Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 401

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 access
Jegannathan, Kenthorai Raman, Nielsen, Per Henning·2013·Journal of Cleaner Production
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.005

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 401

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)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.005
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

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.