Abstract
Background, aim, and scope
Pharmaceuticals have been recently discussed in the press and literature regarding their occurrence in rivers and lakes, mostly due to emissions after use. The production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) has been less analyzed for environmental impacts. In this work, a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the production of an API from cradle to factory gate was carried out. The main sources of environmental impacts were identified. The resulting environmental profile was compared to a second pharmaceutical production and to the production of basic chemicals.
Materials and methods
Detailed production data of a pharmaceutical production in Basel, Switzerland were used as the basis of this work. Information about the production of precursor chemicals was available as well. Using models and the ecoinvent database to cover remaining data gaps, a full life cycle inventory of the whole production was created. Using several life cycle impact assessment methods, including Cumulative Energy Demand (CED), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Eco-Indicator 99 (EI99), Ecological Scarcity 2006, and TRACI, these results were analyzed and the main sources of environmental burdens identified.
Results
Pharmaceutical production was found to have significantly more environmental impacts than basic chemical production in a kilogram-per-kilogram basis. Compared to average basic chemical production, the API analyzed had a CED 20 times higher, a GWP 25 times higher and an EI99 (H/A) 17 times higher. This was expected to a degree, as basic chemicals are much less complex molecules and require significantly fewer chemical transformations and purifications than pharmaceutical compounds. Between 65% and 85% of impacts were found to be caused by energy production and use. The fraction of energy-related impacts increased throughout the production process. Feedstock use was another major contributor, while process emissions not caused by energy production were only minor contributors to the environmental impacts.
Discussion
The results showed that production of APIs has much higher impacts than basic chemical production. This was to be expected given the increased complexity of pharmaceutical compounds as compared with basic chemicals, the smaller production volumes, and the fact that API production lines are often newer and less optimized than the production of more established basic chemicals. The large contributions of energy-related processes highlight the need for a detailed assessment of energy use in pharmaceutical production. The analysis of the energy-related contributions to the overall impacts on a process step level allows a comprehensive understanding of each process’ contribution to overall impacts and their energy intensities.
Conclusions
Environmental impacts of API production were estimated in a cradle-to-gate boundary. The major contributors to the environmental impacts in aggregating methods were resource consumption and emissions from energy production. Process emissions from the pharmaceutical manufacturing plant itself were less of a concern in developed countries. Producers aiming to increase their sustainability should increase efforts to reduce mass intensity and to improve energy efficiency.
Recommendations and perspectives
Pharmaceutical companies have increased their efforts to optimize resource efficiency and energy use in order to improve their environmental performance. The results of this study can be used as a first step to perform a full cradle to grave LCA of pharmaceutical production and use, which could include other important phases of the pharmaceutical product life cycle. To assess a commercial pharmaceutical, the results of API production have to be compared to the contributions of other ingredients and formulation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACS (2008) American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute pharmaceutical roundtable. http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_TRANSITIONMAIN&node_id=1422&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=6e4e42c8-3b8f-47df-b03f-247e369debf7
Bare J, Norris G, Pennington D, McKone T (2003) TRACI—the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78
Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40:5108–5115
Buser HR, Poiger T, Muller MD (1999) Occurrence and environmental behaviour of the chiral pharmaceutical drug ibuprofen in surface waters and in wastewater. Environ Sci Technol 33:2529–2535
Capello C, Hellweg S, Badertscher B, Betschart H, Hungerbuhler K (2007a) Environmental assessment of waste-solvent treatment options. Part 1: the ecosolvent tool. J Ind Ecol 11:26–38
Capello C, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2007b) The ecosolvent Tool. http://www.sust-chem.ethz.ch/tools/ecosolvent
Capello C, Hellweg S, Hungerbuhler K (2008) Environmental assessment of waste-solvent treatment options—Part II: general rules of thumb and specific recommendations. J Ind Ecol 12:111–127
Curzons AD, Jiménez-Gonzalez C, Duncan AL, Constable DJC, CV L (2007) Fast Life Cycle Assessment of Synthetic Chemistry (FLASC) tool. Int J LCA 12:272–280
DeWulf J, Bosch ME, De Meester B, Van der Vorst G, Van Langenhove H, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ (2007) Cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE) a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting. Environ Sci Technol 41:8477–8483
Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2006) Swiss ecological scarcity method: The New Version 2006
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The eco-indicator 99: a damage orientated method for life-cycle impact assessment. Methodology report 2000a, Pre Consultants
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Shruyver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008—A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, http://www.lcia-recipe.net/
Heberer T (2002) Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent research data. Toxicol Lett 131:5–17
Hischier R, Hellweg S, Capello C, Primas A (2004) Establishing life cycle inventories of chemicals based on differing data availability. Int J LCA 10:59–67
Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks J, Van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2006) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40:641–648
Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hungerbuhler K, Hendriks AJ (2008) Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products. Ecol Econ 64:798–807
Jiménez-Gonzalez C (2000) Life cycle assessment in pharmaceutical applications. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Jiménez-Gonzalez C, Curzons AD, Constable DJC, VL C (2004) Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory and assessment of pharmaceutical compounds. Int J LCA 9:114–121
Jodicke G, Fischer U, Hungerbuhler K (2001) Wastewater reuse: a new approach to screen for designs with minimal total costs. Comput Chem Eng 25:203–215
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J LCA 8:324–330
Köhler A, Hellweg S, Recan E, Hungerbühler K (2007) Input-dependent life-cycle inventory model of industrial wastewater-treatment processes in the chemical sector. Environ Sci Technol 41:5515–5522
Kummerer K (2008) Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. Springer, Berlin
Loffler D, Rombke J, Meller M, Ternes TA (2005) Environmental fate of pharmaceuticals in water/sediment systems. Environ Sci Technol 39:5209–5218
Mutel C, Kestenholz M (2008) The Brightway LCA model. http://brightwaylca.org
Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP–SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 13:532–546
Sheldon RA (1994) Consider the environmental quotient. Chemtech 24:38–47
Szijjarto A, Papadokonstadakis S, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K (2008) Bottom-up modelling of the steam consumption in multipurpose chemical batch plants focusing on identification of the optimization potential. Ind Eng Chem Res 47:7323–7334
The ecoinvent centre (2008a) Ecoinvent 2.01 database. http://www.ecoinvent.ch
The ecoinvent centre (2008b) Ecoinvent 2.01 Reports, Chapter 1: Overview and Methodology
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth Report. Climate Change 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Thieme Chemistry (2009) Römpp Online. http://www.roempp.com
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry 2006: 7th Electronic Edition. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/ueic/. Wiley, Weinheim
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1997) VDI-richtlinie 4600: cumulative energy demand, terms, definitions, methods of calculation. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Düsseldorf
Wernet G, Hellweg S, Fischer U, Papadokonstantakis S, Hungerbuhler K (2008) Molecular-structure-based models of chemical inventories using neural networks. Environ Sci Technol 42:6717–6722
Wernet G, Papadokonstantakis S, Hellweg S, Hungerbuhler K (2009) Bridging data gaps in environmental assessments: modelling impacts of fine and basic chemical production. Green Chem 11:1826–1831
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (project no. 810.3189.004) and the Swiss Federal Office for Energy (project no. 101711) for their support on this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Roland Hischier
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wernet, G., Conradt, S., Isenring, H.P. et al. Life cycle assessment of fine chemical production: a case study of pharmaceutical synthesis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 294–303 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0151-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0151-z