CAAIL field-gap analysis: Techno-economic (TEA) & life-cycle (LCA) resources (26 candidate additions)

[benjibromberg]

CAAIL field-gap analysis: Techno-economic (TEA) & life-cycle (LCA) resources (26 candidate additions)

A topic-scoped field sweep for techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment resources CAAIL is missing. Cell-ag relevance throughout: TEA and LCA drive the scale-up and sustainability case for cultivated meat, and the published cultivated-meat assessments (Sinke/CE Delft, Risner, Humbird) are built on the software and background databases below. Scope: cell-ag-specific work plus the general-purpose tools and LCI databases that cell-ag practitioners run (the same "general tool applicable to cell-ag" pattern CAAIL already uses for AI Tooling).

Current coverage: scattered. "Techno-economic analysis" appears in the PISCES blurb and the already-listed Unjournal cm_pq_modeling repo; a few cost-flavored papers exist (#2, #175, #193, #226) but none is a dedicated TEA or LCA study. There is no TEA/LCA section in Software.md, no LCI/sustainability section in Databases.md, and no economics/sustainability page in Datasets/.

Method: topic-scoped finder agents read the live canonical files for their exclusion sets, then verified each candidate against its source (GitHub repo, vendor page, DOI, dataset SI); a verification pass confirmed absence from the repo and that DOIs resolve. Maintainer shortlist; integration follows the schema (matrix anchor + ## References entry in the same commit; IDs at landing; current max ID is 236, new entries start at 237).

Summary

Target file	Candidates
Software.md (new section: Techno-Economic & Life-Cycle Assessment)	8
Databases.md (new section: Life-Cycle Inventory & Sustainability Databases)	7
Datasets/ (new page: Sustainability.md)	2
Papers.md (TEA/LCA studies — curator decision, see below)	9
Total	26

Headline curator decision: all 9 TEA/LCA papers below apply no AI/ML method. CAAIL's matrix is for AI-method-applying primary research, so none takes a matrix cell. They are quantitative primary studies, which is a stretch for ## Reviews & Perspectives (reserved for reviews/commentary). Two honest options per paper: (a) admit to Reviews & Perspectives as field-context primary studies, or (b) judge them out of Papers.md scope. This is the central judgment call of this issue — see the dedicated section.

---

Software.md → new section "Techno-Economic & Life-Cycle Assessment"

Recommend a new H2 rather than folding into "Bioprocess Modeling & Scaling" — that section simulates the physical bioreactor (OpenFOAM, CompuCell3D, PhysiCell); TEA/LCA is a distinct process-economics + environmental-footprint concern. Cross-reference PISCES (flowsheet substrate) and the in-repo cm_pq_modeling (cell-ag worked example). Open-source H3 link target = GitHub per convention.

• BioSTEAM — https://github.com/BioSTEAMDevelopmentGroup/biosteam — Python platform for design, simulation, TEA, and LCA of biorefinery/fermentation processes under uncertainty; economics validated against SuperPro/Aspen. The canonical open-source engine for fermentation-bioproduct cost modeling. License: open-source (NCSA). Confidence: high.
• QSDsan — https://github.com/QSD-Group/QSDsan — open-source Python platform (built on BioSTEAM) integrating process modeling, simulation, TEA, and LCA in one toolkit; the tightest single-package TEA+LCA combo for bioprocess sustainability tradeoffs. License: open-source (NCSA). Confidence: high.
• Brightway (2 / 2.5) — https://github.com/brightway-lca · docs https://brightway.dev/ — the leading Python-native open-source LCA framework (data + Monte Carlo + IO; Activity Browser GUI); the scriptable, reproducible environmental-footprint engine for cradle-to-gate cultivated-meat LCA. License: open-source (BSD-3). Confidence: high.
• openLCA — https://github.com/GreenDelta/olca-app · site https://www.openlca.org/ — the most widely used free/open professional LCA desktop app (GreenDelta), with a large database ecosystem (Nexus) and Python IPC API; the GUI complement to Brightway, heavily used in food/ag LCA. License: open-source (MPL-2.0). Confidence: high.
• DWSIM — https://github.com/DanWBR/dwsim · site https://dwsim.org/ — open-source steady-state/dynamic chemical-process simulator with thermodynamic rigor near commercial tools; the free flowsheet layer that feeds TEA (open counterpart to Aspen/SuperPro). License: open-source (GPL-3). Confidence: med — general process simulator; flag: could alternatively sit in "Bioprocess Modeling & Scaling."
• SuperPro Designer — https://www.intelligen.com/products/superpro-overview/ — the bioprocess flowsheet + TEA tool actually used in the cultivated-meat TEA literature (Humbird and Negulescu et al. 2023 cost models; BioSTEAM benchmarks against it). The de-facto commercial standard for CM cost-of-goods modeling. License: commercial. Confidence: med-high (strongest concrete cell-ag tie of any tool here).
• SimaPro — https://simapro.com/ — leading commercial LCA software (PRé Sustainability), used in cultivated-meat / alt-protein cradle-to-gate studies; commercial counterpart to openLCA/Brightway. License: commercial. Confidence: med.
• GREET (Argonne) — https://greet.anl.gov/ · https://www.energy.gov/cmei/greet — Argonne's free, annually-updated life-cycle model (GHG/energy/water) bundling background LCI; energy inputs dominate CM LCA results (the Risner "highly refined media" hot-spot is energy-driven), and GREET is the US reference for those electricity/bioenergy flows. License: free (government; not OSI). Confidence: med. (Listed here as a runnable model; it also bundles LCI data.)

Rejected: CapdetWorks (wastewater TEA, no CM/bioprocess-economics applicability beyond water treatment — QSDsan covers the resource-recovery niche better and is open-source). biosteam_lca — a single-author BioSTEAM add-on; mention as a BioSTEAM sub-bullet at most, not a standalone entry.

Databases.md → new section "Life-Cycle Inventory & Sustainability Databases"

Anchor the section intro to the concrete tie: every published cultivated-meat LCA (Sinke 2023, Risner) is built on these background LCI databases.

• ecoinvent — https://ecoinvent.org/ — the background LCI database used by the canonical CM LCAs (Sinke et al. 2023 used ecoinvent 3.7.1; Risner used v3.8) for media-component and energy flows; v3.12 current, 26,000+ datasets. Access: commercial (educational discounts and LMIC licensing programs available; see ecoinvent.org/get-access). Confidence: high.
• AGRIBALYSE (ADEME / INRAE) — https://doc.agribalyse.fr/documentation-en — open agri-food LCI (2,517 products, 14 indicators); the conventional-meat/crop baselines CM LCAs and media-feedstock analyses compare against. Access: free/open. Confidence: high.
• USDA Federal LCA Commons — https://www.lcacommons.gov/ — US agricultural LCI (~19,000 unit-process datasets, openLCA schema); the conventional-protein baseline and feedstock/media-ingredient inventories for US-context CM modeling. Access: free/open. Confidence: high.
• World Food LCA Database (WFLDB, Quantis) — https://quantis.com/services-solutions/consortium-building-and-management/wfldb/ — agri-food LCI with carbon/water/land emission factors; food-product footprint baselines for benchmarking cultivated vs conventional meat and media-ingredient sourcing. Access: commercial. Confidence: high.
• EU Environmental Footprint (EF) reference packages — EPLCA / JRC — https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EnvironmentalFootprint.html — the EU's standardized LCIA methods + reference LCI (EF 3.1, ILCD format) for food environmental labelling / PEF; the methodological substrate for any EU-market CM environmental claim. Access: free (downloadable ILCD packages). Confidence: high.
• ESU-services LCA data (incl. ESU World Food Database) — https://esu-services.ch/data/ — Swiss LCI provider with a dedicated World Food Database; usable as an independent cross-check on agri-food and media-feedstock impacts. Access: commercial. Confidence: med-low (smaller provider; weaker direct CM tie).
• Agri-Footprint (Blonk) — https://blonksustainability.nl/tools-and-databases/agri-footprint — the agri-food LCI database used (v5.0) alongside ecoinvent in Sinke et al. 2023; strong CM tie via that study. Access: commercial. Confidence: med (surfaced during verification, not in the original brief).

Datasets/ → new page "Sustainability.md"

Sustainability.md recommended over Economics.md since the two solid downloadable artifacts are LCI/LCA, not pure cost. Both cross-link to the matching Databases.md LCI entries via the Companion to convention.

• Sinke et al. 2023 — cultivated-meat ex-ante LCI (open supplementary) — https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8 (Electronic Supplementary Material; correction https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02183-9) — inventory data from 5 CM producers + 15 supply-chain companies; the most-cited primary CM LCI and the downloadable backbone for AI-assisted CM environmental modeling. Built on ecoinvent 3.7.1 + Agri-Footprint 5.0. Access: open (CC-BY SI). Companion to the Sinke paper below. Confidence: high.
• Risner et al. — UC Davis cradle-to-gate CM LCA (Supporting Information) — https://doi.org/10.1021/acsfoodscitech.4c00281 (SI; preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778) — SI carries Essential-8 / Beefy-9 growth-medium composition, microbial yields, and titer data underpinning the media-component LCI; a reusable media-impact analysis artifact. Built on ecoinvent v3.8 + openLCA. Access: free SI. Companion to the Risner 2025 paper below. Confidence: high.

Papers.md → TEA/LCA studies — CURATOR DECISION (no matrix cell)

All 9 are verified, peer-reviewed cultivated-meat TEA/LCA studies absent from CAAIL, and all apply no AI/ML method (mechanistic process/cost models and ISO-14040 environmental accounting). None routes to a matrix cell. Decide per paper: (a) admit to ## Reviews & Perspectives as field-context, or (b) out of Papers.md scope. Strongest individual inclusion cases (they directly frame the cost-reduction objective behind CAAIL's existing Bayesian-optimization media references): Humbird 2021, Risner 2021, Negulescu 2023.

Techno-economic analyses (TEA):

• Humbird (2021) — https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27848 — the most-cited CM TEA; stoichiometric cell-metabolism + capital/operating cost model for a 100 kT/yr facility.
  • APA: Humbird, D. (2021). Scale-up economics for cultured meat. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 118(8), 3239–3250. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27848
• Risner et al. (2021) — https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010003 — scenario-based cost-per-kg model for US ACBM; 67-parameter sensitivity analysis identifying 9 dominant cost drivers.
  • APA: Risner, D., Li, F., Fell, J. S., Pace, S. A., Siegel, J. B., Tagkopoulos, I., & Spang, E. S. (2021). Preliminary techno-economic assessment of animal cell-based meat. Foods, 10(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010003
• Negulescu et al. (2023) — https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.28324 — peer-reviewed TEA isolating how production-bioreactor scale drives CM cost of goods.
  • APA: Negulescu, P. G., Risner, D., Spang, E. S., Sumner, D., Block, D., Nandi, S., & McDonald, K. A. (2023). Techno-economic modeling and assessment of cultivated meat: Impact of production bioreactor scale. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 120(4), 1055–1067. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.28324

Life-cycle assessments (LCA):

• Tuomisto & Teixeira de Mattos (2011) — https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u — the foundational cultured-meat LCA (energy, GHG, land, water vs conventional European meat).
  • APA: Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200130u
• Mattick et al. (2015) — https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614 — key US anticipatory LCA; flagged the energy-intensity tradeoff of replacing biological functions with industrial systems.
  • APA: Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R., & Genovese, N. J. (2015). Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(19), 11941–11949. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614
• Sinke et al. (2023) — https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8 (correction https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02183-9) — widely-cited ex-ante LCA on primary data from 15+ CM companies (peer-reviewed version of the GFI/CE Delft report). Companion to the Sinke dataset above.
  • APA: Sinke, P., Swartz, E., Sanctorum, H., van der Giesen, C., & Odegard, I. (2023). Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28(3), 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8
• Tuomisto et al. (2022) — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158051 — LCA grounded in a specific perfusion/hollow-fiber bioprocess design; identifies media inputs as dominant impact drivers.
  • APA: Tuomisto, H. L., Allan, S. J., & Ellis, M. J. (2022). Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Science of The Total Environment, 851, 158051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158051
• Risner et al. (2025) — https://doi.org/10.1021/acsfoodscitech.4c00281 — UC Davis cradle-to-gate LCA (the "potentially worse than retail beef" result). Companion to the Risner dataset above.
  • APA: Risner, D., Negulescu, P., Kim, Y., Nguyen, C., Siegel, J. B., & Spang, E. S. (2025). Environmental impacts of cultured meat: A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. ACS Food Science & Technology, 5(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsfoodscitech.4c00281
• El Wali et al. (2024) — https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02350-6 — LCA isolating the culture-medium contribution (FBS vs animal-component-free formulations); directly adjacent to CAAIL's media-optimization cluster.
  • APA: El Wali, M., Karinen, H., Rønning, S. B., Skrivergaard, S., Dorca-Preda, T., Rasmussen, M. K., Young, J. F., Therkildsen, M., Mogensen, L., Ryynänen, T., & Tuomisto, H. L. (2024). Life cycle assessment of culture media with alternative compositions for cultured meat production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29(11), 2077–2093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02350-6

Rejected: Järviö et al. (2021) (microbial/fermentation protein, not cell-ag — out of scope). CE Delft grey-literature reports (Vergeer & Odegard 2021 TEA; the GFI-commissioned LCA report) — non-peer-reviewed; the peer-reviewed Sinke 2023 is the citable version; if wanted, they fit OtherResources.md, not Papers.md. Humbird/GFI as a dataset — Humbird is a report with no separate data deposit (route as a paper, not a Datasets/ artifact); the GFI TEA-models page exposes no downloadable model files.

---

Structural recommendations

• New Software.md section "Techno-Economic & Life-Cycle Assessment" — 8 tools, genuine clean gap.
• New Databases.md section "Life-Cycle Inventory & Sustainability Databases" — 7 databases, genuine clean gap.
• New Datasets/Sustainability.md page — follows Datasets/CLAUDE.md schema; cross-links to the LCI databases.
• Resolve the 9-paper scope question — the single most important decision: do quantitative CM TEA/LCA studies belong in Papers.md Reviews & Perspectives, or out of scope? They get no matrix cell either way.

Integration reminder

No TEA/LCA paper takes a matrix cell (none applies an AI method), so the usual matrix-anchor-plus-reference coupling does not apply to them — but the Sinke and Risner papers are Companion to their dataset SIs (paper ⇄ Datasets/Sustainability.md). GREET is listed once (Software) though it bundles LCI data. Assign IDs at landing from the shared counter (current max 236).