4.7 Article

Techno-economic assessment of co-production of edible bioplastic and food supplements from Spirulina

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37156-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concerns over plastic waste harming the environment have led to the search for alternatives, and microalgae has emerged as a potential source for bioplastic production. This study evaluates the large-scale co-production of Spirulina powder as food supplements and edible bioplastic for food packaging. The results show that this venture is attractive with a relatively short payback time and high return on investment, despite the high costs involved.
Large amount of plastic wastes harming the environment have raised concerns worldwide on finding alternatives to non-biodegradable plastics. Microalgae has been found as a potential source for bioplastic production, besides its more common application in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industry. In this study, the objective was to techno-economically evaluate the large-scale co-production of Spirulina powder as food supplements and edible bioplastic for food packaging. The scale of production was large enough to satisfy 1% of local (Thailand) plastic demand (i.e., approx. 1200 MT y(-1)), and 1% of the global Spirulina demand (approx. 1000 MT y(-1)) as food supplements. Results showed that the co-production of the Spirulina powder and bioplastic revealed an attractive venture with a payback time (PBT) as low as 2.6 y and ROI as high as 38.5%. This was because the revenues generated were as high as US$ 55.6 million y(-1), despite high capital (US$ 55.7 million) and operating (US$ 34.9 million y(-1)) costs. Sensitivity analysis showed differences in the profitability based on variations of major parameters in the study, where the split ratio of biomass used for food supplement versus bioplastic production and the bioplastic's selling price were found to be the most sensitive.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据