Life cycle assessment in green chemistry: overview of key parameters and methodological concerns

  • Linda M. Tufvesson
  • Pär Tufvesson
  • John M. Woodley
  • Pål Börjesson



Several articles within the area of green chemistry often promote new techniques or products as ‘green’ or ‘more environmentally benign’ than their conventional counterpart although these articles often do not quantitatively assess the environmental performance. In order to do this, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a valuable methodology. However, on the planning stage, a full-scale LCA is considered to be too time consuming and complicated. Two reasons for this have been recognised, the method is too comprehensive and it is hard to find inventory data. In this review, key parameters are presented with the purpose to reduce the time-consuming steps in LCA.


In this review, several LCAs of so-called ‘green chemicals’ are analysed and key parameters and methodological concerns are identified. Further, some conclusions on the environmental performance of chemicals were drawn.

Results and discussion

For fossil-based platform chemicals several LCAs exists but for chemicals produced with industrial biotechnology or from renewable resources the number of LCAs is limited, with the exception of biofuels, for which a large number of studies are made. In the review, a significant difference in the environmental performance of bulk and fine chemicals was identified. The environmental performance of bulk chemicals are closely connected to the production of the raw material and thereby different land use aspects. Here, a lot can be learnt from biofuel LCAs. In many of the reviewed articles focusing on bulk chemicals a comparison regarding fossil and renewable raw material was done. In most of the comparisons the renewable alternative turned out to be more environmentally preferable, especially for the impact on GWP and energy use. However, some environmental concerns were identified as important to include to assess overall environmental concern, for example eutrophication and the use of land.


To assess the environmental performance of green chemicals, quantitative methods are needed. For this purpose, both simple metrics and more comprehensive methods have been developed, one recognised method being LCA. However, this method is often too time consuming to be valuable in the process planning stage. This is partly due to a lack of available inventory data, but also because the method itself is too comprehensive. Here, key parameters for the environmental performance and methodological concerns were described to facilitate a faster and simpler use of LCA of green chemicals in the future.


Biocatalysis Bulk chemicals Fine chemicals GHG LCA Renewable resources Simplified LCA Sustainable chemistry Yield 



This work was a part of the research programme Bioraffinaderi Öresund, and we gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Interreg.


  1. Adlercreutz D, Tufvesson P, Karlsson A, Hatti-Kaul R (2010) Alkanolamide biosurfactants: techno-economic evaluation of biocatalytic versus chemical production. Ind Biotechnol 6(4):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlgren S, Hansson P-A, Kimming M, Aronsson P, Lundkvist H (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation of agricultural crops for biofuels and production of biogas from manure—Implementation of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable resources. Revised according to instructions for interpretation of the Directive from the European Commission 2009-07-30, revised version 2009-09-08, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Dnr SLU ua 12-4067/08, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  3. Akiyama M, Tsuge T, Doi Y (2003) Environmental life cycle comparison of polyhydroxyalkanoates produced from renewable carbon resources by bacterial fermentation. Polym Degrad Stab 80:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anastas PT, Kirchhoff MM (2002) Origins, current status, and future challenges of green chemistry. Accounts Chem Res 35(9):686–694Google Scholar
  5. Anastas PT, Lankey RL (2000) Life cycle assessment and green chemistry: the yin and yang of industrial ecology. Green Chem 2:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anastas PT, Warner J (1998) Green chemistry – Theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York, p 160Google Scholar
  7. APME Association of Plastics Manufacturers (2010) Eco-profiles: life cycle analysis of several different chemicals, downloaded from, Accessed 25 May 2010
  8. Azapagic A (2002) Life cycle assessment: a tool for identification of more sustainable products and processes, handbook of green chemistry and technology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 62–85Google Scholar
  9. Azapagic A, Millington A, Collett A (2006) A methodology for integrating sustainability considerations into process design. Chem Eng Res Des 84(A6):439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hikers guide to LCA—an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernesson S, Nilsson D, Hansson P-A (2006) A limited LCA comparing large- and small-scale production of ethanol for heavy engines under Swedish conditions. Biomass Bioenerg 26:46–57Google Scholar
  12. Bieler PS, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K (2004) Modelling the energy consumption for chemical batch plants: bottom-up approach. Ind Eng Chem 43:7785–7795Google Scholar
  13. Blowers P, Titus M (2004) Use of life-cycle inventory as a screening tool for environmental performance: supercritical carbon dioxide in the semiconductor industry. Environ Prog 23(4):284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Börjesson P, Tufvesson LM (2010) Agricultural crop-based biofuels—resource efficiency and environmental performance including direct land use changes. J Cleaner Prod 19:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouwman AF, Boumans LJM, Batjes NH (2002) Modelling global annual N2O and NO emissions from fertilized fields. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16(4):1080Google Scholar
  16. BREW (2006) Medium and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources—the potential of White Biotechnology—the BREW project. Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruggink A, Nossin P (2006) Assessment of bio-based pharmaceuticals—the cephalexin case, in the book renewables-based technology—sustainability assessment, chapter 19. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Capello C, Wernet G, Sutter J, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2009) A comprehensive environmental assessment of petrochemical solvent production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlson R, Erixon M, Pålsson AC, Tivander J (2004) OMNITOX concept model supports characterisation modelling for life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cherubini F (2010) GHG balances of bioenergy systems—overview of key steps in the production chain and methodological concerns. Renew Energ 35(7):1565–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cherubini F, Jungmeier G (2010) LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cherubini F, Ulgiati S (2010) Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems—a LCA case study. Appl Energy 87:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cherubini F, Birg ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv 53:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) Agriculture, forestry and other land use—N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol. 4, chapter 11Google Scholar
  25. Concawe, EUCAR, EC Joint Research Centre (2007) Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, Accessed 13 Sept 2012
  26. Constable DJC, Curzons AD, Cunningham VL (2002) Metrics to ‘green’ chemistry—which are the best? Green Chem 4:521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Curzons AD, Constable DC, Cunningham VL (1999) Solvent selection guide: a guide to the integration of environmental, health and safety criteria into the selection of solvents. Clean Products and Processes 1:82–90Google Scholar
  28. Curzons AD, Constable DJC, Mortimer DN, Cunningham VL (2001) So you think your process is green, how do you know?—using principles of sustainability to determine what is green—a corporate perspective. Green Chem 3(1):1–6Google Scholar
  29. Curzons AD, Jiménez-Gonzàlez C, Duncan AL, Constable DJC, Cunningham VL (2007) Fast life cycle assessment of synthetic chemistry (FLASC™) tool. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):272–280Google Scholar
  30. Dale BE (2003) ‘Greening’ the chemical industry: research and development priorities for Biobased industrial products. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 78:1093–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dornburg V, Hermann BG, Patel MK (2008) Scenario projections for future market potentials of biobased bulk chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 42:2261–2267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ecoinvent (2010) The Ecoinvent centre, Accessed 9 May 2010
  33. Eissen M, Metzger JO (2002) Environmental performance metrics for daily use in synthetic chemistry. Chem Eur J 8(16):3580–3585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ekman A, Börjesson P (2010) Life cycle assessment of mineral oil-based and vegetable oil-based hydraulic fluids including comparison of biocatalytic and conventional methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. European Commission (2006) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Regulation no. 1907/2006Google Scholar
  36. European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sourcesGoogle Scholar
  37. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gallagher E (2008) The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuel production. Renewable Fuels Agency, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. Gani R, Jiménez-González C, Constable DJC (2005) Method for selection of solvents for promotion of organic reactions. Comput Chem Eng 29:1661–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gani R, Goméz PA, Folic M, Jiménez-González C, Constable DJC (2008) Solvents in organic synthesis: replacement and multi-step reaction systems. Comp Chem Eng 32:2420–2444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbuehler K (2005) Life-cycle assessment in pesticide product development: methods and case study on two different product generations. Environ Sci Technol 39:2406–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gnansousounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L (2009) Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresour Technol 100:4919–4930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gross RA, Kalra B (2002) Biodegradable polymers for the environment. Science 297:803–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gustafsson LM, Börjesson P (2007) Life cycle assessment in green chemistry—comparison of various industrial wood surface coatings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(3):151–159Google Scholar
  45. Harding KG, Dennis JS, von Blottnitz H, Harrison STL (2007) Environmental analysis of plastic production processes: comparing petroleum-based propylene and polyethylene with biologically-based poly-β-hydroxybuturic acid using life cycle analysis. J Biotechnol 130:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hellweg S, Fischer U, Scheringer M, Hungerbühler K (2004) Environmental assessment of chemicals: methods and application to a case study of organic solvents. Green Chem 6:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Henderson RK, Jiménez-Gonzàlez PC, Constable DJC, Woodley JM (2008) EHS & LCA assessment for 7-ACA synthesis—a case study for comparing biocatalytic & chemical synthesis. Ind Biotechnol 4(2):180–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hermann BG, Patel M (2007) Today’s and tomorrow’s bio-based bulk chemicals from white biotechnology—a techno-economic analysis. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 136:361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Herrchen M, Klein W (2000) Use of life-cycle assessment (LCA) toolbox for an environmental evaluation of production processes. Pure Appl Chem 72(7):1247–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Heyde M (1998) Ecological considerations on the use and production of biosynthetic and synthetic biodegradable polymers. Polym Degrad Stab 59:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hills G (2003) Industrial use of lipases to produce fatty acid esters. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 105(10):601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hischier R, Hellweg S, Capello C, Primas A (2004) Establishing life cycle inventories of chemicals based on differing data availability. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:59–67Google Scholar
  53. Hudlicky T, Frey DA, Koroniak L, Clæboe CD, Brammer LE (1999) Toward a ‘reagent-free’ synthesis—tandem enzymatic and electrochemical methods for increased effective mass yield (EMY). Green Chem 1(2):57–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinée JB, Jager T, Kalf D, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Reijnders L (2000a) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41:541–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Jager T, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ (2000b) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part II: assessing parameter uncertainty and human variability in the calculation of toxicity potentials. Chemosphere 41:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Huijbregts MAJ, Guinée JB, Reijnders L (2000c) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part III: export of potential impact over time and space. Chemosphere 44:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ISO [International Standard Organisation] (2006) SS-EN ISO 14044, Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, ISOGoogle Scholar
  58. Jiménez-Gonzàlez C, Kim S, Overcash MR (2000) Methodology for developing gate-to-gate life cycle inventory information. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jiménez-Gonzàlez C, Curzons AD, Constable DJC, Cunningham VL (2004) Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory and assessment of pharmaceutical compounds. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(2):114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jödicke G, Zenklusen O, Weidenhaupt A, Hungerbühler K (1999) Developing environmentally-sound processes in the chemical industry: a case study on pharmaceutical intermediates. J Cleaner Prod 7:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kamm B, Kamm M (2004) Principles of biorefineries. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 64(2):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kendall A, Chang B (2009) Estimating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn-ethanol: a critical review of current US practices. J Cleaner Prod 17:1175–1182Google Scholar
  63. Kicherer A, Schaltegger S, Tschochohei H, Ferreira Pozo B (2007) Eco-efficiency—combining life cycle assessment and life cycle cost via normalisation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):537–543Google Scholar
  64. Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (polyhydroxyalkanoates) derived from no-tilled corn. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kim S, Dale BE (2009) Regional variations in greenhouse gas emissions of biobased products in the United States—corn-based ethanol and soybean oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:540–546Google Scholar
  66. Kim S, Jiménez-Gonzàles C, Dale BE (2009a) Enzymes for pharmaceutical applications—a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kim H, Kim S, Dale BE (2009b) Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions: some unexplored variables. Environ Sci Technol 43:961–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kirk-Othmer (2010) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology, 5th edn. Wiley, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  69. Klöpffer W (2005) Life cycle assessment as part of sustainability assessment for chemicals. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(3):173–177Google Scholar
  70. Kløverpris JH, Baltzer K, Nielsen PH (2010) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Koller G, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K (2000) Assessing safety, health and environmental impact early during process development. Ind Eng Chem Res 39:960–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Landsiedel R, Saling P (2002) Assessment of toxicological risks for life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lankey RL, Anastas PT (2002) Life-cycle approaches for assessing green chemistry technologies. Ind Eng Chem Res 41:4498–4502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Madival S, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R (2009) Assessment of environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J Cleaner Prod 17:1183–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Martinez M (2005) Biocatalytic processes for the production of fatty acid esters, in BREW-symposium, BioPerspectives 2005. Wiesbaden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  76. McKetta JJ (1976) Encyclopedia of chemical processing and design. Marcel Dekker, New York. USAGoogle Scholar
  77. Millet D, Bistagnino L, Lanzavecchia C, Comus R, Poldma T (2007) Does the potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs? J Cleaner Prod 15:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Molander S, Lidholm P, Schowanek D, Recasens M, Fullana I, Palmer P, Christensen FM, Guinée JB, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Carlson R, Pennington DW, Bachmann TM (2004) OMNITOX—Operational life-cycle impact assessment models and information tools for practitioners. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Müller-Wenk R, Brandâo M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Muñoz I (2012) LCA in green chemistry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:517–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nevison CD, Esser G, Holland EA (1996) A global model for changing N2O emissions from natural and perturbed soils. Clim Change 32:327–378Google Scholar
  82. Nielsen PH, Oxenbøll KM, Wenzel H (2007) Cradle-to-gate environmental assessment of enzyme products produced industrially in Denmark by Novozymes A/S. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):432–438Google Scholar
  83. Olsen SI, Guinée J, Molander S, Hauschild M, Birkved M, Heijungs R (2003) A simple base model for the characterisation of toxic release: feasibility study and recommendation, contribution to work-package 8.6 of the OMNITOX ProjectGoogle Scholar
  84. Patel M (2004) Surfactants based on renewable raw materials—carbon dioxide reduction potential and policies and measures for the European Union. J Ind Ecol 7(3/4):47–62Google Scholar
  85. Petersson AEV, Gustafsson LM, Nordblad M, Börjesson P, Mattiasson B, Adlercreutz P (2005) Wax esters produced by solvent-free energy-efficient enzymatic synthesis and their applicability as wood coatings. Green Chem 12(7):837–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pollard DJ, Woodley JM (2006) Biocatalysis for pharmaceutical intermediates: the future is now. Trends Biotechnol 25(2):66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ponder C, Overcash M (2010) Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory of vancomycin hydrochloride. Sci Total Environ 408:1331–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. PRO-BIP (2004) Techno-economic feasibility of large-scale production of bio-based polymers in Europe, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Accessed 20 August 2011
  89. Ravindranath NH, Manuvie M, Fargione J, Canadell J, Berndes G, Woods J, Watson H, Sathaye J (2009) Greenhouse gas implications of land use and land conversion to biofeul crops. In: Howarth R, Bringezu S (eds) Biofeuls: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September 2008, Gummersbach Germany. Cornell University, NY, USA, pp 111–125Google Scholar
  90. Roes AL, Patel MK (2007) Life cycle risks for human health: a comparison of petroleum versus bio-based production of five bulk organic chemicals. Risk Anal 27(5):1131–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Saling P, Kicherer A (2006) Assessment of biotechnology-based chemicals. In: Renewables-based technology—sustainability assessment. Chapter 18. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Saling P, Maisch R, Silvani M, König N (2005) Assessing the environmental-hazard potential for life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency and SEEbalance. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Saouter E, Van Hoof G, Stalmans M, Brunskill A (2006) Oleochemical and petrochemical surfactants: an overall assessment. in the book Renewables-Based Technology – Sustainability Assessment. Chapter 16. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schmidt A, Dordick JS, Hauer B, Wubbolts M, Witholt B (2001) Industrial biocatalysis today and tomorrow. Nature 409:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabriosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sheldon RA (1992) Organic synthesis—past, present and future. Chemistry & Industry, London, pp 903–906Google Scholar
  98. Sheldon RA (2005) Green solvents for sustainable organic synthesis: state of the art. Green Chem 7:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Shen L, Patel MK (2008) Life cycle assessment of polysaccharide materials: a review. J Polym Environ 16:154–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Steinhäuser KG, Richter S, Greiner P, Penning J, Angrick M (2004) Sustainable chemistry—principles and perspectives. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 11(5):284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tanaka K (2003) Solvent-free organic synthesis. Wiley, Weinheim. ISBN 3-527-30612-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thum O, Oxenbøll KM (2006) Biocatalysis: a sustainable process for production of cosmetic ingredients, IFSCC Congress 2006, Osaka JapanGoogle Scholar
  103. Trost BM (1991) Atom economy—a search for synthetic efficiency. Science 254(5037):1471–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tucker JL (2006) Green chemistry, a pharmaceutical perspective. Org Process Res Dev 10:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tufvesson LM, Börjesson P (2008) Life cycle assessment in green chemistry—wax production from renewable feedstock using biocatalysts instead of using fossil feedstock and conventional methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (2006) 7th electronic edition,, Wiley, Weinheim
  107. Urban RA, Baksi BR (2009) 1,3-Propanediol from fossil versus biomass: a life cycle evaluation of emissions and ecological resources. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:8068–8082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. van Aken K, Strekowski L, Patiny L (2006) EcoScale, a semi-quantitative tool to select an organic preparation based on economical and ecological parameters. Beilstein J Org Chem 2(3):1–7Google Scholar
  109. Vink ETH, Ràbaga KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks™ polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab 80:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Vink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley RJ, Conner RPO (2007) The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3(1):58–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Vink ETH, Davies S, Kolstad JJ (2010) The eco-profile for current Ingeo® polylactide production. Ind Biotechnol 6(4):212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Voss B, Andersen SI, Taarning E, Christensen CH (2009) C factors pinpoint resource utilization in chemical industrial processes. Chem Sus Chem 2:1152–1162Google Scholar
  113. Weiss M, Patel M (2006) On the environmental performance of biobased energy, fuels and materials: a comparative analysis of life-cycle assessment studies. In: Graziani M, Fornasiero P (eds) Renewable resources and renewable energy—a global challenge. Taylor & Francis CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 137–152, 384 pages. ISBN 0849396891Google Scholar
  114. Weiss M, Patel M, Heilmeier H, Bringezu S (2007) Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 50:260–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products, volume 1: methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston USA, p 543Google Scholar
  116. Wernet G, Papadokonstantakis HS, Hungerbühler K (2009) Bridging data gaps in environmental assessments: modelling impacts of fine and basic chemical production. Green Chem 11:1826–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wernet G, Conradt S, Isenring HP, Jiménez-Gonzàlez C, Hungerbühler K (2010) Life cycle assessment of fine chemical production: a case study of pharmaceutical synthesis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:294–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Willing A (2001) Lubricants based on renewable resources – an environmentally compatible alternative to mineral oil products. Chemosphere 43:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Willke T, Vorlop KD (2004) Industrial bioconversion of renewable resources as an alternative to conventional chemistry. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 66:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Winterton N (2001) Twelve more green chemistry principles. Green Chem 73–81Google Scholar
  121. Woodley JM (2008) New opportunities for biocatalysis: making pharmaceutical processes greener. Trends Biotechnol 26(6):321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zilberman D, Hochman G, Rajagopal D (2010) Indirect land use: one consideration too many in biofuel regulation. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update, University of California 13(4):1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda M. Tufvesson
    • 1
  • Pär Tufvesson
    • 2
  • John M. Woodley
    • 2
  • Pål Börjesson
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental and Energy System Studies, Department of Technology and SocietyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Center for Process Engineering and Technology, Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations