↓ Skip to main content

On the (Un)greenness of Biocatalysis: Some Challenging Figures and Some Promising Options

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the (Un)greenness of Biocatalysis: Some Challenging Figures and Some Promising Options
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01257
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Domínguez de María, Frank Hollmann

Abstract

Biocatalysis is generally regarded as a "green" technology. This statement is justified by the mild reaction conditions, the use of aqueous reaction media-with water as the paradigm of green solvents-, and the renewable nature of the biocatalysts. However, researchers making these statements frequently do not take into account the entire picture of their processes. Aspects like water consumption, wastewater production, titers, and metrics of the (diluted?) biocatalytic processes are important as well. With those figures at hand, many biocatalytic reactions do not appear so green anymore. This article critically discusses some common wrong assumptions given for biocatalytic approaches, with regard to their environmental impact, and actual greenness. Some promising biocatalytic approaches, such as the use of biphasic systems involving biogenic solvents, deep-eutectic-solvents (and biogenic ionic liquids), water-free media, solvent-free processes, are briefly introduced, showing that enzyme catalysis can actually be a robust sustainable alternative for chemical processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 21%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 31 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 15%
Engineering 8 7%
Chemical Engineering 7 6%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,828,066
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#13,809
of 24,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,876
of 282,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#233
of 440 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 440 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.