What's the Difference Between Bio-Based and Biodegradable?

Some of our 2-minute expert articles from the recent past have covered bio-based lubricants (fast or friction?), bio-based suspension oil, and tubeless sealant. In each case, we touched on how those product types work and included some environmental talking points. Bikes have long been held up as environmentally-friendly machines, but it's easy to forget the fact that some of the products we use to maintain our bicycles, like lube, grease, suspension oil, and tubeless sealant, are not environmentally friendly at all. Is it a better alternative than a car? Sure. But when we ride bikes for recreation, those comparisons fall by the wayside because at that point bikes are not substitutes for fossil fuel-powered transportation, they're toys we use to have fun. Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but it moves the goal posts in terms of impact.

Isaac Marangoni and his father, Alejandro, started Whistler Performance Labs (WPL) because they wanted to bring a line of Canadian-made bio-based products to market, to help reduce the environmental impact of biking without sacrificing performance. Alejandro is a professor in the department of food science at the University of Guelph, the Co-Director, Centre for Sustainable Nanomaterials Innovation, and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Food, Health and Aging. In case you're wondering why any of that matters as far as the efficacy of WPL's products, the answer is that a lot of the things that Alejandro has worked on and developed over the years - emulsions, oils, and nanomaterials - carry over into developing bio-based products that we can use on our bikes. The science he conducts uses knowledge about things found in nature to create or enhance products we use every day, often replacing more harmful predecessors in the process - exactly what he and Isaac set out to do with WPL.

Both are avid riders. Isaac grew up riding and racing bikes (primarily DH) and still loves to get a day in at the Whistler Bike Park whenever he has a chance. Alejandro commutes and likes to get road miles in whenever he can.

I posed some questions to them to learn a little more about what bio-based means, as well as some of the challenges of competing against traditional, petroleum-based manufacturers in the bicycle industry.

Pete Roggeman / NSMB: WPL has committed to selling bio-based products. Bio-based sounds a lot like biodegradable, but they aren’t the same at all. Can you explain ‘bio-based’ and why the distinction between bio-based and biodegradable is important to understand?

Isaac Marangoni, WPL: Bio-based is different from biodegradable because the former describes the composition of the material (being made from a biological source) whereas biodegradable describes the ability for the material to decompose in nature if spilled or disposed of without recycling. 

The issue with the term biodegradable is that there is no time limitation for something to be described as biodegradable so technically everything biodegrades given enough time. You want consumers to be able to differentiate between something that is going to biodegrade in 30 days vs. 300 years. 

Something that is bio-based is going to biodegrade quickly because the base components of the material can be broken down by natural microbiological processes with the enzymatic catalysts that exist in the environment. 

It is important that any product that has a consumable useage such as food packaging, machinery lubrication, and cleaning fluids are made from bio-based materials so that when they are disposed of there is a net zero impact on the environment as a result of their use. Just as we want a net zero carbon footprint from our transportation systems, it’s not sustainable to create persistent, enduring and toxic waste every time we use one of these items. 

NSMB: What are some common misconceptions about biodegradable products? Thinking of greenwashing here, but are there others as well?

Isaac Marangoni: A common misconception is that because the label says “biodegradable” that it’s not “bad” for the environment. Anything that persists in eco-systems, incapable of being decomposed by the eco-system and therefore causes damage to organisms that encounter it, is “bad”. Importantly, compounds can be biodegraded into more toxic or persistent components. The end product matters. Biodegradable is unfortunately not specific enough of a term to accurately assess the sustainability of a product. 

A common misconception about bio-based products is firstly their performance. Bio-based technology has not received the same scientific attention as petro-chemical products because of the cheapness of petroleum and the boom in that industry. But after factoring in the environmental cost that is passed on to all of us as a result of their useage, it’s actually more economical to use a bio-based material and now that the world realizes this, bio-based products are receiving more scientific attention which is resulting in products that perform just as well or better. 

NSMB: With all of the attention surrounding eco-conscious products, it’s logical to assume everyone would be producing bio-based products wherever possible, but they aren’t. So, what can you tell us about some of the challenges of designing and producing bio-based products that hold up to the needs of mountain bikers?

Isaac Marangoni: Producing a bio-based product is not as simple as just switching. Most brands of consumer products do not manufacture their goods from scratch and their manufacturing partners are not set up with either the right equipment, technology, or supply chains to produce the item in bio-based form. Anyone putting out a bio-based alternative is likely having to manage the whole production process from scratch which is very inefficient for a startup. And of course most innovation comes from startups, without them there would be no pressure on bigger market players to make any changes at all. So the limiting factor in this adoption of bio-based products is the supply chain as a whole, you have to create an entire industry to get one product out. 

We have had to literally do everything from sourcing suppliers of each little component, to developing all the manufacturing Standard Operating Procedures, to finding equipment to use, all so that we can get our brand onto shelves. Building a brand is a big enough job on its own. 

A second challenge that is more of a marketing challenge rather than an operational one is that bio-based products are “virtuous” products that do not necessarily create a personal advantage for the user. Most products sell because the brand has convinced the consumer that they are better off for it, even if it’s as silly as “drink this beverage because it gives you wings.” However when you are marketing a bio-based product, the simple fact of it being good for the planet only appeals to a portion of the market, the rest of the market cares more about themselves. So you must still compete for their personal preference as well as building a brand that is solving a macro problem simultaneously. 

What about some other challenges you’ve encountered?

Some other challenges related specifically to this market and our brand would be the lack of transparency in the performance requirements of the products across the industry. Because there is no consensus on what makes a good chain oil, suspension oil, grease, etc… personal opinions can become propagated by followers of influential figures in the industry. One person’s subjective (and often unverifiable) opinion can create a perception of quality that can only be overcome by complete education of the opinion holders. It takes a lot of work to even discover what you should be attempting to create, let alone to actually create that desired outcome. And of course language barriers do not help this either - biking is a global marketplace.

What are some things that make you optimistic about the prospects for wider acceptance of bio-based products?

I am optimistic about the adoption of bio-based products in use cases where it makes absolute sense like food packaging, consumable chemicals, and clothing. Recyclable clothing is becoming more and more common especially in outdoor brands. Eventually it is inevitable that the most sustainable and economical solution is what prevails in any industry, and that’s bio-based products. It is simply not possible for petrochemicals to compete with bio-based chemicals on unit economics if you factor in the environmental cost of petrochemical usage, which can be done by looking at the carbon footprint differences of producing crude petroleum vs. crude vegetable oil, the fresh water requirements of petroleum production, the spillage into the environment of lubricants over their product lifecycle, and the inefficiencies of recycling lubricants and plastics. In the end, the best product wins! Choose bio-based. 

That last point is critical to the big picture. It's easy to look at two products on a shelf and decide which one is the better choice for you as a user based on your individual values and criteria like ingredients and price. However, the cost of the product is a very different story if you weigh the environmental impact of the production of its components as well as its impact in use (just like ski wax, chain lube can come off your chain and end up in the ground, making its way to the water table, impacting streams, wildlife, and even drinking water) and proper disposal after end of life. Governments worldwide are trying to catch up and figure out ways to make companies responsible for the environmental impact of products they sell.

Currently, we may pay disposal fees for certain products like car tires or electronics. In future, as companies are required to be more accountable for the impact of those products - from production through to disposal - those fees will increase and/or show up on more and more products. In a perfect world, this would create economic incentives for companies to seek bio-based alternatives. Until then, it's up to the consumer to make choices with their wallet. Changing your chain lube won't save the planet, but if we all make better choices whenever we can manage them, those small things add up (and increase the effectiveness of the policies and other decisions that make the larger impacts). It all counts.

In the preparation of this article, Isaac also pointed me in the direction of the following write-up by Prof. Erica Penisini from the University of Guelph, an environmental engineer. She cites many sources on biodegradability of bio-based compounds vs. hydrocarbon vs. PFOAs (perfluorooctanoic acids) byproducts of PTFE production that are biodegradable but also highly toxic. It's technical and complex, but for those of you that want to learn more and/or do a little more research, I thought it was important to include here.

Before we get to Professor Pensini's notes, two last points from Isaac:

1) Important to note that for example in a situation like 3M’s spill in Europe, those compounds might not ever degrade: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-europe/

2) I’d also like to point out just how blatant the greenwashing is in our industry (and others). If you would read this extract from the paper: Paraffinic compounds have low solubility in water and reactivity, rendering them persistent in the environment following a spill. For instance, in a lab-based study, paraffinic compounds were biodegraded to methane over 900 days[1]*. Would it not be contradictory to label a chain lube as “biodegradable paraffin”? If you answered yes, then take note of certain brands out there putting this on the front of their labels.

*Like with academic papers, quoted sources are detailed at the end of article.

Ok, now here are some more interesting and educational points from Professor Pensini from the University of Guelph.

What does biodegradable mean, and how can it be used for greenwashing?

Biodegradable compounds are degraded in the environment. Because of this, the term ‘biodegradable’ is often associated with ‘environmentally benign’. However, this term is often used without a reference to the time required for biodegradation to occur. Importantly, biodegradation does not necessarily lead to by-products that are less toxic or persistent than the parent compounds. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the precursors of Teflon, are a notable example. These substances bioaccumulate in the human body and cause cancer, and they are biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria into compounds that are toxic and more persistent than the starting products. Unless the biodegradation time is short and the end products benign, biodegradable does not mean environmentally friendly.

Specific points we should cover:

1) What happens when you send used oil to a recycling centre?

When used petroleum-derived oil is collected, it can be reconditioned (i.e., impurities are removed from the used oil to prolong its life), and sold to oil manufacturers and introduced as a feedstock into "new" oil production processes. It can also be burned in power plants, cement kilns or small businesses to produce energy. The recycling of used oil process is better than using freshly refined oil since less water and energy is used overall, since no new crude oil needs to be extracted (water cost of oil extraction=3-5 barrels of water/barrel of oil). However, on average, only 25% of the oil collected worldwide is re-refined and only 9% of re-refined base stocks are used to cover the overall lubricant consumption.

Resource:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/12/f81/Used%20Oil%20Management%20and%20Beneficial%20Reuse%20Options%20to%20Address%20Section%201.%20E....pd

2) What happens if you spill bio-based fluids in the eco-system?

Bio-based fluids are naturally decomposed by bacteria and fungi in the environment into humus, the dark brown material characteristic of soil. In other words, they undergo the same fate as leaves or bark, and they leave no toxic residues behind. (Editor's note: this is slightly tongue-in-cheek but I believe Dr. Pensini just told us that bio-based products decompose into LOAM).

3) What happens if you spill hydrocarbons in the eco-system?

It depends on the hydrocarbon. While all hydrocarbons only contain carbon and hydrogen, their toxicity and persistence in the environment varies widely. As an example, aromatic hydrocarbons, which have a distinctive aroma, are characterized by a different number of carbon rings: the greater the number of rings, the greater the toxicity and persistence. For instance, naphthalene (traditionally used in mothballs) has two rings, and is less toxic and persistent than benzo(a)pyrene, which has five rings and is found in used petroleum-based lubricating oil.

Lubricating oils are typically composed of 80–90% petroleum hydrocarbon distillate, and 10–20% other additives. Petroleum hydrocarbon distillates are generally paraffinic or naphthenic compounds. Paraffinic compounds have low solubility in water and reactivity, rendering them persistent in the environment following a spill. For instance, in a lab-based study, paraffinic compounds were biodegraded to methane over 900 days[2]. These times could be markedly longer in non-controlled lab environments. Cycloalkanes (naphthenic compounds) are also resistant to biodegradation. In lab-based studies conducted with cycloalkane mixtures not all cycloalkanes were degraded during the observation period (>800 days)[3]. Before being degraded, hydrocarbons would pose harm to humans and ecological receptors (wildlife).

Importantly, one must think beyond the environmental issues associated with spilling oil. Overusing oil and oil-derived products depletes our freshwater resources and we are running out of water. We must note the cost of oil extraction, refining and upgrading (extraction: 3-5 barrels of water/barrel of oil, refining and upgrading: ~1.5 barrels of water/barrel of oil). Also, in enhanced oil recovery processes such as fracking water in ejected from oil wells for the entire lifetime of the well (because impermeable rocks are made permeable, altering the surrounding aquifers). The water ejected is saline, and its use/reuse problematic. Finally, we must note that after refining, oil is used to make feedstocks for crackers, which heat the feedstock to 750-950°C to produce solvents (contained in fossil-fuel derived lubes) and monomers (e.g., ethylene, which is further processed to make plastics). If we use oil to heat the feedstock to 750-950°C, then we are using water. If we are using nuclear energy, we also need water (>105 L water/MWh).

4) What happens if you spill PTFEs in the eco-system?

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) belongs to the broad class of perfluoralkyl substances (PFAS). It is a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and it is used to produce diverse products, ranging from Teflon to lubricants. PFAS polymers contributes to the presence of non-polymers perfluoralkyl substances in the environment because of the release of non-polymers as waste byproducts in the production of polymers, and due to the degradation of polymers into non-polymers. For example, PTFE forms perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamide[4]. PFAS bioaccumulate in the human body and cause cancer and pregnancy disorders. Importantly, when released in the environment, they can be biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria into compounds that are toxic and more persistent than the starting products.

5) What happens if you spill organic solvents like butane/propane in the eco-system?

Butane and propane are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and greenhouse gasses, with lifetimes of 6.8 days and 13 days, respectively. The global warming potential (GWP) is GWP>9 for propane and GWP >6 for butane[5]. In urban environments, the co-presence of diverse VOC sources is responsible for their high concentration in air. For example, in Beijing, propane and butane were among the main VOC detected[6]. Note that the presence of these products can also reach concerning indoor levels, due to storage and use of products containing them[7].

Conclusion: why is bio-based more biodegradable than hydrocarbon?

Microorganisms most easily degrade compounds that have naturally been in the environment for a long time. This is because they have evolved to use as food (carbon source) whichever compounds were more easily accessible. Because of this, bio-based compounds are more promptly bio-degradable than hydrocarbons. Also, they are biodegradable at all concentrations. In contrast, naturally occurring bacteria and fungi can biodegrade hydrocarbons only below benchmark concentrations, above which they intoxicate the bacteria, causing their death.

Sources:

[1]Liu, Y.F., Chen, J., Liu, Z.L., Shou, L.B., Lin, D.D., Zhou, L., Yang, S.Z., Liu, J.F., Li, W., Gu, J.D. and Mu, B.Z., 2020

[2]Liu, Y.F., Chen, J., Liu, Z.L., Shou, L.B., Lin, D.D., Zhou, L., Yang, S.Z., Liu, J.F., Li, W., Gu, J.D. and Mu, B.Z., 2020. Anaerobic degradation of paraffins by thermophilic Actinobacteria under methanogenic conditions. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(17), pp.10610-10620.

[3]Siddique, T., Semple, K., Li, C. and Foght, J.M., 2020. Methanogenic biodegradation of iso-alkanes and cycloalkanes during long-term incubation with oil sands tailings. Environmental Pollution, 258, p.113768.

[4](Blake, B.E. and Fenton, S.E., 2020. Early life exposure to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: a review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri-and postnatal effects. Toxicology, 443, p.152565)

[5]Hodnebrog, Ø., Dalsøren, S.B. and Myhre, G., 2018. Lifetimes, direct and indirect radiative forcing, and global warming potentials of ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), and butane (C4H10). Atmospheric Science Letters, 19(2), p.e804). VOCs such as butane and propane are carcinogenic and they trigger long-term respiratory allergies (Prasasti, C.I., Haryanto, B. and Latif, M.T., 2021. Association of VOCs, PM2. 5 and household environmental exposure with children’s respiratory allergies. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 14(8), pp.1279-1287.

[6](Wei, W., Ren, Y., Yang, G., Cheng, S. and Han, L., 2019. Characteristics and source apportionment of atmospheric volatile organic compounds in Beijing, China. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 191(12), pp.1-11)

[7](Heeley-Hill, A.C., Grange, S.K., Ward, M.W., Lewis, A.C., Owen, N., Jordan, C., Hodgson, G. and Adamson, G., 2021. Frequency of use of household products containing VOCs and indoor atmospheric concentrations in homes. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 23(5), pp.699-713.)