Open AccessPeer ReviewedDouble-Anonymous ReviewCC BY 4.0 ↗Continuous Publication
1.0 Aims and Scope
Sustainable Bioengineering & Circular Systems (SBCS) publishes research at the intersection of biological engineering, environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and circular production systems. The journal focuses on the scientific and engineering development of biological processes, materials and technologies capable of reducing resource consumption, recovering value from waste streams and supporting regenerative or circular modes of production.
SBCS welcomes research ranging from laboratory-scale biological innovation to pilot, demonstration and industrial-scale systems. A central objective is to connect advances in biotechnology and bioengineering with credible assessment of environmental and economic performance.
The journal covers industrial biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, bioprocess engineering, microbial and enzymatic systems, biorefineries, bioenergy, waste valorisation, resource recovery, bioremediation, sustainable biomaterials, agricultural biotechnology, circular bioeconomy, process intensification, industrial ecology and biologically based production systems.
Research should demonstrate more than biological or technical novelty in isolation. Where sustainability is a central claim, authors should identify the basis for that claim and consider relevant trade-offs involving energy, materials, water, emissions, toxicity, land use, resource depletion or other environmental burdens.
The journal is particularly interested in work that bridges the gap between laboratory performance and systems-level sustainability.
1.1 Core Research Areas
Core topics include microbial biotechnology; fermentation; enzymatic processing; metabolic and bioprocess engineering; industrial bioprocesses; biological waste treatment; anaerobic digestion; bioenergy and biofuels; biorefineries; biomass conversion; nutrient recovery; carbon recovery and utilisation; wastewater resource recovery; bioremediation; valorisation of agricultural, municipal and industrial residues; sustainable biomaterials; biodegradable materials; bio-based chemicals; agricultural biotechnology; and integrated circular production systems.
Life-cycle assessment, material-flow analysis, techno-economic analysis and process systems approaches are also within scope when they directly inform sustainable bioengineering decisions.
1.2 Interdisciplinary and Emerging Areas
SBCS encourages research connecting biotechnology with chemical engineering, environmental engineering, materials science, agriculture, energy systems, industrial ecology, circular-economy studies and process economics.
Emerging areas include engineered microbial communities, synthetic biology for sustainable production, precision fermentation, carbon-efficient biomanufacturing, circular nutrient systems, biological carbon capture and utilisation, resource recovery from complex waste streams and integration of biological processes with renewable-energy systems.
2.0 Contributions We Welcome
The journal considers Original Research, Review Articles, Systematic Reviews where appropriate, Methods Articles, Technical Reports, Perspectives, Case Studies, techno-economic and life-cycle studies, and Editorials.
Experimental studies should present appropriate controls, replication and analytical procedures. Engineering studies should explain process configuration and operating conditions. Sustainability assessments should define functional units, system boundaries, allocation assumptions and uncertainty.
2.1 Evidence and Methodological Expectations
Authors should identify biological materials sufficiently, including organisms, strains, cultures, enzymes or feedstocks where relevant. Experimental conditions such as temperature, pH, residence time, loading rates, reactor configuration and other process parameters should be reported when they influence interpretation.
Quantitative claims concerning yields, productivity, conversion efficiency, recovery efficiency or environmental benefit should be supported by transparent calculations.
3.0 Disciplinary Standards
Claims of circularity or sustainability must not rely solely on the fact that a biological or waste-derived feedstock is used. Authors should consider system boundaries and potential burden shifting.
Mass and energy balances should be reported where essential to understanding process performance. Life-cycle studies should explain methodological assumptions, data quality and uncertainty. Techno-economic studies should clearly identify cost assumptions, scale and sensitivity.
3.1 Research Transparency
Authors should provide access to underlying measurements, calculation methods, model assumptions and relevant datasets where feasible.
Biological and environmental safety considerations should be addressed where the process involves genetically modified organisms, pathogens, hazardous feedstocks, environmental release or potentially harmful by-products.
4.0 Topics Outside Scope
SBCS does not normally consider studies that make unsupported sustainability claims; purely descriptive waste-characterisation work without a meaningful engineering or biological contribution; laboratory demonstrations presented as industrially viable without scale-up evidence; environmental assessments with undefined system boundaries; or manuscripts that omit essential experimental controls or process information.
From this journal
SBCS editorials
These four editorials develop the journal’s research priorities and the questions that define its field.
Linear production systems convert concentrated natural resources into products while dispersing substantial material value as waste, emissions, and low-grade residues. A circular bioeconomy seeks to alter this trajectory by combining renewable biological resources with cascading use, resource recovery, industrial biotechnology, and regenerative production. Yet substituting biomass for fossil feedstocks does not itself establish sustainability. This editorial argues that circular bioengineering must integrate biological conversion with process engineering, industrial ecology, lifecycle assessment, logistics, end-of-life design, and economic feasibility. Current progress in integrated biorefineries, microbial and enzymatic conversion, waste-derived feedstocks, bio-based materials, and industrial symbiosis demonstrates considerable potential, but persistent constraints include feedstock variability, land and water pressures, downstream-processing burdens, scale-up, product quality, infrastructure requirements, and uncertain environmental trade-offs. Research should prioritize waste- and residue-based feedstocks, cascading resource use, scalable conversion platforms, material recovery, demonstrator-scale validation, lifecycle assessment, and techno-economic analysis. The scientific standard for circular bioengineering should therefore be regenerative system performance rather than biological origin alone.
Biological conversion can appear highly promising at laboratory scale while remaining technically unstable, resource intensive, or economically uncompetitive when transferred to industrial production. Scale changes mixing, oxygen transfer, heat removal, concentration gradients, contamination risk, instrumentation, and downstream-processing requirements, while large production volumes magnify water, energy, raw-material, and waste burdens. This editorial argues that sustainable bioprocess engineering must therefore connect biological performance with reactor engineering, process control, separations, utilities, scale-up, and economics across the full production train. Modern fermentation, continuous processing, process analytical technologies, digital models, advanced control, and intensified separations provide powerful tools, but their value depends on evidence under realistic scales and operating variability. Persistent challenges include scale-dependent physiology, titre–yield–productivity trade-offs, strain stability, mass-transfer limitations, process variability, purification burdens, and uncertain resource efficiency. Research priorities include scale-down models, continuous and intensified processing, robust monitoring, predictive digital bioprocessing, energy-efficient separations, water minimization, modular manufacturing, pilot-scale validation, and integrated techno-economic and lifecycle assessment.
Waste streams are increasingly recognized not only as pollution burdens but also as heterogeneous reservoirs of carbon, nutrients, metals, energy, water, and functional compounds. Agricultural residues, food waste, wastewater, municipal organics, industrial effluents, and contaminated soils can potentially support resource recovery while environmental damage is reduced. This editorial argues that genuine valorisation requires more than producing a secondary product from waste: recovery must improve environmental performance, manage contaminants safely, and remain technically and economically credible. Current approaches include anaerobic digestion, microbial fermentation, nutrient recovery, algal systems, biosorption, phytoremediation, microbial electrochemical technologies, and integrated waste biorefineries. Their limitations include feedstock heterogeneity, pretreatment demand, pathogens, toxic metals, process instability, recovery costs, secondary residues, product-safety requirements, logistics, regulatory barriers, and uncertain markets. Research should prioritize selective recovery, integrated treatment–valorisation systems, nutrient and water loops, high-value bioproducts, contaminant management, distributed processing, long-term bioremediation validation, and combined lifecycle and techno-economic assessment. Sustainable resource recovery should ultimately be judged by avoided pollution and retained value across the complete system.
Technologies are increasingly described as green, bio-based, circular, low-carbon, resource-efficient, or sustainable before their system-level consequences are known. Such labels can be useful hypotheses, but they are not evidence. This editorial argues that sustainability claims require quantitative evaluation of environmental burdens, material and energy flows, scale-up behaviour, and economic feasibility relative to realistic alternatives. Life-cycle assessment, carbon accounting, material-flow analysis, techno-economic analysis, process simulation, water and energy balances, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty analysis provide complementary tools, but their conclusions depend on system boundaries, functional units, allocation rules, data quality, geographic context, market assumptions, and scale. Emerging technologies are especially difficult because laboratory data must be extrapolated toward uncertain industrial configurations. Research priorities should therefore include prospective life-cycle assessment, scale-up-aware modelling, harmonized inventories, regionalized evaluation, transparent uncertainty analysis, integrated environmental-economic optimization, and validation against pilot or commercial evidence. Sustainable impact should be claimed only when results remain credible across plausible scenarios and when comparisons use realistic incumbent technologies rather than idealized baselines.
