Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26617592›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2015

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

Pablo Domínguez de María, Frank Hollmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Deep Eutectic Solvents in Solar Energy Technologies.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Applied biocatalysis beyond just buffers - from aqueous to unconventional media. Options and guidelines.Green chemistry : an international journal and green chemistry resource : GC · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Modeling Alcohol Dehydrogenase Catalysis in Deep Eutectic Solvent/Water Mixtures.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pablo Domínguez de MaríaLas Palmas de Gran Canaria Las Palmas, Spain.
Frank HollmannBiocatalysis and Organic Chemistry Group, Department of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology Delft, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

biocatalysisgreen chemistryorganic chemistryorganic synthesissolvents

Identifiers

PMID26617592
PMCPMC4641897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.