Industrial Waste
As our project concerns waste-to-energy conversion, we interviewed two companies to understand more about the waste generated in the chemical industry and how they are disposed. We also discussed potential niche for synthetic biology in the process.
We did interviews with representatives at Inventa Technologies and Eastman Chemical Company. Inventa Technologies is specialized in the development and commercialization of new process technologies. They are also working on the improvement and optimization of existing chemical and biochemical processes with the aim to increase yield and conversion to make systems more economic while protecting the environment. Eastman is a global specialty chemical company that produces a broad range of advanced materials, additives and functional products, specialty chemicals, and fibers that are found in products people use every day.
Interview representatives from Inventa Technologies and Eastman Chemical Company
From both representatives, we learnt about the typical wastes generated by the chemical industry and how the companies go about disposing them. As our project is on engineering the metabolism of Shewanella bacteria for enhanced performance in microbial fuel cells, we were planning to use the waste generated in the chemical industry as an alternative carbon source for the cells. This allows us to kill two birds with one stone – disposing waste in an environmentally friendly manner and producing electricity with our fuel cells. Both representatives are welcome to the idea of using genetically engineered organisms to treat chemical waste as long as additional costs are not incurred to the companies. The representative from Inventa Technologies also brought out his concern on the impact of these bacteria cells on the environment.
1. Can you share with us the typical types of waste that is generated in the chemical industry?
Inventa: Typical types of waste generated are solvents, which include acetone, methanol, dichloromethane, acidified ethanol, and various other linear chain alcohols.
Eastman: I'm not sure.
2. Can you share with us the typical types of waste that is generated by your company?
Inventa: The main types of waste generated by our company include linear chain esters and triglycerides as well as the solvents listed above.
Eastman: Our company generates solid and liquid wastes. Some of the solid wastes include wipes and gloves. The liquid wastes can be characterized into two groups. We have the water based liquid wastes and the solvent based liquid wastes. Unfortunately, our company generates a huge variety of wastes depending on the project involved so I will not be able to provide you the exact type of wastes generated.
3. What is the composition of the waste?
Inventa: We dispose of wastes by separating them into halogenated and non-halogenated wastes. Therefore, the composition of the wastes is not fixed.
Eastman: The liquid wastes are mixed into waste carboys before being collected. We will not know the composition of the wastes in the waste carboys.
4. Are the waste well defined?
Inventa: Yes the wastes are well defined. We know what is in the wastes but we do not know how much.
Eastman: Yes the wastes are well defined. All of the chemical used for our projects comes with the MSDS (material safety and data sheet), and all the reactions carried out are very well recorded. We know what kind of wastes we are pouring into the waste carboys. However, we do not track the composition of each chemical within the waste carboys.
5. How do the chemical industry manage their waste in general?
Inventa: I believe that the smaller scale companies will engage NEA licensed vendors to clear their wastes, while the larger scale companies actually sells their wastes to the waste collection company. The waste collection company typically operates an incineration plant to decompose the wastes after doing some chemical and/or physical separation. Since the incineration plant is able to generate electricity from the combustion of those wastes, it becomes economically viable for these wastes collection company to buy and burn wastes from companies that produce a substantial amount of waste.
Eastman: I'm not sure.
6. How does your company manage its waste?
Inventa: We engage a waste collection vendor to collect the wastes on a regular basis.
Eastman: We hire a waste collection vendor to collect the wastes on a regular basis. I am not aware of what the vendor does after collecting the chemical wastes from us.
7. Our project is on engineering the metabolism of Shewanella bacteria for enhanced performance in microbial fuel cells. We were thinking of using wastes as an alternative carbon source for the cells. What do you think of using genetically engineered organisms to treat chemical waste?
Inventa: We are fine with using GMO. However, studies should be done on the impact of these bacteria cells on the environment.
Eastman: I believe the company is neutral about using GMO to treat the chemical wastes.
8. Shewanella bacteria have the potential to treat waste and produce electricity in the process. Do you think this sounds appealing to the chemical industry? Will your company welcome this alternative approach to treat its waste?
Inventa: Yes, this sounds appealing. Our company will welcome this as long as it does not incur additional costs. The implementation of such a novel approach to treat waste must be easy and do not require any significant change to the structure and operating procedures of our company.
Eastman: Yes, this sounds appealing. Our company will welcome this if the vendor doing such a novel approach of waste treatment is reliable and there are no additional costs to the company. I believe the first thing our company will look at is the reliability of the waste collection vendor. The next thing we look at will be the costs involved. We have a long history of working together with our current waste collection vendor and so far they have been very reliable.
In contrast to the situation in the US and Europe, Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) seems to be a much less concerned topic in Singapore. Few news coverage have we observed in the city state, let alone public debate. As the government takes a liberal stance on the issue, generally regarding GMO as safe as their natural counterpart, we want to find out how informed the citizens are about the GMO and controversies surrounding it. So we came up with this questionaire and received more than 130 responses from residents. The analyses and findings can be found here . This survey is intended not only to provide us with an insight into the landscape of Singaporean's perception on GMO, but also to help us prepare for other Human Practices activities, such as consultation with policy advisers and outreach to the public.
We believe our long term aim of engineering Shewanella until it is capable of accepting industrial wastes as a carbon source holds tremendous potential as an environmental friendly way of treating wastes. However, we understand that a certain percentage of the general public is still a bit reluctant towards accepting genetic modification. In order for us to find out more regarding people’s perception towards genetic engineering, we have approached Professor Jorgen Schlundt for an interview. Professor Jorgen Schlundt is the former Director of the Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses in WHO. The previous appointments he held for his illustrious career includes Senior Scientist at the Microbiology Section of the Institute of Toxicology, National Food Agency of Denmark, Head of Division of Microbiological Safety at the Institute of Food Safety and Toxicology, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, and Director of National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark. Professor Jorgen Schlundt is an expert on using risk analysis to minimise the potential harmful effects of food based genetic modified organisms and possesses an excellent knowledge on how and why people perceive genetic modification in a certain manner. He has very kindly agreed to an oral interview and the transcript of our conversation with him is presented as follow.
1. Our project is on engineering the metabolism of Shewanella bacteria for enhanced performance in microbial fuel cells. Shewanella bacteria have the potential to treat waste and produce electricity in the process. We were thinking of using wastes as an alternative carbon source for the cells. What do you think of using genetically engineered organisms to treat waste?
Sounds interesting. Some people, especially in Europe, will be concerned. We have worked a lot on perception on GMOs. Most importantly, the public needs to have more information about GMOs. The reason why consumers are so against GMOs is that they feel that they are the risk takers, and that producers are making the benefit. Thus, a solution would be to create something that is beneficial to the consumers. For example, enrich the products with vitamins and producing more food by enabling growth of certain crops in areas where the environment disallows it. Until now, we have not seen any risk outcome from GMOs. Researchers go to WHO to discuss an agreed framework on how to regulate plants, food and animals – risk assessment before the products are put onto the market. Many tests are to be carried out before the products are placed on the market.
Your project is a good solution to the society and is not just a benefit to the company. However, risk assessment is still required. For example, pseudomonas is pathogenic. You can show that you have considered these risk assessment issues – we cannot consider all issues, as there are too many, thus other people can consider the rest.
People who have problems with GM food have no problems with GM medicine, probably because there is a benefit to consumers. WHO’s stand is that people have the right to know what they eat. In the EU, if a certain percentage of ingredients are GM, a label is required. In the US, there is no enforced labeling of GM food.
2. What factors does WHO consider when regulating such usage of GMO?
WHO doesn’t regulate anything, as WHO cannot enforce legislation. WHO makes standards that countries can then use, but by choice. Under FAO and WHO, there is an international food standard known as Codex Alimentarius. These rules do not cover environment related issues. Those are under the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). However, there are a lot of overlaps. Codex Alimentarius could also be used in environmental issues. But they are not really the same, as they apply more to food.
3. Are there any differences in the regulations of GMO for food vs non-food? If we subject certain raw materials to be treated using GM bacteria which might eventually be used for food production, will the regulations change? Where do we draw the line?
The regulations are less strict for GMO (environmental) than for GM food, in some countries. However, it differs from country to country. In some countries, water is considered food, but in some countries, it is not. The regulations will change into stricter ones as it is used for food production.
4. We understand that one of your main research area is on the test methodology for assessment of genetically modified microorganisms, and microbiological risk assessment. What possible risks do you foresee in the implementation of our method of treating wastes?
As I mentioned earlier, you are taking a gene from a pathogenic organism to a non-pathogenic organism. Are we creating a pathogenic organism? How do we test it? You can argue by saying that the gene that you take will not cause the organism to be pathogenic. For example, pseudomonas will carry out certain processes when put into a certain environment, so you can test by putting the new GMO into the same environment and see it will carry out those processes as well. An unintentional effect would be that in the process of putting in the gene, it might turn on some other genes. Some of these GMOs might be introduced into the environment. You can say how it will affect the flora and fauna of the environment, and that you will not release into the environment, so there will be little chance of it having an effect on the environment.
We gave a one-hour talk to the students at River Valley High School (aged 16-18 years old) to educate them on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and point out some misconceptions they have of GMO. We thought of having such a talk because we feel that it is important to reach out to the public and let them know more about synthetic biology. We feel that the school will be a good place to start as students are the future of our nation. By piquing their interest in synthetic biology, perhaps, in future, they would be able to make great advancements in this field.
Firstly, we did a short introduction on synthetic biology – its history, current advancements and applications. After that, we delved into the technical aspects of genetic engineering. We talked about what a plasmid is, how the gene of interest is being introduced into the plasmid and propagated, etc. Then, we talked about genetically modified organisms in daily life. We talked about how through genetic engineering, plants conferring pest and herbicide resistance were produced. Also, we had other examples, such as the nitrogen fixation process and the BST cows. The students were fascinated by these examples and diligently took notes. Lastly, we talked about our iGEM microbial fuel cells project and the techniques we used to increase electricity output from the cells. It was a great experience and the students were very receptive to the talk. They participated greatly in the Q&A session and showed interest in what we were doing.
Outreach to River Valley High School
After the talk, we carried out a survey to learn the perception of youngsters on genetically modified organisms. We also went around the school and gave the survey to those who are unable to go to our talk, be it students or teachers in the school.