5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Artículos/Investigación

Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual

design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Evaluación técnico-económica y diseño conceptual de

una planta de biofertilizantes líquidos

Amaury Pérez Sánchez [email protected]

Universidad de Camagüe, Cuba

Sonali Singh [email protected]

ASD Global, United States of America

Eddy Javier Pérez Sánchez

Universidad de Camagüe, Cuba

Rutdali María Segura Silva [email protected]

Centro de Ingeniería Genética y Biotecnología, Cuba

Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Revista Colombiana de Biotecnología, vol. XX, no. 2, 2018
Instituto de Biotecnología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Received: 10 December 2017

Accepted: 26 October 2018
DOI: 10.15446/rev.colomb.biote.v20n2.77053

ABSTRACT:
Biofertilizers have become an effective, eco-friendly and low cost alternative to chemical fertilizers.
Process engineering and cost models for a biofertilizer plant with a production capacity of 44 tons of
liquid biofertilizer per year (568 kg/batch) were developed. The models were obtained using process
simulator (SuperPro Designer®), version 8.5 (Intelligen, 2012), while the 3D conceptual design and
layout of the biofertilizer plant was developed with (OptiPlant®) software (ASD Global, 201 5). The total
capital investment required to erect the plant is $ 3 975 000, the unit production cost of one 1.5 L
bottle of liquid biofertilizer is $ 24.009, while the economic indicators Net Present Value (NPV) and
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) had values of $ 716 000 and 2.55%, respectively. Also, the total revenues
are $ 985 000/year, the Return on Investment (ROI) is 14.93 %, and the payback time is 6.70 years.

Key words:
Biofertilizer, simulation, conceptual design, economics.

RESUMEN:
Los biofertilizantes se han convertido en una alternativa de bajo costo, efectiva y amigable con el
medio ambiente en comparación con los fertilizantes químicos. En el presente trabajo se
desarrollaron los modelos de ingeniería de proceso y costo de una planta de biofertilizantes líquidos
con una capacidad de 44 toneladas por año (568 kg/lote). Los modelos fueron obtenidos empleando
el simulador de procesos SuperPro Designer® versión 8.5 (Intelligen, 2012), mientras que el diseño
conceptual en 3D y dimensionamiento de la planta se desarrolló mediante el software OptiPlant (ASD
Global, 2015). Se requiere una inversión total de USD $ 3 975 000 para erigir la planta, el costo de
producción unitario de una botella de 1,5 L de biofertilizantes líquido es de USD $ 24,009, mientras
que los indicadores económicos Valor Actual Neto (VAN) y Tasa Interna de Retorno (TIR) tuvieron

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 1/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant
valores de USD $ 716 000 y 2,55 %, respectivamente. También se obtienen ganancias totales de USD $
985 000/año y un valor del Período de Retorno de la Inversión de 6,70 años.

Palabras claves:
Biofertilizante, simulación, diseño conceptual, costos.

INTRODUCTION

It's well known that a considerable number of bacteria are capable to exert a beneficial
effect on plant growth. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) is a term used to define soil
bacteria which can promote, under adequate environment conditions, plant growth and crops
productivity. Although they are found naturally in soil and plant roots, they will produce the
expected agronomical results only if applied effectively, under optimum conditions, on seeds
or plant roots, increasing crops yield between 5-30 % (Prabavathy et al., 2007). Azospirillum
brasilense is a Gram negative, aerobic, nitrogen fixer, natural living PGPB usually found in
plant roots surface and soil, which fixes around 20-40 kg of atmospheric nitrogen per hectare
(Okon and Vander-leyden, 1985; Prabavathy et al., 2007). It's also capable to produce and
secrete plant growth-regulating hormones (phytohormones) such as auxins, cytokines
vitamins and gibberellins which are very important for plant development (Spaepen et al.,
2009).

It's extensively studied bacteria both at laboratory level and industrial scale, and can be
applied in popular crops like rice, sugarcane, maize, wheat, banana, coffee, coconut, pearl
millet and lime (Tien et al., 1979; Baldani et al., 1983; Mishra and Dadhich, 2010; Roldán et al.,
2013).

Biofertilizers constitute active products or microbial inoculants of bacteria, algae and fungi,
either combined or separate, which enhance the nutrients availability in plants thus
increasing crops yield and productivity. They can add almost all the nutrients usually
consumed by plants, through a natural process of atmospheric nitrogen fixation,
phosphorous solubilization and plant growth stimulation through the synthesis of Growth
Promoting Substances (Prabavathy et al., 2007).

Any common liquid biofertilizer production process consists of three different stages or
steps (Gódia and López, 1989) (Fages, 1992) (Prabavathy et al., 2007):

1. Bacteria Propagation: Mass multiplication of the strain selected until desired inoculum
concentration and volume are reached;
2. Bacteria Cultivation: Fermentation of the bacterial strains in large, industrial size
fermentors, until desired cell concentration is reached; and
3. Bacteria Recovery/Formulation/Packing: The bacteria contained within the
fermentation broth are recovered, either by centrifugation or filtration, and then
formulated using formulation substances. The formulation liquid containing the latent
cells is finally poured in plastic bottles.

In chemical process industries (CPI), the simulation approach constitutes an important and
indispensable tool mostly used to design, assess, optimize and analyze projects, systems and
processes (Biwer and Heinzle, 2004; Farid, 2007; Krajnc et al., 2007; Kwiatkowski et al., 2006).
The application of process simulators, software and computer programs throughout the CPI
regardless type and/or capacity, has grown exponentially during the last decade, while some
important simulation packages and software like SuperPro Designer®, Hysys®, Aspen Plus®,
Chemcad®, etc., are commercially available today and extensively used in almost all stages of
process design and development, in order to design/ characterize either new or already
established chemical processes; evaluate techno-economic alternatives; optimize processes,
unit operations and systems; visualize 3D layouts; as well as to determine important global
parameters of the process under study such as profitability, productivity, efficiency, net
incomes, saving possibilities, etc. (Ernst et al., 1997; Rouf et al., 2001; Marchetti et al., 2008;
Ramirez et al., 2008; Dimian and Bildea, 2008).

At the present work, engineering and economics models were developed for the conceptual
design of a liquid biofertilizer production plant, in order to use them as a research tools to aid
in the research, analysis and optimization of the production process and also to assist in
future process improvements and developments. The models were obtained using the
simulation package SuperPro Designer® , version 8.5 (Intelligen, 2012) and the OptiPlant®
software (ASD Global, 2015) for 3D visualization and layout of the proposed biofertilizer plant.
The information used to design the liquid bioferti-lizer plant was obtained from various
sources, including equipment and raw materials suppliers, industry experts, academic
publications and technical documents.

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 2/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant
MATERIALS AND METHODS

M ICROORGANISM SELECTION

The bacteria selected was Azospirillum brasilense, since it's one of the most worldwide used
microorganism for biofertilizer production due to its high capabilities for nitrogen fixation and
solubilizing phosphorous, secrete plant growth-promoting hormones such as auxins,
cytokines vitamins and gibberellins, and also because it can increase plant growth yield by
35%, and has a high resistance to changing environmental conditions.

P ROCESS DESCRIPTION

The conventional production process of a liquid biofertilizer consists of three well-defined

stages or steps (figure 1). In the first step, known as Bacteria Propagation, the bacteria are
cultivated in flasks of different volume which contains a specific culture media, until the
desired cell concentration is achieved. Once this expected cell concentration is reached, the
liquid culture containing the living cells (pre-inoculum) are transferred (inoculated) to the
larger volume flasks containing the culture media. The inoculum volumes commonly used
are: 250 mL, 500 mL, 3 L and 5 L. When in the 5 L inoculum flask a cell concentration of 109
cells per mL is achieved at the following conditions: 32 °C of temperature, 250 rpm of
agitation and pH of 6.0, the entire volume of the final propagation flask (5 L) is inoculated to
the seed fermenter, thus indicating that the second process step (Bacteria Cultivation) is just
starting. At the same time that the cells are being propagated in the culture flasks, the culture
media to be used both at seed and industrial fermenters are being prepared, sterilized and
cooled within the same fermenters, prior to inoculation with propagated cells. The 5 L final
propagation inoculum is transferred to 20 L of a specific, previously sterilized culture media
contained inside of the seed fermenter, thus starting the seed fermentation step. This step
usually lasts for 24 - 55 hours, until a cell population load higher than 1 09 cells/mL is
obtained. The seed fermentation is carried out at 30±2 °C, 400 rpm, pH of 6.0 and 1.0 v.v.m of
aeration rate. Once finished the seed fermentation step, the cell suspension contained within
the seed fermenter is inoculated to the industrial fermenter, which already contains about
225 L of a previously sterilized culture media. The industrial fermentation process proceeds at
30±2 °C, 600 rpm, pH of 6.2 and 1.5 v.v.m of aeration rate, and has a duration time of about 3
- 4 days, which is the standard period to obtain a cell concentration higher than 109 cells/mL
at the industrial fermentation broth. At this point the third and last process step (Bacteria
Recovery/Formulation/Packing) starts. The industrial fermentation broth is then harvested in
a cylindrical, vertical tank equipped with agitation and cooling. The harvested broth is cooled
to 10 °C prior to centrifugation, and then is pumped to a clarifying, desludging-type, disk-stack
centrifuge for cells (biomass) separation and recovery. The supernatant obtained is sent to
the wastewaters treatment section, while the biomass suspension is recovered in another
vessel (formulation tank), cooled to 15 °C, and then formulated by adding some formulation
substances under agitation conditions. The addition of the formulation substances [sucrose,
glycerol, NaH2PO4 and (NH4) 2PO4] will extend the shelf-life of the liquid inoculant, protect
the cell suspension against thermal or pH variations and shocks, as well as improve
applicability and performance of the formulated liquid in the field. As said before, the
resulting formulation liquid is agitated within the formulation vessel, under 300 rpm for 6
hours approximately, using a paddle-type agitator. Once finished the agitation time, this
mixed liquid will be gradually fed to an automatic filling machine, to be ultimately poured into
1.5 L plastic bottles. The filled bottles should be finally stored at 1 0 °C.

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 3/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Figure 1
Simplified flow diagram of the liquid biofertilizer production plant (SuperPro Designer®,
2012).

Table 1
Characteristics and acquisition cost of the main equipment used in the production process
Cost
Equipment Amount Characteristics
($)
Vertical, cylindrical, 125 ºC max, Stainless 1
Autoclave 2
Steel (SS) 316, 6.0 kWh. 800
1
Laminar Flow 1 Vertical, 3.2 kWh.
200
1
Rotary Shaker 1 0.9 kWh, 400 rpm max.
500
1
Hot Air Oven 1 Electrical, 80 ºC max, 2.1 kWh.
000
1
pH meter 1 0.06 kWh.
100
1
Refrigerator 1 3 kWh
200
3
Peristaltic Pump 2 Variable speed, 0.25 kWh.
000
1
Microscope 1 0.04 kWh
200
Electrical, SS 304, 3.6 kWh 6 L distilled 15
Distiller Water Unit 1
water/min 000
2
Digital Balance 1 160 kg máx.
000
Cylindrical, Fired-tube type, Steam: 4 ton/h, 150
Steam Generator 1
160 ºC, 6 bar 000
Cylindrical, vertical, automatic Volume: 75 L, 30
Seed Fermenter 1
600 rpm max. 8.0 kWh, SS 316 000

The plant will has a production capacity of 44 tons of liquid biofertilizer per year, while the
volume of liquid biofertilizer to be obtained per batch will be about 590 - 594 L (average of
592 L), The duration time of each production batch will be 109 hours/batch (5 days/ batch,
approximately), the total required amount of labor needed to operate the biofertilizer
production plant, taking into account management staff, supervisors, operators, maintenance
crew, office employees, etc., will be of 29 persons. The total amount of production batches
required per year to fulfill the production capacity will be 78 batches/year. The plant will be
shut down for about 30 days per year in order to carry out usual maintenance operations,
equipment adjustment and repairs, thus the annual operating of the plant will be around
7900 hours/year.

Raw materials consumption in process stages

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 4/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant
Cell propagation

For propagation of A. brasilense cell cultures at laboratory scale, the OAB medium was used
(Bashan et al., 1993), which is composed of: Solution A [(g/L): DL -malic acid, 5; NaOH, 3;
MgSO4·7H2O, 0.2; CaCl2, 0.02; NaCl, 0.1; NH4Cl, 1; yeast extract, 0.1; FeCl3, 0.01; (mg/L):
NaMoO4·2H2O, 2; MnSO4, 2.1; H3BO3, 2.8; Cu(NO3)2·3H2O, 0.04; ZnSO4·7H2O, 0.24; 900 mL
distilled water] and Solution B [(g/L): K2HPO4, 6; KH2PO4, 4; 100 mL distilled water]. After
autoclaving and cooling, the two solutions are mixed. The pH of the medium pH is 6.8.

Seed culture

The BTB-2 medium was used to carry our seed propagation of A. brasilense (Bashan et al.,
2011), which contains (g/L): tryptone, 5 (Difco); yeast extract, 5; glycerol, 8 mL/L; NaCl, 1.2;
MgSO4-7H2O, 0.25; K2HPO4 0.13; CaCl2, 0.22; K2SO4, 0.17; Na2SO4, 2.4; NaHCO3, 0.5; Na2CO3,
0.09; Fe(III) EDTA, 0.07. The pH was adjusted to 7.0 after sterilization.

Industrial fermentation

The following culture medium was used for industrial fermentation step (Bashan and de-
Bashan, 2015; ICIDCA, 2000) (g/L): Sugarcane molasses, 12; yeast extract, 1; NaHPO4, 6.0;
MgSO4-7H2O, 0.25; CaCl2, 0.22. The pH was adjusted to 7.0 after sterilization. The use of sugar
cane molasses as a raw material to produce liquid biofertilizers, via submerged fermentation
processes, has been previously achieved at industrial level and published in the literature
(ICIDCA, 2000). Since the biofertilizer production plant will be erected near a sugar factory, the
sugarcane molasses will be the main raw material to be consumed in the industrial
fermentation stage, since it will be supplied at a constant rate and at low prices by this
factory, and also because it constitutes an excellent substrate for the microorganism used
which could be stored within the sugar factory in order to be used at any moment by the
biofertilizer plant as convenient.

Liquid formulation

To carry out the liquid formulation of the cells harvested, the following components were
used (Taurian et al. 2010; Albareda et al., 2008; Bashan and de-Bashan, 2015; ICIDCA, 2000):
sucrose, glycerol, NaH2PO4, (NH4^PO4 and water.

Equipment

Table 2 show the main characteristics and cost of the main equipment used to carry out the
production process of liquid biofertilizer (Peters et al., 2003; Sinnot, 2005; Towler and Sinnott,
2008; Perry and Green, 2008).

Table 2
Main process results (SuperPro Designer®, 2012)
Parameter Value
Average production rate (1.5 L bottles/yr) 30 810 bottles/yr
Average production rate (1.5 L bottles/batch) 395 bottles/batch
Average production rate (kg/yr) 44 300 kg/yr
Average production rate (kg/batch) 568 kg/batch
Average number of batches per year 78 batches/year
Average batch time 109 h/batch

Utilities

The liquid biofertilizer plant consumes the typical utilities usually used in a facility of this
type, that is: cooling and process water, steam, fuel oil, compressed air and electricity, in
order to be supplied to the main equipment installed there (fermenters, centrifuges, storage
vessels, etc.) and also to the auxiliary devices (instruments, control panels, etc.). The utilities
cost (steam, cooling water, process water, distilled water, electricity and labor salary) were
estimated according to the market and prices in Cuba in 2016 year, while the utility to be
consumed on each piece of equipment is determined by the process simulation model.
Process water is included at a cost of $ 0.24/m3, while the steam is generated in a fired-tube
type boiler using fuel oil, and the costs for both fuel oil and steam are based on a fuel oil price
of $ 0.65/L. Electrical costs are estimated at a rate of $ 0.18/kWh. Cooling water and distilled
water costs were fixed at $ 0.36/m3 and $ 1.24/ m3, respectively. The utilities cost can be
easily changed by the user as convenient. Labor costs included $ 26.00/h for plant operators
and $ 34.00/h for supervisors and managers, while other plant personnel were included at an
inclusive cost rate of $ 18.00/h.
https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 5/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant
Cost model description

A cost model was developed by using SuperPro Designer® simulation software, to estimate
both capital and production costs for the liquid biofertilizer production process. SuperPro
Designer® possesses an economic evaluator that is specifically developed for bioprocesses,
which is very simple and uncomplicated to use. For preliminary techno-economic evaluation
and conceptual design of the biofertilizer plant, this economic evaluator was thought to be
adequate for the project stage (Intelligen, 2012).

The pricing and cost data were obtained from equipment and raw materials suppliers,
technical documents, academic writings, trade organization, government offices and related
publications, and all these data were inserted into the cost estimating methodology contained
in the SuperPro Designer® simulator, for results analysis; research and development;
profitability and reliability studies; and also to evaluate alternatives. The economic data
obtained in an economic model like this is directly related with the raw materials
consumption, unit operations number, auxiliary streams and equipment used, labor and
services costs. The cost model obtained will aid to characterize and evaluate the main issues
that affect the economic reliability and profitability of the biofertilizer production plant, and
also will help to assess the impact produced on the costs associated with the liquid
biofertilizer industry, when changing some important process aspects such as feedstock
composition and costs, unit operations and equipment number, and also sections addition or
removal.

To run properly the cost model contained at the SuperPro Designer® simulator, an average
interest of 7 % was chosen to determine the Net Present Value (NPV), with an Inflation Rate
value of 2 %, and Income Taxes of 25 %. The lifetime of the project was established in 15
years, with 14 months to construct the plant, while a start-up period of 4 months was
selected. The plant will work always at full capacity, and it was assumed a constant
depreciation of the equipment involved in the lifetime of the project. It was supposed that
there are no costs associated with failed or contaminated product treatment and disposal
operations, while the costs related with wastewaters and residuals treatment operations are
also not considered in the cost model, since these operations are concerned to other parts.
The final selling price of one 1.5 L liquid biofertilizer bottle was fixed in $ 28.00, this value was
selected taking into account Cuban market and prices, because the process conceptual design
was established to comply with the Cuban biofertilizer requirements and standards. The
buying and selling prices of the products involved in the process have no variations over time;
this assumption must be removed in following design step, but for this initial phase of
conceptual design, this assumption is suitable. The additional operating costs considered in
the cost model include plant maintenance (7% of capital costs); laboratory, quality control and
quality assurance (15 % of total labor cost); research and development operations (8 % of
capital costs); and miscellaneous facility expenses (6% of capital costs). The main economic
indicators considered were NPV since it's a financial measurement of the time value of
money, and Internal Rate of Return (IRR), because it's an indicator of the efficiency of the
project.

Figure 2
Equipment occupancy chart (SuperPro Designer®, 2012).

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 6/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Figure 3
Operations Gantt Chart (SuperPro Designer®, 2012)

3D model description

The biofertilizer production plant was designed and optimized by means of the OptiPlant®
software, based on the flow diagrams and preliminary equipment data, the 3D layout was
developed and reviewed within OptiPlant® (ASD Global, 2015). The 3D model includes
equipment, architectural layout and piping (figure 4). Several arrangement options were
modeled and an optimized arrangement was selected for review. As the project and work
progresses, this model can be refined and elaborated to verify and track cost changes.

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 7/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Figure 4
Different 3D layouts obtained for the biofertilizer plant using the OptiPlant® software (ASD
Global, 2015)

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 8/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Figure 4
Different 3D layouts obtained for the biofertilizer plant using the OptiPlant® software (ASD
Global, 2015)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Once obtained both the process and economic models employing process simulation
software SuperPro Designer®, and also the 3D layout of the liquid biofertilizer production
plant using OptiPlant® software, a description and analysis of the main process and
economic results is performed. Figure 1 shows the simplified Flow Diagram of the liquid
biofertilizer production plant, while the figure 2 presents the Equipment Occupancy Chart. In
the figure 3 the Operations Gantt Chart is shown.

The bottleneck process step is the Industrial Fermenter since it's an operation that lasts for
about 100 hours, while the equipment that operates the longest time is the Compressor,
since it's a equipment that supplies compressed, oil-free air for both fermentation processes
(seed and industrial), as well as for automatic panels and pneumatic instruments installed in
the equipment, thus operating during the entire batch time.

Main process results

Table 3 shows the main process parameters obtained during the simulation study. From
the results showed, it will be necessary to carry out about 78 production batches per year
producing around 568 kg of liquid biofertilizer per batch, to fulfill the requested production
capacity, while the average amount of 1.5 L bottles to obtain per batch and year will be 395
and 30 810, respectively.

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 9/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Table 3
Summary of the fixed capital cost for the project (SuperPro Designer®, 2012)
Item Value
Total Plant Direct Cost (TPDC)
Equipment Purchase Cost $ 709 000
Installation $ 165 000
Process Piping $ 390 000
Instrumentation $ 142 000
Insulation $ 21 000
Electrical $ 71 000
Buildings $ 106 000
Yard Improvement $ 35 000
Auxiliary Facilities $ 284 000
TPDC $ 1 923 000
Total Plant Indirect Cost (TPIC)
Engineering $ 577 000
Construction $ 673 000
Contractor's fee $ 159 000
Contingency $ 317 000
TPIC $ 1 726 000
Direct Fixed Capital Cost (TPDC+TPIC) $ 3 649 000

Economic results

The fixed capital cost required to build up the biofertilizer plant is summarized in the table
4, while the annual operating costs involved in the production process are showed in table 5.
As it can be seen from the table 4, the main items that affect Total Plant Direct Cost (TPDC)
are "Equipment Purchase" and "Pi-ping", while the "Construction" and "Engineering" are the
main items that influence on Total Plant Indirect Cost (TPIC) value. The total direct capital cost
obtained is about $ 3 700 000.

Table 4
Annual operating costs (SuperPro Designer®, 2012)
Item Value ($/yr) %
Raw Materials 30 000 4.1
Labor-Dependent 383 000 51.8
Facility-Dependent 9 000 1.2
Laboratory/QC/QA 57 000 7.7
Utilities 39 000 5.3
Miscellaneous and Consumables 218 000 29.5
Advertising and Selling 2 000 0.3
Income Taxes 1 000 0.1
TOTAL $ 739 000/yr 100 %

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 10/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant

Table 5
Project economic indicators and profitability data (SuperPro Designer®, 2012)
Indicator Value
Direct Fixed Capital $ 3 650 000
Working Capital $ 32 000
Start-up Cost $ 292 000
Up-Front Royalties $ 1 000
Total Capital Investment $ 3 975 000
Investment Charged to this Project $ 2 828 000
Total Annual Operating Cost $ 739 000/yr
Unit Production Cost $ 24.009 /1.5 filled bottles
Total Revenues $ 985 000/year
Gross Profit $ 246 000
Net Profit $ 422 000
Gross Margin 24.97 %
Return on Investment 14.93 %
Payback Time 6.70 years
Internal Rate of Return (after taxes) 2.55 %
Net Present Value (at 7 % interest) $ 716 000

From the results showed in table 5, the "Labor-Dependent" item (that is, salary cost)
presents the major influence on the annual operating costs, with 51.85% of the total cost. This
is because it's a production process which needs to use, at least, 5 people per 24 hours shift,
including operators, supervisors, maintenance and quality control personnel, as well as office
and utilities staff. Considering that, it constitutes a labor-intensive industry that requires a
relatively high amount of skilled personnel to run properly the plant, and this aspect affects
directly the operating costs of the plant. The item "Miscellaneous and Consumables", which
represents the consumption of items such as gloves, laboratory analysis kits, labels, caps,
pipette points, etc., is the second in importance, comprising 29.54 % of the total costs. The
"Raw Materials" item influences very small in the operating costs (4.01 % of the total) because
the main substances and chemicals consumed in the process (See table 1) have a relatively
low purchasing cost. The molasses, ammonium sulfate and sucrose will be delivered at zero
cost by the sugar factory located near the place where the biofertilizer plant will be
constructed, while the other raw materials are acquired at moderately low prices. The third
item that affects the operating costs is the "Laboratory/QC/QA", with 7.78 % of the total, due
to the consumption of reactive and utilities needed to carry out quality control tests and other
Quality Control (QC)/Quality Assurance (QA) experiments and essays.

Finally, from table 5 the Total Investment charged to the project is $ 2 828 000, the
calculated Unit Production Cost for a single 1.5 L bottle of liquid, formulated biofertilizer is $
24.009, the Working Capital assigned to the project is $ 32 000, the Total Revenues to obtain
per year is $ 985 000/year, while the Net Profit to be obtained is $ 422 000. Finally, the Gross
Margin value is 24.97 %, the Return on Investment (ROI) obtained is 14.93 %, the Payback
Time will be 6.70 years, and the NPV and IRR obtained were $ 716 000 and 2.55 %,
respectively.

Economic indicators

In table 5 the most relevant economic indicators and project rates, as well as the main
profitability data, are summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

A techno-economic model was elaborated and developed for a typical liquid biofertilizer
production plant with a capacity to produce 44 tons/year of a liquid bio-fertilizer, using
Azospirillum brasilense as the active bacteria. This model can be used to analyze, understand
and study the main factors and items that affect the liquid biofertilizer production process, in
order to optimize plant productivity, profitability and reliability, and also to reduce the main
cost issues associated with it. Additionally, the developed model can be used to test
alternative processing technologies to evaluate and predict the impact of the changes made.

From the results obtained during simulation operations regarding economic indicators, the
unit production cost of one 1.5 L bottle of liquid biofertilizer is $ 24.009, the total capital
investment required to buildup the plant will be of $ 3 975 000, the total amount of 1.5 L
bottles to obtain per year will be 30 810 bottles/yr, the ROI value obtained is 14.93 %, the
project Payback Time is 6.70 years, the total amount of revenues per year will be of $ 985

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 11/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant
000/year, while the NPV and IRR values obtained were $ 716 000 and 2.55%, respectively. All
that results indicate that the liquid biofertilizer project is feasible to implement both from the
technical and economical points of view (Peters et al., 2003; Baca, 2010; Towler and Sinnott,
2008), considering the specific characteristics, economic factors, and market conditions of the
country, province and place at which it will be located.

The results obtained in this case study demonstrate that through the implementation of
simulation and modeling techniques it's possible to study, analyze and improve processes,
while it constitutes a valid and powerful tool to quantify process changes and variations, and
also to compare alternative process methods. The results obtained will improve ecological,
technical and economical evaluations of the application under study, and also will help to
focus the research and optimization approaches towards the most promising directions. the
base-case equipment costs, labor, feedstock or utilities. The possibility to compare the results
obtained in the modified process with those obtained in the base-case will aid researchers
and engineers to analyze, develop or assess novel biofertilizer production processes and
technologies.

REFERENCES

Albareda, M., Rodriguez-Navarro, D. N., Camacho, M., & Temprano, F. J. (2008). Alternatives
to peat as a carrier for rhizobia inoculant: solid and liquid formulations. Soil Biol
Biochem., 40, 2771-2779.

ASD Global. (2015). OptiPlant® Software. Walnut Creek, United States: ASD Global.
(www.OptiPlant.com).

Baca, G. (2010). Evaluación de proyectos (6ta ed.). México, D. F.: McGraw-

Hill/Interamericana Editores S.A. DE C.V.

Baldani, V. L. D., Baldani, J. I. & Dóbereiner, J. (1983). Effects of Azospirillum inoculation on

root infection and nitrogen incorporation in wheat. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 29,
924-929.

Bashan, Y., Holguin, G. & Lifshitz, R. (1993). Isolation and characterization of plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria. In: Glick B. R., Thompson J. E. (eds) Methods in Plant Molecular
Biology and Biotechnology, Boca Raton: CRC Press, p. 382.

Bashan, Y., Trejo, A. & de-Bashan, L. E. (2011). Development of two culture media for mass
cultivation of Azospirillum spp. and for production of inoculants to enhance plant
growth. Biol Fertil Soils, 47, 963-969.

Bashan, Y. & de-Bashan, L. E. (2015). Inoculant Preparation and Formulations for

Azospirillum spp. In: Cassán F. D. et al., (eds.) Handbook for Azospirillum: Technical
Issues and Protocols. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, p. 515.

Biwer, A. & Heinzle, E. (2004). Process modeling and simulation can guide process
development: case study α-cyclodextrin. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 34, 642-650.

Dimian, A. C., & Bildea, C. S. (2008). Chemical Process Design: Computer-Aided Case
Studies. Germany, Weinheim: WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA, p 529.

Ernst, S., Garro, O. A., Winkler, S., Venkataraman, G., Langer, R., Cooney, C. L. &
Sasisekharan, R. (1997). Process Simulation for Recombinant Protein Production: Cost
Estimation and Sensitivity Analysis for Heparinase I Expressed in Escherichia coli.
Biotechnol. Bioeng., 53, 575-582.

Fages, J. (1992). An industrial view of Azospirillum inocullants: production and application in

technology can stimulate plants. Symbiosis, 13, 15-26.

Farid, S. S. (2007). Process economics of industrial monoclonal antibody manufacture.

Journal of Chromatography B., 848, 8-18.

Gódia, F. & López J. . (1989). Ingeniería Bioquímica. Editorial Síntesis, Madrid, p. 350.

ICIDCA. (2000). Manual de los Derivados de la Caña de Azúcar. La Habana, Cuba: Instituto
Cubano de Investigaciones de los Derivados de la Caña de Azúcar, p 421.

Intelligen. (2012). SuperPro Designer® (Version 8.5). Scotch Plains, United States: Intelligen
Inc. (www.intelligen.com)

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 12/13
5/14/2021 Techno-economic evaluation and conceptual design of a liquid biofertilizer plant
Krajnc, D., Mele, M. & Glavic, P. (2007). Improving the economic and environmental
performances of the beet sugar industry in Slovenia: increasing fuel efficiency and using
by-products for ethanol. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1240-1252.

Kwiatkowski, J. R., McAloon, A. J., Taylor, F. & Johnston, D. B. (2006). Modeling the process
and costs of fuel ethanol production by the corn dry-grind process. Industrial Crops and
Products, 23, 288-296.

Marchetti, J. M., Miguel, V. U. & Errazu, A. F. (2008). Techno-economic study of different

alternatives for biodiesel production. Fuel Processing Technology, 89, 740-748.

Mishra, B. K. & Dadhich, S. K. (2010). Methodology of nitrogen biofertilizer production. J.

Adv. Dev. Res., 1 (1), 3-6.

Okon, Y. & Vanderleyden, J. (1985). Azospirillum as a potential inoculant for agriculture.

Trends in Biotechnology, 3, 223-228.

Perry, R. H. & Green, D. W. (2008). Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 8th Ed. New York:
McGraw Hill Inc. p. 2655.

Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K. & West, R. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 988.

Prabavathy, V. R. Rengalakshmi, R. & Nair, S. (2007). Decentralised Production of

Biofertilisers - Azospirillum and Phosphobacteria. Chennai, India: JRD Tata Ecotechnology
Centre, p. 36.

Ramirez, E. C., Johnston, D. B., McAloon, A. J., Yee, W. & Singh, V. (2008). Engineering
process and cost model for a conventional corn wet milling facility. Industrial Crops and
Products , 27, 91-97.

Roldán, M., Valdez, N., Monterrubio, C., Sánchez, E., Salinas, C., Cabrera, R., Gamboa, R.,
Marin Palacio, L., Villegas, J. & Cabrera, A. B. (2013). Scale-up from shake flasks to pilot-
scale production of the plant growth-promoting bacterium Azospirillum brasilense for
preparing a liquid inoculant formulation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol, 97 (22), 9665-9674.

Rouf, S. A., Douglas, P. L., Moo-Young, M. & Scharer, J. M. (2001). Computer simulation for
large scale bio-process design. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 8, 229-234.

Sinnot, R. K. (2005). Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering: Chemical Engineering

Design, Vol. 6, 4th. Ed. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 1055.

Spaepen, S, Van Derleyden, J. & Okon, Y. (2009). Plant growth-promoting actions of

rhizobacteria. Adv. Bot. Res., 51, 283-320.

Taurian, T., Anzuay, M. S., Angelini, J. G., Tonelli, M. L., Ludueña, L., Pena, D., ... & Fabra, A.
(2010). Phos-phate-solubilizing peanut associated bacteria: screening for plant growth-
promoting activities. Plant and Soil, 329 (1-2), 421-431.

Tien, T. M., Gaskins, M. H. & Hubbell, D. H. (1979). Plant growth substances produced by
Azospirillum brasilense and their Effect on the growth of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum
americanum L.). Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 37 (5), 1016-1024.

Towler, G., & Sinnott, R. (2008). Chemical Engineering Design-Principles, Practice and
Economics of Plant and Process Design. London: Butterworth Heinemann, p. 1266.

HTML generated from XML JATS4R by

https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/776/77658704002/html/index.html 13/13