II: Biooils

Biooils

Biooils: A Scientometric Review of the Research

Ozcan Konur

Introduction

Crude oil-based fuels, such as diesel fuels, have been primary sources of energy and fuels (Chisti, 2007, 2008; Konur, 2012g, 2015; Lapuerta et al., 2008; van Gerpen, 2005). However, significant public concerns about the sustainability, price fluctuations, and adverse environmental impact of crude oils have emerged since the 1970s (Ahmadun et al., 2009; Atlas, 1981; Babich and Moulijn, 2003; Kilian, 2009; Moldowan et al., 1985; Perron, 1989). Thus, biooils have emerged as an alternative to crude oils in recent decades (Bridgwater and Peacocke, 2000; Czernik and Bridgwater, 2004; Evans and Milne, 1987; Gallezot, 2012; Mohan et al., 2006; Yaman, 2004; Zhang et al., 2007).

However, for the efficient progression of the research in this field, it is necessary to develop efficient incentive structures for the primary stakeholders and to inform these stakeholders about the research (Konur, 2000, 2002a-c, 2006a-b, 2007a-b; North, 199la-b).

Scientometric analysis offers ways to evaluate the research in a respective field (Garfield, 1955, 1972). This method has been used to evaluate research in a number of fields (Konur, 2011, 2012a-n, 2015, 2016a-f, 2017a-f, 2018a-b, 2019a-b). However, there has been no scientometric study of this field.

This chapter presents a study on the scientometric evaluation of the research in this field using two datasets. The first data set includes the 100-most-cited papers (n = 100 sample papers) whilst the second set includes population papers (n = over 20,000 population papers) published between 1980 and 2019. It complements the chapter on crude oils as well as the other chapters in this handbook (Konur 2021a-ag).

The data on the indices, document types, authors, institutions, funding bodies, source titles, ‘Web of Science’ subject categories, keywords, research fronts, and citation impacts are presented and discussed.

Materials and Methodology

The search for the literature was carried out in the ‘Web of Science’ (WOS) database in January 2020. It contains the ‘Science Citation Index-Expanded’ (SCI-E), the Social Sciences Citation Index’ (SSCI), the ‘Book Citation Index-Science’ (BCI-S), the ‘Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science’ (CPCI-S), the ‘Emerging Sources Citation Index’ (ESCI), the ‘Book Citation Index-Social Sciences and Humanities’ (BCI-SSH), the ‘Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Sciences and Humanities’ (CPCI-SSH). and the ‘Arts and Humanities Citation Index’ (A&HCI).

The keywords for the search of the literature are collated from the screening of abstract pages for the first 1,000 highly cited papers. This keyword set is provided in the Appendix.

Two datasets are used for this study. The highly cited 100 papers comprise the first dataset (sample dataset, n = 100 papers) whilst all the papers form the second dataset (population dataset, n = over 20,000 papers).

The data on the indices, document types, publication years, institutions, funding bodies, source titles, countries, ‘Web of Science’ subject categories, citation impacts, keywords, and research fronts are collated from these datasets. The key findings are provided in the relevant tables and one figure, supplemented with explanatory notes in the text. The findings are discussed and a number of conclusions are drawn and recommendations for further study are made.

Results

Indices and Documents

There are over 24,800 papers related to biooils in the ‘Web of Science’ as of January 2020. This original population dataset is refined by document type (article, review.

book chapter, book, editorial material, note, and letter) and language (English), resulting in over 20,100 papers comprising over 81% of the original population dataset.

The primary index is SCI-E for both the sample and population papers. About 96% of the population papers are indexed by the SCI-E database. Additionally 6.3%, 2.1%, and 2.1% of these papers are indexed by CPCI-S, ESCI, and BCI-S databases, respectively. The papers on the social and humanitarian aspects of this field are relatively negligible with 0.5% and 0.1% of the population papers indexed by the SSCI and A&HCI, respectively.

Brief information on the document types for both datasets is provided in Table 5.1. The key finding is that article types of documents are the primary documents for the population papers whilst reviews form 42% of the sample papers. Articles are under-represented by -35.1% whilst reviews are over-represented by 37.4% in the sample papers.

Authors

Brief information about the most-prolific eight authors with at least three sample papers each is provided in Table 5.2. Around 310 and 37,000 authors contribute to sample and population papers, respectively.

The most-prolific author is ‘George W. Huber’ with seven sample papers, working primarily on ‘biomass pyrolysis’ and ‘biooil upgrading'. The other prolific researchers are ‘Stefan Czernik' and ‘Anthony V. Bridgwater’ with five and four sample papers, respectively. These top three authors have the most impact with a 15.4% publication surplus altogether.

The most-prolific institution for these top authors is the ‘University of Massachusetts’ of the USA with two authors. In total, 16 institutions house these top authors.

It is notable that four of these top researchers are listed in ‘Highly Cited Researchers’ (HCR) in 2019 (Clarivate Analytics, 2019; Docampo and Cram, 2019).

The most-prolific country for these top authors is the USA with five authors. The other countries are Spain. Turkey, and the UK. In total, four countries contribute to these top papers.

TABLE 5.1

Document Types

Document Type

Sample Dataset (%)

Population Dataset (%)

Difference (%)

1

Article

58

93.1

-35.1

2

Review

42

4.6

37.4

3

Book chapter

0

1.9

-1.9

4

Proceeding paper

5

6.2

-1.2

5

Editorial material

0

0.8

-0.8

6

Letter

0

0.3

-0.3

7

Book

0

0.1

-0.1

8

Note

0

1.1

-1.1

o>

Biodiesel Fuels

TABLE 5.2

Authors

Author

Sample Papers (%)

Population Papers (%)

Surplus (%)

Institution

Country

Research Front

1

Huber. George W.*

7

0.2

6.8

Univ. Massachusetts

USA

Pyrolysis and upgrading

2

Czernik. Stefan

5

0.1

4.9

Natl. Renew. Energ. Lab.

USA

Pyrolysis

3

Bridgwater. Anthony V.

4

0.3

3.7

Aston Univ.

UK

Pyrolysis

4

Corma. Avelino*

3

0.1

2.9

Univ. Polytcch. Valencia

Spain

Upgrading

5

Dcmirbas. Ayhan

3

0.3

2.7

Sclcuk Univ.

Turkey

Pyrolysis

6

Dumesic. James A.*

3

0.1

2.9

Univ. Wisconsin

USA

Biomass conversion, upgrading

7

Mohan. Dinesh*

3

0.1

2.9

Mississippi Univ.

USA

Pyrolysis

8

Tompsett, Geoffrey A.

3

0.1

2.9

Univ. Massachusetts

USA

Pyrolysis

♦Highly cited researchers in 2019 (Clarivate Analytics, 2019).

There are three key research fronts for these top researchers: ‘biomass conversion to biooil in general’, ‘biomass pyrolysis’, and 'biooil upgrading to fuels’. The top research front is ‘biomass pyrolysis’ with six authors. The other prolific research front is ‘biooil upgrading’ with three authors.

It is further notable that there is a significant gender deficit among these top authors as they are all male (Lariviere et al., 2013; Xie and Shauman, 1998).

Publication Years

Information about publication years for both datasets is provided in Figure 5.1.

This figure shows that 14%, 33%, 40%, and 13% of the sample papers and 10.3%, 13.0%, 21.1%, and 55.1% of the population papers were published in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, respectively.

Similarly, the most-prolific publication years for the sample dataset are 1998, 2000, and 2003 with seven papers each. On the other hand, the most-prolific publication years for the population dataset are 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 with at least 6% of the population papers each. It is notable that there is a sharply rising trend for the population papers, particularly in the 2010s.

Institutions

Brief information on the top ten institutions with at least 3% of the sample papers each is provided in Table 5.3. In total, around 140 and 6,400 institutions contribute to the sample and population papers, respectively.

These top institutions publish 44% and 12.4% of the sample and population papers, respectively. The top institution is the ‘National Renewable Energy

The research output between 1980 and 2019

FIGURE 5.1 The research output between 1980 and 2019.

TABLE 5.3 Institutions

Institution

Country

No. of Sample Papers (%)

No. of Population Papers (%)

Difference (%)

1

Natl. Renew. Energ. Lab.

USA

7

1.0

6.0

2

Univ. Massachusetts

USA

6

0.3

5.7

3

Super. Counc. Sei. Invest.

Spain

5

1.5

3.5

4

Univ. Wisconsin

USA

5

0.4

4.6

5

Aston Univ.

UK

4

0.7

3.3

6

Zhejiang Univ.

China

4

1.1

2.9

7

Sei. Res. Natl. Ctr.

France

4

2.0

2.0

8

Chinese Acad. Sei.

China

3

4.0

-1.0

9

Counc. Sei. Ind. Res.

India

3

1.1

1.9

10

Univ. Polytech. Valencia

Spain

3

0.3

2.7

Laboratory’ of the USA with seven sample papers and a 6% publication surplus. The other top institutions are the ‘University of Massachusetts’ of the USA, the ‘Superior Council of Scientific Investigations’ of Spain, and the ‘University of Wisconsin' of the USA with 6, 5, and 5 sample papers, respectively.

The most-prolific country for these top institutions is the USA with three. The other prolific countries are China and Spain with two institutions each. France, India, and the UK are the other contributing countries with one institution each.

The institutions with the most impact are the ‘National Renewable Energy Laboratory’, the ‘University of Massachusetts’, and the ‘University of Wisconsin' with at least a 4.6% publication surplus each. On the other hand, the institutions with the least impact are the ‘Chinese Academy of Sciences’, the ‘Council of Scientific Industrial Research", and the ‘Scientific Research National Center’ with at least a -1% publication surplus/deficit each.

It is notable that some institutions with a heavy presence in the population papers are under-represented in the sample papers: the ‘Russian Academy of Sciences’, the ‘University of Science Technology of China’, the ‘Indian Institute of Technology’, ‘Huazhong University of Science Technology’, the ‘University of Basque Country’, the US ‘Department of Agriculture’, and ‘Southeast University China’ with at least a 1% presence in the population papers each.

Funding Bodies

Brief information about the top eight funding bodies with at least 2% of the sample papers each is provided in Table 5.4. It is significant that only 38.0% and 54.7% of the sample and population papers declare any funding, respectively.

The top funding body is the US ‘Department of Energy’, funding 10.0% and 2.7% of the sample and population papers, respectively, with a 7.3% publication surplus. This top funding body is followed by the US ‘Natural Science Foundation’ with seven sample papers. The other prolific funding bodies are the US ‘Defense Advanced

TABLE 5.4

Funding Bodies

Institution

Country

No. of Sample Papers (%)

No. of Population Papers (%)

Difference (%)

1 Dept. Energy

USA

10

2.7

7.3

2 Natl. Science Found.

USA

7

1.7

5.3

3 Defense Adv. Res. Proj.

USA

4

0.1

3.9

4 Natl. Nat. Sci. Found. China

China

4

12.2

-8.2

5 Dept. Defense

USA

4

0.2

3.8

6 Natl. Basic Res. Prog. China

China

3

2.4

0.6

7 Eng. Phys. Sci. Res. Counc.

UK

2

1.0

1.0

8 Min. Ed. Cult. Sci.

Netherlands

2

0.7

1.3

Research Projects’, the ‘National Natural Science Foundation of China’, and the US ‘Department of Defense’ with four sample papers each.

It is notable that some top funding agencies for the population studies do not enter this top funding body list. Some of them are the ‘Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities’ of China, the ‘European Union', the ‘National Council for Scientific and Technological Development’ and ‘CAPES' of Brazil, the ‘China Postdoctoral Science Foundation’, and the ‘China Scholarship Council’ with at least 1% of the population papers each.

It is notable that the most-prolific country for these top funding bodies is the USA with four bodies, whilst China has two.

The US ‘Department of Energy’ and the US ‘National Science Foundation’ are the funding bodies with the most impact, whilst the ‘National Natural Science Foundation’ and the ‘National Basic Research Program of China’ are those with the least impact.

Source Titles

Brief information about the top 13 source titles with at least three sample papers each is provided in Table 5.5. In total, 40 and over 1,380 source titles publish the sample and population papers, respectively. On the other hand, these top 13 journals publish 67% and 7.6% of the sample and population papers, respectively.

The top journal is ‘Bioresource Technology’, publishing 11 sample papers with a 5.2% publication surplus. The other top journals are ‘Energy Conversion and Management', the ‘Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis’, and ‘Energy Fuels’ with seven, seven, and six sample papers, respectively.

Although these journals are indexed by 13 subject categories, the top categories are ‘Energy Fuels’, ‘Chemical Engineering’, and ‘Thermodynamics’ with nine, five, and three journals, respectively.

The journals with the most impact are ‘Energy Conversion and Management’, ‘Bioresource Technology’, and ‘Chemical Society Reviews’ with at least a 4.9%

TABLE 5.5

Source Titles

Source Title

WOS Subject Category

No. of Sample Papers (%)

No. of Population Papers (%)

Difference (%)

1

Bioresource Technology

Agr. Eng.. Biot. Appl. Microb.. Ener. Fuels

11

5.8

5.2

2

Energy Conversion and Management

Therm.. Ener. Fuels. Meehs.

7

1.5

5.5

3

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis

Chem. Anal.. Ener. Fuels. Eng. Chem.

7

10.5

-3.5

4

Energy Fuels

Ener. Fuels. Eng. Chem.

6

5.4

0.6

5

Applied Catalysis A General

Chem. Phys., Env. Sei.

5

0.8

4.2

6

Chemical Society Reviews

Chem. Mult.

5

0.1

4.9

7

Fuel

Ener. Fuels. Eng. Chem.

5

4.7

0.3

8

Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews

Green Sust. Sei. Technol.. Ener. Fuels

5

0.8

4.2

9

Science

Mult. Sei.

4

0.1

3.9

10

Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Chem. Mult.

3

0.2

2.8

11

Energy

Therm.. Ener. Fuels

3

1.4

1.6

12

Energy Environmental Science

Chem. Mult.. Ener. Fuels. Eng. Chem..

3

0.2

2.8

Env. Sei.

13

Progress in Energy and Combustion

Therm.. Ener. Fuels. Eng. Chem.. Eng.

3

0.2

2.8

Science

Meeh.

67

7.6

59.4

Biodiesel Fuelspublication surplus each. On the other hand, the journals with the least impact are ‘Fuel’, ‘Energy Fuels’, and ‘Energy’ with at least a 0.3 publication surplus each.

It is notable that some journals are relatively under-represented in the sample papers. Some of them are ‘Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research’, ‘Fuel Processing Technology’, ‘Biomass Bioenergy’, ‘ACS Sustainable Chemistry Engineering’, ‘Waste Management’, the ‘Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry’, ‘Green Chemistry’, ‘Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects’, the ‘Journal of Cleaner Production’, and ‘Renewable Energy’ with at least a 1% presence in the population papers each.

Countries

Brief information about the top 13 countries with at least three sample papers each is provided in Table 5.6. In total, 24 and over 135 countries contribute to the sample and population papers, respectively.

The top country is the USA, publishing 36% and 18.3% of the sample and population papers, respectively. China follows the USA with 14% and 21.4% of the sample and population papers, respectively. The other prolific countries are Canada, the UK, and Spain, publishing ten, ten, and nine sample papers, respectively.

On the other hand, the European and Asian countries represented in this table publish altogether 42% and 27% of the sample papers and 25% and 28.7% of the population papers, respectively.

It is notable that the publication surplus for the USA and these European and Asian countries is 17.7%, 17.0%, and -1.7%, respectively.

It is also notable that some countries do not have a presence in this top country table. Some of them are Japan, Italy, South Korea, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Sweden,

TABLE 5.6 Countries

Country

No. of Sample Papers (%)

No. of Population Papers (%)

Difference (%)

1

USA

36

18.3

17.7

2

China

14

21.4

-7.4

3

Canada

10

4.5

5.5

4

UK

10

6.6

3.4

5

Spain

9

5.9

3.1

6

Germany

7

4.5

2.5

7

India

7

4.5

2.5

8

Netherlands

7

2.6

4.4

9

Australia

6

2.8

3.2

10

Turkey

4

2.6

1.4

11

Denmark

3

1.2

1.8

12

France

3

3.6

-0.6

13

Norway

3

0.6

2.4

Europe-7

42

25

17

Asia-3

27

28.7

-1.7

Taiwan, Poland, Finland, Belgium. Thailand, Greece, and Portugal with at least a 1% presence in the population papers each.

5.3.8 'Web of Science' Subject Categories

Brief information about the top 15 ‘Web of Science’ subject categories with at least three sample papers each is provided in Table 5.7. The sample and population papers are indexed by 26 and 104 subject categories, respectively.

For the sample papers, the top subject is ‘Energy Fuels’ with 54% and 46% of the sample and population papers, respectively. This top subject category is followed by ‘Engineering Chemical’ with 32% and 41% of the sample and population papers, respectively. The other prolific subjects are "Biotechnology Applied Microbiology’, ‘Chemistry Multidisciplinary', "Agricultural Engineering’, ‘Environmental Sciences’, and ‘Thermodynamics’ with at least 13 papers each.

It is notable that the publication surplus is most significant for ‘Energy Fuels’, ‘Thermodynamics’, ‘Mechanics’, and ‘Biotechnology Applied Microbiology’ with at least a 4.7% surplus each. On the other hand, the subjects with least impact are ‘Chemistry Analytical’, ‘Engineering Chemical’, ‘Engineering Environmental’, ‘Chemistry Physical’, and ‘Chemistry Applied’ with at least a -9.5% publication deficit each. These subject categories are under-represented in the sample papers.

Additionally, some subject categories do not have a place in this top subject table: ‘Biochemical Research Methods’, ‘Agronomy’, ‘Engineering Multidisciplinary’, ‘Chemistry Inorganic Nuclear’, and ‘Electrochemistry’, which have at least a 1.2% presence in the population papers each.

TABLE 5.7

‘Web of Science’ Subject Categories

Subject

No. of Sample Papers (%)

No. of Population Papers (%)

Difference (%)

1

Energy Fuels

54

46.0

8.0

2

Engineering Chemical

32

41.0

-9.0

3

Biotechnology Applied

16

11.3

4.7

Microbiology

4

Chemistry Multidisciplinary

16

12.9

3.1

5

Agricultural Engineering

13

9.0

4.0

6

Environmental Sciences

13

12.2

0.8

7

Thermodynamics

13

7.6

5.4

8

Chemistry Physical

10

11.6

-1.6

9

Green Sustainable Science

9

8.0

1.0

Technology

10

Chemistry Analytical

7

16.5

-9.5

11

Mechanics

7

2.0

5.0

12

Multidisciplinary' Sciences

5

1.1

3.9

13

Chemistry Applied

3

4.5

-1.5

14

Engineering Environmental

3

7.7

-4.7

15

Engineering Mechanical

3

1.9

1.1

Citation Impact

These sample papers received about 60,300 citations as of January 2010. Thus, the average number of citations per paper is 603.

Keywords

Although a number of keywords are listed in the Appendix for the datasets related to this field, some of them are more significant for the sample papers. The most-prolific keyword is ‘pyroly*’ with 59 occurrences. This top keyword is followed by ‘biomass’ with 52 occurrences. The other prolific keywords are ‘*fuel*’ and ^conversion’ with 36 and 31 citations, respectively. ‘Lignin’, ‘biochar’, ‘*cellulos*’, ‘*wood*’, ‘upgrading’, ‘waste’, and ‘torréfaction’ are the other prolific keywords with 16, 10, 12, 8, 5, 5, and 5 citations, respectively.

5.3.11 Research Fronts

Brief information about the key research fronts is provided in Table 5.8. There are eight research fronts for these sample papers: ‘biomass pyrolysis’ (Bridgwater and Peacocke, 2000; Mohan et al., 2006), ‘biofuels from biomass pyrolysis’ (Czernik and Bridgwater, 2004; Yaman, 2004), ‘pyrolysis oil property and characterization’ (Evans and Milne, 1987; Zhang et al., 2007), ‘biomass conversion for biofuel production’ (Alonso et al., 2010; Gallezot, 2012), ‘biomass torréfaction’ (Bridgeman et al., 2008; van der Stelt, 2011), ‘biomass liquefaction' (Akhtar and Amin, 2011; Toor et al., 2011), ‘biooil upgrading’ (Saidi et al., 2014; Xiu and Shahbazi, 2012), and ‘lignin conversion’ (Ragauskas et al., 2014; Zakzeski et al., 2010).

The most-prolific research front is ‘biomass conversion for biofuel production’ with 46 sample papers. The other prolific research fronts are ‘biomass pyrolysis’, ‘biofuels from biomass pyrolysis’, ‘lignin conversion, and ‘pyrolysis oil property and characterization’ with 19, 22, 16, and 12 sample papers, respectively.

No. of Sample Papers (%)

TABLE 5.8

Research Fronts

Research Front

1

Biomass pyrolysis

19

2

Biofuels from biomass pyrolysis

22

3

Pyrolysis oil property and characterization

12

4

Biomass conversion for biofuel production

46

5

Biomass torréfaction

7

6

Biomass liquefaction

4

7

Biooil upgrading

9

8

Lignin conversion

16

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >