- By:
- Liew, Fungmin; Nogle, Robert; Abdalla, Tanus; Rasor, Blake; Canter, Christina; Jensen, Rasmus; Wang, Lan; Strutz, Jonathan; Chirania, Payal ; Tissera, Sashini; Mueller, Alexander; Ruan, Zhenhua; Gao, Allan; Tran, Loan; Engle, Nancy L; Bromley, Jason; Daniell, James; Conrado, Robert; Tschaplinski, Timothy J; Giannone, Richard J; Hettich, Robert L; Karim, Ashty; Simpson, Sean; Brown, Steven; Leang, Ching; Jewett, Michael; Kopke, Michael
- Journal Name:
- Nature Biotechnology
- Page Number:
- 1385-1387
- Volume:
- 43
- Issue Number:
- 8
- Publication Date:
- August 28, 2025
- View DOI Listing:
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02767-w
Abstract
In response to a reader’s questions, here we provide additional information about the life cycle analysis (LCA) performed in this paper. The goal of the LCA was to understand the potential environmental benefits of our reported synthetic biology pathways for producing acetone and isopropanol by comparing greenhouse gas emissions to those from conventional, virgin fossil production routes. Below we expand on the rationale and sources underlying the methodological choices we made in the LCA, including our use of a cradle-to-gate system boundary, an avoided emissions credit and the descriptor “carbon-negative.” We also discuss differences in carbon accounting between an LCA framework and a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) framework.
