As discussed in section 3.1, biomaterials being such a nascent field means there are very few published LCAs at this time. When trying to understand the potential impacts for a particular bioinnovation it helps to start with a highly simplified version of stage 2 of a typical LCA process: the life cycle inventory analysis (LCIA).
Identifying the key inputs and outputs of a biomaterial process enables brands to start to form a comparative, high level risk analysis - for example, might this process be water or energy intensive?, how is the innovator thinking about mitigating this down the line? It may also enable the beginnings of a process to work with an innovator to track and report data as the technology evolves.
It should be noted however, that innovators may vary on how much they are willing to share while still in development for the reasons stated in 3.1.
In the absence of a more comprehensive study, the first step is to review areas of potential impact in broad strokes. Below we have included some of the key high level questions that are relevant to all new bioinnovations in terms of impact.
A feedstock is defined by the Oxford dictionary as a “raw material to supply or fuel a machine or industrial process.”
For bioinnovations the word feedstock can refer to multiple things - from what is ‘fed’ into the process (e.g. biomass), through to what is the nutrition for an organism. Even the organism itself could be viewed as a feedstock as it goes into the process. Because all of these innovations deal with biology in some form the key areas of impact will likely be twofold:
1) Is the feedstock genetically modified in anyway, and is any of the GMO material left in the end product.
2) If the feedstock is a crop, where is it produced, is it produced sustainably and could the land used be used to grow food or feed instead?
As with any manufacturing processes, there will be energy implications for running equipment and plants. This is no different for bioinnovations. So it’s important to track energy consumption and identify early on any particularly energy intensive parts of the process.
For emissions, these are of course closely tied up with energy consumption. And as for any industrial process these need to be carefully tracked and mitigated wherever possible by innovators.
A note on gases, such as CO2, in fermentation. Fermentation processes often require different gas inputs, for example active growth of aerial mycelium requires CO2 to be added to the growth chamber to inhibit mushrooms from developing. So with any biological process its important to ascertain what gas inputs are needed and what gases are produced/ released at the end.
With the production of any material or ingredient it’s essential to understand what, if any, chemicals are used in the process. And to ensure these comply to the relevant Restricted Substances Lists (RSL) and to know if they are also REACH compliant. Proper management, tracking and disposal methods should be in place.
One of the chemicals or additives of key concern in the field of bioinnovation is Polyurethane, which can be added at multiple stages depending on the technology and process. PU can be used in the material formation, for example in biobased leather alternatives where it is used to bind the biomass and provides key performance attributes. It can also be found in the finish, again adding performance to the end material.
Another prevalent ‘additive’ we see incorporated into leather alternatives is a textile backer of some kind. Again this addition is included to provide improved performance. A textile can be added either in the growth process as a scaffold or glued on at the end. The addition of this textile will bring it’s own sustainability impacts and so its important to understand and include its environmental impact into the overal biomaterials’.
At a high level, as with any manufacturing process, understanding water usage and handling is essential. Asking questions such as, how much water is used? Can it be recycled, and if not is wastewater properly treated and processed?
Specifically with bioinnovations water usage can come into play where crops are grown either as a source of biomass or as a feedstock for an organism. Water is also used in liquid fermentation and tissue culture as a carrier for the cells to grow and multiply. Scaled fermentation facilities have capacities in the 100s of thousands if not millions of liters. Additionally, if the water in fermentation has been used with genetically modified organisms then the correct water treatment procedures should be in place to ensure any traces are removed prior to release back into the environment.
Waste treatment and handling is a consideration with any production process. Any innovator will need to track what waste is generated in their production? And have the appropriate plans in place for its safe and environmental disposal.
Waste, sometimes also called byproducts, out of processes such as fermentation can include things like biowaste (e.g. cell debris), gases (see emissions section above), and chemicals (e.g. ethanol). With the biowaste it is imperative that this is handled and disposed of correctly, especially if the organism is a GMO.
Another term that may be used in conjunction with fermentation is ‘co-products’, a co-product is a secondary valuable output from a process. In the case of fermentation co-products can be sold for use in a variety of industries such as for ingredients in cosmetics. Thus providing an additional revenue stream and spreading the environmental impact.
Whether you use the term End of Life (EoL) or End of Use, what happens to a material or product at the end of its use is determined by multiple factors.
The first aspect that impacts end of use is how the material has been made and what chemistry has been used. For example, if a material is cross linked this will affect its ability to biodegrade. If a material is blended with PU this will likely affect its ability to be recycled. And if a material, like a biosynthetic, is chemically identical to a petrochemical synthetic it will have the same end of life profile and environmental issues (e.g. microfibers) regardless of whether its inputs were biobased.
The second aspect that affects end of use is how the material is manufactured into a product - can it be disassembled at the end of its useful life and then the component parts reused or recycled? Which leds on to the final large factor affecting end of use - are the correct systems in place in order to get materials back to where they need to be for recycling? An innovator may have developed a material with the ability to exist in an endless closed loop, but if the right waste management systems are not in place to get it back to them then it may well still end up in landfill.
Biobased materials is a broad term, defined in level 1.2 - they can be wholly or partly bio-derived. In order to understanding potential impacts, because ‘biobased’ is such a generic descriptor, it’s important to uncover exactly what is in the material and how it is made.
The largest group of materials that fall under the ‘biobased’ descriptor are the leather alternatives that combine waste biomass with a binder. The boxes below outline some of the high level questions that should be asked of innovators using biobased technologies. It’s important to note, however, that they may be reluctant to answer some due to IP sensitivities.
The majority of biobased technologies use waste biomass as their main ingredient. Understanding where it comes from and its sustainability profile is key.
QUESTIONS TO ASK INNOVATORS:
Feedstock
Biobased materials rely on material science and/ or mechanical formation for their production. Leather alternatives often involve powdered biomass which is mixed with a binder of some kind and backed with a textile.
QUESTIONS TO ASK INNOVATORS:
Chemistry & Additives
Most biobased alternative leathers will likely still be ‘finished’ in some way.
QUESTIONS TO ASK INNOVATORS:
Chemistry & Additives
Here we deal with stirred liquid fermentation where the fermentation broth is agitated. This is typically used for the production of bacterial dyes and other bio-derived chemicals, as well as some bacterial cellulose, mycelium materials.
In most cases, the chemical or biomass produced during fermentation is isolated and undergoes some kind of downstream processing (DSP) before being formulated into the final product. The boxes below outline some of the high level questions that should be asked of innovators using stirred liquid fermentation. It’s important to note, however, that they may be reluctant to answer some due to IP sensitivities.
In all fermentation processes organisms need nutrients or ‘feedstock’ in order for them to thrive.
QUESTIONS TO ASK INNOVATORS:
Feedstock
A note on GMOs:
With this type of fermentation, the organism (normally bacteria or yeast) is usually producing an ingredient e.g. a protein, which is separated from the organism via downstream processing. In this instance the ingredient is the product of a GMO, but the final material may not contain any GMO material - the question to ask here is:
Sometimes with stirred liquid fermentation the organism (usually mycelium) is itself the biomass used to make the material. In this case, if the organism is genetically modified the end product will contain GMO material.
This is why asking if an innovator’s organism is genetically modified and understanding how their process works, is key. It is then dependent on your stance on GMOs as a brand and in your regulatory geography, as to whether you are able to work with that particular material.
Here we deal with static liquid OR solid fermentation. In either case it usually takes the form of some kind of tray system. This is typically used for the production of bacterial cellulose or mycelium materials.
Materials coming out of this process will be grown into the final sheet form, though they will undergo further chemical and/or mechanical treatments. The post-processing will include rendering the living organism inert.The boxes below outline some of the high level questions that should be asked of innovators using static fermentation. It’s important to note, however, that they may be reluctant to answer some due to IP sensitivities
In all fermentation processes organisms need nutrients or ‘feedstock’ in order for them to thrive.
Static fermentation is usually carried out with the following organism types:
A note on GMOs:
In this type of fermentation the organism either is the final material (i.e. mycelium) or is trapped within the final material (i.e. bacterial cellulose).
Therefore, if the organism being used is genetically modified then the end product will contain genetically modified material.
This is why asking if an innovator’s organism is genetically modified and understanding how their process works, is key. It is then dependent on your stance on GMOs as a brand and in your regulatory geography, as to whether you are able to work with that particular material.
Here we deal with materials produced from mammalian (animal) cells. Various methods may be used, from using a stirred bioreactor through to more static forms of cell culture.
If the materials coming out of this process are grown in sheet form, they may be grown on some kind of substrate, for example a textile ‘scaffold’. These materials will likely be comprised of some form of collagen protein and will therefore need to be treated in a similar way to leather to prevent putrefaction. The boxes below outline some of the high level questions that should be asked of innovators using static fermentation. It’s important to note, however, that they may be reluctant to answer some due to IP sensitivities.
As a result, innovators are moving away from its use, but serum free media (liquid used to grow cells in) is not without its challenges. The ingredients that are found in FBS (such as proteins, carbohydrates, growth factors, cytokines, fats, vitamins, minerals, and hormones) need to be replaced via other sources.
Cells need nutrients or a ‘feedstock’ in order to thrive. In the case of mammalian cells, they have traditionally needed an ingredient called FBS (fetal bovine serum) which is derived from the blood of deceased calf fetuses. This is both ethically problematic, as well as being expensive as an ingredient and not available at scale.
Tissue engineering for the creation of leather-like materials uses mammalian (animal) cells. Although several companies now use this approach to grow consumer materials, e.g. Vitrolabs, it is still highly novel and significantly more expensive than other processes.
The term ‘genetically modified organism’ (GMO) is used to describe ‘a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) altered through a process called genetic engineering’. Around 90% of agricultural crops like corn, soy and cotton are genetically modified in the USA. In the USA, GMOs are regulated by three federal agencies: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
GMOs may be used at various stages in the production of a biomaterial. Commonly a genetically modified plant may be used as a feedstock for a fermentation process, for example, sugar obtained from corn. In fermentation, a microorganism such as a bacterium or yeast cell might be genetically engineered to produce an ingredient, for example to produce a dye such as by Colorifix. Bacterial and fungal strains may also be genetically modified to produce materials by bioassembly. Here a GMO organism grows a material structure and is embedded within the final material, even if rendered inert, for example a bacterial cellulose or mycelium material. Finally, materials may come into contact with genetically modified enzymes for processing or finishing treatments.
GMOs are used globally in industrial biotech to manufacture ingredients for food (e.g. vanillin), pharma (e.g. penicillin), personal care (e.g. perfume scents such as vetiver) along with many others. No work has yet been done specifically related to understanding GMOs in the context of the latest consumer biomaterial innovations. It is likely that regulations are behind the scientific advances in the field. It should be noted that regulation varies tremendously according to geography, with the EU being the most tightly regulated.
Some questions to ask when assessing risk around GMOs include:
Tanning, cross linking, or other chemical treatments and finishes are usually needed for most leather alternatives to level up in terms of durability, performance or aesthetic requirements.
However, there are no blanket ‘tanning’ solutions for leather alternatives, the majority of which are not made of collagen. Mycelium is primarily composed of chitin proteins, while bacterial cellulose is a carbohydrate not a protein. So, unsurprisingly, we don’t yet have optimized chemistries for these novel biomaterials.
There is an important trade off here. In order to achieve similar performance or durability to leather, innovators may be taking a material which is wholly, or almost, 100% biobased, and adding non-biobased chemicals or polymers, such as PU either as a binder or as part of a finish. This has two effects. Firstly if the chemical is not 100% biobased it will mean the material itself can no longer be classed as 100% biobased. Secondly, any kind of cross-linking of material structure is oppositional to biodegradation. This is true of leather too. However it is still possible to recycle cross linked materials.
Cross-linking aims to increase material stability over time delivering long-lasting durability. This can be at odds when a brand wants a high-performing, 100% biobased material that will naturally compost. Mirum™ is one of the very few options here, which may not be the desired aesthetic.
With very few exceptions, the new generation of biomaterials seeking to offer an alternative to leather lean on PU and textile substrates to meet customers' performance specifications. The vast majority of leather alternatives are created using some form of waste biomass which is either macerated (retaining some fibers) or, more commonly, ground into a powder. This is then mixed into a liquid suspension which can coat a textile. Most innovations rely on existing coated textile roll-to-roll production lines.
The reality is that the performance of these biomaterials has more to do with the polymer binder and textile backer than the powdered biomass. Binders vary, some use natural rubber, a few use biopolyols, but the vast majority turn to polyurethane (PU). PU can be either fossil-derived (petrochemical) or biobased. Most biobased PU formulations still contain a % of virgin petrochemicals. Confusingly, some 100% fossil based PUs degrade more readily than biobased versions, so biocontent % is not an indicator of greater degradability at end of life. If not used as a binder, many finishing chemistries will also include polyurethane for durability. Many leathers also feature PU in their top coats.
Textile backing materials can of course be woven, knitted or non-woven and fossil-derived such as a knitted polyester or from natural fibers such as knitted organic cotton. Innovators generally look to brand guidance on their preference for textile backer. The textile is counted in the total % of the material’s biocontent for an LCA, and will also affect price.
ISO 14001 and Related Standards. 2023. International Standards Organization
Methods for genetic transformation of filamentous fungi. 2017. Microbial Cell Factories
Enzymes for Textiles & Garment Laundry in Indonesia - Branded Enzymes. 2023. Chemira Indonesia
Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Labeling Requirements. 2023. Sigma Aldrich
Genetically Modified Crops: Producing Countries Worldwide. 2019. Statista
Recent Trends in Genetic Engineering Adoption. 2022. USDA Economic Research Service
How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States. 2022. US Food & Drug Administration
Guide to Modern Leather Processing. 2020. Leather Naturally
Tannery effluent treatment videos. 2020. International Union of Leather Technologists and Chemists Society
Making Leather: An Overview of Manufacture. 2021. Leather Working Group
Impranil® PU Dispersions: Waterborne Coating Systems. 2021. Covestro