Integrated Fermentation with In Situ Product Recovery: A Lifecycle Assessment of Economic and Environmental Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/catalyx.v2i3.1335Keywords:
in situ product recovery, ISPR, bioprocess integration, fermentation, sustainability, lifecycle assessment, downstream processingAbstract
Conventional fermentation processes face critical challenges, including low productivity, high downstream costs, and substantial environmental impact due to product inhibition and waste generation. This study aims to evaluate the integration of in situ product recovery (ISPR) into fermentation systems, assessing its economic and environmental benefits through a lifecycle perspective. A comparative analysis was conducted using performance data from conventional and ISPR-integrated bioprocesses. Key metrics included product titer, volumetric productivity, energy use, waste generation, and downstream cost fractions. Various ISPR configurations such as membrane and resin-based systems were evaluated using life cycle assessment and cost analysis frameworks. Integration of ISPR improved product titer by up to 50%, volumetric productivity by over 59%, and reduced fermentation time by up to 6 hours. Waste output and energy consumption were significantly lowered, especially in membrane-based systems. Downstream processing costs traditionally comprising 30–50% of total operational expenditure were reduced by up to 40%. Environmental benefits included lower carbon emissions and improved substrate utilization efficiency. However, the success of ISPR at scale depends on factors such as solvent regeneration cost, system compatibility, and long-term sustainability of extraction methods. ISPR integration enhances the efficiency, economic viability, and sustainability of fermentation processes. It offers a promising pathway toward scalable and environmentally responsible biomanufacturing. Further innovation in ISPR technologies and digital process control is recommended to maximize long-term impact.
References
Aguilar, F., Scheper, T., & Beutel, S. (2019). Improved Production and in Situ Recovery of Sesquiterpene (+)-Zizaene From Metabolically-Engineered E. Coli. Molecules, 24(18), 3356. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24183356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24183356
Antony, F. M., Pal, D., & Wasewar, K. L. (2021). Separation of Bio-Products by Liquid–liquid Extraction. Physical Sciences Reviews, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/psr-2018-0065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psr-2018-0065
Arroyo-Avirama, A. F., Gajardo‐Parra, N. F., Espinoza-Carmona, V., Garrido, J. M., Held, C., & Canales, R. I. (2022). Solvent Selection for the Extraction of 2-Phenylethanol From Aqueous Phases: Density and Viscosity Studies. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 67(8), 1893–1904. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.1c00975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.1c00975
Barahmand, Z., & Eikeland, M. S. (2022). A Scoping Review on Environmental, Economic, and Social Impacts of the Gasification Processes. Environments, 9(7), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9070092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9070092
Brower, K., Wiltberger, K., Berdugo, C., Bosley, A. D., Goodrich, E., Pferdeort, V., & Schaefer, G. (2024). Process Development and Characterization for Integrated Continuous Bioprocesses—Highlights From N‐mAb. Biotechnology Progress, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.3425 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.3425
Chen, A. M., Armbruster, A. L., Buckley, B., Campbell, J. A., Dang, D. K., Devraj, R., Drame, I., Edwards, A., Haack, S., Ma, Q., Petry, N., Planas, L. G., Sadowski, C. A., Santee, J., Wade, L., & Borja‐Hart, N. (2021). Inclusion of Health Disparities, Cultural Competence, and Health Literacy Content in US and Canadian Pharmacy Curriculums. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 85(1), 8200. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8200 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8200
Chen, Y., Saboe, P. O., Kruger, J. S., Tan, E. C. D., Dempsey, J. W., Linger, J., Nogué, V. S. i., Karp, E. M., & Beckham, G. T. (2024). Liquid–liquid Extraction for in Situ Carboxylic Acid Recovery via Continuous Membrane-Based Emulsion Separations. Green Chemistry, 26(17), 9398–9414. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4gc02772h DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4GC02772H
Combes, J., Rivera, E. C., Clément, T., Fojcik, C., Athès, V., Moussa, M., & Allais, F. (2021). Solvent Selection Strategy for an ISPR (In Situ/in Stream Product Recovery) Process: The Case of Microbial Production of P-Coumaric Acid Coupled With a Liquid-Liquid Extraction. Separation and Purification Technology, 259, 118170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.118170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.118170
Crenna, E., Marques, A., Notte, A. L., & Sala, S. (2020). Biodiversity Assessment of Value Chains: State of the Art and Emerging Challenges. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(16), 9715–9728. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05153
Kopsahelis, A., Kourmentza, K., Zafiri, C., & Kornaros, M. (2018). Gate‐to‐gate Life Cycle Assessment of Biosurfactants and Bioplasticizers Production via Biotechnological Exploitation of Fats and Waste Oils. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 93(10), 2833–2841. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5633 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5633
Luo, T., Xu, Q., Wei, W., Sun, J., Dai, X., & Ni, B. (2022). Performance and Mechanism of Fe3O4 Improving Biotransformation of Waste Activated Sludge Into Liquid High-Value Products. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(6), 3658–3668. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05960 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05960
Mari, A., Kekes, T., Boukouvalas, C., Drosou, C., Krokida, M., & Tsartsaris, C. (2024). Evaluating the Environmental and Economic Benefits of New Technologies in Low-Salt Olive Fermentation. Agriculture, 14(11), 2077. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112077
Meramo, S., González-Delgado, Á. D., Sukumara, S., Fajardo-Moreno, W. S., & León-Pulido, J. (2021). Sustainable Design Approach for Modeling Bioprocesses From Laboratory Toward Commercialization: Optimizing Chitosan Production. Polymers, 14(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010025
Nickel, D., Fornell, R., Janssen, M., & Franzén, C. J. (2020). Multi-Scale Variability Analysis of Wheat Straw-Based Ethanol Biorefineries Identifies Bioprocess Designs Robust Against Process Input Variations. Frontiers in Energy Research, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00055 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00055
Othman, M., Ariff, A., Kapri, M. R., Rios‐Solis, L., & Halim, M. (2018). Growth Enhancement of Probiotic Pediococcus Acidilactici by Extractive Fermentation of Lactic Acid Exploiting Anion-Exchange Resin. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02554
Rajagopal, D., Vanderghem, C., & MacLean, H. L. (2017). Life Cycle Assessment for Economists. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9(1), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095513
Rashid, S., & Pagone, E. (2023). Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Environmental Assessment of Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Sustainability, 15(14), 11027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411027
Salas-Villalobos, U. A., Gómez-Acata, R. V., Reyna, J. C., & Aguilar, O. (2021). In Situ Product Recovery as a Strategy for Bioprocess Integration and Depletion of Inhibitory Products. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 96(10), 2735–2743. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6797 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6797
Shaji, A., Shastri, Y., Kumar, V., Ranade, V. V., & Hindle, N. (2021). Economic and Environmental Assessment of Succinic Acid Production From Sugarcane Bagasse. Acs Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9(38), 12738–12746. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c02483 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c02483
Shemfe, M., Gadkari, S., Yu, E. H., Rasul, S., Scott, K., Head, I. M., Gu, S., & Sadhukhan, J. (2018). Life Cycle, Techno-Economic and Dynamic Simulation Assessment of Bioelectrochemical Systems: A Case of Formic Acid Synthesis. Bioresource Technology, 255, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.071
Sorunmu, Y., Billen, P., & Spatari, S. (2019). A Review of Thermochemical Upgrading of Pyrolysis Bio‐oil: Techno‐economic Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, and Technology Readiness. GCB Bioenergy, 12(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12658 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12658
Teke, G. M., & Pott, R. W. M. (2020). Design and Evaluation of a Continuous Semipartition Bioreactor for in Situ Liquid‐liquid Extractive Fermentation. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 118(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27550
Vincent, R. H., Parent, J. S., & Daugulis, A. J. (2019). Using Poly(vinyldodecylimidazolium Bromide) for the In‐situ Product Recovery Of n ‐butanol. Biotechnology Progress, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.2926 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.2926
Virklund, A., Nielsen, A. T., & Woodley, J. M. (2024). Biocatalysis With In‐Situ Product Removal Improves p‐Coumaric Acid Production. Chembiochem, 25(19). https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202400178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202400178
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Catalyx : Journal of Process Chemistry and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
