Scholarlink

<p>Circularity claims in biomass and waste conversion research often depend on feedstock assumptions, but studies do not report baseline management, hazard-related information, and material status consistently. Here we show a Scopus-based evidence map of feedstock reporting across eight conversion technologies. We extract 152,548 feedstock items and retain 133,832 valid items using a deterministic-first workflow with record-level provenance, versioned dictionaries, and audited validation. The map reveals technology-specific reporting patterns and recurring gaps in the information needed to interpret whether feedstocks are primary biomass, wastes, by-products, or commodity inputs, and whether secondary streams carry hazard-relevant qualifiers. We provide a harmonised feedstock dictionary, a reusable labelling infrastructure, and minimum evidence conditions for transparent interpretation of feedstock claims. These findings characterise reporting patterns in a Scopus-indexed and query-constrained evidence base, not real-world deployment, feedstock availability, or sustainability performance. Together, these outputs support more transparent, reliable, and reusable feedstock evidence, enabling better-grounded interpretation of circularity claims across conversion technologies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Feedstock reporting gaps limit interpretation of circularity claims across conversion technologies

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月27日

查看全文
  • Zahir Barahmand,
  • Lars-Andre Tokheim,
  • Liang Wang,
  • Morten Seljeskog,
  • Marianne Eikeland

摘要

Circularity claims in biomass and waste conversion research often depend on feedstock assumptions, but studies do not report baseline management, hazard-related information, and material status consistently. Here we show a Scopus-based evidence map of feedstock reporting across eight conversion technologies. We extract 152,548 feedstock items and retain 133,832 valid items using a deterministic-first workflow with record-level provenance, versioned dictionaries, and audited validation. The map reveals technology-specific reporting patterns and recurring gaps in the information needed to interpret whether feedstocks are primary biomass, wastes, by-products, or commodity inputs, and whether secondary streams carry hazard-relevant qualifiers. We provide a harmonised feedstock dictionary, a reusable labelling infrastructure, and minimum evidence conditions for transparent interpretation of feedstock claims. These findings characterise reporting patterns in a Scopus-indexed and query-constrained evidence base, not real-world deployment, feedstock availability, or sustainability performance. Together, these outputs support more transparent, reliable, and reusable feedstock evidence, enabling better-grounded interpretation of circularity claims across conversion technologies.