Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33363439›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2020

Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review.

Harish K Jeswani, Andrew Chilvers, Adisa Azapagic

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
22.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 603 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Renewable and Sustainable Biorefinery: A Patent Review.Recent patents on biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Coupling of CuO@NiBiOAngewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Harish K JeswaniDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Andrew ChilversRoyal Academy of Engineering, 3 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DG, UK.
Adisa AzapagicDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2380-918X
University of Manchester · GBRoyal Academy of Engineering · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofuels are being promoted as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels as they could help to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the related climate change impact from transport. However, there are also concerns that their wider deployment could lead to unintended environmental consequences. Numerous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have considered the climate change and other environmental impacts of biofuels. However, their findings are often conflicting, with a wide variation in the estimates. Thus, the aim of this paper is to review and analyse the latest available evidence to provide a greater clarity and understanding of the environmental impacts of different liquid biofuels. It is evident from the review that the outcomes of LCA studies are highly situational and dependent on many factors, including the type of feedstock, production routes, data variations and methodological choices. Despite this, the existing evidence suggests that, if no land-use change (LUC) is involved, first-generation biofuels can-on average-have lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels, but the reductions for most feedstocks are insufficient to meet the GHG savings required by the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). However, second-generation biofuels have, in general, a greater potential to reduce the emissions, provided there is no LUC. Third-generation biofuels do not represent a feasible option at present state of development as their GHG emissions are higher than those from fossil fuels. As also discussed in the paper, several studies show that reductions in GHG emissions from biofuels are achieved at the expense of other impacts, such as acidification, eutrophication, water footprint and biodiversity loss. The paper also investigates the key methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in the LCA of biofuels and provides recommendations to address these issues.

Indexed as

biofuelscarbon footprintenvironmental impactslife cycle assessmentsustainabilitytransport

Identifiers

PMID33363439
PMCPMC7735313
OpenAlexW3107341375

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.