Earlier this year I mentioned that I would write a column on “bio” or green chemistry. It’s complicated and requires a chemistry primer. But, the real key, after you understand the chemistry, is that bio technology helps make life cycle assessment (LCA), circular economy, and growth and focus on sustainable packaging successful. Indeed, you cannot help but be aware of a growing interest in ecofriendly alternatives to synthetics: cashew nutshells (CNSL) into phenolic compounds; cellulose to sugars; sustainable proteins replacing latex. These are just a few of the really exciting developments that ultimately, in my view, will change global packaging, making it more friendly while creating less of an impact on our daily lives.

So, the primer: “Biochemistry is the study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms.” Inevitably, biochemistry takes us back to our days in biology class where information flows through “biochemical signaling and the flow of chemical energy through metabolism,” which gives us life.  Today, the main focus of biochemistry is an understanding of how biological molecules give rise to the processes that occur within living cells (KARP 2009, Page 2). Biochemistry is really all about biopolymers, which, as mentioned above, are living organisms. There are three classes of biopolymers: polynucleotides (RNA and DNA), polypeptides (amino acids), and polysaccharides (carbohydrates).

Cellulose is, without a doubt, the most common organic and biopolymer on earth, according to my research. About 33% of all plant matter is cellulose. For example, the cellulose content of cotton is 90% while wood is 50% (I will discuss cellulose at greater length).

If I haven’t confused you yet, try to understand the major difference between biopolymers and synthetic polymers. A major difference can be found in their structure. All polymers are made of monomers. (Okay, not much more). Biopolymers have a reasonably well defined structure.  The chemical composition is called “the primary structure,” in the case of proteins. Many biopolymers spontaneously “fold into compact shapes, and this determines their biological function, which depends on their primary structure. In contrast, synthetic polymers have much simpler and more specific structures. This leads to the creation of very defined chains of “molecular mass distribution” that we don’t see in biopolymers. Hence when we talk about polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, etc., we have managed their composition versus the random monomers in biopolymers. Just think of the discourse and discussion on natural medicine (for example, cannabis) versus synthetics like prednisone, ibrutinib and so on. The debate rages. I think the answer is that both have their place. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Aren’t we back to one of my favorite words? Balance. Most of what I have written, if you’ve made it this far, was obtained from an old chemistry book that I found covered with dust in our basement. Now I can defend my position to keep stuff. Suffice it to say, I read more and more about natural and biopolymeric structures. Change is happening, and I’ll give you several examples in the remainder of this column.

I introduced cashew nutshell liquid (CNSL) to you in my last column. Therefore, I’ll move directly to the 10-ton gorilla, cellulose to sugar. This subject isn’t without controversy because historically we’ve used corn as the primary feedstock. This obviously means we’re using a major food source to make fuel and understandably that can’t be taken lightly. But, listen up. There’s a new technology that is allowing us to use different feedstocks to make ethanol from cellulose. First, according to Allied Market Research, the global bio-ethanol market will reach about $10 billion by 2020, which is double its value in 2015.  This kind of growth wouldn’t be possible without using a new technology that uses non-food sources as its feedstock. The feedstock is “common cellulosic waste,” instead of corn, for the ethanol manufacturing process.  This is incredibly exciting and is driven by understanding what tricks or tips enzymes.

In this new process we are able to extract low grades of sugar from cellulosic waste. This “waste” is abundant, and much of it comes from agricultural and residential sources such as discarded corn stalks, leaves (remember when we used to burn leaves?), yard clippings, grass, paper and wood chips, and so on, anything cellulosic. We have known for years that these feedstocks have sugar. The challenge has been to extract the sugar at a cost that is affordable to both producers and consumers.  Now cellulose to sugar (CTS) is capable of converting cellulose waste to ethanol economically.
CTS is a simple mechanical process that converts any cellulose material into inexpensive sugars, which can then be used to create cellulosic ethanol or other products, including fine chemicals, construction products, pharmaceutical or nutraceutical products and carbon fiber nanotubes. By combining common waste with a proprietary dry catalyst in a CTS reactor, a mechanochemical reaction is created within minutes, breaking down the cellulose into its base components of C5 and C6 sugars plus pure lignin. The costs for this process are leaned out even further by the elimination of additional process components, including expensive enzymes, liquid acids, applied heat or pressure.

On the surface, ethanol is the same whether it’s made from corn, yard clippings or any other type of waste. As a result, it performs the same when used as fuel. However, what makes CTS cellulosic ethanol unique is its versatility and the ability to create it from nonfood sources on nonfarm lands in larger quantities and at lower costs. This flexibility is leading to wider acceptance and use. The racing industry, including NASCAR and Indy car, has adopted ethanol as its primary fuel source because of its high performance and remarkably low greenhouse gas emission. Ethanol’s applications are far reaching and can be seen in jet and diesel fuel, as well as in industrial grade alcohols.

The cost comparison is really interesting. Using corn and traditional ethanol processing, a gallon of ethanol costs between $1.30 – 1.60/gallon. Using other cellulose waste and the CTS process, the cost of production is less than $1.00 per gallon and this is projected to decrease another 20 cents per gallon. This is equivalent to $18.00 per barrel of oil. There are several other advantages: location of a processing facility near the feedstock source, which reduces raw material transportation costs; the actual cost of producing ethanol from a non-food cellulosic source is cheaper than the traditional source; and, “strategic location of production facilities is much simpler because the feedstock is, quite literally, all over the place.”

Very simply, cellulose waste to sugar and sugar to ethanol means 85 – 90% lower greenhouse gas than traditional petroleum based fuels, not to mention less volatility and less fumes. Finally, not only do we have a reduction in CO2 but you have less material sitting in landfills, which creates methane, an extremely undesirable gas. “The CTS process actually consumes CO2 instead of creating it. While consuming very little energy, it creates a carbon neutral food product and a fuel product that is markedly cleaner than more conventional products.” Indeed, the prediction by Daniel DeLiege, chairman of Alliance Bio-Products, Inc. and author of Something from Nothing, my source for much of the above, is that waste-based ethanol could replace petroleum gasoline in the next 20 years. This is biochemistry at its best.

In my next column, I’ll continue the discussion on biobased technology by introducing a Dutch initiative that has helped accelerate the development of biobased materials, along with caterpillars that eat plastic waste.

Another Letter from the Earth.


Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is
cfrost@channeledresources.com.