Renewable Feedstock % calculator.
Quantify the fraction of your process inputs that come from renewable sources — by mass or by carbon content. Results update live as you type, and every session stays in your browser, never on a server.
What is Renewable Feedstock Percentage — and why does it matter?
The Renewable Feedstock Percentage (% RFP) quantifies the fraction of a process's total feedstock input that derives from renewable, biological, or recycled sources rather than finite fossil or mineral reserves. It is the primary experimental metric for Green Chemistry Principle 7: Use Renewable Feedstocks.
The formula
| Symbol | Term | Units |
|---|---|---|
| $\%\,\text{RFP}$ | Renewable Feedstock Percentage | % (0–100); ideal value = 100% |
| $m_{\text{renewable}}$ | Total mass (or carbon content) of all feedstocks classified as renewable | g (or g C) |
| $m_{\text{total}}$ | Total mass (or carbon content) of all feedstocks used in the process | g (or g C) |
The calculation can be performed on a mass basis (simpler, more common) or a carbon basis (more meaningful when feedstocks have widely different carbon contents — e.g. water vs. glucose). Toggle the basis in Section 03.
What counts as a renewable feedstock?
| Renewable | Non-renewable |
|---|---|
| Plant-derived chemicals (sugars, oils, terpenes, lignocellulose) | Petroleum, natural gas, coal derivatives |
| Agricultural by-products and waste streams | Mineral acids and bases from extractive mining |
| Microbial fermentation products | Synthetic polymers from fossil feedstocks |
| CO₂ captured from atmosphere or industrial point sources | Fossil-derived solvents (e.g. hexane, toluene from crude oil) |
| Post-consumer recycled materials | Non-recycled virgin mineral resources |
Solvents are typically included in % RFP calculations because they often constitute the largest mass fraction of a chemical process. Catalysts may be included or excluded depending on the context and whether they are consumed or recycled.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths
- Simple to calculate from process records; no molecular weights required
- Directly communicates progress toward renewable-feedstock targets
- Applicable at any stage — design, lab, pilot, or full scale
- Can be calculated on a mass or carbon basis depending on context
- Widely used in biorefinery and bio-based product certification (e.g. ASTM D6866)
Limitations
- Does not indicate whether the renewable source is sustainably managed
- Does not capture land-use change or food-vs-fuel trade-offs
- A high % RFP does not guarantee a low carbon footprint
- Classification of "renewable" can be contested (e.g. CO₂ from fossil combustion)
- Does not account for energy inputs, which may be fossil-derived
% RFP in context: complementary metrics
| Metric | What it measures | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| % RFP | Fraction of feedstock mass (or carbon) from renewable sources | 7 |
| E-factor | Mass of all waste per mass of product | 1 |
| Carbon Footprint | Total GHG emissions per functional unit | 6 |
| Biobased Content (BBC) | Fraction of carbon in a product that is biogenic (measured by ¹⁴C) | 7 |
| PMI | Total mass input per mass of product — overall mass efficiency | 1 |
Experiment details
Calculation basis
Choose whether to calculate % RFP on a mass basis (recommended for most lab experiments) or a carbon basis (better when feedstocks have very different carbon densities, e.g. water vs. sucrose). Switching modes will update the table and results immediately.
Enter the mass used (g) of each feedstock in Section 04. The tool computes: % RFP = Σ(renewable mass) / Σ(total mass) × 100.
Feedstocks
Enter all feedstocks used in the process: reagents, solvents, catalysts, and any other material inputs. For each, classify it as Renewable or Non-renewable — this drives the % RFP calculation. The product itself should not be listed here.
| Feedstock name | Category | Source | Mass used (g) | Mass used (g) | Carbon content (%) | Carbon mass (g C) | Contributes (g) |
|---|
Results
Feedstock by source type
Renewable vs. non-renewable split
Detailed breakdown & interpretation
| Feedstock | Category | Source | Mass used (g) | Contributes (g) | % of total | Visual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enter feedstocks above to see breakdown. | ||||||
Interpretation
Save & load sessions
Sessions are stored in your browser only. No data leaves your device.
Export
Export your % RFP calculation as a PDF report or CSV data file. PDF opens in a new tab and uses your browser's print function. CSV downloads directly.
Where can I read more?
References are sorted alphabetically by first author.
- P. T. Anastas and J. C. Warner, Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0-19-850698-0. — Original statement of the 12 Principles; Principle 7 frames the use of renewable feedstocks.
- ASTM International, ASTM D6866: Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis. astm.org. — Industry standard for measuring biobased (renewable carbon) content via ¹⁴C analysis.
- J. J. Bozell and G. R. Petersen, Green Chem., 2010, 12, 539–554. DOI. — Updated Top Value Added Chemicals from Biomass list; benchmark renewable feedstock targets.
- J. H. Clark, Green Chem., 2006, 8, 17–21. DOI. — Review of the biorefinery concept and renewable feedstocks in green chemistry.
- C. O. Tuck, E. Pérez, I. T. Horváth, R. A. Sheldon and M. Poliakoff, Science, 2012, 337, 695–699. DOI. — Valorisation of biomass as a renewable feedstock; life-cycle and mass efficiency framing.
Contributors
Roles follow the CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), adapted for educational software. Hover a contributor's name for a summary, or a column header for the definition of that role.
| Contributor |
|---|
© 2025– DodecaGreen Project. All rights reserved. · Last updated: 08/06/2026
This portal was built with the assistance of a large language model (Claude, Anthropic), which was used to generate and refine code, articulate and structure contributed ideas within the defined page format, and support iterative design decisions. All scientific content, conceptual frameworks, pedagogical choices, and final outputs were directed, reviewed, and verified by the contributors listed above.
Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure accuracy, mistakes can happen. If you notice something that doesn’t look quite right, kindly reach out to the DodecaGreen team via the Contact page.
How do I cite this page?
If you use this tool in teaching or published work, please cite the DodecaGreen portal as the source.