastics which is 36.2 percent. It is about 0.5 million tons per year (Bioplastics, 2014).

10

Figure 1. 3: World Biodiesel Production, 2005-2017 (Millions of gallons) in Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, U.S, and Europe.

The market of around 1.2 million tons in 2011 may see a five-fold increase in production volumes by 2016, to almost 6 million tons. The product expected to contribute most to this growth is bio-based PET (for plastic bottles), which already accounts for approximately 40% of the global bioplastics production capacity. The current production volume is expected to grow to more than 4.6 million tons by 2016 as a result of demand from large manufacturers of carbonated drinks. Early in 2013 the nova-Institute predicted that by 2020 bioplastics production could rise to 12 million tons, principally due to drop-in polymers, particularly bio-PET13. With an expected total polymer production of about 400 million tons in 2020, the bio-based share should increase from 1.5% in 2011 to 3% in 2020 (Development, 2013).

1.3.5

Future Prospect of PHB Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is diverse and versatile class of materials

that has potential applications in many sectors of the economy. Currently,

11 productions of PHB are still in the developmental stage, but important applications are beginning to emerge in packaging, food production, and medicine. We have reached a critical point in the development of PHBs for many applications. It is, therefore, an opportune time for a comprehensive report detailing promising new developments in this field. In brief, production of PHB has good future prospect because: 1. PHB is biodegradable 2. Production of PHB protects the fossil resources 3. PHBs have a positive eco-balance sheet 4. Good example for a sustainable development in the spirit of the agenda of 21st century 5. Carbon dioxide neutral 6. The use of biodegradable material creates over 20, 000 new and secure workplaces in Europe and many times over in the world (social factor)

1.3.6

Prices of Products, Raw Materials and Chemicals Types of raw materials and amount used for pre-cultures are shown in

Table 1.3 while the market prices for PHB, raw materials of culture medium in PHB production are shown in Table 1.4: Table 1. 3: Media for the production of PHB Materials

Amount (g/L)

Jatropha oil

20.00 g/L

Urea

1.00 g/L

Table 1. 4: The prices of the material components Materials

Prices (MYR/kg)

Source

Jatropha oil

2.73

Bionas Malaysia Sdn Bhd

12

1.3.7

Urea

1.70

Petronas Fertilizer Sdn Bhd

PHB

27.45

-

Jatropha Oil Jatropha oil is a potential renewable resource because Jatropha

plantations yield large amounts of oil, are highly resistant to drought and pests and the oil is relatively cheap and non-edible. Jatropha oil is derived from Jatropha curcas seeds. This plant was originally found in the Caribbean area but is now widespread throughout Africa, the Americas and much of Asia. The plant also is known as “hardy” Jatropha due to its resistance to pest and drought, and also its ability to grow almost anywhere. The oil yield of this plant is almost four times that of soybean, and 10 times that of maize. Recently, Jatropha oil has been evaluated as a source of high quality biodiesel production. However, it has not been evaluated as a feedstock for PHA production (Ko-Sin Ng, 2010). The genus Jatropha belongs to the Euphorbiaceous family which can synthesize several toxic compounds, including carcinogenic phorbol ester, trypsin inhibitor, lectin and saponin. The toxins render the oil non-edible, but should not affect its utility for bioplastics production. In view of the above, it is advantageous to use Jatropha oil which is not food-grade oil as the sole carbon source to produce PHA (Ko-Sin Ng, 2010). It has three Malaysian entities and six overseas joint ventures which are Bionas Murabahah Bhd, Bionas Sdn Bhd and Biofuel Bionas Sdn Bhd, Bionas Philippines, Bionas Indonesia, Bionas Vietnam, Bionas Cambodia, Bionas Thailand and Bionas Taiwan. Its assets portfolio consists of over 600,000 acres planted areas, 3.3 million acres land bank, 313 seedling nurseries & harvest collection centers and 3 processing plants. As a result, the company has monthly supply and production capacity of 100,000 tons seeds, 90,000 tons seedlings, 33,000 MT Crude Jatropha Oil (CJO) and 65,000 MT seed cakes (bio-mass). Now the company is extending

13 its global presence by expanding to Taiwan, Thailand, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Cambodia. With Bionas diverse operational experience and an unrivaled business heritage, it is now poised to take a leading position in the global business arena. In the year 2008 and 2009, Bionas has been actively promoting the cultivation of Jatropha in Malaysia. The numbers of planters had risen from 28,983 in 2008 to 112,484 in 2009 respectively. Bionas has also increased the numbers of nurseries from 98 in 2008 to 221 in 2009. The number of planters had risen to 238,541 and the number of nurseries to 313 in 2010. The company has also setup four pressing mills in 2010 as part of the company‟s capacity building to cater its needs for the production Bionas‟ Jatropha Additives. 2011 has been a productive period for Bionas as the company has invested into the setting up of two processing, blending plant, and storage facilities for Bionas Jatropha Additives at two main ports of Malaysia which are located in Prai Port, Penang and Kuching Port, Sarawak.

Table 1. 5: Properties of Jatropha oil from Bionas Sdn. Bhd. Criteria

Properties

Climate type

Tropical 37%

Seed oil content st

rd

Average annual yield/Acre (1 -3 year)

3.6 MT

Lifespan

50 years

Harvest period

Monthly after six months

Crude oil price (MYR/MT)

2736.00

By-products

Seed cakes i.e Biomass Briquette

1.3.7.3 Biomass: Cupriavidus Necator

14 Cupriavidus necator was formerly known as Alcaligenes eutrophus is a motile, rod shaped, Gram negative, non-sporing bacterium and major strains is H16 and JMP 134 (Larsen and Pogliano, 2007). Larsen and Pogliano (2011) stated that its optimal temperature is 30ºC while optimal pH is 7 and it is a non-halophilic, which cannot live in high salt concentration. It is able to produce PHB inside the inclusion bodies under limited nitrogen source but excessive carbon source (Ojumu et al. 2004).

Figure 1. 4: TEM of Cupriavidus necator showing PHB inclusion bodies

1.3.7.4 Urea Urea is a white crystalline substance with the chemical formula CO (NH2)2. It is highly water soluble and contains 46% nitrogen. Urea is considered an organic compound because it contains carbon. It was the first organic compound ever synthesized by chemists; this was accomplished in the early 1800s. Urea supplies more nitrogen per ton of product than any other dry fertilizer. It contains 46% nitrogen; this means that each ton of urea supplies 920 lbs. of nitrogen. Table 1. 6: Characteristics of urea

15 Other Name

Urea

Molecular Formula

CH4N2O

Molecular weight

60.06

1.4

Screening of Synthesis Routes PHB has a great potential as a biodegradable bio plastic. However, the

major drawback to the commercialization of PHB is their high cost of production compared with conventional petrochemical based plastic materials. The cost of carbon feed stocks or raw materials required can significantly affect the PHB production cost in large production scale. Therefore, the production cost can be considerably lowered when alternative cost-effective carbon feedstock, type of microbial production strain, as well as nutrient supply during the biosynthesis for the commercialization of bio plastics are identified.

1.4.1

Synthesis routes for PHB production Various substrates especially plant oils have been evaluated as an

excellent carbon source in PHA production. Examples given are soybean oil (Kahar et al., 2004), palm oil (Kek et al., 2008) and Jatropha oil (Khan et al., 2013). Kahar et al. (2008) reported that plant oils are desirable as they are also inexpensive carbon sources. Additionally, due to their high carbon content, plant oils yield almost two-fold higher than from glucose and they are appealing feed stocks for industrial PHA production because metabolism of these compounds can influence the monomer composition of the resulting PHA (Akiyama et al., 2003).

1.4.1.1 Production of PHB from soybean oil by Cupriavidus necator H16

16 According to Kahar et al. (2008), high yield production of polyhydroxyalkanoates has been identified from using soybean oil by wildtype strain Ralstonia eutropha or now known as Cupriavidus necator, one of the best known bacteria among PHA-producing microorganisms. Soybean oil has a high yield of PHA obtained ranging from 0.72 to 0.76 g PHA/ g soybean oil used and the PHA productivity obtained here was roughly calculated to be 1.0 g/L.h (Kahar et al. 2008). According to Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) in 2012, there is no commercial cultivation of soybeans in Malaysia despite it is one of the largest producers of soy drinks in Southeast Asia, with exports going to neighboring countries as well as Australia, Japan and Europe. Malaysia has to import soybean oil from U.S, hence this will increase production cost as shipping and handling cost have to be considered. Furthermore, contrary to sugar that can be directly utilized by cells, soybean oil needs to be hydrolyzed by lipase and fatty acids. This would increase production cost to acquire lipase and fatty acids as well as equipment such as hydrolyzer. Environmental wise, large scale production from soybean oil is environmentally friendly as the carbon dioxide emission from soybean oil are very low compared to the petrochemical polymers if high yield of PHA is produced (Kahar et al. 2008). However, the use of edible oils in production of bio plastics may cause depletion of global food supply and sources. Using soybean oil is considered as unethical as it is wasteful to convert food to bio plastics. Additionally, Ng et al. (2010) also stated that the edible plant oils price has increased drastically because of recent crisis of food shortage and increase of food demand.

1.4.1.1.1

Economic Potential Level 1

As we produce 50,000 kg of PHB per year and the price is RM 1, 373,000 per year. Below is price for raw materials of this synthesis route;

17 Table 1. 7: Raw materials and their prices for production of 50 MTPA PHB using soybean oil as carbon source. Raw Material

Price

Price

Source

(RM/kg)

(RM/year)

Soybean oil

2.90

44, 900.00

MGT Group Bhd

Ammonium

10.35

12.40

Greymont Agrochem Sdn Bhd

sulphate

Economic potential level 1 of this synthesis route can be calculates as; EP1:

RM 1, 373,000/year – (RM 44, 900.00/year – RM 12.40/year) = RM 1, 330, 000.00 per year

1.4.1.2 Production of PHB from crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) by Cupriavidus necator Since the C. necator has the limitation on soybean oil as this cells grow well on palmitic acid, linoeic and oleic acid but cannot grow well on linolenic acid, the use of palm oil containing less linolenic acid may be a good choice to accumulate a high dry cell weight and also could increase the yield of PHA more than those with soybean oil (Kahar et al. 2008). Today, Malaysia is both major producer and exporter of palm oil in the world. Palm oil is a versatile oil that is currently used as edible oils as well as for the production of oleo chemicals. Malaysia is one of the largest contributor of palm oil in the world, surpassing Nigeria as the main producer since 1971 (Yusoff, 2006). Malaysia is the world‟s second-leading oil palm producer and exporter after Indonesia, supplying about 12.6% of global consumption of vegetable oils (GAIN, 2012). This is firmly would support the supply of feed stock for the PHA and PHB production.

18 However, there are issues requiring serious attention such as deforestation, waste disposals from palm oil mill and energy expenditure when PHA is to be produced in large scale. In order to fulfill the PHA market demand solely by using CPKO to produce PHA, approximately 53,000 tons of CPKO (which is approximately 2.8% of Malaysia‟s total CPKO production) is required as carbon feed stock for microbial fermentation. In other words, the production of 52,000 tons of PHA per annum would involve a total of 111,520 hectares of oil palm plantation. As the demand for plant oils increase for PHA production, it may result in the further expansion of plantations into forests. Also, like soybean oil, there are concerns about merits of converting foodgrade oil for bio plastics production at the expense of dwindling the world‟s food supply as palm oil provides nearly 30% of the world‟s edible vegetable oil (Carter et al. 2007), with a production volume of 43.12 million tons in year 2008 (MPOB 2008).

1.4.1.2.1

Economic Potential Level 1

As we produce 50,000 kg of PHB per year and the price is RM 1, 373,000 per year. Below is price for raw materials of this synthesis route; Table 1. 8: Raw materials and their prices for production of 50 MTPA PHB using crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) as carbon source. Raw Material

Palm kernel oil

Price

Price

(RM/kg)

(RM/year)

1.25

19, 350.00

Source

KL Kepong Oleomas Sdn Bhd

Ammonia

8.00

10.20

Petronas

Chemicals

Ammonia Sdn.Bhd

Economic potential level 1 of this synthesis route can be calculates as; EP1:

RM 1, 373, 000/year – (RM19, 350.00/year – RM 10.20/year)

19 = RM 1, 354, 600.00/year

1.4.1.3 Production of PHB from jatropha oil by Cupriavidus necator H16 As a result of evaluation of using edible plant oils, Jatropha oil, as a non-edible one, would not affect the global food chain crisis and has potential as a renewable resource. It can be the alternative substrate for bio plastic production. Jatropha oil, derived from Jatropha curcas seed, also yield high amounts of oil, yielding almost four times than the soybean and ten times from the maize (Fitzgerald, 2006). It is also relatively cheap, costing less than soybean oil as the fertilizer and pesticide requirement of Jatropha is lower (Gui et al, 2008). As the world is in a state of biofuels fever, many countries have started planting Jatropha plant as this non-edible plant has promising future as biofuels. Approximately 900,000 hectares of Jatropha have already been planted throughout the world. Although the industry is in its early stages, it is identified 242 Jatropha plantation projects, totaling approximately 900,000 hectares. More than 85% of the land cultivated is located in Asia. Africa counts for approximately 120,000 hectares followed by Latin America with approximately 20,000 hectares. Jatropha saw enormous growth: 5 million hectares were expected by 2010. The number and size of Jatropha projects currently being developed is increasing sharply. This is the case in almost all regions of the world which are suitable for Jatropha cultivation. It is predicted that each year for the next 5-7 years approximately 1.5 to 2 million hectares of Jatropha will be planted. This will result in a total of approximately 5 million hectares by 2010 and approximately 13 million hectares by 2015.

20

Figure 1. 5: Total acreage of jatropha oil plantations in selected countries (Extracted from: http://www.jatropha-alliance.com)

Jatropha has been commercially farmed in Malaysia specifically Sarawak owned by Bio Oil National Group Malaysia (The Star, 2011). A few local private companies also have engaged in Jatropha cultivation scaling from 400 ha to 1000 ha. It has been identified that total current acreage of Jatropha plantation projects is 1,712 ha. Project owner‟s state plans to increase the cultivation scale to a total of 57,601 ha by 2015. The Ministry of Plantation of Industries and Commodities is undertaking a Jatropha pilot research project for which 300 ha have been allocated. The operational and maintenance costs for the Jatropha oil extraction are very minimal, estimated at approximately 10 – 15% of the capital cost per year. In Ghana, for instance, in 2010, whilst the cost of Jatropha oil and kerosene were estimated to be US$0.085/liter and US$1.23/liter respectively, the cost of

biodiesel from jatropha oil and petroleum diesel were also

estimated at US$0.99/liter and US$1.21/liter respectively (Ofori-Boateng and

21 Teong, 2011). On the other hand, the seeds from the northern part of Malaysia contain high lipid content of 60% of oil (Salimon and Abdullah, 2008). Using jatropha as carbon source in PHB production can reduce the recovery cost (Choi and Lee, 1997) as it yields high PHB content.

1.4.1.3.1

Economic Potential Level 1

As we produce 50,000 kg of PHB per year and the price is RM 1, 373,000 per year. Below is price of raw materials of this synthesis route; Table 1. 9: Raw materials and their prices for production of 50 MTPA PHB using Jatropha oil as carbon source. Price

Price

(RM/kg)

(RM/year)

Jatropha oil

2.73

19, 503.00

Bionas Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Urea

1.70

2.75

Petronas Fertilizers Kedah

Raw Materials

Source

Economic potential level 1 of this synthesis route can be calculates as; EP1:

RM 1, 373, 000/year – (RM 19, 503.00/year – RM2.75/year) = RM 1, 353, 000/year

22

Table 1. 10: Comparison between soybean oil, jatropha oil, and crude palm kernel oil based on its availability of raw materials, yield of PHB, concerns, cost and operation mode. Raw material

Jatropha Oil

Soy Bean Oil

Palm Oil

Microbial strain Cupriavidus necator H16

used Availability

of Malaysia

has

potential

for

jatropha There

is

raw materials in plantations because this plant grows more cultivation Malaysia

no of

commercial Malaysia is the second largest palm oil soybeans

in producer and exporter in the world (Kek et

quickly and produces more seed in the Malaysia. Malaysia has to import al. 2011). tropics (Openshaw, 2000).

soybean oil from United States

Jatropha seed from northen part of (GAIN, 2012). Malaysia has a high lipid content of 60 wt% of oil (Salimon and Abdullah, 2008). Yield of PHB

Yield high amounts of oil, yielding almost Yield almost two-fold higher than 68 wt% PHB content from crude palm four times than the soybean and ten times from glucose (Akiyama et al., kernel oil (Kek et al. 2010) from the maize (Fitzgerald, 2006)

Concerns

2003)

Jatropha oil is a non-edible oil would not The

use

of

edible

oils

in High demand for PHA production may

affect the global food chain crisis and has production of bio plastics may cause more deforestation for palm oil

23

potential as a renewable resource can be cause depletion of global food plantation. the alternative substrate for bioplastic supply and sources. production. Cost

Jatropha plants are estimated to cost less Edible

plant

oils

price

has Palm oil can be obtained locally hence

than soybeans due to lower fertilizer and increased drastically because of reducing shipping and handling cost. pesticides requirements (Gui et al. 2008)

recent crisis of food shortage and However, supply for PHA production has increase of food demand. (Ng et to compete with demand of palm oil as al. 2010)

Operation mode

Fed-batch fermentation

commercial edible oil.

24 1.4.2

Selected synthesis route Based on evaluation from three synthesis routes, jatropha oil is chosen

as the main carbon source for PHB production with C. necator H16 as this route provides more advantage in term of cost reduction and high yield of PHB.

1.4.3

Utilization of Jatropha oil The operational and maintenance costs for the Jatropha oil extraction

are very minimal, estimated at approximately 10 – 15% of the capital cost per year. In Ghana, for instance, in 2010, whilst the cost of Jatropha oil and kerosene were estimated to be US$0.085/liter and US$1.23/liter respectively, the cost of

biodiesel from Jatropha oil and petroleum diesel were also

estimated at US$0.99/liter and US$1.21/liter respectively (Ofori-Boateng and Teong, 2011). On the other hand, the seeds from the northern part of Malaysia contain high lipid content of 60% of oil (Salimon and Abdullah, 2008). Using Jatropha as carbon source in PHB production can reduce the recovery cost (Choi and Lee) as it yields high PHB content.

1.4.4

Type of Microbial Production Strain Several bacteria strains have been studied in accumulation of PHB.

Researches are conducted and microorganisms such as Alcaligenes latus (Yamane et al., 1996), Alcaligenes eutrophus now is known as Cupriavidus necator (Kim et al., 1994), Azotobacter vinelandii (Page and Knosp, 1989), Pseudomonas oleovorans (Brandl et al. 1988), and recombinant Escherichia coli (Lee and Chang, 1994). Lee et al., 1994 have showed some promising high yield of PHB production. E. coli strains are considered as impractical in large scale production of PHB as it is expensive. They require expensive Luria-Bertani (LB) medium, ampicillin and pure O2 (Liu et al., 1998). E.coli is also unable of producing PHAs, however it can utilise several carbon sources

25 including some substrates that cannot be easily used by most of the microorganisms, such as lactose (Lee et al., 1997). Table 1.11 shows comparison between promising microorganisms in PHB cultivation, an analysis from Choi and Lee (1997). It is shown that PHB concentration, PHB productivity and PHB yield are higher in C. necator. Table 1. 11: comparison between promising microorganisms in PHB cultivation, an analysis from Choi and Lee (1997). Recombinant

Bacterium

C. necator

A. latus

Carbon source

Glucose

Sucrose

Glucose

Limiting nutrient

Nitrogen

None

None

Fermentation method

Glucose

pH-stat

pH-stat

E.coli

concentration control Culture time (h)

50

28.45

39

Cell concentration (g/L)

164

143

110

PHB concentration (g/L)

121

71.4

85

PHB content (%)

76

50

77.3

PHB productivity (g/L.h) 2.42

2.5

2.18

PHB yield (g PHB/ g 0.3

0.17

0.29

5.88

3.5

substrate) kg substrate/kg PHB

3.33

Reference

Kim 1994

et

al. Yamane et al. Lee and Chang 1996

1994

Cupriviadus necator use up palmitic acids, oleic acids and linoleic acids contained in jatropha oil. Freitas et al. (2009) reported that C. necator has been proven to accumulate PHB up to 80% of its cell dry weight. Whilst Khan et al. (2013) reported that cell growth curve of C. necator H16 has a classical pattern with an exponential phase up to 50 hours followed by stationary phase that lasted until 65 hours. They also stated that the highest

26 cell dry weight of 11.6 g/L was obtained at 55 hour followed by highest PHB concentration of 8.6 g/L at 61.5 hour. Kadouri et al. (2005) reported that C. necator can tolerate adverse stress conditions such as heat, osmotic pressure, UV radiation and toxins such as ethanol and hydrogen peroxide. It should be clear that C. necator is the most suitable microorganism to be used with jatropha oil in PHB production.

1.4.5

Feeding source of nutrient supply Lee et al. (2008) found that different nitrogen sources affected both

cell biomass and PHA biosynthesis. They also discovered that both urea and sodium nitrate resulted in better biomass production compared to other nutrient supply. Ng et al. (2010) stated that urea is the most suitable nitrogen source to pair up with Jatropha oil as carbon source. Besides, urea costs much lower price and has high productivity of PHB (Kek et al., 2008). Khanna and Srivastava (2005) as well as Sabra and Abou Zeid (2008) discovered that urea can yield high cell biomass and PHA production significantly. Ng et al. (2010) also reported that based on their analysis both cell dry weight (CDW) and PHB accumulation increased when the urea concentration increased. They also stated that the optimal concentration of urea is 0.54 g/L as CDW remained constant while PHB accumulation decreased significantly after 0.54 g/L of urea.

1.4.6

PHB synthesis There are four methods identified to cultivate PHAs which are; in

vitro, via PHA-polymerase catalyzed polymerization; and in vivo with batch, fed-batch and continuous cultures (Zinn et al., 2001). However, the fed-batch mode is the most used for PHAs production to achieve high cell density, which often crucial for the high productivity and yield for the desired product. Fed-batch mode is chosen as it has a lot of advantages in production of PHB. Heuristically, fed-batch can maintain the carbon-source concentration at very

27 low concentration, to maximize the biomass yield. Ng et al. (2010) presented Jatropha oil support the cell growth and PHB production in fed-batch fermentation and high yield of product per Jatropha oil was obtained. The fermentation process is relatively simple with multi-staging from the petri dish to a shaker flask to a small fermenter which is then used to inoculate the production reactor. In fermentation process, cells were maintained and pre-cultivated in 2 g/L yeast extract, 10 g/L meat extract and 10g/L peptone (Khan et al., 2013).

1.4.7

Downstream Process For subsequent process, several methods have been developed for the

recovery of PHAs, mostly PHB from the cells. Solvents such as chloroform, methylene chloride, propylene carbonate and dichloroethane have been used for the extraction of PHB (Ramsay et al., 1994). However, it was difficult to remove the cell residues due to viscosity of 5% (w/v) PHB from extracted polymer solution (Choi and Lee, 1997). Hahn et al. 1994 suggested that PHB can be recovered using a dispersion of hypochlorite and surfactant solution. PHB recovery by this method is more efficient with less polymer degradation. During recovery of PHB, the harvested cell pellets are treated with surfactant solution (1%, w/v) at 25ºC for 1 hour of mean residence time. The treat mean is then followed by hypochlorite digestion in flow-through manner and then PHB is separated from supernatant by centrifugation. PHB granules are rinsed with water and were finally spray-dried. (Lee and Choi, 1997).

28

CHAPTER 2

PROCESS FLOW SHEETING

2.1

Selection of raw material and impurities management In order to produce targeted amount of 50 metric ton per year of PHB,

and based on 8000 operation hours per year, the raw materials are decided based on their high yield of product and economy wise, gives advantages to cost of production. Based on its market availability, crude Jatropha oil is chosen as the substrate. Urea is selected as nitrogen source as it could produce high PHB content according to Khan et al. (2013). Meanwhile, the bacteria strain that used is Cupriavidus necator H16 which previously known as Ralstonia eutropha. It was obtained from National Collection of Industrial, Food and Marine Bacteria. Since we are using crude Jatropha oil with high purity, which also can be obtained with affordable price locally, there is no need to manage impurity of substrate. The oil, which contains high carbon source is used directly in inoculation.

2.2

Input and Output Flow Sheeting Input and output flow sheeting is illustrated in block flow diagram to

give clear view of the process. Figure 2.1 illustrates the flow of PHB production while Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 shows upstream and downstream process, respectively. Upstream process includes early cell isolation and cultivation, to cell banking and culture expansion of the cells (fermentation) until final harvest (termination of the culture and collection of the live cell batch). Downstream process starts from harvesting from fermenter, and then processed

to

meet

purity

and

quality

requirements.

30

Figure 2. 1: Block Flow Diagram of PHB Production

31

Figure 2. 2: Block Flow Diagram of Upstream Process

32

Figure 2. 3: Block Flow Diagram from Downstream Process

33

Figure 2. 4: Process Flow Diagram of PHB plant

34

Figure 2. 5: Process Flow Diagram Simulation in SuperPro

33 Figure 2.4 illustrates the process flow diagram based on block flow diagram, fully labelled of streams and pumps. The upstream process started with the sterilization of mineral medium and jatropha oil in ST-101 and ST102, respectively and mixed into mixing tank MX-101. The microbes Cupriavidus necator H16 is inoculated in shake flask for 48 hours before subjected to seed fermenter. Solution from mixing tank is splitted and 10% will go to seed fermenter and the rest is fed into main fermenter. Air is supplied using gas compressor (G-101) and filtered to avoid contamination in fermenters using air filter AF-101. Vent from main fermenter is filtered using air filter AF-102. The downstream process utilizes the centrifugation process only. The separation stage was based on methodology from Choi & Lee (1997) as well as Choi & Lee (1999). After the end of the fermentation, the bacterial cells are harvested via continuous centrifugation (DS-101) of the fermentation broth which collected in V-103. Microbial cell lysis or disruption is carried out via combined surfactant-hypochlorite digestion. A surfactant solution (Triton X100) of 1% (w/v) is added to the microbial biomass, charged in stream S-122 and mixed at 25ºC. This treatment followed by centrifugation in DS-102 to separate PHB granules and aqueous solution and then added hypochlorite digestion, charged in stream S-124 in a flow-through manner. This combined step results in microbial lysis and separation of PHB from residual cell material. The aqueous solution containing the residual cell material is separated further by centrifugation in DS-103, where PHB is rinsed with water beforehand V-105. Finally, PHB granules are purified via washing with water and drying via a spray-drying step.

2.2.1

Mechanical Equipment Description Based on preliminary flow diagram in Figure 2.1, there are thirteen

equipment used to produce high purity of 50 MTPA PHB. Follows are description for each equipment used in this design.

34 2.2.1.1

Heat sterilizer (ST-101 & ST-102) Two heat sterilizers are used to heat the raw materials media

continuously in 121ºC temperature before being sent to seed fermenter (V102) and main fermenter (V-103). Jatropha oil must be autoclaved separately from mineral media. Sterilization is essential in bioprocess plant to avoid any contamination during main process. These heat sterilizers have diameter of 0.10m and 7.42 m length.

2.2.1.2

Blending tank (V-101, V-105, & V-106) Blending tank V-101 is installed to blend the sterilized Jatropha oil

from S-104 and sterilized mineral media from S-103. V-105 is used to blend surfactant (S-122) with supernatant (S-121) while V-106 is used to blend water from stream S-128 and PHB for washing and rinsing of granules. A stainless steel 20 m3 blending tank with Siemens motors is used in this process.

2.2.1.3

Disk Stack Centrifuge (DS-101, DS-102, & DS-103) Centrifuge DS-101 is required to harvest the cells of fermentation

broth collected from storage by continuous centrifugation. DS-102 is used to separate PHB from aqueous solution containing dissolved non-PHA cellular material (NPCM) while DS-103 is used to rinse PHB granules with water.

2.2.1.4

Spray Dryer (SDR-101) This last piece of equipment in this process is used to produce dry

powder from slurry consists of PHB granules and water (S-132). The product is collected at S-133 while waste is channeled to waste treatment plant through S-134. The design of this spray dryer is estimated with 0.80 m diameter with 2.39 m in height.

35 2.2.1.5

Fermenter (V-103) Fermenter with fed-batch mode is chosen to produce PHB from

Jatropha oil by C. necator H16. Fermenter with volume 200 m3 is used in order to produce 50,000 kg of PHB per year.

2.2.1.6

Gas Compressor (G-101) Axial gas compressor is chosen to continuously pressurized air from

surrounding environment as this compressor has high efficiency and large mass flow rate. The pressure change in this compressor is 2 bar.

2.2.1.7

Air filter (AF-101 & AF-102) Air filter is one of the essential equipment in bioprocess plant. Air

filter AF-101 is connected after gas compressor function as to filter any particulates coming from surrounding air. It is needed to filter to avoid any contamination in the main fermenter that might alter the product. AF-102 is installed to ensure no microorganism exit from fermenter as they might be harmful and toxic to plant personnel and environment. The throughput is estimated as 0.70 m3/s.

2.3

Material and Energy Balances This section provides details of manual calculation of material and

energy balance, and simulation using Superpro software was conducted and the results was compared accordingly with manual calculation.

36 2.3.1

Material Balance In this section, we will perform material balance for each process unit

involved in this PHB production. Material balance is calculated by using Microsoft Excel and the spreadsheet is as attached in Appendix A.1. The overall material balance for the whole process is performed using the general equation shown below: Input + Generation – Output – Consumption = Accumulation Input

=

total mass entering system boundaries

Generation

=

total mass produced within system

Output

=

total mass leaving system boundaries

Consumption

=

total mass consumed within the system

Accumulation

=

total mass built up within the system

Here, some assumptions have been made to make the calculation more easily. The design-based assumptions are: 1. No leakage in the pipes and vessels in the system. 2. All the components in the system behave as ideal condition.

2.3.1.1

Heat Sterilizer (ST-101) & (ST-102) No mass generation, consumption and accumulation occur within this

unit, therefore, we know that Input (S101) = Output (S104) and Input (S102) = Output (S103)

Table 2. 1: Input and Output of Heat Sterilizer (ST-101&ST-102) Material

Input = Output (kg/batch)

37 Jatropha Oils

389.828

Urea

0.235

Mineral Medium

153.76463

2.3.1.2 Blending Tank (V-101) 1. Jatropha oil 2. Mineral medium : a. KH2PO4 b. Na2HPO4.12H2O c. MgSO4.7H2O d. Urea e. Trace elements : i. H3BO3, ii. CoCl2.6H2O, iii. ZnSO4.7H2O, iv. MnCl2.4H2O, v. Na2MoO4.2H2O, vi. NiCl2.6H2O vii. CuSO4.5H2O

38 Table 2. 2: Density of Each Components Density (kg/m3)

Materials Mineral Medium: 

KH2PO4

2340 (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2014)



Na2HPO4.12H2O

1520 (LookChem.com, 2008)



MgSO4.7H2O

2660 (Fisher Scientific, 2000)



Urea

1320 (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2014)

Trace elements: 

H3BO3,

1440 (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2014)



CoCl2.6H2O,

1920 (Fisher Scientific, 2001)



ZnSO4.7H2O,

1960 ( Fisher Scientific, 2001)



MnCl2.4H2O,

2010 (LookChem.com, 2008)



Na2MoO4.2H2O,

3780 (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2013)



NiCl2.6H2O

3550 (Acros Organics N.V., 2000)



CuSO4.5H2O

2280 ( Fisher Scientific, 2000)

Jatropha oil

920 (WeblinkIndia.NET, 2013)

Nutrient-rich medium: 

Yeast

1100 (Andrea K. Bryana, 2010)



Meat extract

250 (Merck Chemical, 2014)



Peptone

250 (Merck Chemical, 2014)

In this project, we are going to produce 50 MTPA PHB, 50 MT

1 year

1 kg

year

8000hr

0.001 MT

= 6.25 kg PHB/hr

1 batch requires 61.5 hours, 6.25 kg

61.5 hr

Hr

batch

=

384.375 kg PHB/batch

39 Since the actual operating days is 333 days  8000 operating hours, therefore; 8000 hrs

1 batch

1 year

61.5 hrs

YP/S

= 98.7 %

=

130 batches/year

= Product / Substrate (Jatropha)

Substrate

384.375 kg

1

required =

Batch

0.987

389.438 kg Jatropha

=

/batch

*Assumption: Yield of feeds =Yield of substrate From literature, (Khan, 2013) 1L of trace element solutions consists of

: H3BO3

= 0.0003kg/l

: CoCl2.6H2O = 0.0002kg/l : ZnSO4.7H2O = 0.0001kg/l : MnCl2.4H2O = 3x10-6kg/l : Na2MoO4.2H2O = 3x10-6kg /l : NiCl2.6H2O = 2x10-6kg /l : CuSO4.5H2O = 1x10-6kg /l H3BO3: 389.438kg substrate Batch

0.0003kg

1m3

1000L

L

1440kg

1m3

0.0002kg

1m3

1000L

L

1920kg

1m3

= 0.08113kg H3BO3/ batch

COCl2.6H2O: 389.438kg substrate Batch

= 0.04057kg CoCl2.6H2O / batch

40

ZnSO4.7H2O: 389.438kg substrate

0.0001kg

1m3

1000L

L

1960kg

1m3

3x10-6 kg

1m3

1000L

L

2010kg

1m3

3x10-6 kg

1m3

1000L

Batch

= 0.01987ZnSO4.7H2O kg/ batch

MnCl2.4H2O: 389.438kg substrate Batch

= 5.8125x10-4 MnCl2.4H2O kg/ batch

Na2MoO4.2H2O: 389.438kg substrate Batch

=3.0908x10-4 Na2MoO4.2H2O kg/

3

L

3780kg

1m

2x10-6 kg

1m3

1000L

L

3550kg

1m3

batch

NiCl2.6H2O: 389.438kg substrate Batch

= 2.1940x10-4 NiCl2.6H2O kg/ batch

41 CuSO4.5H2O: 389.438kg substrate

1x10-6 kg

1m3

1000L

L

2880kg

1m3

Batch

= 3.2910x10-4 CuSO4.5H2O kg/ batch

Only 0.1% of trace elements are used (Khan, 2013). Therefore, total trace elements used in blending tank is; 0.143kg trace elements/batch X 0.001 = 1.43 x 10-4kg trace elements /batch 1L of mineral medium consists of

: KH2PO4

= 1.5g/l

: Na2HPO4.12H2O

= 9g/l

: MgSO4.7H2O

= 0.2g/l

: Urea

= 1g/l

: Trace elements

= 1ml

KH2PO4: 389.438kg substrate

0.0015kg

1m3

1000L

L

2340kg

1m3

Batch

= 0.2496kg KH2PO4 batch

Na2HPO4.12H2O: 389.438kg substrate Batch

0.009kg

1m3

1000L =2.3059kgNa2HPO4.12H2O/batch

L

1520kg

1m3

42 MgSO4.7H2O: 389.438kg substrate Batch

0.0002kg

1m3

1000L

L

2660kg

1m3

0.001kg

1m3

1000L

=0.02928kg MgSO4.7H2O /batch

Urea: 389.438kg substrate batch

=0.2950kg Urea/batch L

1320kg

1m3

The total mineral medium required for this blending tank is 2.8799 kg/batch Table 2. 3: Summary of materials used in blending tank

2.3.1.3

Materials

Amount of input (kg/batch)

Mineral medium

2.8799

Jatropha oil

389.438

Flow Splitter (FSP-102) This unit splits the input stream (output stream from blending tank)

into 2 output streams. One stream is fed into seed fermenter (10%) while the other stream goes into main fermenter (90%). Similarly, no mass generation, consumption and accumulation occur within this unit, thus: Input(S-105) = Output(S-106 & S-107) Assumption: We assign 10% of the total amount into seed fermenter

43 Table 2. 4: Amount of input of Seed Fermenter and Main Fermenter Amount of input (kg/batch) Main Fermenter Material

Total

Seed Fermenter

(V-103) (including

(V-102)

total output from inoculum)

Jatropha oil

389.43

38.943

350.494

C.Necator(biomass)

1.597

1.1537x10-3

1.596

Mineral medium

0.028799

0.00288

0.0259

1.7272

1.727

6.906x10-4

Oxygen

2296.0288

229.6

2066.43

CO2

0

0

0

Water

0

0

0

PHB

39.457

0

39.457

Pre-culture medium (include biomass)

2.3.1.4 Compressor (G-101) Atmospheric air is compressed into the process. No mass generation, consumption and accumulation occur within this unit, therefore, we know that: Input (S108) = Output (S109) Table 2. 5: Input and Output of Compressor (G-101) Materials

Input = Output (kg/batch)

Air

22960.29

Oxygen

482.1930672

Nitrogen

1813.835933

44 2.3.1.5 Air Filter (AF-101) We may assume that the filtered particles are of negligible weight. Therefore, we consider that no mass generation, consumption and accumulation within this unit. Input (S109) = Output (S110) Table 2. 6: Input and Output of Air Filter (AF-101) Materials

Input = Output (kg/batch)

Air

22960.29

Oxygen

482.1930672

Nitrogen

1813.835933

2.3.1.6 Fermenter (V-102) Material balance of fermenter is done for both the seed fermenter and main fermenter. The overall balance for these two fermenters will be shown at the end of this section. From the journal (Khan, 2013), pre-culture medium consists of; 1. Jatropha oil

=1g/l

2. Yeast

=2g/l

3. Meat extract

=10g/l

4. Peptone

=10g/l

0.04ml of 1000ml= 0.004%

5. C. Necator

Mineral medium Conditions:

= 10ml of 1000ml = 1%

45 Temperature of culture medium

: 37oC

Fermentation duration, t

: 61.5 hours

Yp/s

: 98.7% *

Yx/s

: 0.0026 g/g*

*From journal (Khan, 2013) 98.7% complete conversion of substrate to product In this section, stoichiometric parameter, yield is used to describe growth kinetics. Yield coefficients are defined based on the amount of consumption of another material. Yx/s (g cell/g substrate) is defined as amount of cell to amount of substrate required. Yp/s is defined as the ratio of product produced to substrate consumed.

2.3.1.7 Seed Fermenter (V-102) From literature (Ko-Sin Ng, 2010), 1g/l of Jatropha oil were added to the seed fermenter together with C. Necator, yeast, meat extract and peptone. It is about 10% from overall substrate used. Jatropha oil was added to the preculture to induce lipase secretion for better oil utilization for cell growth and higher P (3HB) production. 389.438 kg substrate

10%

batch

100%

= 38.9438 kg Jatropha oil/ batch

Now, we proceed to the material balances involving production of PHB from C. Necator. First we need to calculate the value of PHB and Jatropha in term of mol/batch. 384.375 kg PHB

kmol

1000mol

= 4469.48 mol PHB

batch

86 kg

1 kmol

/batch

46

4469.48mol PHB

1 mol Jatropha oil

=

batch

3.23 mol of PHB

Jatropha /batch

1383.74mol

From literature, (Khan, 2013) Yx/s = 0.0026g cell/g substrate, thus total amount of C.Necator leaving the seed fermenter is: 0.0026 kg cell

282 kg

kmol

= 0.0298 mol biomass/

kg substrate

kmol

24.6 kg

batch

For 50 MT, 0.0298 mol

1383.74mol

biomass

Jatropha oil

1

batch

kg 25.83mol

= 1.596kg biomass/ batch

For every C. Necator used, Yeast: 1.596 kg cell

0.002kg

1m3

1000L

= 2.902x10-3kg yeast

batch

L

1100kg

1m3

/batch

Meat extract: 1.596 kg cell

0.01kg

1m3

1000L

= 0.0638kg meat extract

batch

L

250kg

1m3

/batch

47 Peptone: 1.596 kg cell

0.01kg

1m3

1000L

=

batch

L

250kg

1m3

/batch

0.0638kg

peptone

We feed in 10% of the substrate into seed fermenter and we predict the amount of PHB produced in cell in seed fermenter as: 389.438 kg substrate

10

1

Batch

100

0.987

=

39.457kg PHB/batch

*1% of mineral medium used in fermenter

Therefore, total mineral medium used in fermenter: = 2.8799kg/batch X 0.01 = 0.028799 kg mineral medium/batch

Since only 10% of the mineral medium used in seed fermenter, thus the amount of mineral medium input at the seed fermenter is 0.028799 x 0.1 = 0.00288kg mineral medium/ batch

Table 2. 7: Summary of material used in seed fermenter Materials

Input (kg/batch)

C. necator

1.597

Yeast

2.902x10-3

Meat extract

0.0638

Peptone

0.0638

Jatropha oil

38.943

Mineral medium

0.00288

48 2.3.1.8 Main Fermenter (V-103) From literature (Khan, 2013), 

0.04% of pre-culture is used into the fermenter. Therefore, total pre-culture inoculated into fermenter: =( 1.596kg biomass/ batch + 2.902x10-3 kg yeast /batch +0.0638kg meat extract /batch + 0.0638kg peptone /batch) X (0.04/100)% =6.906x10-4 kg pre-culture medium/batch



1% of mineral medium used in fermenter Therefore, total mineral medium used in fermenter: =2.8799kg/batch X 0.01 =0.028799 kg mineral medium/batch

Since only 90% of the mineral medium left, thus the amount of mineral medium input at the fermenter is 0.028799 x 0.9 = 0.02592kg mineral medium/ batch 

Only 90% of the Jatropha oil used in fermenter: =389.438 kg Jatropha oil / batch x 0.9 = 350.494kg Jatropha oil/ batch

Table 2. 8: Summary of materials used in main fermenter Material

Input(kg/batch)

Pre-culture medium

6.0746x10-4

Mineral Medium

0.028799

Jatropha oil

350.49

We consider the following stoichiometric equations to calculate the amount of oxygen, water and carbon dioxide involved in this process. (C4H6O2: monomer of PHB)

49 Assumption: Negligible production of PHB during fermentation and no other side reactions occur during fermentation. Molecular weight of PHB is 282kg/kmol.

Stoichiometric Equation: According from journal (Khan, 2013): The Cupriavidus necator strain was used to synthesize PHB by using Jatropha oil as carbon source. C18H34O2 + a O2 + bCH4N2O

c CH1.8O0.5N0.2 + d CO2 + e H2O +

Bacteria strains:

Cupriavidus necator

Carbon source:

Jatropha oil

Nitrogen source:

Urea

C4H6O2

Molecular weight of biomass: CH1.8O0.5N0.2

= 12 + (1)(1.8) + 16(0.5) + 14(0.2) = 24.6 g/mol *Assume that it contain ash about 5%.

Molecular weight of biomass: 24.6 + (0.05)(24.6)

= 25.83 g/mol

Molecular weight of substrate: C18H34O2 = 12(18) + 1(34) + 16(2)

= 282 g/ mol

Molecular weight of product: C4H6O2 = 12(4) + 1(6) + 16(2)

= 86 g/ mol

50 Degree of Freedom 6 number of unknown components/stoichiometric coefficients (a,b,c,d,e,f) -4 number of elements balance (C, H, O, N) -2 additional equations (YP/S, electron balance equation) 0 DOF Elemental Balances: C: 18 + b = c + d + 4

--------- (1)

H: 34 + 4b = 1.8c + 2e +

--------- (2)

O: 2 + 2 a + b = 0.5c + 2d + e +2

--------- (3)

N: 2b = 0.2c

--------- (4)

According to (Khan, 2013) Yield of product over substrate consumed:

⁄

f = 3.2364

Yield of biomass over substrate consumed:

⁄

--------- (5)

51

c = 0.0288

---------- (6)

For element N: 2b

= 2c

b

= 0.0028

For element C: 18 + b

= c + d +4f

18 + 0.1c – c - 4f

=d

18 + (0.1-1)0.028 – 4(3.23)

=d

d = 5.0548

--------- (7)

For element H: 34 + 4b = 1.8c +2e +6f 34 + 4(0.0028) = 0.0504 + 2e + 19.38 e = 7.2904

--------- (8)

For element O: 2 + 2a + b = 0.5c +2d +e +2f 2 + 2a + 0.0028 = 0.5(0.028) + 2(5.0548) + 7.2904

52 a = 7.7056

--------- (10)

a = 7.7056 b = 0.0028 c = 0.028 d = 5.0548 e = 7.2904 f = 3.234

The overall balance equation is: C18H34O2 + 7.7056O2 + 0.0028CH4N2O

0.028CH1.8O0.5N0.2 +

5.0548CO2 + 7.29047H2O + 3.2364C4H6O2 From the stoichiometry above, 1 mole of

(Jatropha oil) equals to 1382.367 mol of Jatropha oil, so

the mole balance equation: For 50 MT,

Ratio of O2 to N2 in air is 21% by volume O2 and 79% by volume N2. Therefore, N2/O2 = 3.7619. From literature, we know that the residence time of seed culture in seed fermenter is 20 hours. Besides, inoculum consists of 10% total volume of culture medium in the main fermenter, so, total air required for seed fermenter is also 10% of the air required by main fermenter:

53 (1+3.7619)

15.0677 kmol O2

10%

1

1 batch

100%

=

7.1751 kmol oxygen

Meanwhile, total air required for main fermenter is: (1+3.7619)

15.0677 kmol O2

90%

1

1 batch

100%

=

64.5758 kmol oxygen/hr

Hence, total amount of air = 71.7509 kmol x 32kg/kmol = 2296.0288 kg O2 Since this is an aerobic reaction inside fermenter, we will supply more air than the calculated amount of air. *Assumption: Amount of air is 10 times the calculated values. Therefore, amount of air input = 20807.761 kg air/hr CO2 and H2O are produced during fermentation. For every batch:  CO2 produced

= 6.9509 kmol CO2/batch = 6.9509 kmol CO2/batch x 44kg/kmol = 305.8396 kg

CO2/batch  H2O produced

= 10.0345 kmol H2O/batch = 10.0345 kmol H2O/batch x 18 kg/kmol = 180.6209 kg H2O/batch

Therefore, total H2O leaving fermenter = 180.6209 kg H2O/batch Hence, total amount of air = 1806.209 kg air/cycle CO2 and H2O are produced during fermentation.

54 For every batch (from mole balance calculation):  CO2 produced = 305.8396 kg/batch  H2O produced = 180.6209 kg/batch Therefore, total H2O leaving fermenter = 180.6209 kg/batch

To sum up, we may summarize all the feeds into seed fermenters and main fermenters: Table 2. 9: Summary amount of input into Seed Fermenter and Main Fermenter Amount of input (kg/batch) Main Fermenter

Material Total

Seed Fermenter

(V-102)

(V-101)

(including total output from inoculum)

Jatropha oil

389.43

38.943

350.494 -3

C.Necator(biomass)

1.597

1.1537x10

1.596

Mineral medium

0.028799

0.00288

0.0259

1.7272

1.727

6.906x10-4

Oxygen

2296.0288

229.6

2066.43

CO2

0

0

0

Water

0

0

0

PHB

39.457

0

39.457

Pre-culture medium (include biomass)

Similarly, we summarize all the outputs leaving fermenters: *Assumption: All nutrients are consumed completely by C.Necator

55 Table 2. 10: Summary amount of output from fermenter Amount of output (kg/batch)

Materials

Seed Fermenter

Main fermenter

Jatropha oil

1.947

17.525

Water

18.0621

162.559

Mineral medium

0

0

Pre-culture (include biomass)

0

0

CO2

30.584

275.256

C. Necator

1.596

1030.7

Oxygen

0

0

PHB

39.457

384.375

To conclude, overall material balance of seed fermenter (V-102) is shown below: Table 2. 11: Overall material balance of Seed Fermenter Amount (kg/batch) Input

Input

Input

Output

S-106

S-111

S-114

S-115

Na2HPO4.12H2O

0.23059

-

-

0

KH2PO4

0.02496

-

-

0

MgSO.7H2O

0.002928

-

-

0

CH4N2O (Urea)

0.0295

-

-

0

Trace elements

0.0000143

-

-

0

Jatropha oil

38.9438

-

-

1.947

PHB

-

-

-

39.457

Oxygen

-

229.6

-

0

Water

-

-

-

18.0621

CO2

-

-

-

30.584

C.Necator (Biomass)

-

-

unknown

1.596

-

-

1.727

0

Materials

Pre-culture medium (including biomass)

56

As for overall material balance of main fermenter (V-103) is shown below:

Table 2. 12: Summary of Overall Material Balance of main fermenter Amount (kg/batch) Materials Na2HPO4.12H2 O KH2PO4 MgSO.7H2O CH4N2O (Urea) Trace elements

Input S-

Input S-

Input S-

Output S-

Input S-

107

112

115

116

118

0.0207531

-

0

-

0.0207531

0.0022464

-

0

-

0.0022464

-

0

-

-

0

-

-

0

-

0.0002635 2 0.002655 0.0000012 87

0.0002635 2 0.002655 0.0000012 87

Jatropha oil

350.494

-

1.947

-

17.525

PHB

-

-

39.457

-

384.76

Oxygen

-

2066.43

0

-

0

Water

-

-

18.0621

-

180.6341

CO2

-

-

30.584

30.584

0

Nitrogen

-

-

16324.77

16324.77

0

-

-

1.596

-

1.013552

-

-

0

-

0

C.Necator (Biomass) Pre-culture medium

2.3.1.9 Air Filter (AF-102) We may assume that the filtered particles are of negligible weight. Therefore, we consider that no mass generation, consumption and accumulation within this unit. Input (S116) = Output (S117)

57 Table 2. 13: Input and output of Air Filter (AF-102) Materials

Input = Output (kg/batch)

Air (23wt% O2; 77wt% N2)

2296.0288 kg O2

2.3.1.10 Flat Bottom Tank (V-104) Flat bottom tank are used for holding the broth liquids from main fermenter. No mass generation, consumption and accumulation occur within this unit, thus: Input(S-118) = Output(S-119) Table 2. 14: Input and Output of Flat Bottom Tank (V-104) Flat Bottom Tank (V-104)

Material

Input

Output

PHB

384.375

384.375

Biomass

1.01355

1.01355

Nutrient Medium

392.7074

392.7074

Water

180.6341

180.6341

Total (kg/cycle)

958.7301

958.7301

2.3.1.11 Disk-Stack Centrifuge (DS-101) Output stream from flat bottom tank is fed into downstream processing unit –centrifugation. Separation of medium (water + biomass) and cell with PHB will be carried out in this unit operation. The mass balance for centrifugation is summarized as follows: *Assumptions: 1. Well-mixed and constant holdup in filter. 2. Efficiency = 0.90

58 Table 2. 15: Input and output of Centrifugal (C-101) Centrifugal (C-01)

Material Input(S-119)

Output(S-121) (90%

Output(S-120)

left)

(10% removed)

PHB

384.375

345.9375

38.4375

Biomass

1.01355

0.912195

0.10135

392.7074

353.4367

39.2707

180.6341

162.5707

18.0634

958.73

862.857

95.873

Nutrient Medium Water Total (kg/cycle)

2.3.1.12

Blending Tank (V-105)

For recovery step, sequential surfactant-hypochlorite will be used instead of chloroform-hypochlorite method. The advantages are: 

High quality of PHA



Rapid recovery and simple process



Retain native order of polymer chains in PHA granules



Lower operating cost compared to solvent extraction

Ramsay et. al. (1990) stated when PHB that containing biomass was treated at a ratio of 1:1 with surfactant Triton X-100 treatment was followed by a hypochlorite wash, a higher purity of 98% was achieved. Hence, Amount of cell with PHB

= 345.9375/batch

Amount of surfactant used

= (2  345.9375) kg/batch = 691.875 kg/batch

Purification yield: 98%

59 Table 2. 16: Input and Output of Blending Tank (C-101) Blending Tank (C-101) Material

PHB in triton X Biomass Nutrient Medium Water Total (kg/cycle)

2.3.1.13

Output (S-123) (98 %

Output (S-124) (2%

left)

removed)

691.875

678.0375

13.8375

0.912195

0.89395

0.0182439

353.4367

346.3679

7.068734

162.5707

159.3193

3.251414

1208.7946

1184.6187

24.1759

Input(S-121)

Mixer (P-12/MX-101)

There is no mass generation, consumption and accumulation occurs within this unit. Therefore, Input(S-123) = Output(S-125) From literature, we found that the hypochlorite is used to disrupt cell wall of Cupriavidus necator in order to extract PHB from cell. Thus, we mix an organic solvent (hypochlorite) in a ratio of 1 portions of hypochlorite to 1 portion of cell with PHB. Hypochlorite is mixed with cell in retentate stream from MF1 (Jong, 1997). Hence, Amount of cell with PHB in hypochlorite

= 678.0375kg/batch

Amount of hypochlorite used

= (2  678.0375) kg/batch = 1356.075 kg/batch

Input and output streams of mixer MX-101 are summarized as follows: Table 2. 17: Input and output streams of mixer (MX-101)

60

Material

Mixer (M-101) Input(S-123)

Input (S-124)

Output (S-125)

PHB

678.0375

0

1691.6344

Biomass

0.89395

0

0.89395

Nutrient Medium

346.3679

0

0

Water

159.3193

0

159.3193

Hypochlorite

0

1356.075

0

Cell Debris

0

0

688.8461

Total (kg/cycle)

1184.6187

1356.075

2540.6933

Once hypochlorite is mixed with cell, it will disrupt the cell wall and release PHB from cell. Then PHB dissolves in hypochlorite (solubility of PHB in hypochlorite = 97%) (Sei, 1993).Referring to material balances in MF1 (345.9375PHB/batch), we know that the total amount of PHB dissolved in hypochlorite is 335.5594 kg PHB/batch. In brief, there is one output stream from mixer and it contains PHB in hypochlorite and water as well as cell debris.

2.3.1.14

Disk-Stack Centrifuge (P-13/DS-102)

Output stream from flat bottom tank is fed into downstream processing unit –centrifugation. Separation of medium (cell debris) and cell with PHB will be carried out in this unit operation. The mass balance for centrifugation is summarized as follows: *Assumptions: 1. Well-mixed and constant holdup in filter. 2. Efficiency = 0.90

61

Table 2. 18: Input and Output Stream of Disc-stack Centrifuge (P-13/DS102) Material

Disc-stack Centrifuge (P-13/DS-102) Input(S-125)

Output (S-127)

Output(S-126)

PHB in hypochlorite

1691.6344

1522.47096

169.16344

Biomass

0.89395

0.80456

0.089395

Nutrient Medium

0

0

0

Water

159.3193

143.3874

15.93193

Cell Debris

688.8461

68.88461

619.9615

Total (kg/cycle)

2540.6933

1735.54753

805.1463

2.3.1.15

Blending Tank (P-14/V-103)

For washing step, water will be used instead of chloroform-hypochlorite method. The advantages are: 

High quality of PHA



Rapid recovery and simple process



Retain native order of polymer chains in PHA granules



Lower operating cost compared to solvent extraction

Ramsay et. al. (1990) stated when PHB that containing biomass was washed at a ratio of 1:5 with water, a higher purity of 98% was achieved. Hence,

Amount of cell with PHB

= 1831.0299kg/batch

Amount of water used

= (5  1831.0299) kg/batch = 9155.1495 kg/batch

Assume Purification yield: 98%

62

Table 2. 19: Input and Output Stream of Blending Tank (P-14/V-103) Blending Tank (P-14/V-103) Output Material

Input

Input

Output

(remain in

(S-127)

(S-128)

(S-129)

blending tank)

PHB in

1831.0299

0

1794.4093

36.6206

Biomass

0.9873

0

0.967554

0.019746

Water

175.9681

9155.1495

9209.8131

186.6224

Cell Debris

9.9213

0

9.7923

0.198426

2761.24444

9155.1495

hypochlorite

Total (kg/batch)

2.3.1.16

11678.0660 6

238.3279

Disk-Stack Centrifuge (P-15/DS-103)

Output stream from blending tank is fed into downstream processing unit –centrifugation. Separation of medium (water) and cell with PHB will be carried out in this unit operation. The mass balance for centrifugation is summarized as follows: *Assumptions: 1. Well-mixed and constant holdup in filter. 2. Efficiency = 0.90 Table 2. 20: Input and output of Disc-stack Centrifugal (C-03) Material PHB in hypochlorite

Disc-stack Centrifugal (P-15/DS-103) Input(S-129)

Output (S-131)

Output (S-130)

1794.4093

1614.9684

179.4409

63 Biomass

0.967554

0.8708

0.106754

Water

9209.8131

920.98131

8288.83179

cell debris

9.7923

0.97923

8.81307

11678.06606

2537.79974

9140.26632

Total (kg/batch)

2.3.1.17

Spray Dryer (P-16/SDR-101)

Permeate stream from S-131 is fed into spray dryer. Hot air(S-132) is used to dry PHB. The desired product (PHB) will be in powder form. Hypochlorite and water will be condensed and then are recycled. The input streams of SDR-101 consist of: Table 2. 21: Summary Input Stream of Spray Dryer (P-16/SDR-101) Input S-132

Materials

Input S-131 (kg/batch)

PHB

316.6493

-

hypochlorite

1298.3191

-

Biomass

0.8708

Water

920.98131

Cell debris

0.97923

Air (23wt% O2; 77wt% N2)

-

(kg/batch)

-

4018.13100

Yield in this unit operation is 98.7%. This is because some of the PHB powder may retain in dryer wall. Therefore, the final amount of PHB (in powder form) produced is (0.987 x 316.6493 kg/batch) = 312.5329 kg/batch = 5.0818 kg PHB/hr. We summarize the output stream in the following tables: *Assumption: All the water and hypochlorite are recovered.

Table 2. 22: Summary Output of Spray Dryer (P-16/SDR-101)

64 Output S134

Output S133

(kg/batch)

(kg/batch)

PHB (dry powder)

-

312.5329

Hypochlorite

1298.3191

-

Water

920.98131

-

Air

4018.131

-

Materials

2.3.2

Energy Balance The energy balance calculated in this particular proposal will be

performed in the form of heat duty of the equipment. However, the heat duty of certain equipment is equal to zero. This is because there is neither heat lost nor heat generated throughout the process. For example, flow splitter and air filter. We are going to perform energy balances for each stream and each unit operation. While summary of heat duty of equipment will be shown later. Basically, energy balance is calculated based on ideal condition. Other assumptions include: 

Heat generated by ions due to temperature difference is negligible.



There is no heat lost in the pipelines.



Potential and kinetic energy are neglected. We consider only the enthalpy change.



Datum: 298.15 K and 1 atm



Steady state condition in all equipment.



Standard heat of formation of Jatropha oils is assumed equal to heat of formation of vegetable oil since we are not able to get their heat of solution.



Heat of formation of air is negligible. Heat of formation of PHB is set equal to heat of combustion of bacteria.



For PHB in hypochlorite (solution), heat capacity of PHB equals to heat capacity of hypochlorite.

65 We calculate the energy balance using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Summary of energy balance for each stream is shown below (please refer to Appendix A.2 for spreadsheet): Table 2. 23: Summary of energy balance of each stream Stream

Temperature (K)

Enthalpy (J)

101

298.15

-1306639.85

102

298.15

-1180029725.77

103

303.15

-1176326364.36

104

303.15

3548.75

105

303.15

-1172440460.13

106

303.15

0.00

107

303.15

0.00

108

298.15

-7174296.70

109

313.15

-7174296.70

110

310.15

0.00

111

298.15

0.00

112

303.15

0.00

113

298.15

0.00

114

298.15

0.00

115

303.15

-292247111.41

116

303.15

-7381773182.23

117

303.15

0.00

118

303.15

129087110064.21

119

303.15

127408976385.49

120

303.15

1678133726.32

121

303.15

127408973282.93

122

298.15

0.00

123

303.15

127408897039.05

124

303.15

-759539.99

125

303.15

21089163.69

126

298.15

991627914.63

127

303.15

3616247.11

66 128

298.15

5735499.15

129

303.15

83140088.79

130

303.15

6956135225

131

303.15

-13573749644.68

132

303.15

-36773140717.38

133

388.15

-351601803.28

134

303.15

130313154.62

Now, we proceed to the calculation for each equipment. Spreadsheet is attached in Appendix A.2. Gas Compressor G-101 Total heat duty for gas compressor is 0 kJ. All the steps of calculation are shown in Appendix A.2.

Heat Sterilization ST-101 The total heat duty of sterilizer is 1310.188603 kJ. All the manual calculations are carried out by using spreadsheet. Spreadsheet is attached in Appendix A.2.

Heat Sterilization ST-102 The total heat duty of sterilizer is 3703.361416 kJ. All the manual calculations are carried out by using spreadsheet. Spreadsheet is attached in Appendix A.2.

67 Air Filtration AF-101 The total heat duty of sterilizer is 7174.296704 kJ. All the manual calculations are carried out by using spreadsheet. Spreadsheet is attached in Appendix A.2.

Air Filtration AF-102 The total heat duty of sterilizer is 7381773.182 kJ. All the manual calculations are carried out by using spreadsheet. Spreadsheet is attached in Appendix A.2.

Seed Fermenter V-101 and Main Fermenter V-102 According to Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes (by Richard M. Felder and Ronald W. Rousseau), energy balance involved in fermenter is expressed as: Q – Ws = H where Ws refers to the impeller shaft work and H is enthalpy change. H can be calculated using two methods: heat of reaction method and heat of formation method. As we know that for heat of reaction method, the expression is: H =  Hˆ r0   mout H out   min H in While for heat of formation method, the expression is: H =  mout H out   min H in In our study, we are not able to get the data of heat of reaction of the process occurring in fermenter because we have no stoichiometry data on the

68 fermentation. Therefore, we use the heat of formation method and the energy balance around the fermenter becomes: Q = Ws +  mout H out   min H in Table 2. 24: Heat of formation Heat of formation

Material

MW (g/mol)

Na2HPO4.12H2O

1721.52

21798.6

KH2PO4

136.086

19664.8

MgSO.7H2O

120.336

-1374778.7

CH4N2O (Urea)

60.06

-333800

Jatropha oil

282

-853629.792

PHB

6600000

-17795728.250

Water

18.00

-285830.000

CO2

44.00

-393510

Biomass

25.83

466.7

Nitrogen

28.00

-12191.96

(J/mol)

Seed Fermenter V-101 First of all, we calculate the energy balance in seed fermenter. The steps of calculation are shown in a spreadsheet attached in Appendix A.2. Here, the heat duty of seed fermenter = -3164170.573 kW (total power need to be removed from fermenter).

Main fermenter V-102 Similarly, we calculate the energy balance in main fermenter using the same method. The steps of calculation are shown in a spreadsheet attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty of main fermenter = -5.40817 E +12 kW (total power need to be removed from fermenter).

69

Blending Tank V-104 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2.. Here, heat duty across microfilter = -1678133.679 kJ.

Blending Tank V-105 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty across mixer = -4770.795927 kJ.

Blending Tank V-106 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty across mixer = -4770.795927 kJ.

Centrifuge DS-101 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty across microfilter = 1678130.624 kJ.

Centrifuge DS-101 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty across microfilter = 1678130.624 kJ.

70 Centrifuge DS-102 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty across microfilter = 987616.301kJ.

Centrifuge DS-103 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty across microfilter = 13587328.43122kJ.

Spray Dryer SDR-101 Heat duty of this equipment is calculated using spreadsheet which is attached in Appendix A.2. Here, heat duty for dryer = 50125601.76340 kJ. To conclude, heat duty of each equipment is summarized in Table 2.7.

Table 2. 25: Heat duty for each equipment Components

Heat of duty (kJ)

Heat sterilizer ST-101

1310.188603

Heat sterilizer ST-102

3703.361416

Compressor G-101

0.00000

Air filtration AF-101

7174.296704

Air filtration AF-102

7381773.182

Blending Tank V-101

3882.355479

Seed Fermenter V-102

-3164170.573

Main fermenter V-103

-5.40817E+12

Blending Tank V-104

-1678133.679

Blending Tank V-105

-76.24388437

Blending Tank V-106

184751.8426

71

2.4

Centrifuge DS-101

1678130.624

Centrifuge DS-102

987616.301

Centrifuge DS-103

-13587328.43122

Spray Dryer SDR-101

50125601.76340

Economic Potential Economic potential 1 has been calculated in Chapter 1 to show which

synthesis route is more feasible for this 50 MTPA PHB production. Economic potential 2 and economic potential 3 are calculated further later.

2.4.1

Economic Potential 2 Based On Input and Output Structure

Figure 2. 6: Input-output structure of PHB production process

Figure 2.4 shows input and output structure of PHB process plant based on 8000 operations hours per year. Conversion of Jatropha oil, XJ, the reaction rate of PHB and molar fraction of CO2 at the vent are the design variables. Data report from the empirical are the initial glucose concentration, SJo, the concentration of urea, SUo, and the initial concentration of ethanol, SEo. Mass balance is calculated using this following equations.

72 Jatropha oil balance, (

(

)

FCJ +

(2.1)

)

(2.2) (2.3) (2.4) (2.5) (2.6) (2.7)

Substitute Eq. (2.4) and Eq. (2.7) into Eq. (2.2)

[

F=[

(

)]

=

]

(2.8)

(2.9)

By using all Equation 2.1 until Equation 2.9, data is formulated as shown in Appendix A.2. Then graph is plotted as below. Graph shows the concentration of P (Polyhydroxybutyrate), X (biomass), J (Jatropha oil), and U (urea) versus conversion of Jatropha oil at certain period.

73

Jatropha oil conversion

Concentration

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

20.0 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 14.5 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

P (g/L) X(g/L) J(g/L) U(g/L)

Figure 2. 7: Graph of concentration versus conversion of Jatropha oil

The economic potential level 2 can be defined as; = Revenue – F (Raw Material Cost) = P1M1- F (CJoMJ+CUoMU) Where M = price of raw materials MYR/kg, CJo = initial concentration of Jatropha oil, CUo = initial concentration of urea, F = production rate per year (L/year), EP2 = economic potential level 2 (MYR/year), P1 = PHB production (kg/year). Calculation of EP2 is tabulated in Table 2.26 and graph for EP2 as in Figure 2.1 is plotted to show the relationship of EP2 and conversion of

74 Jatropha oil, XJ. The graph shows that the project is feasible starting from conversion at approximately 62%. Table 2. 26: Values for EP2 calculation t

XJ

P (g/L)

X(g/L)

J(g/L)

U(g/L)

EP2 (MYR/year)

0

0.000

3.300

0.053

20.000

1.000

1372500.000

10

0.111

3.667

0.058

17.778

0.889

-6304772.727

20

0.222

4.033

0.064

15.556

0.778

-2466136.364

30

0.333

4.400

0.070

13.333

0.667

-1186590.909

40

0.444

4.767

0.076

11.111

0.556

-546818.182

50

0.556

5.133

0.082

8.889

0.444

-162954.545

60

0.667

5.500

0.088

6.667

0.333

92954.545

70

0.778

5.867

0.093

4.444

0.222

275746.753

80

0.889

6.233

0.099

2.222

0.111

412840.909

90

1.000

6.600

0.105

0.000

0.000

519469.658

600000.00 500000.00

EP2 (MYR/year)

400000.00 300000.00 200000.00 100000.00 0.00 0 -100000.00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Jatropha conversion, XJ

Table 2. 27: Graph of EP2 versus Jatropha oil conversion

1

75 2.4.2

Economic Potential 3 Based On Recycle Structure

Figure 2. 8: Diagram of Recycle

Figure 2.8 shows a block flow diagram that represents PHB production process with recycle streams. Culture fluid from chemo stat is channelled into separator. The separation process will produce biomass in another stream and cell-free supernatant in another stream. Biomass is then recycled back into chemo stat. Figure 2.9 shows a graph to show the relationship of media and biomass concentration with addition of recycled biomass concentration versus conversion of Jatropha oil in certain time. It is clear that recycled biomass (XR) has slightly larger concentration that X.

76

Jatropha oil conversion

Concentration

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

20.0 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 14.5 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

0.8

1

P (g/L) X(g/L) J(g/L) U(g/L) XR g/L

Figure 2. 9: Graph of product, biomass, recycled biomass, Jatropha oil, and urea concentration versus Jatropha oil conversion.

The economic potential level 3 can be defined as; = Revenue – F(Raw Material Cost) – Reactor cost = P1M1- F (CJoMJ+CUoMU) – Reactor Cost

77 The data of calculation of economic potentials at the second level (EP2), at the third level with recycle (EP3+recycle), and at the third level without recycle (EP3-recycle) are tabulated in Table 2.27. Further calculation is shown in Appendix A.3. The relationship between EP2, EP3+recyle, and EP3-recycle with conversion of Jatropha oil is shown as a graph in Figure 2.8. Considerably, the process using the recycle makes more profit.

Table 2.27: Table 2. 28: Data for EP2 and EP3 at both with recycle and without recycle. t

XJ

EP2 (MYR/year)

EP3+recycle

EP3-recycle

10

0.111

-6304772.727

-2529819.1

-2582962.8

20

0.222

-2466136.364

-599176.64

-635714.22

30

0.333

-1186590.909

47712.257

18359.411

40

0.444

-546818.182

372437.47

347305.49

50

0.556

-162954.545

567921.82

545639.79

60

0.667

92954.545

698626.56

678430.64

70

0.778

275746.753

792233.78

773647.97

80

0.889

412840.909

862609.35

845313.75

90

1.000

519469.658

917469.02

901236.61

78 1000000.00

EP2, EP3 (MYR/year)

800000.00 600000.00 400000.00 200000.00 0.00 0

0.1

0.2

-200000.00

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jatropha conversion, XJ EP2

EP3+recycle

EP3-recycle

Figure 2. 10: Graph of economic potential at the second level (EP2), economic potential at the third level with recycle and economic potential at the third level without recycle.

2.5 Comparison of Simulation (SuperPro) and Manual Calculation Results SuperPro version 6.0 had been used to run the simulation and simulation result is compared to manual calculation result. Table 2.29 shows the comparison of simulation and manual calculation results. The assumption in this simulation are as follows; 

Extent of reaction at fermenter is 100%



Efficiency of centrifuge and spray dryer is about 95%



Physical properties of Jatropha oil is assume similar to with physical properties of soybean oil, which already registered in SuperPro data bank.



Parameter such as temperature or pressure to be constant at input or output

78

Table 2. 29: Comparison between Simulation and Manual Balance EQUIPMENT FERMENTER FLAT BOTTOM TANK CENTRIFUGE 1 BLENDING TANK 1 MIXER CENTRIFUGE 2 BLENDING TANK 2 CENTRIFUGE 3 SPRAY DRYER

INPUT (kg/batch) MANUAL 411.582

INPUT (kg/batch) SIMULATION 411.582

ERROR (%)

OUPUT (kg/batch) SIMULATION 389.66

ERROR (%)

0.0

OUTPUT (kg/batch) MANUAL 583.958

384.375

868.072

9.5

384.375

3127.685

69.35

384.375 758.75 1487.15 1855.1468 1831.0299 1794.4093 316.6493

554.546 758.756 3619.699 2183.448 9155.149 9233.36 5098.1

18.9 0.0 58.9 3.5 46.0 99.0 98.3

379.3781 743.575 1855.1468 1831.0299 1794.4093 1771.082 299.303

3247.263 1087.579 1515.433 78.214 9233.36 76.852 3789

82.92 49.28 40.35 98.38 64.82 98.99 99.70

36.47

Justification of Error: There is significant difference between manual and simulation result probably due to unregistered data of jatropha oil and PHB, hence simulation cannot calculate the reaction kinetics. In the simulation, air flow rate is in default set to 100kg/batch per hour while manual calculation is about 2200kg/hour needed for the whole process.

79 CHAPTER

3

UTILITIES & HEAT INTERGRATION

3.1

Introduction Plant utilities are significant in any energy use or supply of services

from main centre of local state to plant such as electricity, steam and water to complete the plant before plant operation. In economics, utility is a representation of preferences over some set of goods and services. Preferences have a (continuous) utility representation so long as they are transitive, complete, and continuous. Utilities of the entire plant have been calculated in this chapter to estimate the utility cost of the plant annually. Process of heat integration is mainly refer to heat which was previously cooled off is recovered and reused in another unit operation. Heat can be transferred from one process stream to the other in a single heat exchanger by process of heat integration. Justification of decision on heat integration was making based of standard plant design.

3.2

Utilities

3.2.1

Electricity Electricity in Peninsular Malaysia have been generated and supplied by

Tenaga Berhad (TNB) and this plant is charged based on standard electricity charge which is 33.70sen/kWh. The table below show all the power consumption of equipment used in plant design mainly pumps and blowers. Table 3. 1: Total Power consumption of equipment used in plant design Equipment

Power Consumption(kW)

P-1/G-101

172.790

P-12/PM-101

174.086

P-15/PM-102

174.086

P-17/PM-103

174.086

80 P-11/PV-105

10.58

P-14/PV-106

13.38

P-11/PV-105

10.58

Total usage

719.008

Total Cost(RM/year)

4797652.781

The total power usage in plant is 719.008 kWh. Average industrial tariff for electricity from Tenaga Nasional Berhad is 33.70 sen /kWh . By applying the industrial tariff of electricity 33.70 sen /kWh, the total electricity cost per year is equal to RM 4797652.781/year with operation hours of 8000 per year. All the calculation is based on CEPCI 2014.

3.2.2

Steam Steam is supply for sterilization purpose for killing the entire

microorganism in the media preparation tank, seed fermenters and bioreactors. The cost of steam used is calculated according to standard steam tariff which is $6.62/1000kg. All the steam supply needed is state in Table 3.2 below. Table 3. 2: Total steam consumption of equipment used in plant design Equipment

Steam supply (kg/h)

P-3/V-101

43.49

P-8/ST-101

187.20

P-7/ST-102

62.50

P-4/V-101

266.95

P-6/V-102

626.53

Total usage

1,186.67

Total Cost(RM/year)

9,140,191.175

The total steam usages for these main equipment are 1,186.67kg/h. Calculate using the standard steam charges, the total steam cost is about RM 9,140,191.175 /year with operation hours of 8000 per year. By conversion, the total steam cost is RM 9,140,191.175 /year.

81 3.2.3

Water In Malaysia, state governments are responsible for the development,

operation and maintenance of water supplies. Entities for States Water Supply Authorities in Malaysia are; Public Works Department, Water Supply Department, Water Supply Board and Water Supply Company. According to Syarikat Bekalan air Johor, the standard industrial water charges is RM 2.93/m³. The main equipments which need supply of water is seed fermenters and bioreactors. Table 3. 3: Total water consumption of equipment used in plant design Equipment

Water consumption (kg/batch)

P-5/SFR-101

113.840

P-4/V-101

418.062

P-6/V-102

3162.559

P-16/V-104

9155.050

Total usage

12,849.51

Total cost (RM/year)

7,454,515.37

The total water consumption for bioreactors and seed fermenters is 12,849.51 kg/batch. Through calculation the total cost of water is RM 7,454,515.37/year

year

with

operation

hours

8000

per

year.

RM

7454515.37/year is needed for water cost. By addition of total cost by electricity, steam and water cost, the total cost of utilities is RM 4,797,652.781 + RM 9,140,191.175 + RM 7,454,515.37 = RM 21,392,359.33 /year.

3.3

Heat Integration Energy recovery is the main objectives of this design. Energy

integration is a technique to match hot and cold streams in a plant to achieve heat transfer to reduce hot and cold utility consumption. The energy consumption is a major part of plant‟s operating cost. Generally, energy is used for heating and cooling utilities. Before we proceed to design the heat

82 exchanger network, first, the base case process flow heat exchanger should be known of its heat exchanger area and energy utilities consumption, in order to compare it with the utility consumption after heat integration (Rossiter, 2010). These energy utilities should be optimized in order to reduce the utilities consumption of the process, which will affect the operating cost of this plant. Heat exchanger network design and optimization can be a very tedious and time-consuming task if the improper method is employed. Nevertheless, with detailed planning, it can be a very rewarding step in reducing the design cost and annual operating costs of the plant through a substantial reduction in the energy requirements of a process. Pinch technology is applied to determine the pinch temperature, minimum heating and cooling requirements of the plant. Benefits of pinch technology include:      

Energy savings (15-90%) Capital savings (up to 30%) Cleaner processes (less fuels) New design and retrofit Simple and easy to use Improved flexibility, reduce fouling problems Pinch Analysis as the main methodology for determination of heat

integration. The most important new feature in Pinch Analysis was the ability to establish Performance Targets ahead of design only based on information about the change in thermodynamic state for the process streams. The most important property of the Heat Recovery Pinch is that it decomposes the process into a heat deficit region above Pinch and a heat surplus region below Pinch(Sun & Luo, 2011). There is not enough heat available in the hot streams above Pinch to satisfy the overall heating demand of the cold streams, and external heating is required. Below Pinch, there is not enough cooling available in the cold streams to satisfy the overall cooling demand of the hot streams, and external cooling is required (Matija, 2002). According to Pinch Technology Method (Matija, 2002) basic Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis (HENS) must consist of:

83 1. A set of process stream to be cooled and a set of process stream to be heated 2. The inlet and outlet flow rates and temperatures for all these process streams 3. The heat capacities for each of the stream versus their temperature as they pass through the heat exchanger process 4. The available utilities, their temperature and their costs per unit of heat provided or removed

Heating and cooling utilities is a major part of the plant‟s operating costs. In order to increase the net profit of a plant, designer must focus on a few solutions to reduce the usage of utilities to reducing the operating cost of the whole plant. This can be done by maximizing the use of heating and cooling streams generated by the plant itself. The process is called process energy integration. Process integration can lead to a substantial reduction in the energy requirements of a process, and consequently save up the operating cost of the whole plant. Increasing of energy efficiency will solve the problems of energy equilibrium system and reduce the cost of plant. Since the overall process in the production of 50 MT of PHB did not require any distillation column, cooling tower, boiler, condenser or heat exchanger, the heat integration calculation is not required in this plant designed. Plant for production of 50 MT PHB involve less temperature differences in process flow, so there is no need of addition heating or cooling equipment for heat exchange. According to Smith R (2012), addition of unnecessary heat exchanger network at low temperature different will cause uneconomical profit. Besides that, if low temperature different is used in heat exchanger network such as lower than 100°C, will cause high cost and inadequacy effectiveness and accuracy to plant (Fraser & Hallale, 2000).

84 3.4

Economic Potential Level 5: Heat Integration System In a typical process, there are normally several hot streams that must be

cooled and several cold streams that must be heated. The usage of external cooling and heating utilities (e.g., cooling water, refrigerants, steam, heating oils, etc.) to address all the heating and cooling duties is not cost effective. Indeed, integration of heating and cooling tasks may lead to significant cost reduction. EP5 = EP4 – Heat integration Cost i.

EP4 Economic potential in level 4 is considering utility, recycle stream,

reactor cost and separation unit cost. The detail calculation is presented in Chapter 4 and the calculated value is RM 169, 711/year.

ii.

Heat integration Cost From the standard of plant design, for low temperature different in unit

operation process, there is no need addition of heat network exchanger as this will bring high cost to plant design. So the cost for heat integration part can be ignored. EP5

= EP4 – Heat integration Cost = RM 169, 711/ year – RM 0 = RM 169, 711/year

85 CHAPTER 4 EQUIPMENT SIZING

4.1

Introduction Equipment sizing is where evaluation the specification of each of the

units used in the polyhdroxybutyrate (PHB) production plant from the type of material used to the size of the units take place. All of the choices made is based on the most suitable condition for the efficient and economic production of PHB. This part is important as it enables the subsequent analysis that is involved in process design such as economic analysis. According to Biegler, (1997) the sizing will provide the data for the estimating the cost of the equipment as the cost is increase nonlinearly with equipment size or capacity. This PHB plant has a total of 12 types of equipment consists of seed fermenter, main fermenter, gas compressor, air filter, heat sterilizer, splitter, blending tank, storage tank, centrifuge, pumps, and spray dryer. The complete summary result of all the equipment specifications are listed out in table form and the detail sizing calculation is attached in Appendix C.

4.2

Heat Sterilizer (ST-101 & ST-102) Table 4. 1: Sizing Summary of Heat Sterilizer Equipment Specification Sheet

Item No.

ST-101 &ST-102 To heat process stream in order to prevent

Function

contamination

Material of construction

Carbon steel; floating head

Heater: Heat Duty, Q (kJ)

1340.923 kJ

Log mean temperature, ∆Tlm (oC) 2

Heat transfer area, A (m ) Cooler:

68.08 0.014

86 Heat Duty, Q (kJ)

-10399540.100

Log mean temperature, ∆Tlm (oC)

39

2

Heat transfer area, A (m )

4.3

260.93157

Media Preparation Tank (P-09) Table 4. 2: Sizing Summary of Media Preparation Tank

Equipment Specification Sheet Item No. Function Material of Construction Design Type Tank Specification Type of Culture Diameter (m) Height (m) Working Volume (m3) Tank Volume (m3) Jacket Specification Fluid SIP Pressure (barg) SIP Temperature (ºC) SIP Duration (min) Average Steam Flow Rate (kg/h) Heat Transfer Area (m2) Maximum Heat Capacity (kW) Maximum Steam Flow Rate (kg/h)

4.4

P-09 Raw material sterilization and storage Stainless steel 316L Vertical with hemispheral heads Batch 0.70 1.40 0.53 0.62 Steam 1.1 130 30 40.02 0.34 26.27 43.49

Splitter (FSP-101 & FSP-102) Table 4. 3: Sizing Summary of Splitter

Item No. Volume, m3 Diameter, m Height, m

Equipment Specification Sheet FSP-101 0.2563 0.44 1.735

FSP-102 181.23 2.26 9.04

87 4.5

Gas Compressor (G-101) Table 4. 4: Sizing Summary of Gas Compressor

Equipment Specification Sheet Item No. G-101 Type Centrifugal / Turbine-driven Material of construction Carbon Steel Operating Conditions Inlet temperature, T1 (K) 298.15 Inlet pressure, P1 (bar) 1 Outlet pressure, P2 (bar) 4 Equipment sizing Fluid flow rate (kg/batch) 22960.29 Horse power (hp) 19.31 80 Efficiency, c (%)

4.6

Air Filter (AF-101 & AF-102) Table 4. 5: Sizing Summary of Air Filter

Equipment Specification Sheet Pore size (µm) Diameter (mm) Membrane Membrane price (RM) Depth of the filter membrane (m) Cross sectional area (m2)

4.7

0.2 47 PTFE 9.22 0.8591 2.789

Seed Fermenter (V-101) Table 4.1: Sizing Summary of Seed Fermenter

Equipment Specification Sheet Item No. P-5/V101 Function Cell Culture Material of Construction Stainless steel 316L Design Type Vertical with hemispheral heads Operating Temperature (oC) 37 Operating Pressure (atm) 1 Aeration rate (vvm) 3 Duration (h) 24 Tank Specification

88 Type of Culture Diameter (m) Height (m) Working Volume (m3) Tank Volume (m3)

Batch 0.30 0.60 1.123 1.404 Impeller Specification Type of Impeller Rushton Turbine No of Impeller 4 No of Blades 6 Rotation Speed (rpm) 150 Diameter (m) 0.100 Width (m) 0.020 Length (m) 0.025 Duration (h) 24 Baffles Specification No of Baffles 4 Diameter (m) 0.03 Height (m) 0.55 Baffles Clearance (m) 0.10 Heating Jacket Specification Fluid Steam SIP Pressure (barg) 1.1 o SIP Temperature ( C) 130 SIP Duration (min) 30 Average Steam Flow Rate (kg/h) 266.95 2 Heat Transfer Area (m ) 2.50 Maximum Heat Capacity (kW) 177.37 Maximum Steam Flow Rate (kg/h) 293.65

89 4.8

Main Fermenter (V-103) Table 4.7: Sizing Summary of Main Fermenter

Equipment Specification Sheet Item No. P-7/V103 Function Fermentation Material of Construction Stainless steel 316L Design Type Vertical with hemispheral heads Operating Temperature (ºC) 30 Operating Pressure (atm) 1 Aeration rate (vvm) 3 Duration (h) 24 Tank Specification Type of Culture Fed Batch Diameter (m) 2.3032 Height (m) 4.6064 Working Volume (m3) 20.471 3 Tank Volume (m ) 25.589 Impeller Specification Type of Impeller Rushton Turbine No of Impeller 4 No of Blades 6 Rotation Speed (rpm) 150 Diameter (m) 0.7677 Width (m) 0.1536 Length (m) 0.1919 Baffles Specification No of Baffles 4 Diameter (m) 0.23032 Height (m) 4.6065 Baffles Clearance (m) 0.7677 Heating Jacket Specification Fluid Steam SIP Pressure (barg) 1.1 o SIP Temperature ( C) 130 SIP Duration (min) 30 Average Steam Flow Rate (kg/h) 266.95 Heat Transfer Area (m2) 33.75 Maximum Heat Capacity (kW) 378.43 Maximum Steam Flow Rate (kg/h) 626.53

90 4.9

Storage Tank (V-104) Table 4.2: Sizing Summary of Storage Tank

Equipment Specification Sheet Item No. V-104 Function storage Material of Construction Stainless steel 316L Design Type Vertical with hemispheral heads Tank Specification Type of Culture Batch Diameter (m) 0.75 Height (m) 1.40 3 Working Volume (m ) 0. 70 Tank Volume (m3) 0.90

4.10

Centrifuge (DS-101, DS-102 & DS-103) Table 4.3: Sizing Summary of Centrifuge

Item No.

Equipment Specification Sheet DS-101 DS-102

DS-103

Function

Cell biomass separation

Product and cell debris separation

Product and chemical separation

Material of Construction Design Type

Carbon steel

Carbon steel

Carbon steel

Disc stack Disc stack Centrifuge Specification

Disc stack

Outer Diameter (m)

0.33

0.33

0.33

Inner Diameter (m)

0.16

0.16

0.16

Minimum Disc

63

58

11

Angle between Disc (°)

45

45

45

Rotation Speed (rpm)

100

450

7500

Sigma Factor (m2)

29.1407

24.4627

334.6667

91 4.11

Blending Tank (V-105 & V-106) Table 4.4: Sizing Summary of Blending Tank Equipment Specification Sheet V-105 V-106

Item No. Function

Cell disruption

Blending

Material of Construction

Carbon steel

Carbon steel

Design Type

Vertical with hemispheral heads

Vertical with hemispheral heads

Type of Culture Diameter (m) Height (m) Working Volume (m3) Tank Volume (m3) Type of Impeller Diameter (m) Width (m) Length (m) Rotation Speed (rpm) Motor Power (kW)

4.11

Tank Specification Batch 0.81 1.62 0.89 1.12 Impeller Specification Rushton Turbine 0.27 0.05 0.06 92.71 10.58

Batch 0.98 1.96 1.57 1.96 Rushton Turbine 0.27 0.05 0.06 92.71 10.58

Pumps Table 4.5: Sizing Summary of Pumps

Equipment Specification Sheet Identification PM-101 PM-102 Type Centrifugal Centrifugal Materials of construction Cast iron Cast iron Pump Specification 50 50 Pump Efficiency, p (%) Mechanical Efficiency, m 90 90 (%) Horsepower (hp) 88.76 142.02

Other Pumps Centrifugal Cast iron 50 90 0.5

92 4.12

Spray Dryer (SDR-101) Table 4.6: Sizing Summary of Spray Dryer

Equipment Specifications Sheets Item No. SDR-101 Function To produce a dry powder Materials of Construction Carbon steel Spray Dryer Specification Discharge diameter of nozzle nipple (mm) 1.5627 Optimum pressure of the slip (atm) 8.04-8.93 Output of nozzle in (liters/h) 364.32 Diameter of jet of sprayed slip (m) 2.0091 Height of jet (m) 2.5896 Diameter of the drying chamber (m) 2.1431 Height of cylindrical part of drying 2.6789 chamber (m) Height of conical part (m) 1.5627 Total internal height of drying chamber 4.2415 (m) Volume of drying chamber (m3) 58.934

4.13

Economic Potential Level 4 (EP4): Separation System

4.13.1 General Structure of the Separation System The composition of separation feed is that of the reactor effluent and the separator section is to produce a final product of acceptable purity and a stream of by-products. In this PHB plant separation system, centrifugation plays an important role in the separation of the desired components from waste in the streams, such as first centrifuge unit is function in cell biomass separation process, second centrifuge unit is used to separate cell debris and PHB, while for the third centrifuge is purpose in PHB and chemical impurities separation. From the downstream process, there are three centrifugation units needed to complete the separation process. Economic potential 4 was evaluated by using following formula; EP4 = EP3 – Separation Unit Cost

93 4.13.1.1

EP3

Economic potential in level 3 is considering utility, recycle stream and reactor cost. The detail calculation is presented in previous section and the calculated value is RM 917,469.00/year.

4.13.1.2

Separation Unit Cost

From the calculation of centrifuge sizing, the disc diameter of centrifuge was 0.5m. By assuming the diameter of the centrifuge disc is the same with the different number of disc required and the rotation speed, the purchased cost of the centrifuge is obtained. The index of 2014 was 574. Table below shows the bare module cost for three centrifuges in PHB plant. Table 4. 6: Bare Module Cost (CBM) for Centrifuges Equipment Centrifuge DS-101 Centrifuge DS-102 Centrifuge DS-103 Total

EP4

= EP3 – Separation Unit Cost = RM 917,469.00 – RM 747,757.33 = RM169, 711/year

CBM (MYR) 12,475.32 72,194.35 663,087.65 747,757.33

94 CHAPTER 5 PROCESS CONTROL & SAFETY

5.1

Introduction According to Institute of Instrumentation and Control, a piping and

instrumentation diagram (P&ID) is defined as a diagram which shows the interconnection of process equipment and the instrumentation used to control the process. In the process industry, a standard set of symbols is used to prepare drawings of processes and as the primary schematic drawing used for laying out a process control installation. P&ID plays a significant role in the maintenance, modification, as well as regulation of the process that it describes. It is critical to demonstrate the physical sequence of equipment and systems, as well as how these systems connect. During the design stage, the diagram also provides the basis for the development of system control schemes, allowing for further safety and operational investigations, such as Hazard and Operability Study. P&ID and its justification for this PHB plant is laid out in Appendix D.3. This chapter will emphasize on safety study of this PHB production plant which includes identification of hazard and the risk assessment through material safety data sheet and hazard and operability studies. Major equipment control also will be covered as it is important to regulate process conditions such as flow rate, pressure and temperature in order to obtain stable, safe and healthy operations. Quality products also can be produced efficiently and economically.

5.2

Identification of Hazard Hazard identification procedure is used to identify the types of adverse

health effects that can be caused by exposure to some agent in question, and to characterize the quality and weight of evidence supporting this identification. Risk assessment includes determination of the events that can produce an

95 accident, the probability of those events, and consequences that could include human injury or loss of life, damage to the environment, or loss of production and capital equipment. Hazard identification can be performed independent of risk assessment, but it would obtain best result if they are done together. Figure 5.1 shows hazard identification and risk assessment procedure.

Figure 5. 1: Procedure of hazard identification and risk assessment. (Source: Guidelines for Hazards Evaluation Procedures: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1985)

5.2.1

Material Safety Data Sheet The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is a detailed information

bulletin as a general guideline about PHB that describes the physical and

96 chemical properties, important characteristics, hazards/symptoms, preventive measures, fire extinguishing/first aid, spillage and labeling of a chemical. The precise format of an MSDS is not presently defined by regulation but there are some minimum requirements. The minimum requirements for MSDS according to Turton et al. (2009) are as follows; 1. An MSDS is required for each hazardous chemical, any chemicals assigned a Threshold Limit Value (TLV), or any material determined to be cancer causing, corrosive, and toxic, an irritant, a sensitizer, or one that has damaging effects on specific body organs. 2. Written in English. 3. Identity used on label. 4. Chemical name and common name of all ingredients that are hazardous and that are present in ≥1% concentration or that could be released in harmful concentrations. 5. Chemical name and common name of all ingredients that are carcinogens and that are present in ≥0.1% concentration or that could be released in harmful concentrations. 6. Physical and chemical characteristics of the hazardous chemical. 7. Physical hazards of the hazardous chemical, including the potential for fire, explosion, and reactivity. 8. Health hazards of the hazardous chemical, including signs and symptoms of exposure, and any medical conditions that are generally recognized as being aggravated by exposure to the chemical. 9. Primary routes of entry. 10. Occupational

Safety

and

Health

Administration

(OSHA)

permissible exposure limit, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) TLV, and any other exposure limit used or recommended by the chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer. 11. Whether the hazardous chemical is listed in the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Annual Report on Carcinogens or has

97 been found to be a potential carcinogen in the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs, or by OSHA. 12. Any generally applicable precautions for safe handling and use that are known to the chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer preparing the MSDS, including appropriate hygienic practices, protective measures during repair and maintenance of contaminated equipment, and procedures for cleanup of spills and leaks. 13. Any generally applicable control measures that are known to the chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer preparing MSDS, such as appropriate engineering controls, work practices, or personal protective equipment. 14. Emergency and first aid procedures. 15. Date of preparation of the MSDS or the last change to it. 16. Name,

address,

and

telephone

number

of

the

chemical

manufacturer, importer, employer, or other responsible party preparing of distributing the material safety data sheet that can provide additional information on the hazardous chemical and appropriate emergency procedures, if necessary.

This information helps to prepare employers as well as employees to respond effectively to daily exposure situations as well as to emergency situations. The production of PHB in this plant is by using fermentation of Cupriavidus necator with jatropha oil. The chemical used in this plant are urea, Triton X-100 surfactant as well as sodium hypochlorite. The related data for these chemicals can be found in Appendix D.1.

5.2.2

DOW Fire and Explosion Index DOW Fire and Explosion Index (FEI) is one of the popular hazard

surveys developed by the Dow Chemical Company and published by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers in the 1960s and is today used by many companies to identify high-risk systems (Turton et al., 2004). It is a formal systematized approaches using a rating form, and the final rating

98 number provides a relative ranking of the hazard. Figure 5.2 shows general steps in calculating DOW Fire and Explosion Index but this chapter will emphasize until FEI only. It starts with determining the material factor (MF) that is a function only of type of chemicals used. The MF is the basic starting value in the computation of the FEI and other risk analysis values. The factor is ranged from 0 to 60 that indicates the magnitude of the energy release in a fire or explosion. For non-combustible materials, the factor is zero while for the combustible materials, the factor can be calculated from the following equation:

where

is heat of combustion. The factor is then adjusted for general and

special process hazards based on conditions such as storage above the flash or boiling point, endothermic or exothermic reaction, and fired heaters (Crowl and Louvar, 2002). In general the higher the value of material factor, the more flammable and or explosive the material. Figure 5.3 shows form used in the DOW Fire and Explosion Index

99

Figure 5. 2: General steps in determining DOW Fire and Explosion Index

100

Figure 5. 3: Form used in DOW Fire and Explosion Index

The numerical value of the Process Unit Hazards Factor is determined by first determining the General Process Hazards Factor (F1) and Special Process Hazards Factor (F2) listed on the F&EI form. Each item which contributes to the Process Hazards Factors contributes to the development or escalation of an incident that could cause a fire or an explosion. General Process Hazards (F1) covers six items;

101 

Exothermic chemical reactions The penalty varies from 0.3 for a mild exothermic, such as

hydrogenation, to 1.25 for a particularly sensitive exothermic, such as nitration. 

Endothermic processes A penalty of 0.2 is applied to reactors, only. It is increased to 0.4 if the

reactor is heated by the combustion of a fuel. 

Materials handling and transfer This penalty takes account of the hazard involved in the handling,

transfer and warehousing of the material. 

Enclosed or indoor process units Accounts for the additional hazard where ventilation is restricted.



Access of emergency equipment Areas not having adequate access are penalized. Minimum requirement

is access from two sides. 

Drainage and spill control Penalizes design conditions that would cause large spills of flammable

material adjacent to process equipment; such as inadequate design of drainage. These factors are intended to allow for the general process hazards associated with the unit being considered. The Special Process Hazards (F2) are factors that are known from experience to contribute to the probability of an incident involving loss. Twelve factors are listed in the calculation form based on Figure 5.3; 

Toxic materials The presence of toxic substances after an incident will make the task of

the emergency personnel more difficult. The factor applied ranges from 0 for non-toxic materials, to 0.8 for substances that can cause death after short exposure. 

Sub-atmospheric pressure

102 Allows for the hazard of air leakage into equipment. It is only applied for pressure less than 500 mmHg (9.5 bar). 

Operation in or near flammable range Covers for the possibility of air mixing with material in equipment or

storage tanks, under conditions where the mixture will be within the explosive range. 

Dust explosion Covers for the possibility of a dust explosion. The degree of risk is

largely determined by the particle size. The penalty factor varies from 0.25 for particles above 175 m, to 2.0 for particles below 75 m. 

Relief pressure This penalty accounts for the effect of pressure on the rate of leakage,

should a leak occur. Equipment design and operation becomes more critical as the operating pressure is increased. The factor to apply depends on the relief device setting and the physical nature of the process material. 

Low temperature This factor allows for the possibility of brittle fracture occurring in

carbon steel, or other metals, at low temperatures. 

Quantity of flammable material The potential loss will be greater the greater the quantity of hazardous

material in the process or in storage. The factor to apply depends on the physical state and hazardous nature of the process material, and the quantity of material. It varies from 0.1 to 3.0 and 5 in the DOW Guide. 

Corrosion and erosion Despite good design and materials selection, some corrosion problems

may arise, both internally and externally. The factor to be applied depends on the anticipated corrosion rate. The severest factor is applied if stress corrosion cracking is likely to occur. 

Leakage joints and packing

103 This factor accounts for the possibility of leakage from gaskets, pump and other shaft seals, and packed glands. The factor varies from 0.1 where there is the possibility of minor leaks, to 1.5 for processes that have sight glasses, bellows or other expansion joints. 

Use of fired heaters The presence of boilers or furnaces, heated by the combustion of fuels,

increases the probability of ignition should a leak of flammable material occur from a process unit. The risk involved will depend on the siting of the fired equipment and the flash point of the process material. The factor to apply is determined with reference to Figure 6 in the Dow Guide. 

Hot oil heat exchange system Most special heat exchange fluids are flammable and are often used

above their flash points; so their use in a unit increases the risk of fire or explosion. The factor to apply depends on the quantity and whether the fluid is above or below its flash point 

Rotating equipment This factor accounts for the hazard arising from the use of large pieces

of rotating equipment: compressors, centrifuges, and some mixers.. The computation of DOW FEI completed in Risk Analysis Summary to determine the degree of hazard. Below is the table for determining the degree of hazard from the Dow Fire and Explosion Index based on Crowl and Louvar (2002).

Table 5. 1: Degree of Hazard based on DOW Fire and Explosion Index (FEI) DOW Fire and Explosion Index

Degree of Hazard

1-60

Light

61-96

Moderate

97-127

Intermediate

128-158

Heavy

104 Severe

159 and above

Calculation of Dow Fire and Explosion Index for urea, Triton X-100 surfactant, and sodium hypochlorite are shown in Appendix D.1.

5.2.2

Toxicity According to Crowl and Louvar (2002), toxicity of a chemical or

physical agent is a property of the agent describing its effect on biological organisms. Table 5.2 shows subdivision of toxicity and its respective explanation. Table 5. 2: Toxicity level Level

Explanation

Acute

Adverse effects are observed within a short time of exposure to the chemical. This exposure may be a single dose, or a short continuous exposure, or multiple doses administered over 24 hours or less.

Sub-

Adverse effects are observed following repeated daily exposure to

acute

a chemical, or exposure for a significant part of an organism‟s lifespan (usually not exceeding 10%). With experimental animals, the period of exposure may range from a few days to 6 months.

Chronic

Adverse effects are observed following repeated exposure to a chemical during a substantial fraction of an organism‟s lifespan (usually more than 50%). For humans, chronic exposure typically means several decades; for experimental animals, it is typically more than 3 months. Chronic exposure to chemicals over periods of 2 years using rats or mice may be used to assess the carcinogenic potential of chemicals.

105 Indicators of toxicity hazards include LD50, LC50, plus a wide range of in vitro and in vivo techniques for assessment of skin and eye irritation, skin sensitization, mutagenicity, acute and chronic dermal and inhalation toxicity, reproductive toxicology, carcinogenicity etc. The LD50 is the statistically derived single dosage of a substance that can be expected to cause death in 50% of the sample population. It is therefore an indicator of acute toxicity, usually determined by ingestion using rats or mice, although other animals may be used. LD50 is also determined by other routes, e.g. by skin absorption in rabbits. The values are affected by species, sex, age, etc. The LC50 is the lethal concentration of chemical (e.g. in air or water) that will cause the death of 50% of the sample population. This is most appropriate as an indicator of the acute toxicity of chemicals in air breathed (or in water, for aquatic organisms). Table 5.3 illustrates the use of LD50 values to rank the toxicity of substances. Table 5. 3: Toxicity rating system

Toxicity Rating

Commonly Used Term

1

Extremely Toxic Highly Toxic Moderately Toxic Slightly Toxic Practically non-toxic Relatively harmless

2 3 4 5 6

LD50 Single Oral Dose for Rats (g/kg) ≤0.001

4hr Vapor Exposure Causing 2 to 4 Deaths in 6 Rat group (ppm) 100000

>15.0

100-1000

LD50 Skin for Rabbits (g/kg) ≤0.005 0.0050.043 0.0440.340 0.35-2.81 2.82-22.6 >22.6

Probable Lethal Dose for Humans Taste (1 grain) 1 teaspoon (4ml) 1oz (30g) 1 pint (250g) 1 quart (500g) >1 quart

Toxicity index of chemical substances used in this 50 MT PHB production is attached in Appendix D.1.

106 5.3

Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) of Major Equipment Hazard and Operability Studies or simply known as HAZOP is a

formal procedure to identify hazards in chemical and biochemical process facility (Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd ed.). The procedure is considered effective in identifying hazards and is well accepted by chemical and biochemical industries (Crowl and Louvar, 2011). The basic procedure is to assemble a carefully chosen team of individuals and systematically search through P & I Diagrams to identify the possible deviation and its causes as well as its consequences. The structure of the search is provided by the use of simple word models to create potential deviations at each point in the plant. Then, it will be decided whether the search deviation can be applicable or not. Actions for prevention and mitigation of the consequences will be provided. Basically, one of the concept that the group must bear in mind that HAZOP studies should not be used to solve problems, it is a proactive method, to identify and assess the impact of the hazards. The HAZOP technique applies to combination of a „Guide Word‟ to generate a „Deviation‟ from design intent. This technique is systematically applied to parts of system such that hazard and operability problems on complete system are eventually identified. Table 5.4 shows guide words used for HAZOP procedures. Table 5. 4: General Guide Words for HAZOP procedures (Crowl and Louvar, 2002) Guide Words NO,NOT,NONE

Meaning The complete negation of the intention MORE,HIGHER,GREATER Quantitative increase

LESS,LOWER

Quantitative decrease

Comments No part of the design intention is achieved, nothing else happens Applies to quantities such as flow rate and temperature and to activities such as heating and reaction. Applies to quantities such as flow rate and temperature and to activities such as heating and reaction.

107 AS WELL AS

Quantitative increase

PART OF

Qualitative decrease

REVERSE

The logical opposite of

OTHER THAN

Complete substitution

SOONER THAN

Too early or in the wrong order Too late or in the wrong order In additional locations

LATER THAN

WHERE ELSE

All the design and operating intentions are achieved along with some additional activity such as contamination of process stream. Only some of the design intentions are achieved, some are not. Most applicable to activities such as flow or chemical reaction. Also applicable to substances, for example, poison instead of antidote. No part of the original intention is achieved; the original intention is replaced by something else. Applies to process steps or actions. Applies to process steps or actions. Applies to process locations, or locations in operating procedures.

The HAZOP procedure uses the following steps to complete an analysis: 1. Begin with a detailed flow sheet and break the flow sheet into a number of process units. 2. Select a unit (a fermenter for example) and choose a study node (i.e vessel, line) 3. Describe the design intent of the study node. For example, fermenter is designed to be place for biochemical takes place and produces desired product. 4. Select a process parameter (i.e flow, temperature, pressure) 5. Apply guide word to the process parameter to suggest possible deviations 6. If the deviation is applicable, determine possible causes and note any protective systems.

108 7. Evaluate the consequences of the deviation (if any) 8. Recommend action. 9. Record all information.

For this 50 MT production of (PHB) plant design, only major equipment such as gas compressor, fermenter, blending tank, and spray dryer will be evaluated for HAZOP study and can be found in Appendix D.2.

5.4

Major Equipment Control Process control has become increasingly important in the process

industries as a consequence of global competition, rapidly changing economic conditions, faster product development, and more stringent environmental and safety regulation (Seborg et al., 2011). Generally five elements are controlled in the plant that is temperature, pressure, flow rate, level in the equipment and composition. There are four basic components of a control system; i.

sensor (primary element),

ii.

transmitter (secondary element),

iii.

controller (brain of the control system), and

iv.

final control element (such as control valve,

v.

other elements are variable speed pumps, conveyors and electric motors).

The control of a process is often accomplished by measuring the variables (controlled variables), comparing this measurement with the value at which it is desired to maintain the controlled variables (set point), and adjusting some further variables (manipulated variables) which has a direct or indirect effect on the controlled variables. There are two types of control system that is a feedback control and a feed forward control. In feedback control system, it is applied when measuring device detected the output of a process and then a controlling device will be compared between the measured reading and the process set point, and lastly the signal will be sent to the final control element that will manipulate the

109 controlled variables. For feedback control, the disturbance variable is not measured. Anyhow, a feed forward control configuration measures the disturbances (load) directly and takes control action to eliminate its impact on the process output. That is mean a feed forward controllers have the theoretical potential for perfect control.

5.4.1

Objectives of Control System This plant consist five major equipment. There are seed fermenter,

fermenter, blending storage, disk stack centrifuge and spray dryer.

Each

equipment has their own hazard. Below is the equipment process control for each equipment. The primary objectives of the instrumentation and control schemes are to maintain a process at the desired operating conditions, safety and efficiently, while satisfying environmental and product quality requirement; (i) Safety of plant operation: -

To keep the process variables within known safe operating limits

-

To detect dangerous situations as they develop and to provide alarms and automatic shut-down system.

(ii) Production rate -

To get the desired amount and the quality of the final product.

-

To maintain the product composition within the specified quality standard is essential.

(iii) Operating Constraint -

Various types of equipment used in this plant have operation constraints inherent to their operation. Such constraint should be satisfied through operation of plant. For example, the distillation column should not be flooded; temperature in a reactor should not exceed upper limit; tanks should not

110 overflow or go dry; pumps must be maintained at a certain net positive suction head. -

A control system should be set up to satisfy all these operational constraints.

(iv) Economic -

To operate at the lowest production cost

-

The operation of the plant must conform to the market condition, which is availability of raw materials and demand of the final product.

(v) Environmental Regulations -

Variable controlled must not exceed the allowable limits set by laws.

5.4.2

Process Control of Major Equipment This section provides summary of process control summary of major

equipment in 50 MTPA PHB plant comprises of seed fermenter, main fermenter, blending storage, disk stack centrifuge and spray dryer.

5.4.2.1 Seed Fermenter (V-101) The control system for the seed fermenter, V-101 is designed so that this unit can be operated optimally and safely. The following are the control objectives of a seed fermenter: a. Control the culture medium level to suppress flooding or to avoid the culture medium level in the fermenter from being too low. b. Control the pH point of the culture medium at a desired value for healthy Cupriavidus necator H16 growth c. Control the pressure in the fermenter at a desired value for healthy Cupriavidus necator H16 growth.

111 d. Control the temperature of the culture medium at a constant temperature to counteract the heat generated by aerobic oxidation.

Figure 5. 4: Section of P & ID of Seed Fermenter

Controlled Variable Flow

Manipulated Variable Inlet flow rate

Disturbance Outlet flow rate

Type of Controller Feedback

5.4.2.2 Main Fermenter (V-102) The control system for the main fermenter, V-102 is designed so that this unit can be operated optimally and safely. The following are the control objectives of a seed fermenter: a. Control the culture medium level to suppress flooding or to avoid the culture medium level in the fermenter from being too low. b. Control the pH point of the culture medium at a desired value for healthy Cupriavidus necator H16 growth c. Control the pressure in the fermenter at a desired value for healthy Cupriavidus necator H16 growth. d. Control the temperature of the culture medium at a constant temperature to counteract the heat generated by aerobic oxidation.

112

Figure 5. 5: Section of P & ID of Main Fermenter Controlled

Manipulated

Variable

Variable

Flow

Inlet flow rate

Disturbance Outlet flow rate

Type of Controller Feedback

5.4.2.3 Disc Stack Centrifuge (DS-101, DS-102, DS-103)

Figure 5. 6: Section of P & ID of Disc Stack Centrifuges Controlled

Manipulated

Variable

Variable

Disturbance

Type of Controller Programmable

Flow

Inlet flow rate

Outlet flow rate

Logic Controller (PLC)

113 5.4.2.5 Spray Dryer

Figure 5. 7: Section of P & ID of Spray Dryer Controlled Variable Flow

5.5

Manipulated Variable Inlet flow rate

Disturbance Outlet flow rate

Type of Controller Feedback

Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) for the whole process of

PHB plant has been constructed accordingly and is attached in Appendix D.3.

114 CHAPTER 6 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLUTION CONTROL

6.1

Introduction Waste management is the collection, transportation and disposal of

garbage, sewage and other waste products. Waste management encompasses management of all processes and resources for proper handling of waste materials, from maintenance of waste transport trucks and dumping facilities to compliance with health codes and environmental regulations. The waste management hierarchy is a nationally and internationally accepted guide for prioritizing waste management practices with the objective of achieving optimal environmental outcomes. It sets out the preferred order of waste management practices, from most to least preferred. The waste management hierarchy is one of the guiding principles of the Zero Waste SA Act 2004, and is regarded in South Australia‟s Waste Strategy 2011 – 2015 as a key element for guiding waste management practices in South Australia, while still recognizing the need for flexibility based on local and regional economic, social and environmental conditions.

Figure 6. 1: Waste management hierarchy

115 6.1.1

Higher Up the Hierarchy The further activity moves up the waste management hierarchy, the

more greenhouse gains there are to be made. Reuse requires less energy than recycling, although designs which are both adaptable and durable are essential to its success. Other factors, such as the consumer desire for „newness‟, can conspire against reuse. There are many ways that clothes, cars, books, buildings and other materials are currently reused, such as: 

trash and treasure markets



e-bay



free giveaway swap websites.

Reuse is already part of our society, so there is an existing precedent to build on. Reduce requires less energy again, by designing out waste before it is created. Waste, in all its guises, is an indicator that systems and processes could be designed better. It makes no sense to pay both financial and energy/greenhouse costs for waste twice – first to create it, then to dispose of it. Avoid is the ultimate zero waste challenge; the highest point on the hierarchy. The volume and rate at which resources are being channeled through the human economy needs to be slowed, along with a recognition that all our material goods have an energy 'price tag'. To effectively address the zero waste and climate change agenda, there needs to be a move beyond recycling into the largely uncharted territory of the higher end of the hierarchy, to reuse, reduce and avoid, with a particular emphasis on eco-efficiency (the same or greater utility from less material input). As chemical industry grows rapidly, several problems have arises. Therefore, terms such as well-developed waste minimization plan and Environmental Safety Management Program are heard every time a chemical plant is set up. There is a standard known globally as ISO 14000. ISO 14000 standard is mainly to ensure waste is minimized from a chemical plant and to provide a better living for the workers and people living near the plant.

116 Waste treatment may seem to be an economic disadvantage for processing plant because more money has to be spent on the waste treatment process. This kind of prospective is wrong. An engineer must be more ethical in order to ensure our environment is protected in the long run. As any other chemical plant, polyhdroxybutyrate process plant also produces wastes in liquids and gaseous form. The main sources of waste are in liquid form comes from air filter (AF-101 and AF-102) consisting wastewater. Both the main fermenter and seed fermenter (V-101 and -102) produce CO2 and N2 as waste. This main waste still contain an appreciable quantity of organic substances and therefore must be purified before it is discharged from the plant.

6.1.2

Waste Minimization The best way to minimize waste is through source reduction. Source

reduction is a way to reduce the production of waste in the process. It is better not to produce waste rather than to implement extensive treatment schemes to insure that the quality of the environment is not damaged. Source reduction can accomplish by: i.

Good housekeeping practice

ii.

Input material modification

iii.

Technology modification

Technology modification can be further categorize as follows: 1. Process modification. 2. Improved control. 3. Equipment changes. 4. Energy conservation. 5. Water conservation

117 6.1.3

Objective of Waste Minimization Minimization of waste is the step taken before implementing waste

treatment. By doing so, manufacturers can save a lot of money by reducing waste treatment and disposal costs.

The purchase of raw material and

operating costs will also be reduced. The step above also helps manufacturers to meet national policy goals that are to protect the environment and promote good worker and public health. In this chapter we will not discuss more about this step, as we are more interested in treating the waste.

6.1.4

Waste Sources and Effect to Human and Environment The waste from the plant contains various types of chemical

compounds. This chemical compounds must be ensured to comply with the Malaysia Environmental Quality Act 1974 before discharged to the environment. Before the wastes are discharged to the environment, some consideration must be done. Firstly, we have to consider the economic aspect, whether the waste can be recover and sell as a product or not. Secondly, we have to consider the waste properties, whether it can be discharged directly to the environment. Thirdly, we have to consider from the safety reason, whether it is dangerous to the environment or not. Specifically there are several equipment that contain waste material in this process. The source of these waste generation is shown as below and the amount of each waste produced is described as below: Table 6. 1: Source and Waste Generated in PHB plant Source

Waste

Seed fermenter V-101

Carbon dioxide

Main fermenter V-102

Carbon dioxide

Centrifuge DS-101

Biomas, nutrient medium

118 Centrifuge DS-102

Water, biomass, surfactant (Triton X100), hypochlorite

Centrifuge DS-103

Water, biomass, surfactant (Triton X100), hypochlorite

Spray dryer SDR-101

Water, surfactant (Triton X-100), hypochlorite

Based on the table shown above, it is clear that seed fermenter and also fermenter used in the production of 50 MT of PHB per year will emit carbon dioxide gas as the by-product of the fermentation reaction that took place. From the mass balance calculation, total amount of carbon dioxide emission from seed fermenter V-101 and main fermenter V-102 are 31.99kg/batch. For 1st centrifuge, wastewater generated consists of biomass and nutrient medium that is 353.54 kg/batch. In the second centrifuge, wastewater consist of 635.98 kg/batch of residual liquid produced in that centrifuge, 619.9615 kg/hr constitutes of cell debris, 0.08935 kg/batch of biomass while water of 15.931 kg/batch. Meanwhile, in the third centrifuge, mass balance calculation revealed that 5589.20 kg/batch of wastewater is generated from the centrifugation.

6.1.5

Waste Management Option for Each Waste Produced Table 6. 2: Waste Management Options by Our Company Type of Waste

Waste Management Option

Carbon dioxide gas

Direct emission to environment

Biomass

Sell to fertilizer company : Sarawak Fertilizer Sdn Bhd

Sodium hypochlorite

Subjected to filtration using activated carbon filtration system and treatment by Kualiti Alam

Water + Surfactant

Treatment using activated sludge system.

119 Carbon dioxide gas is the by- product of fermentation reaction that took place in the seed fermenter and fermenter in our plant. We employed only one fermenter for our PHB production, where a total of 10244.52 kg/year of this gaseous residue will be emitted. Initially, the gases will be filtered by air filter installed in those seed fermenter and fermenter before it is discharged directly to the environment. This step is very essential in order to prevent any escape of microorganisms from the reactor. Hence, the safety level of the emitted gas is very high and it is totally free from any risk of microorganisms‟ escape. No further treatment is applied to this gas since the concentration of carbon dioxide gas released is below the discharge limit. The reference used for comparison of the concentration of carbon dioxide used is The Malaysian Standard Guidelines for Air Gaseous Pollutants under EQA as shown in Table

Table 6. 3: Malaysian Standard Guidelines for Air Gaseous Pollutants Pollutant

Averaging

Malaysian

Malaysian

Time

Guideline

Guideline

(ppm)

(µg/m3)

Compliance

CO2

8 hour

5000

90

1997

Particles

24 hours

-

260

1995

I year

90

Pollutant

Averaging time

Guidelines, µg/cm3

Malaysia Ambient Air Quality Guidelines Particulate Matter (PM10)

24h

150

Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)

24h

260

24h

30

Canada Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

United States of America Particulate Matter (PM10)

24h

150

120 Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

24h

35

Table 6. 4: Malaysia, Canada and USA Ambient Air Quality Guidelines

Since the concentration of carbon dioxide emitted from our plant is only 1.97 ppm, it is clearly below the discharge limit and thus its emission to the natural environment will not bring any hazardous effect to living organisms and also to the Mother Nature. From the mass balance, it is clear that the effluent waste from centrifuge 2 consists of biomass. Biomass is one of the most abundant resources in this world. In this production, biomass consists of living or dead cells of Cupriavidus necator H16, along with their metabolic constituents and waste. Basically, biomass contains a lot of chemical energy within them, where it can be converted to other form of energy, especially heat energy. Since Cupriavidus necator H16 is known to be opportunistic bacteria and can act as pathogens as well, our management planned to filter out all the Cupriavidus necator H16 from the centrifuge 2 in negative pressure condition and store them in a tightly enclosed storage tank in the biomass storage region. Since biomass is renewable, we planned to sell them to fertilizer company, where further treatment on the biomass can actually contribute to nutrient production for the plants or in agricultural sector. Our target biomass buyer is Sarawak Fertilizer Sdn. Bhd, a group of company incorporating at Kuching, Sarawak. As per discussion, they agreed to pay RM 150 to RM 250 for per kg of biomass since they will use the cells for further researches and for transformation into fertilizers as well. The third centrifuge and spray dryer generates sufficient amount of wastewater composing of water, surfactant and hypochlorite. The wastewater produced by these two equipment will be channeled to an activated carbon filtration system placed in the wastewater treatment region of the plant. The main purpose of channeling the wastewater mixture to the filtration system is to filter out sodium hypochlorite, which has the same properties of bleaching agent from the other two type of liquids. Then, the filtrate will be subjected to further wastewater treatment mechanism. After some period of efficient

121 filtration, backwashing process will be conducted on the activated carbon in order to flush out all the sodium hypochlorite that have been accumulated on top of the filter (DeSilva, 2000). The solution containing sodium hypochlorite is then sent to Kualiti Alam for further treatment. The waste that can be send to Kualiti Alam has been categorized differently by the management and the scheduled waste rates are classified according to the type of waste. The information is listed as follows:

Table 6. 5: Characterization of Waste Type According to MIDA

These chemical wastes must be treated in accordance with the general and specific standard. General prohibitions for discharging to sewers should mainly be established to protect the collection systems, treatment works and people as well as structures near the collection systems and treatment works, banning the discharge of combustibles materials which may cause fire and

122 explosion; limiting grease and oils to prevent pipelines from being clogged; prohibition of the discharge of hazardous substances to protect human health and the environment. The effluent of the plant must reach the Department of Environment specification, before it is can discharge to river or to atmosphere.

6.2

JABATAN ALAM SEKITAR (JAS) Schedule B and EQA

ENVIRONMETAL QUALITY ACT, 1974 Environmental Quality Act or EQA (1974) is the legislation related to the prevention, abatement, pollution control and enrichment and enhancement of the Malaysian environment. This act is mainly about the restriction of the waste discharge into the environment in contravention of the acceptable conditions.

6.2.1

Gaseous Emission Under EQA (1974), industries that are in potential of emitting gaseous

or air pollutants, they are required to ensure that the emission of their gaseous by-products to comply and obey with the following air emission standards for the control of air pollution and gaseous emissions. The standards are: i.

Stack Gas Emission Standards from Environmental Quality (Clean Air) regulations 1978 ;

ii.

Recommended Malaysian Air Quality Guidelines (Ambient Standards).

123

124

125

Under this aspect, our company did comply with all the standards, where the emission of carbon dioxide gas from our plant is below the discharge limit and thus no further treatment is needed as it is safe in nature.

6.2.2

Sewage, Industrial Effluent and Leachate Discharge Under the regulations set in Environmental Quality Act (1974),

industries discharging sewage, industrial effluent and leachate are compulsory to obey and comply with the following discharge limits: i.

Sewage Discharge Standards

ii.

Industrial Effluent discharge limits

iii.

Leachate discharge standards The standards are attached below according to the sequence of listing

done.

126

127

Appendix K2 is referred in the effluent management from our PHB production plant, where through planned and organized waste treatment system employed, all the discharge of waste effluents will be below the discharge limits set for Standard B. Thus, the regulations of EQA is fully obeyed in our company in order to ensure sustainability in economic growth and nature wealth. All the measures taken before discharging effluent is strictly done based on Environmental Regulations. Since PHB is an environmental- friendly substance produced in our plant, we will never ever sacrifice the harmonic relationship between nature and living organisms, just for the sake of economic wealth at any means.

128 6.3

Waste Treatment Option There are various ways to treat liquid or gaseous effluent in this PHB

production plant. The common and widely used treatment process in the industry includes a wide range of choice, either biological, chemical or physical methods. These methods have general criteria and will be further explained in details.

6.3.1

Biological Method Biological treatment process is widely adapted by plants that are

producing heavy stream of effluent with highly contaminant of soluble organic impurities or a mix of the two types of wastewater sources. This treatment can be divided into two major categories, aerobic and anaerobic process. Table 6.6 shows the comparison between these two types of process. Table 6. 6: Comparison of Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatment (Mittal, 2011) Parameter

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Microbial reactions take

Microbial reactions take

place in the presence of

place in the absence of

molecular/ free oxygen

molecular/ free oxygen

Reactions products are

Reactions products are

carbon dioxide, water

carbon dioxide, methane

and excess biomass

and excess biomass

Wastewater with low to

Wastewater with

medium organic

medium to high organic

impurities (COD < 1000

impurities (COD > 1000

ppm) and for

ppm) and easily

wastewater that are

biodegradable

difficult to biodegrade

wastewater e.g. food

e.g. municipal sewage,

and beverage

refinery wastewater etc.

wastewater rich in

Process Principle

Applications

129 starch/sugar/alcohol Reaction kinetic

Relatively fast

Relatively slow Relatively low

Net Sludge Yield

Relatively high

(generally one fifth to one tenth of aerobic treatment processes)

Typically direct Post Treatment

discharge or filtration/disinfection

Capital Investment

Example Technologies

6.3.2

Relatively high

Invariably followed by aerobic treatment Relatively low with pay back

Activated Sludge e.g.

Continuously stirred

Extended Aeration,

tank reactor/digester,

Oxidation Ditch, MBR,

Upflow Anaerobic

Fixed Film Processes

sludge Blanket (UASB),

e.g. Trickling

Ultra High Rate

Filter/Biotower, BAF,

Fluidized Bed reactors

MBBR or Hybrid

e.g. EGSBTM, ICTM

Processes e.g. IFAS

etc.

Chemical Method Generally, chemical treatment is according to the principle of oxidizing

the organic compound in the effluent using oxidant chemical to produce fundamental product of oxidation such as carbon dioxide and water. Common types of chemical treatment process are wet air oxidation, supercritical water oxidation, ozonolysis and chlorinolysis. These methods are only efficient for specific process especially inorganic contaminant. However, the usage of chemical might produces unwanted and dangerous product if the wastewater contains certain unpredicted compound that may react with the chemical used. Although this rarely happens, but the possibilities is there and any assurance of this will cause a very big problem. Economic wise, these chemicals less cost efficient compared to the physical method.

130

6.3.3

Physical Method Typical types of physical treatment process includes distillation,

evaporation, steam stripping, air stripping, liquid extraction, carbon adsorption and resin adsorption. The main advantages of physical process in general are its economic advantage, both in terms of capital investment and operating costs, and simplicity of its design and low maintenance. However, the cons is it is not very effective for the treatment of highly contaminated wastewater. Furthermore, most industrial processes tend to produce high volume of residual, which had to be treated by incineration, and this will cause extra cost. However, incineration can be used for direct ultimate disposal of the waste on its own individual operation without other pre-treatment physical instruments.

6.3.4

Selection of Method Based on the criteria laid out of the three methods of treatment process,

it is very clear that the biological processes will be very suitable treatment for this PHB production plant. For liquid waste treatment, activated sludge system is chosen. Although it cannot be assured to be cost efficient, it is very effective for organic waste treatment whilst the waste discharge will be more environmental friendly.

131 6.4

Process Description

Figure 6. 2: Conceptual Flow Diagram for Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment System

The process implemented to manage waste from the plant is biological treatment with activated sludge system. From Figure 6.2, the activated sludge system consists of a primary clarifier, an aeration tank, a secondary clarifier, and a disinfection region. In this case, the wastewater from streams S-120, S-129 and S-134 will be introduced to preliminary treatment and further fed to primary clarifier. Primary clarifier functions to remove sediment solids from the wastewater. The wastewater is then pumped into aeration tank. The aeration tank plays the most important role for the treatment, with the presence of sufficient aeration, the activated sludge or microorganisms will oxidize organic matter, both soluble and particulate efficiently in a semi-controlled environment. Subsequently, the treated wastewater will be channeled to the secondary clarifiers. Here, the microorganisms and suspended particles are given enough time to settle down. Excellent removal of organic matter is possible only by proper designing and operation of second clarifier. It plays three major roles such as thickening of biological solids for recycle, clarification of effluent wastewater and also to store the biological mass in the settling tank. By fully

132 maximizing this component, particulate fraction that contributes for eventually high BOD value of wastewater can be treated. Solid waste from primary and secondary clarifiers will be sent to Kualiti Alam for disposal. Liquid waste from secondary clarifier will be recycled to aeration tank. Finally, the treated wastewater will be disinfected with addition of chlorine dosage and will be nearly pure water and is safe to discharge into drainage system.

6.5

Waste in Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) Plant The environmental impact due to day-to-day operation and the

potential environmental damage that would result from a plant accident or spill have been considered. Potential emissions to the environment from the proposed hepatitis B vaccine plant have been assessed in two categories, airborne emissions and waterborne emissions. As we know the main product of this plant is polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), beside this product there are effluent gaseous stream by-products streams. The effluent gaseous in this plant is oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. These effluents gaseous are treated in a wet scrubber. The non-dangerous gaseous are released to the atmosphere. The total amount of money used for waste management is still considerable in our plant. Besides, we do generate revenue of RM 631,867 per year through the selling of biomass. For biomass, cell debris, and unwanted protein waste are sterilized first in an autoclave to kill bacteria and impurities before send to Kualiti Alam for waste management. Some of these products have commercial values, we plan to sell these products. Selling these by-products will add the revenue of the plant. We also have decided to send to Kualiti Alam for water and Water for Injection waste for water treatment before they are discharged to environment. All the wastes above cannot simply discharged to environment because it have contaminants that can cause the pollution to environment. Activated carbon filtration system will be purchased directly from the supplier, Zhucheng Innovation Huayi, China. The cost of purchasing is approximately RM 6279.48, whereas, the electricity and maintenance cost

133 annually amounts for RM 25,000.00. For the activated sludge wastewater treatment system, the designs of each component and costing is done according to W.M. Zahid (2007). The calculation for the cost of Kualiti Alam Service is shown in Appendix E.

Table 6. 7: Total Gaseous Waste WASTE

Carbon dioxide

TYPE OF

AMOUNT

WASTE

WASTE

(kg/year)

MANAGEMENT

Gas

4157.92

Wet scrubber

Gas

423,763

Wet scrubber

Gas

109,695

Wet scrubber

(0.80ppm) Nitrogen (81.7ppm) Oxygen (21.15ppm) TOTAL

4581.683 kg/year

Table 6. 8: Total Waste Summary WASTE

TYPE OF

AMOUNT

WASTE

(kg/year)

Biomass

Solid waste

45973.45

Autoclave – Sarawak Fertilizer

Cell debris

Solid waste

81851.45

Autoclave – Sarawak Fertilizer

TOTAL

WASTE MANAGEMENT

127824.89 = RM31,956.22 (Sarawak Fertilizer: RM250/tonne)

Sodium

Chemical

189,076.25

Kualiti Alam / Sell to chemical company

hypochlorite water TOTAL

Chemical

119,727.4 308,803

Kualiti Alam = RM611,431 (Kualiti

Alam:RM1980/tonne)

134 Table 6. 9: Costing for Waste Treatment Option Employed in Our Company Treatment option/ Equipment

Cost (RM)

Activated Carbon Filtration System

6279.48

Electricity + Maintenance (per year)

25,000.00

Activated Sludge System

450,986.00 (W.M. Zahid, 2007)

Kualiti Alam service

30.96

Transportation service (Sg.Bako to

1500

Kuching ) TOTAL

483,796

135 CHAPTER 7 SITE SELECTION AND PLANT LAYOUT

7.1

Introduction One of the crucial stages in the designing of plant is the selection of a

suitable site to create the secure and well developed plant as well as the selection will result in a process in which the costs are minimized. Serious consideration must be highlighted before locating a plant in Malaysia. The site selection is to ensure adequate protection of site personnel, the public and the environment from the impacts of the construction and operation of the plant. Therefore, there are three locations that were identified and chose to setup the polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) plant which are: i. Tanjung Langsat, Johor ii. Sungai Bako area, Kuching, Sarawak

7.2

General Consideration of Plant Location The final choice of the site location should be made after reviewing the

entire locations factor. There are several factors to be considered when selecting a suitable site. Below are the lists of the factors to be considered: 

Type of Industry Preferred and Location



Availability of Raw Material



Utility



Land Selling Price and Area Still Available



Transportation System



Availability of Manpower



Research and Development Organization



Geography, Climate and Environment



Government Incentive



Effluent Disposal

136

7.3

Type of Industry Preferred and Location In doing this research on the suitable location to build up the bioprocessing

plant, the preferred location is the place that can provide a fully facilities for running the plant process until the facilities provided for distribute it product to the customers. It is important because all the facilities and incentives that provide by federal government and state government are based on the types of industries that can be run on that industrial area. Johor and Sarawak can be suitable for bioprocessing plant as this type of the selected location is the industrial area. So, by choosing these locations as a suggestion for setup a PHB plant is the most suitable one.

7.3.1

Availability of Raw Material Raw material is one of the most important factors in production. We

have to pay attention to the distance of the sources of raw material, the purity of the raw material and the storage system that is applicable and suitable with the characteristics of the raw material. In running the plant to produce PHB, it is only one major raw material is used which is Jatropha oil. In Malaysia, there are many Jatropha oil suppliers. But some of the large scale suppliers are located in Sarawak, Selangor and Johor which are stated below: Frozen Food Bhd 

Frozen Food Bhd is established in 2005. It is based in Kuching, Sarawak. It was leading exporter and supplier of high quality Whole Frozen Chicken Halal from CIS with trademark. Other than Jatropha oil, they too export worldwide the beef tallow, mutton tallow, frozen chicken , chicken feet, whole chicken , buffalo beef , cattle beef, sugar, , yellow and white corn, onion, sunflower oil, soybean cooking oil, vegetable cooking oil, seeds and nuts and frozen food and meat product.

Ganda Edible Oils Sdn Bhd

137 

Ganda Edible Oils Sdn Bhd, is a manufacturer of edible oils such as Palm oil, Sunflower oil, Soyabean Oil, Canola and also Jatropha oil for biodiesel. It was established in 2007, and situated in Taman Mount Austin, Johor Bahru.

Omega International Sdn Bhd Malaysia 

Omega International SDN BHD Malaysia located at Muara Tabuan Kuching, Sarawak. The company is a leading exporting trading company in Malaysia. They deal directly with manufacturing company that offers competitive prices. Other products than jatropha oil are paint and coating chemicals, charcoal, dairy product and other office and school suppliers.

7.3.2

Utilities Utility cover the facilities of water supply and electricity supply. These

entire two components are important factors that ensure the smooth operation of a plant. Most of the bioprocessing plant requires large quantities of water for cooling and general process usage. Therefore the availability of water reservoirs nearby must be ensured. Besides, the plant also needs electricity to operate.

7.3.3

Water Supply The location of our plant should be near with water supply with

minimum water shortage problem. We also have to consider the water quality parameter such as temperature, mineral content and the probability of in need of water treatment. Table 7. 1: Water Provider Based on Location Location

Provider

Supply capacity

Tanjung Langsat,

Sg Layang

180 MLD

Johor

Water Treatment

138 Sungai Bako area,

Batu Kitang Treatment

Kuching, Sarawak

Plant

7.3.4

166 MLD

Electricity Supply Electrical power will be needed at all sites. The plant must be located

close to a cheap source of power. A competitively priced fuel must be available on site for steam and power generation. Table 7. 2: Electricity Provider Based On Location Location

Tanjung Langsat, Johor



Provider

Supply capacity

Sultan Iskandar



630MW



400MW



210MW



114MW

Power Station (TNB) 

YTL Pasir Gudang

Sungai

Bako

area,



Kuching, Sarawak

Sejingkat Power Station, Kuching



Tun Abdul Rahman Power Station, Kuching

7.3.5

Land Selling Price and Area Still Available The cost of the land depends on the location and varies between rural

and industrial area. We have to consider factors that make our plant strategic towards the company production. We also need to consider the price of the land while keeping in track with our company budget. The land should ideally be flat, well drained and have suitable load-bearing characteristics. Furthermore, the chosen site location should provide storage, and handling infrastructure, emergency and other facilities as well.

139 Table 7.7: Land Prices Based On Location Location

Land Selling Price

Land Size

Tanjung Langsat, Johor

RM 35,000

5 acres

RM 450,000

17.7 acres

Sungai Bako area, Kuching, Sarawak

7.3.6

Transportation System The transport of materials and products to and from the plant will be an

overriding consideration in site selection. If practicable, a site should be selected that is close to at least two major forms of transport. Table7.8: Transportation system based on location Location Tanjung Langsat, Johor

Facilities Ports: 

Located 5 km from Johor Port

Airport: 

Around 57 km from Senai International Airport

Road Network: 

Around 35 km from raw material supplier (Ganda Edible Oils Sdn Bhd)

Sungai Bako area, Kuching, Sarawak

Ports: 

Located near from Kuching Port

Airport 

Around 17 km to Kuching International Airport

Road Network: 

Around 20km from raw

140 material supplier (Frozen Food Bhd)

7.3.7

Availability of Manpower The manpower availability in the vicinity of the proposed site should

be considered. We required prevailing pay scales and suitable working hours. Labour will be needed for construction of the plant and its operation. Skilled construction workers will usually be brought in from outside the site area, but there should be an adequate pool of unskilled labour available locally and suitable labour for training to operate the plant. Skilled tradesman will be needed for plant maintenance. Local trade union customs and restrictive practices will have to be considered when assessing the availability and suitability of the local labour for recruitment and training.

7.3.8

Research and Development Organization From day to day, research and development (R&D) is important to

improve our production. By doing a research, a new thing could be recovered and all this research will be conduct by any research centre or higher education institution. It is important to have all this organization a round industrial area to support the industrial in the future growth.

7.3.9

Geography, Climate and Environment The types of land surface and adverse climatic conditions at a site will

increase cost. Abnormally low temperatures will require the provision of additional insulation and special heating for equipment and pipe runs. Stronger structures will be needed at locations subject to high winds or earthquakes.

141 7.3.10 Government Incentive Capital grants, tax concessions and other inducements are often given by the governments to direct new investment to preferred location. The availability of such incentive can be the overriding consideration in site selection.

7.3.11 Waste and Effluent Disposal Facilities The plant should have satisfactory and efficient disposal system for waste or industry effluent such as drainage system and the dumping site. Local regulations will cover the disposal of toxic and harmful waste and appropriated authorities must consult proper waste disposal system. Full consideration must be given to the cost of the waste and effluent disposal.

7.4

Site Selection analysis Based on the comparisons made in the Table 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4, we

decided to choose land at Sungai Bako area Kuching, Sarawak as our future plant site location. It is much bigger than the land at Tanjung Langsat, Johor. Besides, Sungai Bako area Kuching, Sarawak located closer to our raw material source. Moreover, there are many other suppliers in Sarawak compared to in the peninsular Malaysia. This will help us to decrease the transportation costs and total production costs and also saves time in term of raw material delivery. The major Jatropha oil supplier will be from Omega International SDN BHD Malaysia and Frozen Food Bhd. In addition, it also has adequate supply of energy from Sejingkat Power Station, Kuching and Tun Abdul Rahman Power Station, Kuching. While as for water supply comes from Batu Kitang Treatment Plant. This will ensure smooth run of new plant. The plant location chosen at Sungai Bako area Kuching, Sarawak is the most strategic site for building new plant for production of PHB.

142 7.5

Plant Layout

7.5.1

Introduction After deciding above the proper site for locating an industrial unit, next

important point to be considered is to decide about the appropriate layout for the plant. Plant layout is primarily concerned with the internal set up of an enterprise in a proper manner. It is concerned with the orderly and proper arrangement and use of available resources viz., men, money, machines, materials and methods of production inside the factory. A well designed plant layout is concerned with maximum and effective 168tilization of available resources at minimum operating costs. (Smriti Chand, 2014) The term plant layout is used in broad sense to include factory layout and machine layout. A plant layout refers to the arrangement of machinery, equipments and other industrial facilities – such as receiving and shipping departments, tool rooms, maintenance rooms, employee amenities etc. for the purpose of achieving the quickest and smoothest production of the lest cost. (Himanshu. K.G, 2013).

7.5.2

Definition Plant layout may be defined as physical arrangements of industrial

facilities. This arrangement includes the space needed for material movements, storage, indirect labour and all other supporting activities or services as well as operating equipment and personnel. Plant layout basically: 1. Placing the right equipment. 2. Coupled with the right method. 3. In the right place. 4. To permit the processing of a product unit in the most effective manner, through the shortest possible distance, and in the shortest possible time. (Himanshu. K.G, 2013)

143 7.5.3

Objectives of Plant Layout The main objective consists of organizing equipment and working

areas in the most efficient way, and at the same time satisfactory and safe for the personnel doing the work. 1. Sense of Unity a. The feeling of being a unit pursuing the same objective. b. Minimum Movement of people, material and resources. 2. Safety a. In the movement of materials and personnel work flow. 3. Flexibility a. In designing the plant layout taking into account the changes over short and medium terms in the production process and manufacturing volumes. These main objectives are reached through the attainment of the following facts: 

Congestion reduction.



Elimination of unnecessary occupied areas.



Reduction of administrative and indirect work.



Improvement on control and supervision.



Better adjustment to changing conditions.



Better utilization of the workforce, equipment and services.



Reduction of material handling activities and stock in process.



Reduction on parts and quality risks.



Reduction on health risks and increase on workers safety.



Moral and workers satisfaction increase.



Reduction on delays and manufacturing time, as well as increase in production capacity.

All these factors will not be reached simultaneously, so the best solution will be a balance among them.

144 7.5.4

Factors Affecting the Plant Layout a) Product and Material Specification: Material form, weight,

physical and chemical characteristics of material used has great influence in

locating a facility. These factors influence all parameters of the layout. Products requiring hazardous and dangerous operations call for isolation of the facility instead of integration on a line basis. b) Location and site of the plant: Site location has big influence when preparing layout. A plant has to get raw material from source and send the products to the market. Hence the receiving department and the shipping department must be properly located so that the receiving and shipping will not become a problem. The attitude of the community, availability of power supply and water has influence in locating the departments appropriately. c) Manufacturing Process: The manufacturing process decide the flow of material, types of machine required and the material handling facilities required. Depending on the size and weight of the machine and raw material, the working area required and additional space required to store in process inventory has to be decided. d) Material handling: Material handling need to keep as low as possible to reduce the production cost. This point applies to all aspects of manufacturing, for example, raw material handling, handling of in process inventory, handling of scrap and waste and finished product. Material handling and plant layout are closely related. e) Storage on in-process inventory: Material waiting time should be kept at minimum to eliminate unimportant cost. Layout should be designed in such way that material does not wait in-between two processes. f) Plant personnel and Employee facilities: Facilities like rest room, vehicle parking facilities, café and safety guards for machine should be considered while preparing layout.

145 g) Work Areas and Equipment: Work areas are properly designed, so that workers can move without much difficulty and material can be handled with least difficulty. Sufficient place should be provide for maintenance personnel to attend to the repairs or maintenance of the machines. h) Disposal of waste and dangerous gasses: Proper waste disposal facilities should be provided at appropriate palces, so that they are disposed to a remote place, so that they won‟t be harmful to the workers or the community living around the plant. i) Flexibility: Factor of flexibility must be incorporate while preparing the layout as time pass plant needs a chance. Change in product design or change in material used or process lead to change in layout.( P. Rama Murthy, 2005) The plant layout shall be arranged to: 1. Maximize safety; 2. Prevent spread fire 3. Facilitate easy operation and maintenance 4. Consider future expansion 5. Economize project (KLM Technology Group, Feb 2011)

146

Figure 7. 1: Plant Layout of PHB plant

147 The most important factors of plant layout as far as safety aspects are concerned are those to prevent, limit and/or mitigate escalation of adjacent events (domino). Designed plant layout will ensure all the safety within on-site occupied buildings by installation of amount of fire extinguisher. Control access of unauthorized personnel can be done by security system which is strictly applied. Emergency door enable facilitate access for emergency services. Plant layout is designed fully according to all the factors and objectives in order to reduce the production cost and ensure smooth operation of whole plant. Table below show all the functions and location of designed buildings and rooms in plant layout. Table 7. 3: Building and Location in the Plant Layout Buildings / Rooms/ Equipment Offices 

Office for management board



Manage the plant



Deal with supplier

Location 

Located away from operation plant for safety



Near the main entrance



Located at both main gate

Workshop



Near the plant area





Easy to conduct maintenance

Workshop



emergency on equipment;





malfunction, breakdown



Equally distribute most corner

Security room and post guard 

Control and checking all vehicle in and out



Record workers attendance and visitors



Deliver pass for visitors

For mechanical and electrical

For maintenance purpose

Fire Assembly point 

Fire assemble for place all personnel and works placed if

area of plant

emergency happen Control room 

Manage and control all



Near plant building

148 machines and equipment in operation line Electrical Room 

Main power control room



Enable maintenance of any



Located beside the processing area

electrical supply issue General Storage 

For storage of sample of product





Located beside laboratory



Near the processing area



Easy to transfer raw material

Storage of spare equipment or apparatus need for production line.

Raw Material Storage 

To keep raw material in suitable and safe condition

to process area Laboratory 

To analyze quality of the product





Near processing area



Near processing area



Located beside the production

Do experiment for better product

Chemical Storage 

Storing chemicals that need for production in safe and suitable condition.

Waste treatment plant 

Treating waste from production line

area

Product Storage 

Keep standard product in safe and dry

Loading Area



Located near production area

149 

Prepare transfer of product to



truck and deliver to customer

Located beside product storage room

Generator Room 

Temporary generate electric power automatically to plant



Near Processing Area



Beside processing area



Near Processing area

when there is electric supply disturbance Biomass Waste Storage 

Temporary store biomass waste from production line in safe condition

Packaging Room 

Seal final quality product in standard packaging

150 CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

8.1

Introduction Main objective of setting up a feasible plant is to gain profit. In this

chapter, it will focus on economic analysis where discounted cash flow is evaluated. Economic potential were evaluated in previous chapters is to give rough estimation of a plant profitability. Economic potential does not clearly determine the actual economic performance as time value of money, plant lifetime, or international and local trade regulations are not taken into consideration. Economic analysis of this PHB plant has to be performed, which is done by estimating fixed capital investment, total capital investment, total production cost and revenue from sales.

8.2

Grass Root Capital Grass root capital (GRC) is defined as the cost of equipment

installation in a plant. The term grass roots refers to a completely new facility in which construction on essentially undeveloped land, a grass field. This capital cost make up ajor portion of total fixed capital cost. In order to evaluate the estimate cost of equipment involved in this PHB plant, bare module cost (BMC) method is used. Table 8.1 summarizes the bare module cost for all equipment and detailed calculations are shown in Appendix A Table 8. 1: Bare Module Cost of Equipment in PHB Plant Equipment

CBM (RM)

Gas Compressor G-101

34,762.34

Air Filter AF-101

12,475.32

Air Filter AF-102

12,475.32

Flow Splitter FSP-101

40,719.06

151 Flow Splitter FSP-102

1,105,663.95

Mixer MX-101

43,514.64

Mixer MX-102

72,742.71

Heat Sterilizer ST-101

12,475.32

Heat Sterilizer ST-102

12,475.32

Seed Fermenter V-101

72,194.35

Main Fermenter V-102

663,087.65

Storage V-103

55,018.36

Blending Tank V-104

12,360.99

Blending Tank V-105

91,835.10

Centrifuge DS-101

79,689.43

Centrifuge DS-102

88,198.73

Centrifuge DS-103

81,212.16

Pump PM-101

23,067.68

Pump PM-102

31,239.37

Pump PM-103

5,763.94

Pump PM-104

5,763.94

Pump PM-105

5,763.94

Pump PM-106

5,763.94

Spray Dryer SDR-101

17,804.03

Total Bare Module Cost, CTBM

2,586,067.58

The total module cost can be evaluated from (Turton et al., 2009) CTM = 1.18(ΣCTBM)

----- (8.1)

And the grass root costs can be evaluated from (Turton et. al., 2009) CGR = CTM + Auxiliary Cost ----- (8.2) In addition to direct and indirect costs, it is necessary to take into account for other cost such as contingency and fee cost, and auxiliary facility cost. Table 8.2 shows estimation of GRC.

152 Table 8. 2: Estimation of Grass Root Capital, GRC. Investment

Cost (RM)

Contingency and Fees (8% of CTBM)

206,886.00

Auxiliary and Facility (10% of

279,295.00

CTBM) Total Module Cost (CTM)

3,051,560.00

Grass Root Capitals (CGR)

3,356,716.00

8.3

Capital Investment It is known that a lot of expenses involved in purchasing and installing

equipment and facilities before an industrial plant can fully operate. Land and service facility must be obtained beforehand followed by installing equipment, piping and control system, and so forth for smooth operation of plant. Therefore, money is crucial in the build-up and operation of the plant. For build-up plant, the capital involved in the expenses of manufacturing nad plant facilities is called fixed capital investment (FCI). On the other hand, the capital used for operation of the plant is known as the working capital. The sum of these capitals is called total capital investment (TCI).

8.3.1

Fixed and Total Capital Investment FCI represents the capital that used for installed process equipment

with all auxiliaries that necessary for the process operation. It is categorized into two categories; direct and indirect cost. FCI value is obtained by summing the GRC with the direct and indirect costs. Direct cost is the cost that used for purchasing and installing equipment with all piping system and control system and also the expenses on land and service facilities; while indirect cost refers to the cost pay to contractors and others. The formula to obtain TCI is as shown in Equation 8.3

153 TCI = FCI + Working Capital + Start Up ----- (8.3) Working Capital (WC) consists of the total amount of money invested in raw materials and supplies carried in stock, finished products in stock and semi-finished products in the process of being manufactured, account receivable, cash kept on hand for monthly payment of operating expenses, e.g. salaries, wages and raw material purchases. Table 8.3 shows the amount of fixed and total capital investment of this PHB plant. Table 8. 3: Fixed and Total Capital Investment Total Capital Investment Factor of GRC

Direct Cost Onsite Purchased Equipment Installation Piping (installed) Instrumentation and Control (installed) Electrical and Material (installed) Offsite Building Land Service Facilities Total

Indirect cost Contingency Construction Expenses Engineering and supervision Contractor‟s Fee Total Total Cost = Direct Cost + Indirect Cost Fix Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital Total Capital Investment (TCI)

8.4

Cost (RM)

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02

214,126.40 142,750.93 71,375.47 71,375.47

0.02 0.01 0.08

71,375.47 35,687.73 285,501.86 892,193.32

Factor of GRC 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02

Cost (RM) 178,438.66 107,063.20 71,375.47 71,375.47 428,252.79 1,320,446.11 Total Cost + GRC 4,889,219.37 10% × FCI 488,921.94 5,378,141.31

Manufacturing Cost Manufacturing cost comprises of direct manufacturing expenses,

general manufacturing cost, manufacturing expense, annual depreciation, total expenses, revenue from sales and net annual profit, as well as rate of return.

154 This manufacturing cost has to be paid by investors per year in order to produce constant production of PHB. Direct manufacturing costs are costs represent operating expenses that vary with production rate. It comprises of cost of raw materials, waste treatment, utilities, operating labor, direct supervisory and clerical labor, maintenance and repairs, laboratory charges, and patents and royalties (Turton et al., 2009). i.

Operating labor refers to people who actually run the equipment. It estimates the amount of workers that are needed in the plant as well as labor cost required.

ii.

Direct supervision and clerical labor usually include the cost of administrative, engineering, and personnel support. It is 10% of operating labor cost.

iii.

Maintenance and repairs constitute an important and necessary budget item in the plant and assume to be costs 2% of fixed capital investment.

iv.

Operating supplies include replaceable materials such as instrument charts, lubricants, custodial supplies, and other items not considered as part of regular maintenance. It is suggested that it costs 0.5% of fixed capital investment.

v.

Laboratory expenses result from quality control testing and chemical or physical analyses for product improvement. It is 10% of operating labor cost.

vi.

Patents and royalties is the cost of using patented or licensed technology which is 6% of total manufacturing cost. According to Turton et al. (2009), fixed manufacturing cost is defined

as the cost that are independent of change in production. It comprises of plant overhead cost, local taxes, insurances, and depreciation. i.

Plant overhead cost is catch-all costs associated with operations of auxiliary facilities supporting the manufacturing process. The cost is summation of 70.8% operating labor cost and 3.6% fixed capital cost.

155 ii.

Local taxes and insurance is the cost associated with property taxes and liability insurance. It usually based on the plant location and severity of the process. It could be 1.4% of fixed capital investment.

iii.

The value of plant will depreciate year after year. Thus it is consider depreciation as 10% of fixed capital investment.

In addition to direct and fixed manufacturing cost, a certain portion of corporate management cost, sales expense, and research effort must be financed from the plant. Among them are the expenses are administrative cost, distribution and selling expenses, as well as research and development cost (Turton et al., 2009). i.

Administrative cost is the costs for administration procedures which includes salaries, other administration, building and other related activities. It assumed to be summation of 17.7% operating labor cost and 0.9% fixed capital investment.

ii.

Distribution and selling expenses are the costs of sales and marketing required to sell chemical products which is 11% of total manufacturing costs.

iii.

Research and development costs are the costs of research activities related to the process and products which include salaries and funds for research related equipment and supplies. It could be 5% of total manufacturing costs. Manufacturing cost can be calculated by using formula in Equation 8.4

COM = 0.280FCI + 2.73COL + 1.23 (CUT + CWT + CRM) ----- (8.4) Table 8.4 shows estimation of operating labor cost, while Table 8.5 summarizes the summary of manufacturing cost. Table 8. 4: Estimation of Operating Labor Cost Equipment Type

No. of Equipment

Compressor

1

Air filter

2

156 Sterilizers

2

Fermenters

2

Centrifuges

3

Blending Tanks

2

Spray Dryers

1

Total (Nnp)

13

Number of operators per shift, NOL can be calculated by using this formula; NOL = (6.29 + 31.7P2 + 0.23Nnp)0.5 where P: Number of particulate processing step Nnp: Number of non-particulate processing step Number of operators per shift is 22.726 or 23. For three shifts a day, number of operators required per day is 68 and since average wages for operators is RM850/month, total labour cost per year is about RM 695,421.61. Table 8. 5: Summary of Manufacturing Cost Manufacturing Cost Summary RM/kg

Amount (kg/year)

350

50000

PHB

Sale Revenue (RM/year) 17,500,000

Direct Manufacturing Cost No. of batches per year = Raw Materials

130 Amount, kg/batch

Amount,

RM/k

Total

kg/year

g

(RM/year)

Jatropha oil

390

50700

2.73

138,411.00

Urea

0.25

32.5

10.50

341.25

Total Cost of Raw Materials

138,752.25

Waste Treatment Activated Carbon Filtration System

8,052.50

Electricity + Maintenance

20,000.00

157 Activated Sludge System

451,000.00

Kualiti Alam Service

2,500,000.00

Transportation

100,000.00

Total Waste Treatment Cost

3,079,052.50 Utilities

Power Equipment

Consumption (kW/batch)

Industry tariff (Tenaga

0.38

MYR/kWh

Nasional)

P-1/G-101

172.79

8000

hour/year

Pumps

522.26

130

btch/year

P-11/PV-105

10.58

23.38

P-14/PV-106

13.38

Total usage

719.01

Total usage per year

93,471.09

kW/year

Total Electricity Cost

16,813.73

MYR/year

MYR/kW/bat ch

Industry Equipment

Steam supply

tariff

(kg/h)

(Malaysian

0.62

MYR/kg

0.1

MYR/m3

1000

kg/m3

Gas) P-3/V-101

43.49

P-8/ST-101

187.20

P-4/V-101

266.95

P-6/V-102

626.53

Total usage

1,124.17

Total usage per year

8,993,360.00

kg/year

Total Steam Cost

5,575,883.20

MYR/year Industry

Equipment

Water supply (kg/batch)

Tariff (Lembaga Air Sarawak)

P-5/SFR-101

113.84

P-4/V-101

418.06

P-6/V-102

3,162.56

P-16/V-104

9,155.05

Total usage

12,849.51

Water density

kg/batch

158 Total usage per year Total Water Cost

1,670,436.44

kg/year

167.04

MYR/year

Total Utilities COST

5,592,863.98

FCI

4,889,219.37

COL

695,421.61

Cost of Manufacturing, COM

Maintenance and repairs

0.280FCI + 2.73COL + 1.23 (CUT + CWT +

14,104,604.9

CRM)

5

2% × FCI

97,784.39

0.5% × FCI

24,446.10

10% × COL

69,542.16

Laboratory charges

10% x COL

69,542.16

Patents and Royalties

6% X COM

846,276.30

Operating supplies Direct Supervision & Clerical Labor

Total Direct Manufacturing Cost (TDMC)

10,496,073.75

Fixed Manufacturing Cost 0.708COL +

Plant Overhead Cost

668,370.40

0.036FCI

Local Taxes and Insurance Depreciation

0.014FCI

68,449.07

0.1FCI

488,921.94

Total Fixed Manufacturing Cost, TFMC

1,313,747.35

General Manufacturing Cost Administration Cost Research & Development

0.177COL +

167,092.60

0.009FCI 0.05COM

705,230.25

Total General Manufacturing Cost, TGMC

2,423,829.39

Annual Manufacturing Expenses, AME

14,233,650.50

Annual Net Profit, ANP Income Taxes

Revenue from sales - ATE

3,266,349.50

30% × ANP

979,904.85

Net Annual Profit, ANNP

2,286,444.65

Rate of Return, I% (ANNP + ABD) / TCI × 100% =

52%

From Table 8.5, it is determined that the rate of return (ROR) is 52%.

159

8.5

Cash Flow Analysis The final step in the profitability analysis is to determine the payback

period (PBP), discounted break event point (DBEP), and net present value (NPV) of the PHB plant. Some assumptions are made in this cash flow analysis: i.

2 years start-up is required for a new PHB plant.

ii.

PHB plant operation life is 20 years.

iii.

30% of total capital investment (TCI) is expended on the plant first start-up year and 70% of TCI is expended in the second start-up year.

iv.

30% of the federal income tax.

v.

Sales income for the first year after start-up is 80% of the targeted value.

8.5.1

Payback Period Analysis Payback period (PBP) is defined as the length of time in which the

initial cash outflow of an investment is expected to be recovered from the cash inflows generated by the investment. In terms of cash flow analysis, PBP is the time required after start-up until cumulative undiscounted cash flow repays fixed capital investment. PBP is important since it can determine the feasibility of a PHB plant. Table 8.6 shows the cash flow analysis for undiscounted rate (I=0%) and Figure 8.1 illustrates the cash flow diagram with the payback period. Table 8.7 shows cash flow analysis for various discounted rate and Figure 8.2 shows the discounted cash flow diagram according to FCI is RM 4,889,219.37 and working capital at the end of year 2 is RM 488,921.94. In the Figure 8.1, PBP is determined as 4.5 years.

160

Undiscounted Cash Flow Analysis Annual Capital Year

Investment A(I)

Sales Income

Depreciation

AS

AD

Total Expanses APC

Cash Income AS-APC

Net Profit

Federal

(AS-APC)-

Income

AD

Taxes AIT

Net Profit after Taxes

Net Cash

(AS-APC-

Income

AD)-AIT

Summation Net Cash Income

0

537,814.13

- 537,814.13

- 537,814.13

1

5,867,063.75

- 5,867,063.75

- 6,404,877.88

2

14,000,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

- 233,650.50

- 722,572.43

- 36,128.62

- 686,443.81

- 686,443.81

- 7,091,321.69

3

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

- 4,452,765.50

4

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

- 1,814,209.31

5

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

824,346.88

6

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

3,462,903.07

7

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

6,101,459.26

8

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

8,740,015.44

9

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

11,378,571.63

10

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

14,017,127.82

11

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

16,655,684.01

12

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

19,294,240.20

13

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

21,932,796.39

14

17,500,000.00

488,921.94

14,233,650.50

3,266,349.50

2,777,427.57

138,871.38

2,638,556.19

2,638,556.19

24,571,352.58

Table 8. 6: Cash Flow Analysis for Undiscounted Rate, I%

161

Undiscounted Cash Flow 30,000,000.00 25,000,000.00

Cumulative Cash Flow (RM)

20,000,000.00

Payback Period = 4.5 years

15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

(5,000,000.00) (10,000,000.00)

Year

Figure 8. 1: Undiscounted Cash Flow

10

11

12

13

14

15

162 Table 8. 7: Discounted Cash Flow Summary Discounted Factor Cash flow Analysis for 10.00%, 20.00% and 30.00% Discount Year

Net Cash Income

Factor

Discounted Cash

Discounted Cash

Discount

Discounted

Discounted Cash

Discount

Discounted

Discounted Cash

Flow for 10%

Factor

Cash

Flow for 20%

Factor

Cash

Flow for 30%

Cumulative

fd (20%)

Flow for 20%

Cumulative

fd (30%)

Flow for 30%

Cumulative

448,178.44

0.77

- 413,703.18

-

413,703.18

Flow for 10%

fd (10%) 0

- 537,814.13

0.91

-

488,921.94

1

- 5,867,063.75

0.83

-

2

- 686,443.81

0.75

-

3

2,638,556.19

0.68

1,802,169.38

4

2,638,556.19

0.62

5

2,638,556.19

6

-

488,921.94

0.83

-

4,848,813.01

- 5,337,734.95

0.69

- 4,074,349.82

- 4,522,528.27

0.59

-3,471,635.35

-

3,885,338.53

515,735.40

- 5,853,470.35

0.58

-

- 4,919,775.84

0.46

- 312,445.98

-

4,197,784.51

- 4,051,300.97

0.48

1,272,451.87

- 3,647,323.98

0.35

923,831.86

-

3,273,952.64

1,638,335.80

- 2,412,965.17

0.40

1,060,376.55

- 2,586,947.42

0.27

710,639.90

-

2,563,312.75

0.56

1,489,396.18

-

0.33

883,647.13

- 1,703,300.29

0.21

546,646.07

-

2,016,666.67

2,638,556.19

0.51

1,353,996.53

430,427.54

0.28

736,372.61

-

966,927.69

0.16

420,496.98

-

1,596,169.69

7

2,638,556.19

0.47

1,230,905.94

1,661,333.48

0.23

613,643.84

-

353,283.85

0.12

323,459.22

-

1,272,710.48

8

2,638,556.19

0.42

1,119,005.40

2,780,338.87

0.19

511,369.87

158,086.02

0.09

248,814.78

-

1,023,895.70

9

2,638,556.19

0.39

1,017,277.63

3,797,616.51

0.16

426,141.56

584,227.58

0.07

191,395.99

-

832,499.71

10

2,638,556.19

0.35

924,797.85

4,722,414.35

0.13

355,117.96

939,345.54

0.06

147,227.68

-

685,272.03

11

2,638,556.19

0.32

840,725.32

5,563,139.67

0.11

295,931.64

1,235,277.17

0.04

113,252.06

-

572,019.97

12

2,638,556.19

0.29

764,295.74

6,327,435.41

0.09

246,609.70

1,481,886.87

0.03

87,116.97

-

484,903.00

13

2,638,556.19

0.26

694,814.31

7,022,249.72

0.08

205,508.08

1,687,394.95

0.03

67,013.05

-

417,889.94

14

2,638,556.19

0.24

631,649.37

7,653,899.10

0.06

171,256.73

1,858,651.68

0.02

51,548.50

-

366,341.44

923,568.99

448,178.44

397,247.58

-

163

Discounted Cash Flow 30,000,000.00

Cumulative Cash Flow, RM

25,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00

10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(5,000,000.00) (10,000,000.00)

Year 0%

10%

20%

30%

Figure 8. 2: Discounted Cash Flow

9

10

11

12

13

14

164 Table 8. 8: Net Present Value for Discounted Rate Interest, I (%)

NPV (RM)

0

24,571,352.58

10

7,653,899.10

20

1,858,651.68

30

-

366,341.44

Discounted break-even point is when the time that used for discounted cumulative cash flow become positive after decided to proceed which the total income is higher than total production cost (Ulrich, 1984). Net present value is the final cumulative of the annual discounted cash flow value at project conclusion (Saravacos & Kostaropoulos, 2002). When the fractional interest rate for which net present value equals to zero after number of years, the discounted break-even point is called discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFRR). The DCFRR also knows as the profitability index, initial rate of return or investor‟s rate of return (Saravacos & Kostaropoulos, 2002). This rate of return is equivalent to the maximum interest rate (which is normally, after taxes). This is because money could be borrowed to finance the project under conditions where the net cash flow to the project over its life would be just sufficient to pay all principal and interest accumulated on the outstanding principal (Peters & Timmerhaus, 2004). Then, the graph of cumulative discounted annual cash flow at different rate of return versus time is plotted and shown in Figure 8-2. The discounted cash flow rate of return is interpolated from values in Table 8.8 and it is obtained that 28.35%. Based on the Figure 8.1 and the calculation, the payback period for this PHB plant is 4.5 years.

165

Discounted Factor Cash flow Analysis for 28.35% Year

Net Cash Income

Discount Factor

Discounted Cash

Discounted Cash

fd (28.35%)

Flow for 28.35%

Flow for 28.35% Cumulative

0

-

537,814.13

0.77912

-

419,021.53

-

419,021.53

1

-

5,867,063.75

0.60703

-

3,561,468.12

-

3,980,489.65

2

-

686,443.81

0.47295

-

324,651.47

-

4,305,141.12

3

2,638,556.19

0.36848

972,260.98

-

3,332,880.14

4

2,638,556.19

0.28709

757,507.58

-

2,575,372.56

5

2,638,556.19

0.22368

590,189.00

-

1,985,183.56

6

2,638,556.19

0.17427

459,827.81

-

1,525,355.75

7

2,638,556.19

0.13578

358,260.86

-

1,167,094.89

8

2,638,556.19

0.10579

279,128.06

-

887,966.84

9

2,638,556.19

0.08242

217,474.14

-

670,492.70

10

2,638,556.19

0.06422

169,438.36

-

501,054.34

11

2,638,556.19

0.05003

132,012.75

-

369,041.59

12

2,638,556.19

0.03898

102,853.72

-

266,187.87

13

2,638,556.19

0.03037

80,135.35

-

186,052.52

14

2,638,556.19

0.02366

62,435.02

-

123,617.50

Table 8. 9: Discounted Cash Flow at DCFRR=28.35%

166

167

Discounted Cash Flow 25,000,000.00

Cumulative Cash Flow, RM

20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00

10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 -

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(5,000,000.00) (10,000,000.00)

Year

0%

10%

20%

30%

9

10

11

12

13

14

165 8.6

Profitability Analysis A sustainable business and mission requires effective planning and

financial management. Ratio analysis is a useful management tool that provides financial results and trend over time to a company. It also acts as a key indicator of organizational performance. From this analysis, engineers able to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses from which the strategies and initiatives can be formed. Profitability ratio includes gross profit margin, operating profit margin and net profit margin. Cost of goods sold is the costs that attribute to the products sales by a company or industry, therefore the only costs included in the measure are those that directly tied to the production of products. This cost including cost of material, labor, plant overhead and other manufacturing costs but excludes indirect expenses such as distribution and sales force costs. The operating margin is the ratio of operating profit (operating income, income before interest and taxes) to sales. This is a ratio that indicates how much of each dollar of sales is left over after operating expenses. The operating profit margin gives the business owner a lot of important information about the firm‟s profitability, particularly with regard to cost control. A high operating profit margin means that the company has good cost control and that sales are increasing faster than costs, which is the optimal situation for the company. The profit margin can measure how much profit a company makes for every $1 it generate in revenue or sales. Profit margins vary by industry, but all else being equal, the higher company‟s profit compare to its competition, the better. The net profit margin is the ratio of net income to sales, and indicates how much of each dollar of sales is left over after all expenses. Gross Profit Margin Cost of Goods Sold 10,732,161.25 Sales 17,500,000.00 The gross profit margin is: 38.67% Operating Profit Margin Operating profit 9,641,778.64 Sales 17,500,000.00

166 The operating profit margin is: 44.90% Net Profit Margin Net Profits After Taxes 13,349,245.05 Sales 17,500,000.00 The net profit margin is: 23.72% 8.7

Conclusion The Total Capital Investment (TCI) for this PHB plant is RM

5,378,141.31 and the Total Expenses (ATE) is RM 14,233,650.50. The net annual profit after taxes (ANNP) is RM 2,286,444.65. The plant spends 2 years for start-up and its operating life is 15 years with a depreciation of 10% of fixed capital investment. For undiscounted cash flow, the payback period is 4.5 years. The rate of return obtained after the taxes is 28.35%.

167

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1

Conclusion The production of 50 MT per annum of Polyhydroxybutyrate has a

bright future. The PHB demand will be increased to 1025 metric tons in 2015 with 27.9% of annual growth. Due to the unique features, production of large scale of PHB gained a lot of interest globally, with the increasing environmental awareness among all the nations worldwide. An easy to handle and low cost production process is fundamental if a successful commercialization similar to plastics is intended. For the process synthesis and flow sheeting, base case material and energy balance has been performed by manual calculation. Simulation was ran by using Superpro software and the result was compared with manual calculation. Detailed equipment sizing and design of all major equipment also had been performed using fundamental chemical engineering principles. A highly integrated process control system was also included to the proposed plant. In respond to the environmental responsibility, the plant has been designed to achieve the target of waste minimization and cost minimization. The unwanted side product is being treated to ensure the emission coming out from the plant has met the standard of environmental act. On the safety aspect, hazard and operability (HAZOP) study has been performed to identify on operability problems and providing necessary resolution. A general safety study includes personal safety, emergency management and plant start-up and shut down procedures. The total capital cost needed is RM 5,378,141.31. The manufacturing cost comprises RM 14,233,650.50. With the current market value for high purity PHB of RM 35.00/tons, the net revenue has been calculated to attain

168 RM 17,500,000.0, thus it is obvious that the production of 50 metric tons of PHB is feasible enough to be established. Based on financial analysis done, we are able to attain 28.35% rate of return with the payback period of 4.5 years. Finally, it can be concluded that the construction of a 50 MT/year PHB production plant in the area of Sungai Bako, Kuching, Sarawak is technically feasible and economically attractive. This plant will get good support and encouragement from the government.

9.2

Recommendation As mentioned in previous chapters, complete study had been done in

all aspects in determining the feasibility of establishing a 50 MTPA PHB production plant in Malaysia. However, there is always room for improvement in order to aid in the betterment of this plant‟s effective operation. Firstly, safety considerations can be fully upgraded. More evaluations and thorough study on HAZOP can be implemented continuously. Fault-Tree Analysis (FTA) can also be applied to this aspect, to ensure the safety features of all the production and separation units in this plant can be improved. Besides, it can also ensure higher safety assurance to the labors. Secondly, more effective and deeper studies on finding new alternatives either in the supply of nutrient or in the downstream processing of PHB recommended to be carried out. This matter is essential so that the production of PHB by Cupriavidus necator can be increased more but with lower production cost. Significant development work can be implemented in the PHB production using non-edible plant oil such as Jatropha oil. The combined properties of few biodegradable plastics can turn out to be efficient in many ways. Lastly, waste management must be always studied and improved from time to time. The application of activated sludge wastewater treatment system, although known to be effective in providing higher quality of treated water in biological

process,

yet

it

is

not

a

cost-effective

method.

Thus,

169 phytoremediation technology, which is proven to be easy, inexpensive and effective can be implemented. All the measures for pollution control must be always renewed, so that there is no room for causing any harm to environment.

vi

REFERENCES Abe, H.,Doi, Y (2002), Molecular and material design of biodegradable polyhydroxylalkonate

Akiyama M, Tsuge Y, Doi Y. Environmental life cycle comparison of polyhydroxyalkanoates produced from renewable carbon resources by bacterial fermentation. Polymer Degradation & Stability 2003; 80:183-94

A.P. Bonartsev, V. M. (2007). Biosynthesis, biodegradation, and application of poly(3-. Communicating Current Research and Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology, 295-307.

A.Ugur,N.Sahin,Y.Beyatli (2001),Accumulation of poly-hydroxybutyrate in Streptomyces species during growth with different nitrogen sources,26,171.

Batcha AFM, Prasad DMR, Khan MR, Abdullah H. Biosynthesis of poly(3hydroxybutyrate)(PHB) by Cupriavidus necator H16 from jatropha oil as carbon source. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2013; DOI 10.1007/s00449-03-1066-4

BIONAS. (2014, April 25). BIONAS. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from BATC Development Berhad : http://bionas- usa.com/file/BATC%20%20Company%20Profile.pdf

Bioplastics, E. (2014, April 24). European Bioplastics Corporation. Retrieved April 24, from European Bioplastics Web site: http://en.europeanbioplastics.org/market/europebeyond/

vii Christopher J. Brigham, a. A. (2012). Applications of Polyhydroxyalkanoates in the Medical Industry. International Journal of Biotechnology for Wellness Industries, 56-58.

Choi JI, Sang YL. Process analysis and economic evaluation for Poly(3hydroxybutyrate) production by fermentation. Bioprocess Engineering 1997;17:335-342

Daniel

A. Crowl, Joseph F. Louvar, (2011), Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications. Hall International Series in the Physical and Chemical Engineering Sciences (3).

Development, O. f.-o. (2013). Working Party on Biotechnology . POLICIES FOR BIOPLASTICS IN THE CONTEXT OF A BIOECONOMY , 17.

D.S. Rosa, N.T. Lotto, D.R. Lopes, C.G.F. Guedes(2004), The use of roughness for evaluating of poly-b-(hydroxybutyrate) and poly-b(hydroxybutyrate-co-b-valerate), Polym. Test. 23 .

Du G, Chen J, Yu J, Lun S. Continuous production of poly-3-hydroxybutyrate by Ralstonia eutropha in a two-stage culture system. Journal of Biotechnoogy 2001;88:59-65

Fitzgerald M. India‟s big plans for biodiesel. Available from:. Technology Review: Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17940/page1/; 2006.

Fraser, D. M., & Hallale, N. (2000). Determination of Effluent Reduction and Capital Cost Targets through Pinch Technology. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(19), 4146–4151.

G.D. Saravacos and A.E. Kostaropoulos, (2002) Handbook of Food Processing Equipment , Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers

viii

Gironi F, Piemonte V. Bioplastics disposal: how to manage it,Tallinn; 2010. Gui MM, Lee KT, Bhatia S. feasibility of edible oil vs, non-edible oil vs. waste edible oil as biodiesel feedstock. Energy 2008;33:379-82

Himanshu. K.G,( 2013),Facilities layout (plant layout), Retrieved on 3 May from: http://blogs.siliconindia.com/himanshugoelmba/plant_layoutbid-6stv5c2H28957491.html

Hoh, R. (2012). Oilseeds and product annual. Global Agricultural Information Network. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

Jong-il Choi, S. Y. (1977). Process analysis and economic evaluation for Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production by fermentation. Bioprocess Engineering, 335-342.

Jim C. Philp, Alexandre Bartsev1, Rachael J. Ritchie2, Marie-Ange Baucher and K. Guy. Bioplastics science from a policy vantage point 2013;30: 1-2

Kadouri D, Edouard J, Okon Y. Ecological and agricultural significance of bacterial polyhydrxyalkanoates. Critical Review Microbial 2005;31:55-67

Kahar P, Tsuge T, Taguchi K, Doi Y. High yield production of polyhydroxyalkanoates from soybean oil by Ralstonia eutropha and its recombinant strain. Polymer Degradation & Stability 2004;83:79-86

Kahar, P., Tsuge, T., Taguchi, K., Doi, Y. (2004). High yield production of polyhydroxyalkanoates from soybean oil by Ralstonia eutropha and its recombinant strain. Polymer Degradation and Stability. 83(1): 79-86

Kek, Y.K., Chang, C.W., Amirul, A.A., Sudesh, K., (2010) Heterologous expression of Cupriavidus sp. USMAA2-4 PHA synthase gene in PHB−4 mutant for the production of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) and

ix its copolymers. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 26(9):1595-1603

Kek YK, Lee WH, Sudesh K. Efficient bioconversion of palm acid oil and palm kernel oil to poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) by Cupriavidus necator. Can J Chem 2008;86:533-9

KLM Technology Group,(Feb 2011), Layout Spacing (Project Standard And Specification), Project Engineering Standard

Khan MR, Prasad DMR, Abdullah H, Batcha AFM. Kinetic analysis on cell growth and biosynthesis of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)(PHB) in Cupriavidus necator H16. International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics 2013;3:516518

Khanna S, Srivastana AK. Statistical media optimization studies for growth and PHB production by Ralstonia eutropha. Process Biochem 2005;40:2173-82

Ko-Sin Ng, W.-Y. O.-K. (2010). Evaluation of jatropha oil to produce poly(3hydroxybutyrate). Polymer Degradation and Stability, 1.

Lee WH, Loo CY, Nomura CT, Sudesh K. 2008. Biosynthesis of polyhydroxyalkanoate copolymers from mictures of plant oils and 3-hydroxyvalerate precursors. Bioresource Technology ;99:44-51

Lemoigne, M. Produits de dehydration et de polymerisation de l‟acide ßoxobutyrique. Bull Soc Chim Biol, 1926, 8, 770–782.

Li Hongqi, Shen, Park et al. (1999). Production of Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate) by Fed-Batch Culture of AlcaligenesEutropus at Phosphorus Limitation in 50L fermenter. Chinese J. of Chem. Eng., 7(4) 368-371

x Loo CY, Lee WH, Tsuge T, Doi Y, Sudesh K.( 2005)Biosynthesis and characterization of po;y(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3hydroxyhexanoate) from palm oil products in a Wautersia eutropha mutant. Biotechnol Lett;27:1405-10

Malaysian Palm Oil Board, MPOB (2008). World Production Malaysian Palm Oil Board, MPOB (2008). World production of 17 oils & fats: 1999 – 2008. Available online at http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/annual/stat2008/World6.3.pdf [accessed April 2014]

Marketsandmarkets.com. (2011, May). Biodegradable Plastics Market: by Types (Starch, PLA, PHA, PCL and PBS) Applications, Regulations, Prices, Trends & Forecast (2011-2016). Retrieved from Markets and Markets: http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/MarketReports/biodegradable-plastics-93.html

Matija, L. (2002). Energy recovery by pinch technology, 22, 477–484.

Mohan, A. M. (2011, Disember 7). World demand for bioplastics to exceed 1 million tons in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.greenerpackage.com: http://www.greenerpackage.com/bioplastics/world_demand_bioplastic s_exceed_1_million_tons_2015

Ng KS, Ooi WY, Goh LK, Shenbagarathai R, Sudesh K. Evaluation of jatropha oil to produce poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) by Curiavidus necator H16. Polymer Degradation & Stability 2010;95:1365-1369

Paramjit Singh and NitikaParmar (2011). Isolation and characterization of two novel polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB)-producing bacteria. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 10(24), pp. 4907-4919. DOI: 10.5897/AJB10.1737

Peters M.S., Timmerhaus K.D., and West R.E. (2004). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. 5th Ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York.

xi

P.Rama Murthy, (2005), Production And Operations Management, New Age International (P) Ltd, 2nd ed, pg 181-182.

Ramsay JA, Berger E, Voyer R, Chavarie C, Ramsay BA. Extraction of poly3hydroxybutyrate using chlorinated solvents. Biotechnol. Techn. 1994;8:589-594

Research, B. (2012, February). Global Markets and Technologies for Bioplastics. Retrieved from bcc research: http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/plastics/bioplasticsmarkets-technologies-pls050b.html

Regan MJ, Creighton JL, Desvousges WH. Sites for our solid waste: a guidebook for effective public involvement. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste, US Environmental Protection Agency; 1990

Rossiter, A. P. (2010). Improve Energy Effi ciency via Heat Integration, (December), 33–42.

Schryver, P. D. (2010). Poly-β-hydroxybutyrate as a microbial agent in aquaculture. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University. Faculty of Bioscience Engineering.

Shen, L. H. (2011, February 9). Product overview and market projection of emerging bio-based plastics . Retrieved from European Bioplastics: http://www.european-bioplastics.org/index.php?id=191.

Sabra W, Abou-Zeid DM. Improving feeding strategies for maximizing polyhydroxybutyrate yield by Bacillus megaterium. Res J Microbiol 2008;3:308-18

Salimon J, Abdullah R. Physicochemical properties of Malaysia jatropha curcas seed oil. Sains Malays 2008;86:553-9

xii

Shen, L. H. (2011, February 9). Product overview and market projection of emerging bio- based plastics . Retrieved from European Bioplastics: http://www.european- bioplastics.org/index.php?id=191.

Smriti Chand, (2014), Meaning and Objectives of Plant Layout, Industrial Management, Retrieved on 2 May 2014 from: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/industries/meaning-and- objectivesof-plant-layoutindustrial-management/26163/

Sullivan, F. &. (2008, June 18). Frost & Sullivan. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from Frost & Sullivan Web site: http://www.frost.com/

S. Samantaray, J.K. Nayak and N. Mallick (2011). Wastewater Utilization for Poly-bHydroxybutyrate Production by the CyanobacteriumAulosirafertilissima in a Recirculatory Aquaculture System.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.2011, 77(24):8735. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.05275-11.

S. Matsumura, Y. Shimamura, K. Terayama, T. Kiyohara(1994), Effect of molecular weight and stereoregularity on biodegradation of poly(vinyl alcohol) by Alcaligenes faecalis Biothech. Lett., 16 pp. 1205–1210

Sun, L., & Luo, X. (2011). Synthesis of multipass heat exchanger networks based on pinch technology. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 35(7), 1257–1264. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2010.08.005

T. Sharmila, S.A. Meenakshi, K. Kandhymathy, R. Bharathidasan et al., (2011). Screening and Characterisation of Polyhydroxybutyrate Producing Bacteria from Sugar Industry Effluents.World Journal of Science and Technology 2011, 1(9): 22-27

Turton, R., Bailie, R. C., Whiting, W. B., Shaeiwitz, J. A., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2001). Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes

xiii (Fourth Edi., Vol. 40, p. 9823). doi:10.1002/15213773(20010316)40:63.3.CO;2-C

US EPA. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: facts and figures for 2010. EPA-530-F-11-005. Washington, DC: Solid

Waste and Emergency Response; 2011 (5306P), 12 pp

Yamane T, Fukunaga M, Lee YW. Increased PHB productivity by high-celldensity-fed- batch culture of Alcaligenes latus, a growth-associated PHB producer. Biotech. Bioengineering 1996;50:197-202

Yu-Cui Xiong, Y.-C. Y.-Y.-Q. (2010). Application of Polyhydroxyalkanoates Nanoparticles as. Journal of Biomaterials Science 21, 127-140.

Yusoff, S. (2006). Renewable energy from palm oil-Innovation on effective utilization of waste. Journal of Clean Product 14: 87-93

Zahid, W.M. (2007). Cost Analysis of Trickling Filtration and Activated Sludge Plants for The Treatment of Municipal Waste. Proceedings of the 7th Saudi Engineering Conference, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh on 2nd to 5th December 2007.

xiv

APPENDICES