Converting Organic Waste to Money for Municipalities, Corporations & Island Nations

Converting Organic Waste to Money Page 1 of 16

Converting Organic Waste to Money Using
Managed Ecosystem Fermentation™
Edward A. Calt, CEO Integrated BioChem, LLC
(919) 844-2680 ECalt@IntegratedBioChem.com
Abstract
Managed Ecosystem Fermentation™ (MEF) rapidly converts organic waste streams into a
portfolio of high value products used in industry and agriculture with a biological process that
has worked for millions of years. It uses a multi-species fermentation that adapts to non-
homogenous, non-sterile waste feedstocks under non-sterile conditions. MEF can be
managed to shift the mix and yields of the product portfolio by changing environmental
conditions, chemical inducement, or biologically. MEFs employs a separation process that
allows economic extractions in concentrations of less than 1% permitting heavy metals and
other materials to be separated for subsequent sale. MEF presents the opportunity to convert
over 50% of municipal solid waste into revenue. MEF produces products ranging from
fertilizer, animal feed, feedstock for biodiesel, and various industrial enzymes. End product
prices range from $50 to over $16,000 per ton. MEF prevents the generation of methane.

1. The Cost of Organic Waste
Concentrated organic waste is both a disease vector and a source of environmental pollution.
To date there have been only three methods available to dispose of the waste: bury, burn or
recycle it1
. None of these methods have represented a significant economic opportunity.
MEF is a new method to convert the organic waste into a significant economic resource.
Local economies feel the economic and environmental impact of waste treatment with
varying differences in both degree and time. People everywhere need a clean environment for
good health and efficient economic activity. Some local economies have acute environmental
problems associated with organic waste from food processing plants and the wastes associated
with municipalities. The properties of these wastes are similar. The difference arises in the
availability of land to bury the waste or facilities to either burn or recycle it.
Having the lowest total cost for complete and final disposal of these organic wastes is a
prerequisite for economic development and an improving standard of living for any society.

1

Current Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Used for Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste; California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), March 2008


The major difference is in the cost of the treatment method used. Any new technology
proposed must be economically sustainable below the cost of the status quo and provide better
environmental results than present practices. Within this constraint there are several
guidelines to help assess new ideas:
• Is the waste treated locally to avoid expensive transportation of low value materials?
• Does the process produce revenue? Is this revenue greater than the cost of operation?
• Does this new process provide a better value than the status quo; cost less and reduce
pollutant release?
Managed Ecosystem Fermentation (MEF) is an industrial biological process that uses a
diverse microbial community to digest organic materials and produce a portfolio of products.
The microbial ecosystem approach can be utilized to address the environmental issues posed
by cellulose, carbohydrates and other organics in urban and rural waste streams, specifically
the wastes from food processing and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. MEF
breaks down organic waste, converting it into a portfolio of valuable products and permits the
extraction of many materials, including heavy metals.
The MEF process is biologically and mechanically more complex than typical anaerobic
digesters, but offers a potential of much higher revenues from the same input streams because
it can deliver multiple high value products. It is not limited by the physical capacity of the
landfill. It can continue to operate after the landfill has been closed because it converts
everything in the organic waste stream into a salable product.
2. Financial Opportunity
Traditionally, organic waste has been put in landfills under anaerobic conditions. These
conditions are essentially uncontrolled, leading to the formation of methane within the
landfill. However, MEF operates under very controlled conditions that permit the breakdown
and conversion of the organic material into valuable products instead of methane. It also
physically breaks down the waste matter to a size (less than 10 microns) that can be processed
and separated with existing technology.
In both anaerobic digestion and MEF the bacteria breakdown the organic matter into volatile
fatty acids (VFA’s). The difference is that in landfill anaerobic digestion these volatile fatty
acids are further decomposed by methanogenic bacteria into methane. The MEF process
extracts the VFA’s before they can be decomposed. The economic difference between the
two processes can be seen below in Table 1:
Table 1 Economic Loss from Decomposition
Description Acetic Acid Methane
Formula C2H4O2
⇒ CH4 + CO2
Carbon Available for Sale 100% 50%
Current Price Per Ton $600.00
$156.93
Time to Produce 48 hours 4 to 5 years
The values shown in Table 1 are only for acetic acid. Additionally there are additional longer
chain and more valuable VFA’s produced in the decomposition that are not shown here.
These VFA’s include proprionic, valeric, butyric and hexanoic acids. The VFA’s represent a


small portion of the economic potential offered by MEF. Some of the higher value materials
available can be seen below in Table 2:
Table 2
Markets for Some of the Expected Enzymes and Amino Acids in MEF processes
Enzyme or Amino Acid Price per Ton Application
Alpha-amylase
$15,000 Textiles, Starch syrups, laundry and dish washing detergent,
fermentation of ethanol, animal feed
Cellulase
$16,636 Cellulostic ethanol production, laundry detergent, textile
finishing, animal feed
Pepsin $2,000 Cheese production
Lysozyme $11,800 Antibacterial (germicidal in dairy industry)
Hemicellulase $3,790 Baking, fruit juice, wood pulp processing.
Aspartic Acid $2,150 Acrylic acid
Lysine $2,400 Nylon precursor
Proline $2,800 Catalyst in biological reaction
Carbohydrases $500 Tank cleaners, pulp and paper, textiles, fermentation ethanol
Penicillin acylase $6,400 Chemical synthesis
Histidase $16,000 Cosmetics
Peroxidase $6,100 Laundry and wood pulp bleaches
Alkaline protease $280 Detergent
The key point is that there is a significant economic opportunity available to the waste
industry by converting the organic fraction of the waste stream into basic industrial chemicals.
3. The Technology
MEF process is essentially the industrialization of the first stomach of a ruminant animal
(cow, goat, etc.). In a ruminant animal, cellulose is converted into volatile fatty acids and
proteins that provide the nourishment for
the animal. MEF has moved this
cellulosic conversion process out of the
animal and harnessed the productive
capability of the microbial ecosystem.
The significant difference comes from
removing some of the natural control
systems of the animal and allowing the
microbes to produce under a different
environment and control system. This
allows for the production of chemicals
not seen in the animal. However, these
chemicals can easily be extracted from
the industrial MEF unit in the separation process and used in industry and agriculture2
. But
the basic question remains, can rumen (and MEF) survive on garbage? The picture on the

2
Dowex: Ion Resin Exchange, The Dow Chemical Company 1959


previous page shows cows grazing on garbage in Delhi, India. Cows can live for over 20
years.
MEF has been run for 76 days as a batch process. The MEF process has progressed beyond
the laboratory bench level. It is now in pilot plant testing and engineering scale up. During
these tests the production of volatile fatty acids ranged from 1% to 2%. At first, producing
products at low concentrations does not make economic sense until the financial math is done.
Table 3 illustrates how producing very low concentrations of product can produce a
significant amount of cash:
Table 3
Low Concentrations, High Revenues
Tons per day of organic waste 1,000
Concentration (%) 0.5%
Tons of product per day 5
Price per ton of product (Acetic Acid) $600
Revenue per day $3,000
Days per year 365
Annual Revenue $1,095,000
Early video of the MEF fermentation process can
be viewed at http://integratedbiochem.com/?page_id=32
and clicking on the video to see the process
demonstrated with time-lapse photography. This
video shows the conversion of household garbage,
wood pulp from a paper mill, and household
garbage with newsprint being digested. This
video covers a twenty-four hour period with one
frame every 30 seconds.
There are several critical points demonstrated in
the video. First, this is a rapid conversion
process. It takes approximately 1 day to convert
the various wastes into chemicals as seen in the
photograph at the right. The liter bottle in the
photograph started out as a liter of garbage. The solid
matter on the bottom is organic fertilizer. The liquid
above is water, enzymes and proteins. The second
point demonstrated is the process does not require
complex equipment to operate. Simplicity is the key to
making this technology work. Third, the process
converts cellulose into salable product. Fourth, there is
substantial reduction in the solid matter. Finally, the
process produces a wide array of organic chemicals
that are used in multiple industries throughout the
world. Some of these high value materials can be seen
in Table 2 above.


4. Comparing MEF to Landfilling
The economics of landfills are determined by the volume of the waste it can hold and the
surface area to provide the volume. Basically, the greater the volume, the greater the earnings
that can be achieved. In contrast, the greater the surface area the greater the cost incurred to
build. MEF offers the ability to improve the earnings by diverting a large portion of the waste
stream from the landfill and rapidly converting it into salable product. The only discharge
from MEF is cleaned water. This permits the use of the landfill to hold more materials that
cannot be recycled.
Landfills operate as an anaerobic process. In contrast, MEF is neither anaerobic nor is it
aerobic. It requires some oxygen to work. The major differences between MEF and
anaerobic digestion are the source of the microbes and their management. MEF is an
ecosystem of bacteria, yeast, fungi and protozoa all working simultaneously. It involves over
3,000 species working in a symbiotic ecosystem. It works in a fluid environment under
controlled conditions. It is derived from a ruminant animal such as a cow, goat, or sheep
(which can be reproduced in quantities needed for commercial operation). It works because a
multi-species process has many more chemical pathways to break down the organic matter
whereas a single species has a very limited number of pathways3
. MEF extracts the volatile
fatty acids before they can be converted into methane.
In a landfill, organic matter is decomposed under anaerobic conditions that are not closely
managed. The microbes are naturally occurring and allowed to work under available
conditions to produce some of the same products as MEF, but are all eventually converted
into a low value product, methane. In some cases the methane is flared producing no value.
In other cases it is extracted and converted into electric power. The availability of landfill
methane for use declines over time. This means the potential revenue from disposal of waste
is limited to the amount of land available to hold the organic waste. This limits the amount of
methane and economic value that can be produced by a given landfill. After closure, there is
an ongoing cost of operating the landfill after the landfill has reached capacity and is no
longer accepting more waste. The critical point to understand is methane is a low value
product that at best can be considered a cost offset. Additionally, biogas methane derived
from landfill operations must now compete with shale gas.
MEF is configured as an industrial process to rapidly convert the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste (and agricultural waste) into multiple high value products. Processing
time from receipt to packaged product is less than 48 hours. MEF production facility can be
run as long as there is a source of organic material to process. All of the organic material can
be converted into products that are used in industry and agriculture today. Unlike anaerobic
digestion, MEF can be managed to produce multiple products. This permits the selection of
products based on market conditions for the specific product.
Land filling waste streams essentially sequester the heavy metals indefinitely. In the MEF
process, the heavy metals are captured, concentrated and sold.
The economics of several waste treatment approaches can be seen in Figure 1. It illustrates

3

Hungate, Robert E., “The Rumen and its Microbes”, Page 8, Academic Press, 1966


the average cost using a landfill to dispose of clean food processing wastes within the
continental United States. It can be seen that by using MEF to produce High Protein Animal
Feed (HPAF) or a fertilizer moves the disposal issue from an economic drain to better than
break even.
The shift in the economics of waste
disposal comes from no longer
throwing organic material away, but
rather viewing it as a valuable feedstock
and converting it into materials that are
used on a daily basis. The graph
illustrates the shift in economics from
the necessity of spending cash to treat
the waste, into what can pay for the
deployment and running of the MEF
technology. The costs shown here
reflect average industry disposal costs
for the continental United States.
5. Comparing MEF to Composting
The anaerobic conversion of organic matter into compost is a known technology that has been
employed by humans for thousands of years. Essentially, the organic matter is concentrated,
turned and allowed to decompose into compost for agricultural and landscaping use. There
are two significant differences between MEF and composting. First is the conversion time.
MEF converts the waste in less than 48 hours as compared to 1 to 6 months4
. Second,
compost is a low value product with a limited geographic market. MEF produces a portfolio
of high value products that have global markets.
6. Comparing MEF to Waste to Energy
Waste to energy is associated with both pyrolysis and gasification. While the energy potential
of the processes have been discussed in many papers, the economic and regulatory issues are
the real drivers of the technology. Both methods can produce energy and minimize the waste
stream, but are subject to significant issues related to permitting, financing, and a continually
changing regulatory environment. They are subject to local, state and federal regulatory
compliance. Changes to environmental regulations often require significant capital expense
to meet the new operating standards. Changes in the tax law impacts the financing of the
business.
In contrast, MEF minimizes the regulatory issues by taking the same waste stream and
converting it into products that are sold. The only discharge is cleaned water, which is
covered by the landfill’s NPDES permit. Products produced are not subject to significant
environmental regulation after they are shipped to the customer. All of the products produced
are naturally occurring compounds that do not have a negative effect on the environment.

4

M. Renkow and A. R. Rubin, “Does Municipal Solid Waste Composting Make Economic Sense?”, Journal of
Environmental Management 1998 Vol. 53 Pg. 339-347.
Figure 1
Figure 1


Any hazardous materials are extracted, concentrated and sold to the industries that can reuse
them in their processes.

7. Comparing MEF to other Industrial Biotechnology
What is the competitive position of MEF compared to other industrial fermentations? Most
other industrial fermentations in use today depend on using a single bacteria or yeast
(monocultures). Such fermentations require very controlled conditions to maintain a stable
and sterile environment. The largest cost in most other fermentations, after raw materials, is
the protection from other microbes. These sterility requirements drive up the capital and
operating cost of the process. In contrast, the MEF process uses a free and non-sterile
feedstock, as well as a non-sterile fermentation vat. This means that MEF will avoid the two
largest expense categories of other fermentations: paying for raw materials as well as the
capital and operating costs related to sterilizing of feedstock and equipment.
The industrial biotechnology process gathering the most attention today is bio-ethanol, made
from corn and proposed to use cellulose in the future. MEF is not a biofuels technology, but
can produce some of the enzyme mixtures appropriate for this market. The critical difference
is that MEF produces a family of cellulase that permits for greater conversion of cellulose into
ethanol. Additionally, it has been shown to produce feedstock for biodiesel.
Biofuel producers have the significant business problem as they are subject to the volatility of
the commodities market on both the buy side and the sell side of their operation. This means
that the biofuel producer has no pricing power. On the raw materials side, the producer has
no purchasing power, given the near-
monopoly status of the largest players in
the grain markets. On the product side,
biofuels are subject to a monopsony
market of many producers but very few
buyers (only the petroleum companies)
because ethanol must be blended into
gasoline as a motor fuel. These two
market conditions put the biofuels
producer in a position of little economic
power, inflicting uncontrollable
volatility in their cost structure.
MEF is uniquely suited to the disposal
of organic waste because it works with a
non-homogenous and non-sterile
feedstock. It processes the feedstock
under non-sterile conditions. This is the opposite of today’s fermentation technology. It
substantially reduces the capital and operating expense associated with uniform feedstock and
sterile conditions. MEF is focused on high value products as shown in Figure 2.
Additionally, MEF sells into multiple markets. This permits the control of which products are
produced and where they are sold allowing for more controllable financial performance.

Figure
2


8. Environmental Basis For MEF Technology
In the development the MEF process several realities have become apparent. These four
concepts became the basis for the development of the business case for the technology.
• First, no species can survive in its own waste stream.
• Second, for a new technology to take hold it must offer the society a better value
proposition than the current methods in use.
• Third, for a technology to make permanent environmental improvements, it must be
economically sustainable.
• Finally, biomass is the only renewable source of organic chemicals.

Microbial ecosystems are very common in nature. They involve multiple bacteria, fungi,
protozoa, and other microbes, interacting in various ways. Examples of natural microbial
ecosystems would be the digestive microbes in ruminant animals such as cows, goats and
sheep. These natural ecosystems are also present in the digestive microbes in insects such as
termites, or the soil bacteria in the forest floor, as well as streams, ponds and estuaries. They
are used in a few industrial processes, such as anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment
plants. However, most industrial microbiology is focused on single species fermentation,
such as beer, vinegar, bio-ethanol fuel, and pharmaceuticals.
There are some areas where natural microbial ecosystem processes and MEF process have the
same characteristics:
• Ecosystem fermentations do not require a sterilized feedstock. No animal sterilizes all
its food. This is also true for the MEF process and wastewater treatment plants.
• Ecosystem fermentations can provide a stable output for years at a time and exhibit
stable response characteristics. The microbes in the human digestive system can live
for many years without failure. Humans get an upset stomach, but rarely a complete
failure to digest food.
• Ecosystem fermentations can be adapted to consume a wide variety of organic
materials. Our own diets demonstrate how varied these feedstocks can be.
There are some very important differences between natural microbial ecosystems and MEF
processes:
• MEF exists only within a mechanical environment that can be manipulated to control
the fermentation.
• MEF can be modified to use a specific feedstock to produce specific materials.
Conversely, MEF can be modified to consume specific materials, such as certain
organic toxins.
• MEF control system parameters include feedstock management, control of external
environmental factors, and control of the species within the microbial consortium.
• All of the outputs from the MEF process can be used by society in one form or
another.
9. The Business Basis for MEF
The application of Managed Ecosystem Fermentations to the problems of organic waste can
significantly change the economics of disposal. The MEF process can produce multiple
chemicals and materials that can generate enough revenue to change disposal from a cost to a


revenue center. The MEF process will generate three classes of output material, each of
which has commercial value, often in multiple pathways.
1. The biomass of this fermentation is the aggregate amount of cells, protein, enzymes
and amino acids grown inside the process vessel. These materials can be separated
using ion resin exchange, dried and packaged for several uses, depending on the
source of the feedstock. The easiest material to produce is a pelletized organic
fertilizer that can be made from any feedstock. Feedstock from food processing plants
that is Feed Grade (FG) material can be used to produce a High Protein Animal Feed
(HPAF) having properties similar to soybean meal. The HPAF and fertilizer processes
use the same equipment train. The high value material is provided by the extraction of
amino acids and enzymes.
2. Residual feedstock material is the indigestible fraction of the organic matter and is
extracted from the process and dewatered for other purposes. This is expected to be a
very small fraction of the FG materials. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) materials will
likely see additional plastic recyclables in this stream, but it is still a minor flow.
3. Reclaimed water can be returned to the host facility for non-potable uses such as
cooling tower makeup or landscape irrigation. Since most organic waste streams are
50% to 90% moisture, this is a significant volume of water available for large waste
generators. In some foreign countries, this cleaned water could be sold.
The MEF process equipment is essentially a fermentation tank with multiple controls.
Equipment for the separation and packaging of MEF is also off-the-shelf, so the need for
equipment development is limited. The real difference between MEF and other fermentation
processes is the level of instrumentation and controls necessary to manage the microbial
community and recover the additional products.
Large MEF installations will provide a stable operation as a result of the large tank volumes
that buffer the rates of change in the fermentation. This characteristic allows labor to focus on
the routine operations related to feeding the raw materials and removing the finished products
from the process. The sophistication is in the control system, which has an Internet link to
real-time expertise located at a central facility. Having remote support available further
reduces risk, as unusual conditions can be identified and addressed quickly.
The MEF process operates with a significant built-in safety mechanism. MEF is primarily an
anaerobic process and will cease when exposed to air (large amounts of oxygen). Since all of
the microbes in the fermentation are natural and many are also found in soils, the chance for
environmental pathogens from the system is very low. Periodic testing for pathogenic activity
is part of the standard Quality Assurance / Quality Control program, as a further safeguard.
Should any pathogens be identified, testing will be done to develop methods to minimize
them.
10. How Much Potential Feedstock?
Because MEF can consume a very wide variety of organic materials, it makes manufacturing
sense to design the process around feedstocks with the lowest acquisition cost. Fortunately,
there are many potential sources with feedstock available at no cost or even negative cost.


The first choice is the feed grade scraps from food processing plants. These facilities make
consumer food, so they run year-round and eliminate the issue of feedstock seasonality.
The second choice for raw materials is the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OF-
MSW), which is becoming a major disposal issue with many communities. Placing a facility
at the collected waste transfer center or landfill site would eliminate secondary transportation
of this material. The ability to digest OF-MSW, diverting it away from the landfill, will
extend the life of the landfill and reduce the disposal costs to the municipality.
There is plenty of material available. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations, in a report titled “Global Food Losses and Waste”5
(FAO 2011)
approximately one third of the food produced for human consumption is wasted every year.
The report accounts for approximately 850 million tons annually of organic waste from food
processing plants and municipalities in Europe, North America and Industrialized Asia.
While the reasons for this waste are left to others to address, MEF technology can convert
much of this waste stream into something that can benefit society. These two sources of food
waste are in concentrated locations, making them appropriate for the economies of scale that
can make MEF even more cost effective.
Table 4 Food losses for all categories of food
Food losses, all categories of food.
Millions of Tons Per Year
Europe &
Russia
North
America
Industrialized
Asia
Processing and Packaging Losses (includes FG) 76.3 65.1 97.7
Post Consumer at Household Level (OF-MSW) 189.5 197.2 223.6
In addition to these major sources of food waste, the largest 15% of Confined Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO) sites in the United States produce more than 400 million tons of manure
per year. MEF technology can also provide the CAFO operators an effective means to
dispose of animal mortalities. This feedstock would be used to produce a probiotic fertilizer.
In order for MEF to be economically sustainable, a sufficient amount of raw material must be
available at each site. A large food processing plant can generate up to about 20 or more dry
tons per day of organic waste material. These large plants tend to be congregated regionally.
The intake volume of many landfills is in the order of 10,000 to 100,000 dry tons per day.
When these two sources are considered, even a small percentage, less than 1% of the total
waste streams, is adequate to make the MEF process economically viable. The MEF process
can also support the aggregation of multiple waste streams as part of the overall system
architecture, which is discussed below.
11. What Can Be Done With This Feedstock?
The answer to this question is in understanding where cellulose fits in the chemical world we
inhabit. Essentially, cellulose, carbohydrates and other organics can be converted into many

5
United Nations Report: Global Food Losses and Waste May 11, 2011
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/


of the basic chemicals that we utilize everyday. Figure 3 below shows that many organic
materials can be biologically converted into some basic chemicals and enzymes. These
chemicals and enzymes are later used to build higher value products.
The MEF process converting
organic wastes into the metabolites
and biomass has been confirmed
using gas chromatography. The
process has been run in vitro for 76
days with a daily addition of the
feedstocks using residential food
scraps, garbage with newsprint or
the sludge from a paper mill. The
control of the process is discussed
elsewhere6
. Research has also
shown that the process is inherently
stable, so remote monitoring and
control are technically feasible for
MEF processes.
A two-step process converts waste
into final products. The first step is done at the source of the waste generation, shown in the
diagram above. Most organic waste streams generally have between 50% and 90% water

6
Technical Assessment of Microbial Ecosystem Fermentation for Treatment of Organic Waste Streams by
Herbert G. Tull PE and Dr. Helmut Hergerth, International Environmental Association, Kona, Hawaii 2011.

Figure 3


content. The use of a remote conversion unit (RCU) converts the waste and concentrates the
output from the MEF process, allowing for the return of reclaimed water to the host facility
for reuse.
Two primary locations would be at large food processing plants and municipal solid waste
collection sites or landfills. In each case, the organic wastes are already geographically
concentrated, minimizing primary transportation expense to the RCU for initial conversion.
The second step occurs at the Central Plant (CP) where these concentrated intermediates from
all the RCU sites are combined and converted into finished goods for sale.
The process shown in Figure 4 is very general in that many
different feedstocks can be digested into a relatively uniform
set of outputs. This process stability is what enables cows
and goats to eat a wide variety of materials and remain
healthy. In the industrial setting, this feature allows the
primary fermentation process, the RCU to be located at the
source of the waste and produce a relatively stable set of
products that are largely independent of the waste stream.
This process flexibility allow the same equipment design to
be utilized for many different waste streams, which will
minimize the equipment design investment, minimize
transportation costs of semi-finished goods, and facilitates
centralized control over the final product. The waste mass
has then been reduced in the RCU by at least 90%, making it economical to transport the
concentrated product mix to the CP.
12. MEF Production Architecture
The second part of the manufacturing process occurs at the Central Plant, where all the
intermediate products from each RCU are aggregated. This centralization allows an economy
of scale to be implemented in the final product processing because the CP can support
approximately 100 RCUs in a 50-kilometer radius. Figure 4 illustrates multiple RCUs being
geographically serviced by one central plant. This strategy places the conversion into higher
value products where it can be more effectively controlled and reduces the investment at each
source of waste generation. This is called a Distributed Integrated Manufacturing Process.
Under this architecture, the CP using WIFI technology in a mesh network monitors each RCU
remotely. This permits the ability to dispatch trained personnel to deal with any issues related
to the specific fermentation and utilize skilled labor more effectively.
The business role of the CP is to separate the intermediate products and package or convert
them into higher value products that command higher prices. The CP will have special
equipment designed to produce larger batches of specialty chemicals at the quality standards
needed to meet or exceed market requirements and customer logistics. The use of multiple
CP’s permit the ability to better price the products by being able to reduce the cost of
transportation to the customer.
13. Costs of Operating MEF Units
The cost structure for MEF systems consuming organic waste is unusual because it is
Figure 4


obligated to consume all the waste presented, independent of the market for the products
made. The entity hosting the MEF process is given a “put”7
for their waste, and the MEF
process is obligated by contract to accept and process all of it. This arrangement provides a
very flat cost structure. While this may be a problem when the lower technology products are
dominant, it becomes a very strong advantage as future technology allows the recovery of a
wide variety of higher value products with very little increase in operating expenses.
The engineer's task is to design a process that will minimize the major costs and provide
multiple cash flow streams. In the case of MEF, the process has minimized several of the
major manufacturing costs:
1. Raw materials are free or have a negative cost from host facility tipping fees. This is
the other side of the “put” purchased by the host facility for waste disposal.
2. Co-locating at the point of generation minimizes transportation of raw material. The
host facility can deliver the waste by pipeline or conveyor belt, or a truck.
3. Using remote monitoring for process control minimizes direct labor.
4. The separation technology employed permits for the extraction of many products
essentially at a fixed cost. The major change with the introduction of a new product
for extraction from the fermentation broth is the extraction and packaging equipment.
The equipment to do both is commercially available today.
14. First Revenue Sources: Feed and Fertilizer
The ability of the MEF process to convert cellulose, carbohydrates and other organics into
protein is the core of the first product set. The biomass is collected, pelletized and dried using
conventional commercial equipment, as found in the pet food or cereal industry.
When FG feedstocks from food production plants are used, the resultant biomass is also FG,
so the final product can be sold as a HPAF. This material will have physical and nutritional
properties similar to soybean meal. Recent prices on soybean meal, a benchmark high-protein
animal feed has ranged from $375 to $450 per ton. The expected yield of HPAF is 28% of
the incoming dry mass of fruit and vegetable scraps, so that a plant providing 20 dry tons per
day (200 tons per day at 90% moisture) would support the production of 5.6 tons per day of
HPAF for annual revenue of about $800,000 from sales of this product.
When the feedstock is adulterated, as in the case of municipal waste, the product is organic
fertilizer, and not for animal consumption. This pelletized material has a market price range
starting at $200 per ton and increasing with packaging. The yields would be the same as the
FG model on a per dry ton basis of organic material. The municipal waste systems will also
generate some small amounts of additional revenue from the recyclable metals; glass and
plastics removed from the feedstock streams during processing. While keeping these
recyclables out of the landfill is beneficial, it is not expected to be a large source of revenue at
today's prices.
While the production of fertilizer and animal feed provide the basis to make the disposal of

7
The “put” is the contractual right to force the agreeing party to accept the agreed upon item at an agreed upon
price.


organic waste a break even proposition, the additional value inherent in the MEF output
stream is that the opportunity exists to make higher value products available as separation
technology improves.
15. Better Products: Enzymes and Amino Acids
Animal feed and
fertilizer are useful to
local economies, but
there are more valuable
products in the output
streams of the MEF
process. There are
many different products
that can be made from
the metabolites that
have selling prices
much higher than
biogas. The MEF
Product Capability
shown in Figure 5
demonstrates the
multitude of products
that can be made at the
CP from the initial
products shipped from
each RCU.
One of the important features of any ecosystem fermentation is the diversity of microbes, and
therefore a diversity of enzymes, the primary tools of the microbes. As an example, rumen,
the digestive microbial ecosystem for cattle, can contain over 30,000 enzymes8
. Enzymes are
known to catalyze over 4,000 biochemical reactions, and likely many more. The value of
enzymes comes from their ability to lower the energy required for a specific biochemical
reaction. Table 2 shows the expected producer market price of some of the more important
enzymes found in rumen and expected in MEF working with organic wastes feedstocks.
What are not known yet are the yields of each enzyme, because that will be a function of the
microbial inventory within the MEF and the feedstock characteristics provided to it. In any
case, the technology to automatically extract these high value materials with little additional
process labor is available today and will make a huge impact on profitability as revenues
increase while costs remain relatively constant.
There are two critical business issues for expanding the revenue stream. First, that the outputs
from the MEF process are sufficiently valuable to make the process economically sustainable.
Second, there are sufficiently varied outputs to be able to say that the economics of MEF
technology will improve with the ability to separate out more enzymes, proteins, amino acids,

8
Department of Energy (DOE) http://www.ornl.gov/info/news/pulse/no330/story4.shtml
Figure 5


fatty acids, and other chemicals. Each one of these outputs becomes a new revenue stream for
the business as the ability to separate and recover it comes online. The ability to increase the
number of revenue streams over time with better technology greatly reduces the financial risk
of the process. Essentially, the revenue per ton processed increases as each new extraction
method is brought on line.
The next business question deals with the quantities available in the output stream.
Laboratory tests have shown that the outputs are in low concentrations. However, there are
extraction technologies in use in the food processing and pharmaceutical industry that are
designed to perform extractions in low concentrations9
. The MEF process can be scaled to
very large sizes, so even low concentrations can add up to significant revenue streams.
16. Economics for Host Facilities
There are two economic benefits to the facilities using the MEF technology. First, the cost of
disposing of the organic waste material is reduced. Second, there is now a new supply of
water that can be used within the facility for cooling or other applications.
In terms of the local economy, there can be a significant benefit. The analysis to date
indicates that a central plant operating with 100 remote conversion units would require
approximately 100 skilled employees. This is because the central plant would need to operate
24 hours per day, 7 days per week, as any other chemical process facility. MEF is a
continuous process that will require constant monitoring.
The second benefit to the community is the reduction of waste and the reduced potential for a
disease reservoir in the untreated waste and the related vermin and insects that are a disease
transmission vector to people.
The third benefit is reduced demand for potable water as the reclaimed water can displace
some of the related demand at the host facility.
The fourth benefit is reduced landfill pressures as the material volume is reduced by at least
60% in the MEF process.
17. Summary
When organic wastes are viewed as a resource instead of a liability, then new ideas can take
root, producing jobs and products for the local economy. We are on the cusp of a biological
revolution, as demonstrated by the continuing discoveries of the range of microbial
environments and capabilities. Industrial biotechnology based on microbial ecosystems can
parallel the processes found in nature and provide much higher reliabilities with a much wider
ranges of products than are available from processes in use today. Biomass and MEF can be
the foundation for an industry that does provides a renewable source of organic chemicals.

9
Ion Exchange Resins and Synthetic Adsorbents in Food Processing by Emmanuel J. Zaganisais, Books On
Demand GmbH, Nordersted, Germany 2011.


REFERENCES:
1. The Rumen and Its Microbes by Robert E. Hungate, Academic Press 1966
2. Dowex: Ion Resin Exchange, The Dow Chemical Company 1959
3. Technical Assessment of Microbial Ecosystem Fermentation for Treatment of Organic
Waste Streams by Herbert G. Tull PE and Dr. Helmut Hergerth, International
Environmental Association, Kona, Hawaii 2011.
4. Island Financial Resource Impacts by Edward Calt, Dr. Kelly Zerring, Dr. Helmut
Hergerth, International Environmental Association, Kona, Hawaii 2011.
5. Ion Exchange Resins and Synthetic Adsorbents in Food Processing by Emmanuel J.
Zaganisais, Books On Demand GmbH, Nordersted, Germany 2011.
6. Hazardous Metals Removal with Ion Exchange Resin by Gunjan Bhagvatiprasad Dave,
Lambert Academic Press, 2012
7. Federal Regulation of Industrial Biotechnology by Theodore Feitshans JD, International
Environmental Association, Kona Hawaii 2011.
8. Waste Facts, “A Companion Document for too Good to Waste: Making Conversation a
Priority” Alberta Environment Information Centre, Edmonton, AB 2008

Converting Organic Waste to Money for Municipalities, Corporations & Island Nations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Converting Organic Waste to Money for Municipalities, Corporations & Island Nations

Similar to Converting Organic Waste to Money for Municipalities, Corporations & Island Nations (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Converting Organic Waste to Money for Municipalities, Corporations & Island Nations