Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32624725›Full record

ReviewEngineering in life sciences2017

Fueling the future with biomass: Processes and pathways for a sustainable supply of hydrocarbon fuels and biogas.

Stefan Junne, Johannes Kabisch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Engineering in life sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Stefan JunneDepartment of Biotechnology Chair of Bioprocess Engineering Technische Universität Berlin Berlin Germany.
Johannes KabischInstitute of Biochemistry Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University Greifswald Greifswald Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global economic growth, wealth and security rely upon the availability of cheap, mostly fossil-derived energy and chemical compounds. The replacement by sustainable resources is widely discussed. However, the current state of biotechnological processes usually restricts them to be used as a true alternative in terms of economic feasibility and even sustainability. Among the rare examples of bioprocesses applied for the energetic use of biomass are biogas and bioethanol production. Usually, these processes lack in efficiency and they cannot be operated without the support of legislation. Although they represent a first step towards a greater share of bio-based processes for energy provision, there is no doubt that tremendous improvements in strain and process development, feedstock and process flexibility as well as in the integration of these processes into broader supply and production networks, in this review called smart bioproduction grids, are required to make them economically attractive, robust enough, and wider acceptance by society. All this requires an interdisciplinary approach, which includes the use of residues in closed carbon cycles and issues concerning the process safety. This short review aims to depict some of the promising strategies to achieve an improved process performance as a basis for future application.

Indexed as

BiogasBiomassDrop‐in biofuelsRenewable energySmart bioproduction grids

Identifiers

PMID32624725
PMCPMC6999494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.