The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental assessment of enzyme use in industrial production – a literature review
Open accessAbstract
Enzymatic processes have been implemented in a broad range of industries in recent decades because they are specific, fast in action and often save raw materials, energy, chemicals and/or water compared to conventional processes. A number of comparative environmental assessment studies have been conducted in the past 15 years to investigate whether these properties of enzymatic processes lead to environmental improvements and assess whether they could play a role in moving toward cleaner industrial production. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the findings of these studies and to recommend further developments regarding environmental assessment and implementation of the technology. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been widely used as an assessment tool, while use of the ‘carbon footprint’ concept and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is limited to a few studies. Many studies have addressed global warming as an indicator and several studies have furthermore addressed other impact categories (acidification, eutrophication, photochemical ozone formation, energy and land use). The results show that implementing enzymatic processes in place of conventional processes generally results in a reduced contribution to global warming and also a reduced contribution to acidification, eutrophication, photochemical ozone formation and energy use to the extent that this has been investigated. Agricultural land has been addressed in few studies and land use savings appear to occur in industries where enzymatic processes save agricultural raw materials, whereas it becomes a trade-off in processes where only fossil fuels and/or inorganic chemicals are saved. Agricultural land use appears to be justified by other considerable environmental improvements in the latter cases, and the results of this review support the hypothesis that enzyme technology is a promising means of moving toward cleaner industrial production. LCA gives a more complete picture of the environmental properties of the processes considered than EIA and carbon footprint studies, and it is recommended that researchers move toward LCA in future studies. Tradition, lack of knowledge and bureaucracy are barriers to implementation of enzymatic processes in industry. Education and streamlining of public approval processes etc. are means of overcoming the barriers and accelerating the harvesting of the environmental benefits.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Klüppel, H.-J. (2005) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1065/lca2005.03.001 · Cited by 4,639
Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards
Guinee, J. B. (2002) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/bf02978897 · Cited by 2,765
KIRK-OTHMER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY
(1982) · Chemical & Engineering News Archive · doi:10.1021/cen-v060n014.ibc · Cited by 2,405
Biodiesel fuel production by transesterification of oils
Fukuda, H., Kondo, A., & Noda, H. (2001) · Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering · doi:10.1016/s1389-1723(01)80288-7 · Cited by 2,293
Ullmann's encyclopedia of industrial chemistry
Dunkin, I. R. (1989) · Reactive Polymers · doi:10.1016/0923-1137(89)90086-9 · Cited by 2,174
Industrial enzyme applications
Kirk, O., Borchert, T. V., & Fuglsang, C. C. (2002) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/s0958-1669(02)00328-2 · Cited by 1,461
dos Santos, A. B., Cervantes, F. J., & van Lier, J. B. (2007) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.013 · Cited by 1,155
Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel
Demirbas, A. (2007) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.04.003 · Cited by 1,094
Indicated, N. (2010) · Joint Research Centre (European Commission) · doi:10.2788/38479 · Cited by 1,038
Biotechnology—a sustainable alternative for chemical industry
Gavrilescu, M., & Chisti, Y. (2005) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2005.03.004 · Cited by 713
Cited by
Phytate in pig and poultry nutrition
Humer, E., Schwarz, C., & Schedle, K. (2015) · Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition · doi:10.1111/jpn.12258 · Cited by 364
Sinha, A., Shahbaz, M., & Balsalobre, D. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.071 · Cited by 308
Naveed, M., Nadeem, F., Mehmood, T., Bilal, M., Anwar, Z., & Amjad, F. (2021) · Catalysis Letters · doi:10.1007/s10562-020-03316-7 · Cited by 253
Manda, B. M. K., Worrell, E., & Patel, M. K. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.045 · Cited by 54
Antioxidant Production in Dunaliella
Roy, U. K., Nielsen, B. V., & Milledge, J. J. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11093959 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Jegannathan, K. R., & Nielsen, P. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 42
- Pages
- 228-240
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159034455
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Environmental assessment of enzyme use in industrial production – a literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.005
- The paper
- Jegannathan, K. R., & Nielsen, P. H. (2013). Environmental assessment of enzyme use in industrial production – a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.