Life cycle assessment of fine chemical production: a case study of pharmaceutical synthesis

  • Gregor Wernet
  • Sarah Conradt
  • Hans Peter Isenring
  • Concepción Jiménez-González
  • Konrad Hungerbühler


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.


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.


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.


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.


Chemical production Energy efficiency Energy use LCA of chemicals Pharmaceuticals 

Supplementary material

11367_2010_151_MOESM1_ESM.doc (31 kb)
ESM 1ESM 1 (DOC 31 kb)


  1. 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 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 40:5108–5115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 33:2529–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 11:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capello C, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2007b) The ecosolvent Tool.
  6. 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 12:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curzons AD, Jiménez-Gonzalez C, Duncan AL, Constable DJC, CV L (2007) Fast Life Cycle Assessment of Synthetic Chemistry (FLASC) tool. Int J LCA 12:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 41:8477–8483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2006) Swiss ecological scarcity method: The New Version 2006Google Scholar
  10. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The eco-indicator 99: a damage orientated method for life-cycle impact assessment. Methodology report 2000a, Pre ConsultantsGoogle Scholar
  11. 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,
  12. Heberer T (2002) Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent research data. Toxicol Lett 131:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hischier R, Hellweg S, Capello C, Primas A (2004) Establishing life cycle inventories of chemicals based on differing data availability. Int J LCA 10:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 40:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hungerbuhler K, Hendriks AJ (2008) Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products. Ecol Econ 64:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jiménez-Gonzalez C (2000) Life cycle assessment in pharmaceutical applications. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiménez-Gonzalez C, Curzons AD, Constable DJC, VL C (2004) Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory and assessment of pharmaceutical compounds. Int J LCA 9:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jodicke G, Fischer U, Hungerbuhler K (2001) Wastewater reuse: a new approach to screen for designs with minimal total costs. Comput Chem Eng 25:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 8:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 41:5515–5522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kummerer K (2008) Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loffler D, Rombke J, Meller M, Ternes TA (2005) Environmental fate of pharmaceuticals in water/sediment systems. Environ Sci Technol 39:5209–5218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mutel C, Kestenholz M (2008) The Brightway LCA model.
  24. 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 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheldon RA (1994) Consider the environmental quotient. Chemtech 24:38–47Google Scholar
  26. 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 47:7323–7334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. The ecoinvent centre (2008a) Ecoinvent 2.01 database.
  28. The ecoinvent centre (2008b) Ecoinvent 2.01 Reports, Chapter 1: Overview and MethodologyGoogle Scholar
  29. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth Report. Climate Change 2007.
  30. Thieme Chemistry (2009) Römpp Online.
  31. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry 2006: 7th Electronic Edition. Wiley, Weinheim
  32. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1997) VDI-richtlinie 4600: cumulative energy demand, terms, definitions, methods of calculation. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  33. Wernet G, Hellweg S, Fischer U, Papadokonstantakis S, Hungerbuhler K (2008) Molecular-structure-based models of chemical inventories using neural networks. Environ Sci Technol 42:6717–6722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 11:1826–1831Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Wernet
    • 1
  • Sarah Conradt
    • 1
  • Hans Peter Isenring
    • 2
  • Concepción Jiménez-González
    • 3
  • Konrad Hungerbühler
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Institute for Chemical and BioengineeringZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.F. Hoffmann-La RocheBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Sustainability and EnvironmentGlaxoSmithKline (GSK)Research Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations