Integrating One Health and Green Chemistry: A Sustainable Framework for Pharmaceutical Assessment and Drug Development

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive framework for integrating the One Health approach with green chemistry principles in pharmaceutical assessment and drug development. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational connections between chemical design, environmental sustainability, and interconnected health outcomes across human, animal, and ecosystem domains. The content covers methodological applications for assessing pharmaceutical sustainability, troubleshooting implementation barriers, and validating approaches through case studies and comparative analysis. By synthesizing cutting-edge research and practical strategies, this resource provides a proactive pathway for reducing ecological footprints and optimizing health outcomes through transdisciplinary collaboration.

The Inextricable Link: How Green Chemistry and One Health Create Sustainable Pharma

The One Health approach and the Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry are two pivotal, synergistic frameworks that address complex global challenges at the intersection of human, animal, and environmental health. One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment, including ecosystems, by recognizing their close interdependencies [1]. Simultaneously, Green Chemistry provides a systematic framework for designing chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances [2]. The convergence of these two fields represents a transformative paradigm for scientific research and development, particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals, where it promotes the creation of effective therapeutics that are also environmentally benign and sustainably produced. This guide objectively compares these foundational frameworks, detailing their core principles, synergistic applications in drug development, and the experimental methodologies enabling their integration.

Core Principles: A Comparative Analysis

The following table provides a point-by-point comparison of the foundational principles of Green Chemistry and their specific alignments with the One Health framework.

Table 1: Core Principles of Green Chemistry and their One Health Convergences

Green Chemistry Principle	Convergence with One Health	Application Example in Drug Development
1. Waste Prevention [2]	Reduces environmental pollution, protecting ecosystem and public health [1].	Use of Process Mass Intensity (PMI) to minimize waste in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) synthesis [2].
2. Atom Economy [2]	Conserves natural resources and reduces the environmental burden of chemical processes [1].	Designing syntheses to maximize incorporation of reactant atoms into the final drug product [2].
3. Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses [2]	Directly protects worker safety (human health) and prevents environmental contamination [3].	Using enzymes as catalysts to avoid toxic reagents, as in the synthesis of Pregabalin [3].
4. Designing Safer Chemicals [2]	Aims to create products that are effective yet have low toxicity for humans, animals, and the environment [1].	Development of pharmaceuticals that target pathogens without harming hosts or ecosystems post-excretion.
5. Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries [2]	Minimizes exposure risks for workers and reduces release of persistent environmental pollutants [3].	Replacement of halogenated solvents with bio-based alternatives like Cyrene [1].
6. Design for Energy Efficiency	Lowers carbon footprint, mitigating climate change—a key driver of vector-borne disease spread [1].	Performing reactions at ambient temperature and pressure.
7. Use of Renewable Feedstocks [2]	Enhances sustainability and reduces reliance on finite fossil resources, supporting planetary health [4].	Using plant-based biomass instead of petroleum to produce platform chemicals like lactic acid for PLA plastics [4].
8. Reduce Derivatives [2]	Avoids the generation of additional waste streams that could impact occupational and environmental health [1].	Streamlined synthesis of Tafenoquine that avoids protecting groups [1].
9. Catalysis [2]	Reduces energy consumption and waste generation, aligning with broader sustainability goals [1].	Use of enzymatic catalysis for stereoselective synthesis in API manufacturing [1].
10. Design for Degradation [2]	Prevents the accumulation of chemicals in the environment, protecting wildlife and water resources [5].	Designing biodegradable chemicals to prevent persistence, as seen with PFAS [5].
11. Real-time Analysis for Pollution Prevention [2]	Enables immediate hazard detection, preventing exposure incidents and environmental releases [5].	In-line monitoring to control the formation of hazardous substances during manufacturing.
12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention [2]	Directly minimizes the potential for industrial accidents, protecting workers, communities, and local ecosystems [3].	Using less volatile and reactive substances to minimize explosion and release risks.

Experimental Protocols for Integrated Research

Translating the convergent principles of Green Chemistry and One Health into actionable research requires robust experimental methodologies. The protocols below are designed to generate data that satisfies both environmental and health safety criteria.

Phased ESOH Assessment for New Chemicals

This protocol outlines a phased approach for collecting Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) data alongside the research and development of new chemical entities, aligning with Green Chemistry's preventive principle and One Health's holistic view [5].

Workflow Overview:

Procedure Details:

• Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 - Conception:

  • Objective: Early hazard screening using computational tools.
  • Methodology: Employ quantum mechanical models to predict key properties: molecular mass, water solubility, octanol-water partition coefficient (Log Kow), and vapor pressure. Use quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models and read-across approaches to predict toxicity [5].
  • Data Output: Estimated values for bioaccumulation potential, environmental fate, and toxicity.

• TRL 2-3 - Synthesis:

  • Objective: Experimental screening of toxicity with minimal material.
  • Methodology: Synthesize gram quantities. Conduct limited in vitro tests using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), such as high-throughput screening (HTS) for mutagenicity (Ames test) and hepatotoxicity (e.g., using HepG2 cells) [5].
  • Data Output: Initial experimental toxicity data to validate in silico predictions.

• TRL 4-6 - Testing and Demonstration:

  • Objective: Assess hazards from potential human and environmental exposure during scale-up.
  • Methodology: Scale up synthesis to kilogram scale. Conduct controlled laboratory animal studies (acute and repeated dose, e.g., 28-day) in rodents. Perform aquatic ecotoxicity tests (e.g., with Daphnia magna or algae) if environmental release is possible [5].
  • Data Output: Data for GHS categorization and preliminary risk assessment.

• TRL 7-9 - Implementation:

  • Objective: Establish occupational exposure limits and complete the safety profile.
  • Methodology: Perform subchronic (90-day) rodent studies. Develop and implement industrial hygiene monitoring protocols for manufacturing facilities [5].
  • Data Output: Robust dataset for defining occupational exposure limits and completing regulatory requirements for new substances.

Green Chemistry Metrics in API Synthesis

This protocol provides a standard methodology for quantifying the environmental performance of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) synthesis routes, directly applying Green Chemistry principles to achieve One Health outcomes through waste reduction [1] [2].

Workflow Overview:

Procedure Details:

• Material Tracking:

  • Objective: Accurately record all mass inputs and outputs for a single API synthesis batch.
  • Methodology: Precisely weigh and document all materials entering the process: starting materials, reagents, catalysts, and solvents. Weigh the final, isolated, and purified API product. Calculate the total waste generated as follows: Total Waste = (Total Mass Input) - (Mass of API) [1] [2].

• Metric Calculation:

  • Process Mass Intensity (PMI): Calculate the PMI using the formula: PMI = (Total Mass of Input Materials) / (Mass of API). The ACS Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable favors PMI as it provides a comprehensive view of all material inputs [2].
  • E-Factor: Calculate the E-Factor using the formula: E-Factor = (Total Mass of Waste) / (Mass of API). A higher E-Factor indicates a greater negative environmental impact [1].

• Data Interpretation:

  • Objective: Compare the greenness of different synthetic routes.
  • Methodology: Compare the calculated PMI and E-Factor values for alternative processes for the same API. A synthesis route with a lower PMI and E-Factor is considered greener, as it is more efficient and generates less waste, reducing its environmental burden [1] [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Materials

This section details key reagents and technologies that facilitate the implementation of Green Chemistry principles within a One Health framework.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Green and Sustainable Chemistry

Reagent/Material	Function	One Health & Green Chemistry Rationale
Bio-based Solvents (e.g., Cyrene)	Replacement for dipolar aprotic solvents like DMF and NMP.	Safer profile with reduced toxicity and mutagenicity, protecting worker health and the environment [1].
Immobilized Enzymes	Biocatalysts for stereoselective synthesis and hydrolysis.	Enable milder reaction conditions (energy efficiency) and reduce the need for toxic metal catalysts, minimizing waste [1] [3].
Renewable Feedstocks (e.g., Plant-based Sugars)	Raw material for fermentative production of platform chemicals.	Reduce dependence on finite fossil resources, lower carbon footprint, and support a circular bioeconomy [4].
New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)	In vitro and in silico tools for toxicology screening.	Reduce animal testing (ethical alignment), provide rapid, high-throughput hazard data for safer chemical design [5].
Green Polymers (e.g., Polylactic Acid - PLA)	Biodegradable and bio-based material for packaging and medical devices.	Derived from renewable resources (e.g., corn), compostable, and chemically recyclable, reducing plastic pollution and its ecosystem impacts [4].
Computational Toxicology Tools (e.g., EPA T.E.S.T.)	Software for predicting toxicity based on chemical structure.	Allows for early hazard assessment during molecular design, enabling the selection of safer alternatives before synthesis [3].
Cy-FBP/SBPase-IN-1	Cy-FBP/SBPase-IN-1|Cy-FBP/SBPase Inhibitor	Cy-FBP/SBPase-IN-1 is a potent inhibitor of cyanobacterial photosynthesis and growth. This product is for research use only (RUO) and is not intended for human use.
3-Phenyl-L-serine	3-Phenyl-L-serine, CAS:6254-48-4, MF:C16H21ClN2O3, MW:181.19 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The convergence of Green Chemistry and One Health is not merely theoretical but an actionable and necessary path forward for chemical research and development. The comparative analysis and experimental protocols presented in this guide demonstrate a tangible framework for creating products and processes that are simultaneously efficacious, economically viable, and responsible stewards of human, animal, and environmental health. The ongoing growth of the green chemicals market, projected to reach USD 30.2 billion by 2035, underscores the industrial shift towards these integrated principles [6]. By adopting the comparative frameworks, validated metrics, and specialized reagents detailed herein, researchers and drug developers can systematically embed sustainability and holistic health into the very fabric of their scientific endeavors.

The conventional paradigm for assessing pharmaceuticals has historically been narrowly anthropocentric, focusing predominantly on human safety and efficacy. This perspective often overlooks the interconnected web of impacts that drug manufacturing and disposal have on animal welfare and ecosystem health. A shift towards a holistic view, aligned with the One Health approach, recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and interdependent [7]. This approach emphasizes the need for a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach at local, regional, national, and global levels to achieve optimal health outcomes [7].

Integrating this perspective into pharmaceutical assessment means moving Beyond Anthropocentrism—a philosophical shift that challenges the view that only humans are directly morally relevant and instead emphasizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems [8] [9]. In practical terms, this involves evolving from a simple bioequivalence model to a comprehensive lifecycle assessment of pharmaceutical products, considering environmental toxicity, sustainable sourcing, green manufacturing, and end-of-life disposal. This article will compare traditional and holistic assessment frameworks, provide experimental data supporting green chemistry innovations, and detail the methodologies and tools needed for researchers to implement this expanded view.

The Limitation of Traditional Pharmaceutical Assessment

The Anthropocentric Foundation of Current Standards

Traditional pharmaceutical assessment, particularly the framework of bioequivalence and bioavailability, is fundamentally designed to ensure that drug products, whether branded or generic, perform identically in humans. Regulatory definitions from the FDA and WHO focus exclusively on the "rate and extent to which the active ingredient becomes available at the site of drug action" in the human body [10] [11]. This ensures therapeutic equivalence and safety for human patients but implicitly prioritizes human use interests over all other considerations [9]. The ethical framework underlying such regulations can be characterized as anthropocentric, as it prioritizes human health and economic interests, often viewing animals and the environment as resources or testing substrates rather than entities with intrinsic value [12].

Key Concepts in Traditional Assessment

The language of traditional assessment reveals its human-centered focus. Key definitions include:

• Pharmaceutical Equivalents: Drug products that contain the same active ingredient(s), are of the same dosage form, route of administration, and are identical in strength or concentration [10] [13].
• Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Drug products that contain the same therapeutic moiety but are different salts, esters, or complexes, or are different dosage forms or strengths [10] [13].
• Bioequivalence: The absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions [11].

These concepts form a closed system focused entirely on human pharmacological response, with no inherent mechanism for considering environmental footprint, ecotoxicity, or animal welfare beyond instrumental human concerns.

Documented Failures of the Narrow Model

The limitations of this narrow model are evident in documented bioequivalence problems with certain drug classes, including chiral drugs, poorly absorbed drugs, and drugs with complex delivery mechanisms [11]. Furthermore, this approach has facilitated regulatory frameworks that prioritize human benefit, such as the 3Rs framework (Replace, Reduce, Refine) in animal experimentation, which, while aiming to be humane, ultimately "safeguard animal welfare only as far as given human research objectives permit" [9]. This effectively subordinates animal interests to human research goals, demonstrating the anthropocentric prioritization embedded in current systems.

The One Health Framework: A Holistic Alternative

Principles of One Health

The One Health concept provides a robust alternative framework. It formally "recognises the complex connections between the health of people, animals, plants, and our shared environment" [7]. This is not merely an ecological concept but a comprehensive approach to governance and research that requires collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary work at all levels. It aims to "prevent, predict, and respond to health threats" holistically, understanding that our health is deeply intertwined with the health of the natural world and the animals we share it with [7].

Operationalizing One Health in the Pharmaceutical Sector

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) exemplifies how to operationalize One Health in a regulatory context. Its work spans multiple key areas crucial for a holistic pharmaceutical assessment [7]:

• REACH: Evaluating scientific information and identifying substances of very high concern.
• Biocidal Products: Ensuring safe use and efficacy of disinfectants and preservatives.
• Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): Managing chemicals that pose significant health risks and persist in the environment.
• Microplastics Restriction: Addressing how microplastics contaminate water and affect ecosystems, wildlife, and human health.

A powerful example of this approach in action is the joint azole fungicides investigation, a collaboration between ECHA, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Environment Agency (EEA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This initiative investigates the impact of azole fungicides on the development of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, a concern for both agriculture and human health, demonstrating the interconnectedness of environmental and medical concerns [7].

Philosophical Underpinnings: Moving Beyond Anthropocentrism

The philosophical movement to Beyond Anthropocentrism provides the ethical foundation for integrating One Health into pharmaceutical assessment. This perspective challenges the "belief that human beings are the most important and central beings in the world" [12]. Alternatives to anthropocentrism include:

• Ecocentrism: Emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living beings and ecosystems [12].
• Biocentric Ethics: Argues that all living beings have inherent value and moral rights [12].
• Posthumanism: Challenges the idea that human beings are the central beings in the world [12].

This philosophical shift is not merely theoretical but has practical implications for how we design, assess, and regulate pharmaceuticals, moving from a human-centered risk-benefit analysis to a comprehensive evaluation that considers all stakeholders in the global ecosystem.

Comparative Analysis: Traditional vs. Holistic Assessment

The following table contrasts the core dimensions of traditional pharmaceutical assessment against a holistic, One Health-aligned model.

Assessment Dimension	Traditional (Anthropocentric) Model	Holistic (One Health) Model
Primary Focus	Human safety and efficacy only [11]	Interconnected health of humans, animals, ecosystems [7]
Ethical Foundation	Anthropocentrism: Only humans have direct moral standing [9]	Non-anthropocentrism: Animals, ecosystems have intrinsic value [8] [12]
Regulatory Scope	Bioequivalence, pharmaceutical equivalence/alternatives [10] [11]	Full lifecycle assessment: sourcing, production, use, disposal [7] [14]
Environmental Consideration	Limited or absent	Central concern; includes ecotoxicity, persistence, carbon footprint [7] [14]
Animal Testing Ethics	3Rs within human research constraints (instrumental value) [9]	Acknowledges animal welfare as intrinsic value; pushes for alternatives [9]
Representative Initiative	FDA Bioequivalence Standards [11]	EU Cross-Agency Task Force on One Health [7]

This comparison reveals that the holistic model does not simply add environmental concerns to the existing framework but fundamentally reconceives the boundaries and priorities of pharmaceutical assessment.

Green Chemistry Innovations: Quantitative Evidence for a Holistic Approach

The adoption of green chemistry principles provides compelling, data-driven evidence for the viability and benefits of a holistic approach. The following table summarizes quantitative environmental benefits achieved by winners of the 2025 Green Chemistry Challenge Awards, illustrating the tangible advantages of sustainable design.

Innovation Category	Company/Institution	Key Innovation	Quantitative Environmental Benefit
Greener Synthetic Pathways	Merck & Co. [14]	Biocatalytic process for Islatravir (HIV-1 antiviral)	Replaced a 16-step clinical supply route with a single biocatalytic cascade, eliminating organic solvents [14]
Academic Innovation	Scripps Research Institute [14]	Air-stable nickel catalysts replacing palladium	Eliminates energy-intensive processes needed to keep traditional catalysts stable [14]
Chemical & Process Design for Circularity	Pure Lithium Corporation [14]	Brine to Battery lithium metal production	Reduces energy and water use versus existing lithium metal production [14]
Design of Safer Chemicals	Cross Plains Solutions [14]	SoyFoam (PFAS-free firefighting foam)	70% biobased, certified readily biodegradable, free of PFAS [14]
Climate Change	Future Origins [14]	Fermentation process for fatty alcohols (palm oil alternative)	Lowers global warming potential by ~68% compared to conventional methods [14]
Cumulative Impact (All 2025 Winners)	ACS Green Chemistry Institute [14]	Multiple technologies	Eliminated 830 million lb of hazardous chemicals, saved 21 billion gal of water, prevented 7.8 billion lb of COâ‚‚ release [14]

These innovations demonstrate that moving beyond anthropocentrism in pharmaceutical and chemical development is not only ethically desirable but also technologically feasible and economically beneficial. The significant reductions in hazardous waste, water use, and carbon emissions contribute directly to the health of ecosystems and non-human organisms, aligning assessment outcomes with One Health principles.

Experimental Protocols for Holistic Assessment

Protocol 1: Assessing Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity

Objective: To evaluate the adverse effects of an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) on aquatic ecosystems and its potential for bioaccumulation. Methodology:

• Acute Aquatic Toxicity Testing:
  • Test Organisms: Use at least three species representing different trophic levels: a freshwater alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata), a freshwater crustacean (Daphnia magna), and a fish (Danio rerio).
  • Procedure: Expose organisms to a range of API concentrations in controlled aquatic mesocosms. The exposure period is 48 hours for Daphnia and 96 hours for fish.
  • Endpoint: Determine the lethal concentration for 50% of the population (LC50) or the effect concentration for 50% of the population (EC50).
• Biodegradation Study:
  • Procedure: Inoculate a solution of the API in a mineral medium with activated sewage sludge. Incubate in the dark at 20°C while stirring.
  • Analysis: Monitor the removal of dissolved organic carbon over 28 days via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).
  • Endpoint: Calculate the percentage of biodegradation; >70% is considered readily biodegradable.
• Bioaccumulation Potential:
  • Procedure: Expose fish to a sublethal concentration of the API for 28 days, followed by a depuration period in clean water.
  • Analysis: Measure API concentration in fish tissue at regular intervals using mass spectrometry.
  • Endpoint: Calculate the Bioconcentration Factor (BCF). A BCF >2000 indicates high bioaccumulation potential.

Protocol 2: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Objective: To quantify and compare the cumulative environmental impacts of a traditional pharmaceutical process versus a green chemistry alternative across its entire life cycle. Methodology:

• Goal and Scope Definition: Define the functional unit (e.g., "production of 1 kg of high-purity API"). Set system boundaries from raw material extraction (cradle) to API factory gate.
• Life Cycle Inventory (LCI): Collect data on all relevant energy and material inputs (e.g., solvents, reagents, water, electricity) and environmental releases (e.g., GHG emissions, hazardous waste, wastewater) for both processes.
• Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): Use established models (e.g., TRACI, ReCiPe) to translate inventory data into potential environmental impacts. Core impact categories must include:
  • Global Warming Potential (kg COâ‚‚ equivalent)
  • Water Scarcity (m³ water equivalent)
  • Ecotoxicity (kg 2,4-D equivalent)
  • Human Toxicity (kg 1,4-DB equivalent)
  • Fossil Resource Scarcity (kg oil equivalent)
• Interpretation: Analyze results to identify environmental hotspots and validate the superiority of the green alternative. The LCA must comply with ISO 14040/14044 standards.

Visualizing the Holistic Assessment Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated, multi-disciplinary workflow required for a holistic pharmaceutical assessment, contrasting it with the traditional linear path.

Holistic vs Traditional Drug Assessment

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methods

Implementing a holistic assessment requires specific reagents and methodologies. The following table details key solutions for evaluating environmental and ethical impacts.

Research Reagent/Method	Primary Function in Holistic Assessment
Activated Sewage Sludge	Inoculum for ready biodegradability testing (OECD 301); assesses the breakdown of APIs in wastewater treatment plants and natural environments [7].
Daphnia magna (Crustacean)	Model organism for assessing acute aquatic toxicity (EPA Test 850.1010); represents secondary consumers in freshwater ecosystems [7].
In Vitro 3D Human Tissue Models	Non-animal method (NAMs) for assessing dermal corrosion/irritation; aligns with the "Replace" principle of the 3Rs, reducing animal use [9].
High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS)	Detects and quantifies trace levels of APIs and their metabolites in complex environmental samples (water, soil, biota) for exposure and fate studies.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Software	Models the cumulative environmental impacts (e.g., carbon footprint, water use) of a drug product from raw material extraction to disposal [14].
H-Pro-NHEt.HCl	H-Pro-NHEt.HCl, CAS:58107-62-3, MF:C20H21N3O6, MW:178.66 g/mol
Fmoc-L-Dap(N3)-OH	Fmoc-L-Dap(N3)-OH, CAS:684270-46-0, MF:C18H16N4O4, MW:352,34 g/mole

The evidence presented underscores an unavoidable conclusion: the traditional anthropocentric model of pharmaceutical assessment is no longer sufficient. A holistic framework, grounded in the One Health approach and the ethical perspective of Beyond Anthropocentrism, is scientifically feasible, ethically necessary, and environmentally imperative. The quantitative successes of green chemistry innovations prove that designing for broader ecological well-being does not hinder progress but rather enhances sustainability and resilience. For researchers and drug development professionals, adopting this expanded view requires new tools and collaborations, but the outcome is a pharmaceutical enterprise that truly promotes the health of the entire planet—human, animal, and environmental alike.

The concept of "chemical footprints" represents the measurable presence and impact of synthetic chemicals in biological systems and the environment, providing critical evidence of exposure and potential health risks across species and ecosystems. Within the framework of One Health—an integrated, unifying approach that seeks to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, plants, and their shared environment—understanding these footprints becomes paramount [7]. The One Health perspective recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and interdependent [1]. This approach encourages collaboration among diverse disciplines, providing more sustainable knowledge and better constituency in health policy [1].

Chemical footprints manifest through biomarkers—objective, measurable indicators of biological processes, exposure events, or susceptibility to chemical agents [15] [16]. These biomarkers serve as early warning systems, detecting chemical exposures and their biological effects before overt damage occurs. The systematic study of biomarkers has experienced significant growth over the past 30 years, enabling researchers to better understand the impact of various environmental pollutants on living organisms and ecosystems [16]. By examining chemical footprints through advanced biomonitoring techniques, scientists can assess the nature and extent of exposure, identify alterations occurring within an organism, and evaluate underlying susceptibility [16].

Biomarkers as Chemical Footprint Evidence: Categories and Significance

Classification of Biomarkers in Toxicological Assessment

Biomarkers serve as essential tools in monitoring toxicology and risk assessment of environmental pollutants by providing early and specific endpoints [16]. In toxicology, biomarkers are compartmentalized into three distinct categories delineated as markers of exposure, effect, and susceptibility [16]. Each category captures different points along the continuum from external exposure to pathological outcome, offering unique insights into the complex interplay between chemicals and biological systems.

An exposure biomarker signals prior interaction with a chemical; this interaction could involve an external substance, a resultant product from the interplay between a xenobiotic molecule and endogenous constituents, or a modification that alters the state of the target molecule [16]. These biomarkers are typically quantified in bodily fluids or tissues and provide concrete evidence of a chemical footprint within a biological system. Examples include metabolites of environmental toxicants, protein adducts, and DNA lesions [15].

An effect biomarker denotes the presence (and degree) of a biological response following exposure to a chemical [16]. This response could manifest as an endogenous constituent, a gauge of the system's functional capacity, or a modified state recognized as impairment or disease. These biomarkers connect chemical exposure to early biological changes, often before clinical symptoms emerge.

A susceptibility biomarker indicates an increased sensitivity to a chemical's effects, which could emerge as either the presence or absence of an endogenous element or an aberrant functional response to an administered challenge [16]. These biomarkers help explain individual variations in response to similar chemical exposures.

Table 1: Categories of Biomarkers in Chemical Footprint Research

Category	Definition	Examples	Analytical Approaches
Exposure Biomarkers	Indicate interaction with environmental chemicals	Metabolites (e.g., SPMA for benzene [15]); Protein/DNA adducts [15]; Heavy metals in hair [15]	LC-MS/MS [15]; Accelerator Mass Spectrometry [15]; 32P-postlabeling [15]
Effect Biomarkers	Measure biological response to chemical exposure	Oxidative stress markers (MDA [17]); DNA damage (Comet assay [17]); Enzyme activities (SOD, CAT [17])	Spectrophotometry; Electrophoretic methods; Enzyme activity assays
Susceptibility Biomarkers	Identify increased sensitivity to chemical effects	Genetic polymorphisms; miRNA profiles [16]; tRNA modifications [15]	Genotyping; Microarray analysis; Sequencing technologies

The Biomarker Continuum: From Exposure to Disease

The biological events following chemical exposure represent a continuum from initial external exposure to subsequent physiological reactions [16]. This cascade begins when exposure to environmental chemicals found in food, drinking water, and air instigates a series of biological events within the body [16]. These reactions may signal the presence of the chemical, adverse health outcomes, or increased toxicity influenced by individual characteristics. The biological processes set in motion by chemical exposure have the potential to incite cellular, molecular, organ, or systemic responses, alongside a range of biochemical, physiological, and morphological changes [16].

The following diagram illustrates this continuum from exposure to clinical disease, highlighting key points where different biomarker types provide evidence of chemical footprints:

Evidence of Chemical Footprints: Key Studies and Findings

Documented Human Exposure to Widespread Chemicals

Numerous studies have provided concrete evidence of chemical footprints in human populations, demonstrating the pervasive nature of synthetic chemical exposure. A landmark investigation by Greenpeace Netherlands conducted in 2004 analyzed blood samples from 91 participants for six groups of hazardous chemicals: phthalates, brominated flame retardants, organotins, artificial musks, alkylphenols, and bisphenol-A [18]. The study concluded that hazardous chemicals were present in the blood of all participants, providing unambiguous evidence that chemicals contained in normal consumer products can and do enter the human body [18].

Further evidence comes from biomonitoring studies of specific chemical classes:

• Phthalates: These plasticizers and additives found in many consumer products demonstrate widespread human exposure. Biomonitoring studies have detected phthalate metabolites in urine, serum, amniotic fluid, breast milk, semen, and saliva [15]. Epidemiological studies have linked high exposure to phthalates with various health effects including sex anomalies, endometriosis, altered reproductive development, early puberty and fertility issues, breast and skin cancer, allergy and asthma, overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, and type II diabetes [15].

• Heavy Metals: Research on children in the Mid-Ohio Valley measured hair concentrations of manganese, lead, cadmium, and arsenic, finding detectable levels of all metals studied [15]. The study found that hair Mn and Pb levels were comparable and approximately 10-fold higher than hair Cd and As levels, with differences observed between male and female subjects and along hair segments [15].

• Benzene: Monitoring of benzene exposure through the biomarker S-phenyl-mercapturic acid (SPMA) in urine has demonstrated that active smoking represents a major exposure source, though nonsmokers are also exposed to airborne concentrations of this carcinogen [15].

Table 2: Evidence of Chemical Footprints in Human Populations

Chemical Class	Biomarkers Measured	Study Population	Key Findings	Health Implications
Consumer Product Chemicals [18]	Phthalates, BFRs, organotins, artificial musks, alkylphenols, BPA in blood	91 volunteers (Greenpeace, 2004)	Chemicals detected in all participants	Evidence of body burden from consumer products
Phthalates [15]	Metabolites in urine, serum, breast milk, other biospecimens	Populations across the globe	Prevalent human exposure through dietary sources, dermal absorption, inhalation	Endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, cancer, metabolic diseases
Heavy Metals [15]	Mn, Pb, Cd, As in hair	222 children aged 6-12 years	All metals detected; differences by gender and hair segment	Neurodevelopmental risks, various toxicities
Benzene [15]	S-phenyl-mercapturic acid (SPMA) in urine	Cohort in central Italy	Active smoking major source; nonsmokers also exposed	Hematotoxicity, carcinogenesis

Molecular Evidence of Chemical-Biological Interactions

At the molecular level, chemical footprints manifest as specific modifications to biological molecules, providing mechanistic evidence of chemical-biological interactions:

• Protein Adducts: Hemoglobin and albumin—the most abundant proteins in blood—form covalent adducts with toxicants and endogenous electrophiles [15]. For instance, the N-terminal valine residues of the α-chain of Hb and the cysteine residue (Cys-β93) of the β-chain of Hb react with many electrophiles, including carcinogenic aromatic amines [15]. The highly nucleophilic Cys-34 residue of albumin reacts with epoxides of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, while lysine residues form adducts with aflatoxin B1 dialdehyde [15]. These adducts serve as long-term records of exposure to reactive chemicals.

• DNA Adducts: Exposure to environmental chemicals often leads to diverse DNA damage, with the formation of DNA adducts representing one of the key events in chemical-induced carcinogenesis [15]. DNA adducts of different classes of tobacco carcinogens have been identified in human biospecimens, with mass spectrometry methods emerging as the preferred analytical technique due to high selectivity and sensitivity [15].

• Gut Microbiome Toxicity: Environmentally induced perturbation in the gut microbiome is strongly associated with human disease risk [15]. Functional gut microbiome alterations that may adversely influence human health represent an increasingly appreciated mechanism by which environmental chemicals exert their toxic effects [15]. The establishment of gut microbiome toxicity links the toxic effects of various environmental agents and microbiota-associated diseases [15].

Green Chemistry and One Health: An Integrated Framework

Green Chemistry Principles as a Preventive Strategy

Green chemistry represents a strategic approach to preventing chemical footprints at their source through the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances [19]. The Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry, established by Paul Anastas and John C. Warner in 1998, provide a systematic framework for designing safer chemicals and manufacturing processes [1] [19]. These principles include waste prevention, atom economy, less hazardous chemical syntheses, designing safer chemicals, safer solvents and auxiliaries, design for energy efficiency, use of renewable feedstocks, reduce derivatives, catalysis, design for degradation, real-time analysis for pollution prevention, and inherently safer chemistry for accident prevention [19].

The application of green chemistry principles within a One Health framework offers a comprehensive strategy for protecting human, animal, and environmental health from hazardous chemical exposures. This approach is particularly relevant in pharmaceutical development, where the integration of One Health concepts and green chemistry principles into the R&D pipeline can lead to more environmentally friendly antiparasitic drugs for both human and animal health [1]. The concept of sustainability-by-design is becoming a key approach toward a more sustainable and responsible methodology throughout the entire R&D pharmaceutical pipeline, including drug discovery, delivery, manufacturing, packaging, advertising, and marketing [1].

Convergence of Green Chemistry and Occupational Safety

A natural convergence exists between green chemistry/sustainability and occupational safety and health efforts [20] [3]. Addressing both together can have a synergistic effect, while failure to promote this convergence could lead to increasing worker hazards and lack of support for sustainability efforts [20]. The hierarchy of controls—elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment—aligns closely with green chemistry principles, with both emphasizing prevention and upstream solutions [20].

The pharmaceutical industry provides illustrative examples of this convergence. The synthesis of Pregabalin, a pharmaceutical treatment for nervous disorders, was improved through the identification of new enzymes that eliminated several chemical conversion steps, increased production speed, and reduced waste [20] [3]. These improvements based on green chemistry principles had the added benefit of removing various solvents during the synthesis process, thereby reducing worker exposures [20] [3].

The following diagram illustrates the interconnections between Green Chemistry, Occupational Safety and Health, and the broader One Health approach:

Methodologies for Assessing Chemical Footprints

Advanced Analytical Techniques in Biomarker Research

The detection and quantification of chemical footprints rely on sophisticated analytical methodologies that can identify and measure trace levels of chemicals and their biological interactions:

• Mass Spectrometry-Based Technologies: Advanced mass spectrometry techniques represent the cornerstone of modern biomarker research [15]. These technologies enable monitoring of exposures through both targeted and non-targeted methods, allowing for comprehensive assessment of the exposome—the totality of environmental exposures [15]. Mass spectrometry methods have largely supplanted immunochemical and postlabeling techniques for DNA adduct analysis due to superior selectivity and sensitivity [15].

• Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS): This exquisitely sensitive technique measures long-lived radionuclides and can be applied to trace biological interactions with chemicals at extremely low concentrations [15]. AMS is particularly valuable for studying the fate and distribution of chemicals in biological systems.

• Omics Technologies: Advances in metabolomics, proteomics, and toxicogenomics allow for comprehensive assessment of biological responses to chemical exposures [16]. These approaches facilitate the identification of previously imperceptible biomarkers that can predict how tissues respond to toxic substances [16]. The emergence of cutting-edge technologies, such as microRNAs (miRNAs), holds great promise as reliable and robust biomarkers for early detection of various conditions, including diseases, birth defects, pathological changes, cancer, and toxicity [16].

Experimental Approaches and Research Protocols

Rigorous experimental protocols are essential for generating reliable evidence of chemical footprints:

• Adductomics: This approach involves comprehensive screening for covalent adducts formed between environmental chemicals and biological macromolecules [15]. Protein adductomics techniques can screen for harmful exposures to causative agents of chronic disease and identify individuals at risk [15]. For example, the N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)valine hemoglobin adduct formed with glycidol has been used to assess internal doses of this genotoxicant in children [15].

• Site-Specific Mutagenesis: Chemical incorporation of modifications at specific sites within vectors has been a useful tool to deconvolute what types of damage quantified in biologically relevant systems may lead to toxicity and/or mutagenicity [15]. This approach allows researchers to focus on the most relevant biomarkers that may impact human health [15].

• Multiple Biomarker Approach: Systematic use of multiple biomarkers has been found to be most useful in the assessment of pollutants' effects [17]. Employing a multi-biomarker approach provides a wealth of information and enhances accuracy compared to relying solely on a single biomarker [16]. For example, in assessing coral health, several biomarker enzymes involved in melanin synthesis pathway and free radical scavenging enzymes were determined to evaluate stress induced by coral pathogens [17].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies for Chemical Footprint Analysis

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Application in Chemical Footprint Research	Key Advantages
Analytical Instruments	LC-MS/MS [15]; Accelerator Mass Spectrometry [15]; High-Throughput Screening systems [20]	Quantification of biomarkers; Detection of DNA/protein adducts; Rapid toxicity screening	High sensitivity and specificity; Ability to detect trace levels
Bioinformatic Tools	Computational toxicology software (e.g., EPA's T.E.S.T. [20]); Chemometric models [16]	Predicting toxicity of materials; Analyzing complex biomarker data	Enables prediction without full animal testing; Identifies patterns in complex data
Specialized Assays	Comet assay [17]; Micronucleus test [17]; Telomerase repeat amplification protocol [17]; Metabolomic profiling	Assessing DNA damage; Chromosomal abnormalities; Telomerase activity; Metabolic changes	Detect various types of genetic damage; Comprehensive metabolic assessment
Biological Models	In vitro cell cultures; Animal models (e.g., rats, mice [17]); Environmental sentinels (e.g., mussels [17], earthworms [17])	Mechanistic studies; Toxicity testing; Environmental monitoring	Controlled experimental conditions; Ecological relevance

The evidence base for chemical footprints reveals an inescapable reality: synthetic chemicals from consumer products, industrial processes, and environmental contamination leave detectable traces in biological systems, with potential implications for health across species. The One Health perspective provides an essential framework for understanding and addressing these interconnected challenges, recognizing that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems is inextricably linked [1] [7].

Biomarkers of exposure, effect, and susceptibility offer powerful tools for documenting chemical footprints and understanding their health implications [15] [16]. These biomarkers provide objective evidence of chemical-biological interactions at molecular, cellular, and physiological levels, serving as early warning systems for potential health risks [16] [17]. The continuing advancement of analytical technologies, particularly in mass spectrometry and omics approaches, is enhancing our ability to detect these footprints with increasing sensitivity and specificity [15] [16].

Green chemistry principles represent a proactive strategy for preventing chemical footprints at their source, offering a pathway toward chemical products and processes that minimize or eliminate hazards [1] [20] [19]. When integrated with occupational safety and health considerations, green chemistry practices can create synergistic benefits for workers, consumers, and ecosystems [20] [3]. The convergence of these fields within a One Health framework provides a comprehensive approach for addressing the complex challenges posed by chemical footprints in the modern world [1] [7].

As research in this field advances, the development and validation of novel biomarkers will continue to enhance our understanding of chemical footprints and their health implications. The application of this knowledge through green chemistry innovations, informed by a One Health perspective, offers promise for reducing chemical hazards and protecting the health of people, animals, and the ecosystems we share.

The conceptual journey from "One Medicine" to integrated Planetary Health represents a paradigmatic shift in understanding the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. This evolution mirrors the scientific community's growing recognition that health challenges cannot be confined to disciplinary silos but must be addressed through unifying approaches that acknowledge the complex interactions between species and ecosystems. The historical development of these concepts reflects an expanding scope of concern—from a primary focus on zoonotic diseases to a comprehensive understanding that the health of human civilization is inextricably linked to the stability of Earth's natural systems [21] [22]. This progression has profound implications for research methodologies, particularly in fields like green chemistry assessment, where understanding these interconnections is pivotal for developing sustainable solutions to global health challenges.

The "One Medicine" concept, tracing back to 19th-century physicians like Rudolf Virchow, established the foundational understanding that human and animal medicine should not operate in isolation [22]. Virchow's work on Trichinella spiralis in pork led to significant public health measures and his proclamation that "between animal and human medicine there are no dividing lines—nor should there be." This concept was further advanced by Canadian physician Sir William Osler in the 1870s, who taught both medical students at McGill College and veterinary students at the Montreal Veterinary College, publishing on the relationship between animals and humans while promoting comparative pathology [22]. The formalization of this approach continued through 20th-century figures like James Steele, who founded the Veterinary Public Health division at the CDC in 1947, and Calvin Schwabe, who coined the term "One Medicine" and advocated vigorously for collaboration between human and veterinary public health professionals to address zoonotic diseases [23] [22].

Historical Development and Conceptual Evolution

Key Milestones from One Medicine to Planetary Health

The transition from "One Medicine" to "One Health" and ultimately to "Planetary Health" represents a significant expansion in conceptual scope, reflected in key historical milestones. The following timeline illustrates the pivotal moments in this evolutionary pathway:

The conceptual evolution began with the One Medicine approach, which primarily focused on the connections between human and animal health, especially regarding zoonotic diseases. This perspective was championed by veterinarians in public health roles who recognized the value of collaborative approaches to disease control [22]. The Manhattan Principles established in 2004 marked a crucial expansion, outlining twelve priorities for combating health threats at the interface between humans, domestic animals, and wildlife, and calling for an international, interdisciplinary approach that ultimately formed the basis of the "One Health, One World" concept [23].

The period between 2008 and 2010 witnessed the institutional adoption of One Health approaches by major international organizations. The 2008 International Ministerial Conference on Avian and Pandemic Influenza in Egypt saw the release of "Contributing to One World, One Health - A Strategic Framework for Reducing Risks of Infectious Diseases," which participants endorsed as a new strategy for fighting infectious diseases [23]. This was followed by the 2010 Stone Mountain Meeting, which defined specific actions to advance the One Health agenda, and the Hanoi Declaration, which recommended broad implementation of One Health and was unanimously adopted by 71 countries [23].

A pivotal transformation occurred in 2015 with the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission's seminal report, which launched Planetary Health as a distinct field focused on "the health of human civilization and the state of the natural systems on which it depends" [24] [25] [26]. This represented a significant expansion beyond the disease-centered approach of One Medicine and the multispecies focus of One Health to encompass the entire Earth system. More recent developments include the 2021 São Paulo Declaration on Planetary Health, a multi-stakeholder call to action, and the 2024 Global Planetary Health Roadmap, which provides a strategic framework to nurture this growing movement [24].

Defining the Conceptual Frameworks

The transition from One Medicine to Planetary Health represents not merely a chronological evolution but a fundamental expansion in conceptual scope, philosophical foundations, and operational focus. The table below compares these integrated approaches to health:

Aspect	One Medicine	One Health	Planetary Health
Core Definition	Unified approach against zoonoses using human and veterinary medicine [22]	Integrated approach aiming to balance and optimize health of people, animals, and ecosystems [27]	Solutions-oriented field addressing impacts of human disruptions to Earth's systems on human health and all life [24] [26]
Primary Focus	Zoonotic disease prevention and control through collaboration between human and veterinary medicine [23] [22]	Health at human-animal-ecosystem interfaces; emerging infectious diseases; food safety and security [23] [27]	Health of human civilization and natural systems; anthropogenic environmental changes; equity and social justice [24] [25]
Historical Context	19th century origins (Virchow); term coined by Schwabe in 1960s-1980s [22]	Evolved from One Medicine; formalized through Manhattan Principles (2004) and international adoption (2008-2010) [23]	Concept launched in 2015; builds on environmental movements of 1970s-80s and precursor concepts [24]
Key Actors	Physicians, veterinarians, public health professionals [22]	Multisectoral collaboration including human health, animal health, environmental sectors [23] [27]	Transdisciplinary approach including earth scientists, economists, policymakers, communities [24] [26]
Operational Level	Professional collaboration between medical disciplines [22]	National and international government agencies; regional organizations [21]	Academic networks; non-governmental organizations; social movements [21] [24]
Philosophical Foundation	Comparative medicine; shared disease mechanisms between species [22]	Interdependence of human, animal, and ecosystem health; systems thinking [21] [27]	Anthropocene awareness; interconnection with nature; equity and social justice; systems change [24]

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

Research Methodologies Across Integrated Health Approaches

The methodological evolution from One Medicine to Planetary Health reflects the expanding scope of these frameworks, incorporating increasingly sophisticated and transdisciplinary approaches to understanding health in interconnected systems. The following diagram illustrates the progressive integration of methodological approaches across these evolving paradigms:

One Medicine methodologies primarily centered on comparative pathology and epidemiological tracking of diseases across species. This approach relied heavily on laboratory analysis of shared pathogens and surveillance systems that monitored disease incidence in human and animal populations [22]. The primary methodological innovation was the systematic collaboration between human and veterinary laboratories, enabling more effective tracking of zoonotic diseases like bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and rabies [23].

One Health methodologies expanded this approach to include environmental monitoring and cross-sectoral collaboration. The Stone Mountain Meeting in 2010 established key methodological priorities, including developing One Health trainings and curricula, establishing global networks, conducting country-level needs assessments, building capacity at the country level, and gathering evidence for proof of concept through literature reviews and prospective studies [23]. Methodologically, One Health emphasizes operationalizing collaboration through joint risk assessments, integrated surveillance systems, and coordinated outbreak response between human health, animal health, and environmental sectors [23] [27].

Planetary Health methodologies incorporate systems thinking and transdisciplinary research approaches that acknowledge the complex interdependencies between human and natural systems. The field employs the framework of planetary boundaries—a set of nine biophysical parameters within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive [24]. As of 2024, six of these boundaries (climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, land-system change, freshwater use, and novel entities) had already been exceeded, highlighting the urgency of Planetary Health approaches [24]. Methodologically, this involves tracking indicators of Earth system stability and human wellbeing, modeling complex cascading impacts, and developing solutions that simultaneously address environmental sustainability and health equity [24] [25].

Experimental Protocols for Green Chemistry Assessment in Planetary Health

Within green chemistry assessment research, experimental protocols have evolved to incorporate the expanding scope of integrated health approaches. The following research framework illustrates the application of these concepts in assessing sustainable chemistry innovations:

The experimental workflow for green chemistry assessment within a Planetary Health framework typically involves four key phases:

• Problem Identification and Scoping: This initial phase involves systematic screening of chemical processes and products for their potential impacts on human and ecosystem health. Protocols include environmental impact screening, health hazard assessment of chemical entities, and identification of exposure pathways across species and ecosystems [28] [25].

• Green Chemistry Solution Design: Following problem identification, researchers develop alternative chemical processes aligned with green chemistry principles. Key methodological components include sustainable feedstock selection, design of benign synthesis pathways to reduce or eliminate hazardous substances, and application of renewable energy inputs in chemical production [28].

• Multi-Scale Assessment: This phase employs integrated assessment protocols to evaluate the broader implications of chemical innovations. Standard methodologies include Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to quantify environmental impacts across the entire product lifecycle, Planetary Boundaries Evaluation to situate chemical processes within Earth system limits, and cross-species toxicological screening to identify potential impacts on non-human organisms and ecosystem functions [24] [25].

• Implementation and Policy Translation: The final phase focuses on translating research findings into practical applications and policy recommendations. This involves stakeholder engagement across multiple sectors, development of evidence-based policy recommendations, and creation of monitoring frameworks to track implementation effectiveness and unintended consequences [28] [24].

Comparative Analysis and Research Data

Quantitative Comparison of Health Approaches

The evolution from One Medicine to Planetary Health represents not only a conceptual expansion but also measurable differences in scope, application, and impact. The table below summarizes key quantitative and qualitative differences between these approaches:

Parameter	One Medicine	One Health	Planetary Health
Temporal Scope	19th century to present	2004 to present	2015 to present
Number of Sectors Actively Engaged	2 (human medicine, veterinary medicine)	3+ (human health, animal health, environment, agriculture)	10+ (all sectors affecting natural systems) [24]
Primary Scale of Intervention	Individual, herd, and community health	Population health, ecosystem interfaces	Earth system, global scale [24]
Key Performance Indicators	Zoonotic disease incidence; diagnostic accuracy across species	Emerging disease detection time; intersectoral collaboration metrics	Planetary boundaries metrics; health equity indices; ecosystem integrity [24]
Implementation Level	Professional practice; laboratory collaboration	International organizations; national governments; regional bodies [21]	Academic networks; NGOs; social movements [21]
Typical Funding Sources	Biomedical research grants; public health funding	Multisectoral health budgets; international development funds	Environmental and sustainability funding; philanthropic organizations [24]
Governance Structure	Professional associations; public health agencies	Tripartite (FAO, WHO, WOAH) plus UNEP; national One Health committees	Multilateral environmental agreements; transnational networks [24]

Evidence Base and Validation Studies

The effectiveness of integrated health approaches is supported by a growing body of empirical evidence and case studies demonstrating their value in addressing complex health challenges:

One Medicine Success Cases: Historical applications of One Medicine principles have demonstrated significant public health benefits. Examples include the control of bovine tuberculosis through coordinated human and animal health surveillance, the near-eradication of rabies in many regions through integrated vaccination programs in wildlife and domestic animals, and the management of brucellosis through collaborative monitoring and control efforts between agricultural and public health sectors [23] [22]. These successes established the foundational evidence for the economic and public health benefits of cross-species approaches to disease control.

One Health Validation Studies: The One Health approach has proven particularly valuable in addressing emerging infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance. The 2012 One Health Summit in Davos, Switzerland, resulted in the "Davos One Health Action Plan," which pinpointed ways to improve public health through multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder cooperation, with a focus on food safety and security [23]. The effectiveness of this approach was demonstrated during the H1N1 influenza pandemic, where coordinated surveillance in human, swine, and avian populations enabled more effective tracking and response to the emerging threat [23]. The Stone Mountain Meeting in 2010 further contributed to building the evidence base through prospective studies designed to demonstrate proof of concept for the One Health approach [23].

Planetary Health Impact Evidence: Research in Planetary Health has quantified the extensive connections between environmental change and health outcomes. The World Health Organization estimates that 23% of global deaths are linked to environmental factors [25]. The Planetary Health approach has documented how climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution collectively impact health through multiple pathways, including increased infectious disease transmission, reduced food and water security, rising non-communicable diseases, and mental health impacts [24] [25]. The healthcare sector itself contributes approximately 4.4% of global net emissions—if it were a country, it would be the fifth-largest emitter in the world—highlighting the importance of integrating Planetary Health principles into healthcare delivery and research [25].

Research Tools and Methodological Framework

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methods and Reagents

Implementing integrated health approaches in green chemistry assessment requires specialized methodological tools and assessment frameworks. The table below details key reagents, models, and methodologies essential for research in this field:

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Application in Integrated Health Research	Protocol Considerations
Assessment Frameworks	Planetary Boundaries Framework [24]	Evaluating chemical processes against Earth system limits	Quantitative assessment of 9 key Earth system processes; reference to pre-industrial baselines
	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [25]	Comprehensive environmental impact assessment across product lifecycle	Cradle-to-grave analysis; multiple impact categories (carbon, water, ecotoxicity)
	One Health Index (OHI) [27]	Measuring integration and outcomes across human, animal, environmental health	Multidimensional metrics; sectoral balance assessment; implementation effectiveness
Analytical Methods	Green Chemistry Principles [28]	Designing chemical processes with reduced environmental and health impacts	12 principles of green chemistry; waste prevention; renewable feedstocks; degradation design
	Cross-Species Toxicological Screening	Identifying differential impacts across biological organisms	In vitro and in vivo models; ecological receptor testing; endocrine disruption assays
	Systems Modeling and Network Analysis	Understanding complex interactions and cascading effects in health systems	Computational modeling; network mapping; scenario development; tipping point analysis
Collaborative Mechanisms	Transdisciplinary Research Platforms [24]	Integrating knowledge across scientific disciplines and societal sectors	Co-design processes; stakeholder engagement frameworks; knowledge integration methods
	Integrated Surveillance Systems [23]	Simultaneous monitoring of health indicators in human, animal, environmental compartments	Data standardization; shared reporting platforms; synchronized sampling protocols
	Community-Based Participatory Research [27]	Engaging local and indigenous knowledge in health assessment	Ethical collaboration frameworks; knowledge co-production; equitable partnership models
Boc-Pen(Mob)-OH	Boc-Pen(Mob)-OH, CAS:120944-75-4, MF:C18H27NO5S, MW:369.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Boc-Asp-Ofm	Boc-Asp-Ofm, CAS:129046-87-3, MF:C23H25NO6, MW:411.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Standardized Protocols for Integrated Assessment

Research in integrated health approaches requires standardized protocols to ensure consistency and comparability across studies:

Planetary Health Assessment Protocol: This comprehensive protocol involves quantifying impacts of chemical processes or healthcare practices within the planetary boundaries framework. The methodology includes: (1) Baseline assessment of the nine planetary boundaries (climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, etc.); (2) Impact pathway mapping to trace connections between chemical exposures and health outcomes across species and systems; (3) Equity assessment to evaluate differential impacts across populations and species; and (4) Solution co-design with stakeholders to develop contextually appropriate interventions [24] [25]. Standardized metrics include carbon footprint, water footprint, land system change, and novel entity introduction rates.

One Health Operationalization Protocol: The CDC-led Stone Mountain Meeting established a standardized protocol for implementing One Health approaches, including: (1) Joint risk assessment using integrated teams from human, animal, and environmental health sectors; (2) Coordinated surveillance with standardized data collection and shared reporting platforms; (3) Outbreak investigation with cross-sectoral response teams; and (4) Control measure implementation with synchronized interventions across sectors [23]. Key to this protocol is the development of shared terminology, interoperable data systems, and joint training programs to build capacity for collaboration.

Green Chemistry Transition Protocol: For applying integrated health approaches in chemical assessment and development, a standardized protocol includes: (1) Hazard assessment using green chemistry principles to evaluate feedstocks, reagents, and products; (2) Exposure mapping across human, animal, and environmental compartments; (3) Alternative assessment to identify safer chemical and process options; and (4) Sustainable implementation considering scalability, circular economy principles, and just transition frameworks [28]. This protocol emphasizes pollution prevention at the design stage rather than end-of-pipe control, aligning with the preventive orientation of Planetary Health.

The historical evolution from "One Medicine" to integrated "Planetary Health" represents a fundamental expansion in how the scientific community conceptualizes and addresses health challenges. This trajectory has moved from a focus on shared disease mechanisms between humans and animals to a comprehensive recognition that human health ultimately depends on the stability and resilience of Earth's natural systems [21] [24] [26]. For researchers in green chemistry and drug development, this evolutionary pathway offers both a compelling conceptual framework and practical methodologies for assessing and improving the sustainability of chemical innovations.

The integrated approaches of One Health and Planetary Health are particularly relevant for addressing complex global challenges such as pandemic prevention, climate change impacts, biodiversity loss, and antimicrobial resistance [21] [25]. These approaches provide conceptual frameworks and methodological tools for understanding the interconnections between chemical design, environmental impacts, and health outcomes across species and systems. As the Planetary Health Alliance emphasizes, this field is "solutions-oriented," focusing not only on analyzing human disruptions to Earth's natural systems but also on developing and implementing strategies to address these challenges [26].

For the field of green chemistry assessment, this evolutionary perspective underscores the importance of expanding evaluation frameworks beyond traditional metrics of efficiency and toxicity to include broader impacts on ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, and Earth system processes. The planetary boundaries framework offers particularly valuable guidance for situating chemical innovations within Earth's carrying capacity [24]. Similarly, the emphasis on equity and social justice in Planetary Health aligns with growing recognition that sustainable solutions must address disproportionate environmental exposures and health impacts on vulnerable populations [24] [27].

As research continues to demonstrate the extensive interconnections between environmental change and health outcomes, the integration of these perspectives into chemical design and assessment becomes increasingly essential. The historical context from One Medicine to Planetary Health provides both a compelling narrative of conceptual evolution and a practical toolkit for creating sustainable healthcare solutions that protect both human health and the natural systems on which it depends.

The concept of One Health—which recognizes the inextricable linkages between the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems—is fundamentally reshaping drug development paradigms [1]. In parallel, the pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure to reduce its substantial environmental footprint, creating a powerful sustainability imperative that drives innovation [29]. This convergence has accelerated the adoption of green chemistry principles throughout the research and development pipeline, transforming how scientists design, synthesize, and produce therapeutic compounds [1].

Where traditional drug development often prioritized efficacy and speed above environmental concerns, contemporary approaches recognize that environmental responsibility and scientific innovation must advance together [29]. This shift is particularly crucial for addressing vector-borne parasitic diseases, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and are intensifying due to climate change, thus exemplifying the interconnected nature of planetary and human health [1]. The industry's response to these challenges is yielding novel methodologies that reduce waste, conserve resources, and create more sustainable workflows from discovery to manufacturing.

Quantitative Assessment of Green Chemistry Principles in Antiparasitic Drug Development

Green Chemistry Principles and Implementation Metrics

The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry provide a systematic framework for evaluating and improving the sustainability of drug development processes [1]. The table below summarizes quantitative metrics and implementation examples for key principles, with particular focus on antiparasitic drug development:

Table 1: Green Chemistry Principles and Implementation in Drug Development

Principle	Key Metric	Traditional Approach	Sustainable Alternative	Exemplar Compound
Waste Prevention	E-Factor (kg waste/kg product) [1]	Multi-step synthesis with toxic reagents	One-pot synthesis & catalyst optimization [1]	Tafenoquine [1]
Safer Solvents/ Auxiliaries	Solvent Guide Score [1]	Halogenated solvents (DCM, DMF)	Bio-based solvents, water, solvent-less [1]	Various VBPD candidates [1]
Energy Efficiency	Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	High-temperature reactions	Microwave synthesis, flow chemistry [1]	Artemisinin derivatives [1]
Renewable Feedstocks	% Biobased Carbon Content	Petroleum-derived starting materials	Plant-based intermediates, fermentation [1]	Semi-synthetic artemisinins [1]

Experimental Protocols for Green Chemistry Assessment

E-Factor Determination Protocol

Purpose: To quantify process waste generation for comparative sustainability assessment [1].

Methodology:

• Document total mass of all materials (reactants, solvents, catalysts) used in synthesis
• Isolate and weigh final product (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient - API)
• Calculate E-Factor using formula: E-Factor = Total mass of waste / Mass of product
• Classify according to pharmaceutical industry bands: API synthesis (25-100), fine chemicals (5-50), commodity chemicals (<5) [1]

Key Instruments: Analytical balance (±0.0001 g), Life Cycle Inventory databases, Process mass tracking software

Solvent Greenness Assessment Protocol

Purpose: To evaluate and compare environmental, safety, and health impacts of reaction solvents.

Methodology:

• Apply CHEM21 Solvent Selection Guide scoring system (Recommended > Problematic > Hazardous)
• Evaluate multiple parameters: waste, environmental impact, health, safety
• Calculate composite score and rank alternatives
• Prioritize Class 3 (low concern) and bio-based solvents over Class 1 (to be substituted)

Application: Directly informed the replacement of dichloromethane (DCM) with cyclopentyl methyl ether (CPME) in antimalarial lead optimization [1].

Sustainable Workflow Integration in Early Discovery

Green Chemistry Principles in Medicinal Chemistry

The implementation of green chemistry begins in early discovery, where strategic choices have cascading environmental impacts throughout development. The following workflow illustrates how sustainability principles are integrated into modern antiparasitic drug discovery:

Research Reagent Solutions for Sustainable Laboratories

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Sustainable Alternatives

Reagent Category	Traditional Materials	Sustainable Alternatives	Function	Environmental Impact Reduction
Solvent Systems	Acetonitrile, DMF, DCM	Bio-based solvents, water, solvent-less reactions [1]	Compound dissolution & purification	Reduced toxicity, biodegradability
Catalysts	Heavy metal catalysts	Biocatalysts, organocatalysts [1]	Reaction acceleration	Renewable, biodegradable, less toxic
Assay Materials	Virgin plastic consumables [29]	Recycled plastics, higher plate formats [29]	High-throughput screening	Plastic waste reduction
Dispensing Tech	Manual pipetting	Acoustic dispensing [29]	Reagent transfer	90% solvent volume reduction

Environmental Impact Analysis: Traditional vs. Sustainable Approaches

Carbon Footprint and Resource Utilization

Drug development activities contribute significantly to carbon emissions through energy-intensive processes and resource consumption [29]. The following comparative analysis quantifies these environmental impacts:

Table 3: Environmental Impact Comparison: Traditional vs. Sustainable Approaches

Development Phase	Primary Environmental Impact	Traditional Practice	Sustainable Innovation	Quantified Improvement
Discovery Chemistry	Solvent waste, energy use [1]	Linear synthesis, toxic solvents	One-pot reactions, green solvents [1]	E-Factor reduction up to 65% [1]
Assay Development	Plastic waste [29]	96-well plates, single-use plastics	384/1536-well plates, reusables [29]	Plastic waste reduction up to 70% [29]
Process Chemistry	Resource intensity [1]	Low atom economy processes	Catalytic methods, renewable feedstocks [1]	PMI improvement 30-50% [1]
Travel/Commuting	Carbon emissions [29]	Daily commutes, global conferences	Virtual collaboration, remote work [29]	Emissions reduction potential >50% [29]

Waste Stream Analysis and Reduction Strategies

Pharmaceutical development generates complex waste streams, with plastic contamination and hazardous solvent disposal presenting particular challenges [29]. Most laboratory plastic waste is contaminated and must be incinerated rather than recycled, creating persistent environmental burdens [29]. The industry is addressing this through:

• Source reduction: Implementing higher density plate formats (384-well, 1536-well) to minimize plastic consumption [29]
• Process redesign: Applying Design of Experiments (DoE) methodologies to optimize assays and eliminate unnecessary steps [29]
• Technology adoption: Utilizing acoustic dispensing technology to dramatically reduce solvent volumes in compound transfer operations [29]

Visualization of Sustainable Drug Development Framework

The complete integration of sustainability principles throughout the drug development lifecycle requires systematic implementation across all stages, as illustrated below:

The pharmaceutical industry's sustainability transformation is accelerating, driven by the integration of One Health principles and green chemistry methodologies [1]. This shift represents more than environmental compliance—it constitutes a fundamental reimagining of drug development that aligns therapeutic innovation with planetary health. The quantitative metrics and experimental protocols presented in this guide provide researchers with practical tools to implement these approaches in their daily work.

As the field advances, success will require collaboration across pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, and academic institutions, supported by financial, social, and regulatory incentives that encourage green innovation [1]. Through continued adoption of sustainable practices, the drug development community can address critical global health challenges, such as vector-borne parasitic diseases, while reducing environmental impact and creating a more resilient future for human and ecosystem health [1].

Practical Integration: Tools and Frameworks for Sustainable Pharmaceutical Design

Green Chemistry Metrics and Lifecycle Assessment in a One Health Context

The One Health framework recognizes that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems is inextricably interconnected. Within this holistic paradigm, green chemistry emerges as a foundational discipline, providing the principles and tools to design chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate hazardous substance generation and use [1]. The implementation of green chemistry is essential for addressing global challenges such as antimicrobial resistance, food safety, and environmental degradation that span the human-animal-environment interface [30]. However, good intentions alone are insufficient without robust measurement systems. This is where green chemistry metrics become indispensable, serving as quantitative assessment tools that allow researchers to measure, compare, and improve the environmental performance of chemical processes [31] [32].

The connection between green chemistry and One Health manifests most visibly in pharmaceutical development, particularly for antiparasitic drugs targeting vector-borne diseases. These diseases, including malaria, leishmaniasis, and trypanosomiasis, disproportionately affect impoverished populations and create a vicious cycle between illness and socioeconomic disadvantage [1] [33]. By applying green chemistry principles to drug development, medicinal chemists can create therapies that not only treat disease but also minimize environmental burden, thereby addressing health challenges across species and ecosystems [1].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of green chemistry metrics and assessment methodologies, contextualized within the One Health framework. By objectively evaluating measurement tools and their applications, we aim to empower researchers and drug development professionals to select appropriate metrics for quantifying and improving the sustainability of their chemical processes.

Green Chemistry Metrics: Quantitative Tools for Sustainable Design

Green chemistry metrics translate the conceptual framework of the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry into measurable parameters [34]. These metrics serve a critical function in the One Health context by enabling standardized assessment of how chemical processes impact human health, animal health, and ecosystem integrity. The most widely adopted metrics fall into two primary categories: mass-based metrics and impact-based metrics [32].

Mass-Based Metrics

Mass-based metrics focus on resource efficiency, evaluating the mass of desired product relative to the mass of waste generated [32]. These metrics provide simple, calculable indicators of process efficiency but do not differentiate between more and less hazardous wastes [32].

Table 1: Key Mass-Based Green Chemistry Metrics

Metric	Calculation	Interpretation	Advantages	Limitations
Atom Economy (AE) [32]	(MW of desired product / Σ MW of reactants) × 100%	Higher percentage indicates more atoms from reactants incorporated into final product	Simple calculation; requires only molecular structures; good for early reaction design	Ignores yield, solvents, and energy; assumes reaction goes to completion
E-Factor [31] [32]	Total mass of waste / Mass of product	Lower values indicate less waste generation; ideal = 0	Comprehensive waste accounting; industry-standard; reveals hidden waste streams	Does not consider hazard of waste; can be time-consuming to calculate all waste streams
Reaction Mass Efficiency (RME) [32]	(Mass of product / Σ Mass of reactants) × 100%	Higher percentage indicates more efficient mass utilization	Combines atom economy and yield; practical for laboratory assessment	Excludes solvents and other auxiliary materials
Effective Mass Yield [34]	(Mass of product / Mass of non-benign reagents) × 100%	Higher values indicate reduced use of hazardous materials	Focuses on hazardous materials; encourages substitution	Requires subjective assessment of what is "non-benign"

The E-Factor has become particularly influential across chemical industry sectors. Typical E-Factor values highlight dramatic differences in waste generation potential: oil refining (0.1), bulk chemicals (1-5), fine chemicals (5-50), and pharmaceuticals (25-100) [31]. This progression reflects increasing molecular complexity and purification requirements, with pharmaceutical processes generating up to 100 kg of waste per kg of active ingredient [31]. These quantitative comparisons enable targeted improvements in sectors with the highest environmental footprints.

Impact-Based and Global Assessment Metrics

While mass-based metrics provide valuable efficiency data, they fall short in assessing toxicity, hazards, and broader environmental impacts. Impact-based metrics address this limitation by incorporating environmental and human health parameters [32].

Table 2: Advanced and Impact-Based Assessment Metrics

Metric	Basis of Assessment	Application Context	Output Format
Analytical Eco-Scale [35]	Penalty points assigned for hazardous reagents, energy consumption, and waste	Analytical method development	Total score (100 = ideal); higher scores indicate greener methods
NEMI (National Environmental Methods Index) [35]	Four criteria: PBT chemicals, hazardous waste, corrosivity, waste quantity	Analytical method selection	Pictogram with four quadrants; green indicates criteria met
AGP (Assessment of Green Profile) [35]	Five sections: safety, health, energy, waste, environment	Comprehensive process evaluation	Color-coded pentagon diagram with quantitative ratings
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [36]	Holistic cradle-to-grave analysis of environmental impacts	Comprehensive sustainability assessment	Multiple impact category scores (GWP, energy use, eutrophication, etc.)

The Analytical Eco-Scale exemplifies the quantitative approach to impact assessment. It begins with a perfect score of 100 points for an ideal green analysis and subtracts penalty points for hazardous reagents (>10 points), energy consumption (>1 point per 0.1 kWh above threshold), and waste generated (>1 point per 1-10g) [35]. This systematic approach enables straightforward comparison of analytical methods and identifies specific areas for improvement.

Methodologies for Metric Evaluation: Experimental Protocols and Applications

Case Study: Green Metrics in Antiparasitic Drug Development

The development of tafenoquine succinate, a single-dose treatment for Plasmodium vivax malaria, demonstrates the practical application of green chemistry metrics within a One Health context. Traditional synthetic routes suffered from multiple steps and toxic reagents, resulting in high E-Factors [1]. The green synthesis developed by Lipshutz's team implemented waste prevention strategies (Principle 1 of Green Chemistry) through a two-step, one-pot synthesis that dramatically reduced solvent use and purification requirements [1].

Experimental Protocol for Green Synthesis of Tafenoquine Intermediate:

• Reaction Setup: Charge reactor with N-(4-methoxyphenyl)-3-oxobutanamide (1.0 equiv) and green solvent (2-methyl-THF or cyclopentyl methyl ether)
• Condensation: Add arylenediamine (1.05 equiv) and catalytic acetic acid (0.1 equiv) at 25°C
• Cyclization: Heat to 60°C for 4 hours with continuous mixing
• Work-up: Add water and separate organic layer
• Purification: Concentrate under reduced pressure and crystallize from ethanol/water mixture
• Analysis: Determine yield by HPLC; calculate E-Factor and atom economy

This methodology reduced the E-Factor from >100 in discovery chemistry to <10 in the optimized process, primarily through solvent substitution and catalyst recovery [1]. From a One Health perspective, these improvements simultaneously benefit human health (through increased drug availability), environmental health (through reduced chemical burden), and animal health (through potential veterinary applications).

Case Study: Catalytic Process Evaluation with Radial Metrics

A 2025 study of fine chemical processes demonstrated the application of multiple green metrics to evaluate catalytic reactions for biomass valorization [37]. The research employed radial pentagon diagrams for simultaneous visualization of five key metrics: atom economy (AE), reaction yield (É›), stoichiometric factor (SF), material recovery parameter (MRP), and reaction mass efficiency (RME) [37].

Experimental Protocol for Catalytic Epoxidation of R-(+)-limonene:

• Catalyst Preparation: Prepare K–Sn–H–Y-30-dealuminated zeolite by ion exchange method
• Reaction Conditions: Charge limonene (10 mmol), hydrogen peroxide (30% aqueous, 12 mmol), and catalyst (50 mg) in methanol (10 mL)
• Process Monitoring: React at 60°C for 6 hours with sampling at 30-minute intervals
• Product Analysis: Quantify epoxide formation by GC-MS with internal standard
• Metric Calculation: Determine AE (0.89), É› (0.65), 1/SF (0.71), MRP (1.0), and RME (0.415)
• Solvent Recovery: Distill methanol for reuse in subsequent runs (3 cycles minimum)

This systematic approach revealed that dihydrocarvone synthesis from limonene-1,2-epoxide using dendritic zeolite d-ZSM-5/4d exhibited exceptional green characteristics (AE = 1.0, É› = 0.63, 1/SF = 1.0, MRP = 1.0, RME = 0.63) [37]. The radial visualization technique enabled immediate identification of this process as superior for further development in monoterpene valorization.

Integration of Life Cycle Assessment in a One Health Framework

While simple green metrics provide valuable design guidance, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) offers a comprehensive methodology for evaluating environmental impacts across the entire chemical life cycle [36]. This cradle-to-grave perspective is essential for true One Health implementation, as it captures impacts on ecosystems and animal health that may be overlooked in process-focused metrics.

LCA evaluates multiple environmental impact categories, including global warming potential, energy use, eutrophication, and land use [36]. For bio-based chemicals, LCA studies frequently reveal trade-offs; while renewable resources often show advantages in greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use, they may increase impacts in eutrophication and land use categories [36]. These findings highlight the importance of the multi-criteria approach inherent to both LCA and One Health.

Key LCA Methodological Considerations for Green Chemicals:

• System Boundaries: Define included processes (raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, disposal)
• Allocation Methods: Partition environmental burdens between co-products (mass, economic, system expansion)
• Data Quality: Prioritize primary data for foreground processes while using validated databases for background processes
• Impact Assessment: Select relevant impact categories (global warming, acidification, human toxicity, ecotoxicity)
• Interpretation: Conduct sensitivity analysis to test significant assumptions and data uncertainties

A review of LCA studies comparing fossil-based and renewable chemicals found that in most cases, the renewable alternatives demonstrated superior environmental performance for global warming potential and energy use [36]. However, the studies also emphasized the importance of including eutrophication potential and land use in the assessment to capture trade-offs and avoid problem shifting [36]. This comprehensive perspective aligns with the integrative nature of One Health, which seeks to balance benefits across human, animal, and environmental domains.

Visualizing Relationships: Metric Selection and One Health Integration

The following diagram illustrates the strategic selection process for green chemistry metrics within the interconnected framework of One Health, highlighting the relationships between assessment goals and appropriate methodological tools.

Metric Selection in One Health Context

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The implementation of green chemistry principles requires carefully selected reagents and materials that minimize environmental impact while maintaining research efficacy. The following table details key solutions for sustainable chemistry practice in a One Health-oriented research environment.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Green Chemistry Applications

Reagent/Material	Function	Green Characteristics	One Health Connection
2-Methyltetrahydrofuran (2-MeTHF) [1]	Biobased solvent for extraction and reaction media	Derived from renewable resources (e.g., furfural); low toxicity	Reduces environmental contamination; safer for laboratory workers
Cyclopentyl methyl ether (CPME) [1]	Ether solvent for reactions and workup	High stability; low peroxide formation; favorable water solubility	Enhanced laboratory safety; reduced hazardous waste generation
K–Sn–H–Y-30-dealuminated zeolite [37]	Heterogeneous catalyst for epoxidation	Recyclable solid catalyst; eliminates homogeneous metal residues	Prevents heavy metal accumulation in ecosystems
Dendritic zeolite d-ZSM-5/4d [37]	Catalyst for terpene transformations	High activity at mild conditions; energy efficient	Reduces energy consumption and associated emissions
Sn4Y30EIM zeolite [37]	Catalyst for cyclization reactions	Excellent regioselectivity; minimal byproduct formation	Reduces waste treatment burden on water systems
RuBi-Nicotine	RuBi-Nicotine, CAS:1256362-30-7, MF:C40H44Cl2N8Ru, MW:808.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Fmoc-Cys(Bzl)-Cl	Fmoc-Cys(Bzl)-Cl, CAS:103321-55-7, MF:C25H22ClNO3S, MW:451.965	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

These reagents exemplify the implementation of Principle 3: Less Hazardous Chemical Synthesis and Principle 9: Catalysis from the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry [34]. Their selection directly supports One Health objectives by reducing the ecological impact of chemical research while maintaining scientific rigor.

This comparison demonstrates that effective green chemistry assessment requires a multi-metric approach tailored to specific research stages and One Health objectives. Simple mass-based metrics like Atom Economy and E-Factor provide valuable efficiency screening during reaction design, while sophisticated impact-based metrics like Analytical Eco-Scale offer deeper environmental profiling for method selection [31] [35]. For comprehensive sustainability assessment, particularly for bio-based chemicals, Life Cycle Assessment remains the gold standard, despite its computational complexity [36].

The integration of these assessment tools within the One Health framework creates a powerful paradigm for sustainable chemical research and development. This approach enables medicinal chemists to design pharmaceutical interventions that address human and animal health needs while minimizing ecological disruption. As green chemistry continues to evolve, the development of standardized metric reporting and One Health impact assessment will be crucial for achieving the interconnected goals of planetary health and sustainable development.

Assessing Pharmaceutical Sustainability Across Human, Animal, and Environmental Compartments

The concept of One Health recognizes the complex connections between the health of people, animals, plants, and our shared environment [7]. This interconnectedness means that the environmental impact of pharmaceuticals is not an isolated issue; it directly influences ecosystem stability, animal welfare, and ultimately circles back to affect human health. A unified approach is essential for understanding and mitigating the full lifecycle impact of pharmaceutical products, from development and manufacturing to consumption and disposal [7].

The pharmaceutical industry is at a critical moment, facing pressure from regulators, patients, and investors to adopt more sustainable practices [38]. This guide objectively compares current methodologies and performance metrics for assessing pharmaceutical sustainability across the three compartments of the One Health paradigm, providing researchers with a framework for evaluating environmental and health impacts.

Comparative Frameworks for Sustainability Assessment

Quantitative Comparison of Pharmaceutical Impacts

The following table summarizes key quantitative findings and assessment metrics across human, animal, and environmental compartments.

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Pharmaceutical Impacts and Assessments Across One Health Compartments

Compartment	Key Quantitative Findings	Primary Assessment Methodologies	Commonly Measured Parameters
Environmental	- Pharmaceuticals detected in environments of 71 countries [39]- 631 different pharmaceutical substances found in various matrices globally [39]- Up to 95% of GHG emissions for select medicines originate from raw material acquisition and manufacturing [40]	- Measured Environmental Concentration (MEC) database compilation [39]- Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [41]- Streamlined LCA in development phases [41]	- Surface/Groundwater concentration [39]- Process Mass Intensity (PMI) [41]- Atom Efficiency [41]- Greenhouse Gas Emissions [40] [41]
Human Health	- Pharma contributes to ~5% of global carbon emissions (health systems) [40]- $5.2 billion spent yearly by major pharma on environmental programs [38]	- Occupational Exposure Limits and Hierarchy of Controls [3]- Prevention through Design (PtD) [3]- Computational Toxicology (e.g., EPA's T.E.S.T.) [3]	- Worker exposure levels [3]- Toxicity estimates (computational) [3]- Corporate Safety Performance indicators [3]
Animal Health	- One Health investigation on azole fungicides: Impact on development of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus [7]	- Joint inter-agency risk assessments (e.g., ECHA, EMA, EFSA) [7]- One Substance-One Assessment approach [7]	- Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) development [7]- Biomagnification in food chains- Veterinary drug residues

Comparing Strategic Approaches to Integration

The strategies for integrating sustainability and One Health principles vary significantly across the pharmaceutical lifecycle. The following table compares three dominant approaches, their implementation focus, and their relative performance.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Strategic Sustainability Frameworks in Pharma

Strategic Approach	Primary Implementation Focus	Performance & Advantages	Limitations & Challenges
Sustainability by Design (SbD) [41]	- Early R&D (Preclinical to Phase 2)- Product Lifecycle Management	- Influences up to 80% of a product's environmental impact [41]- Aligns with ICH Q8 quality-by-design principles- Enables built-in sustainability from the outset	- Less effective for existing products (requires retrofitting)- Requires cross-organizational adaptation of digital tools and databases [41]
Green Chemistry & Green Engineering [3] [41]	- Chemical Synthesis (API manufacturing)- Process Design	- Reduces toxic intermediates and waste [3]- Can lead to lower production costs (e.g., 15% savings reported) [38]- Employs metrics like PMI and Atom Economy	- New, "greener" chemicals may have unforeseen toxicological hazards [3]- Higher initial investment for new technology
Green Supply Chain Management [38] [41]	- Supplier Selection & Engagement- Raw Material Sourcing & Logistics	- Cuts transportation emissions via local sourcing [38]- Digital tools (e.g., blockchain) improve traceability and reduce waste [38]- Enhances supply chain resilience	- Complex to monitor and manage (Scope 3 emissions) [41]- Green suppliers may have higher initial costs [38]

Experimental Protocols for Sustainability Assessment

Protocol A: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Pharmaceuticals

1. Goal and Scope Definition:

• Define the purpose of the assessment and the specific product or process to be evaluated.
• Set the system boundaries (e.g., cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave) and the functional unit (e.g., per kilogram of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API), per defined daily dose) [41].

2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI):

• Collect quantitative data on all energy and material inputs, and environmental releases associated with each stage within the system boundaries. Key data points include:
  • Raw Material Acquisition: Quantities and types of solvents, reagents, and starting materials [40] [41].
  • Manufacturing: Energy consumption (electricity, natural gas), water usage, and waste generation (chemical, plastic) during API synthesis and dosage form production [38] [41].
  • Packaging and Distribution: Materials used in primary and secondary packaging, and transportation distances and modes [41].

3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA):

• Classify and characterize the inventory data into specific environmental impact categories. Core categories for pharmaceuticals include:
  • Global Warming Potential (Carbon Footprint): Convert GHG emissions to COâ‚‚-equivalents [40] [41].
  • Water Footprint: Assess total water consumption and potential for water pollution [38].
  • Resource Depletion: Evaluate the use of non-renewable resources.

4. Interpretation:

• Analyze results to identify significant environmental hotspots (e.g., raw material acquisition, energy-intensive process steps) and opportunities for improvement [41]. Compare alternative processes or materials to guide more sustainable decision-making.

Protocol B: Hierarchy of Controls for Occupational Risk Mitigation

This protocol provides a structured framework for protecting worker health (the human compartment) during the adoption of new green chemistry processes, ensuring that sustainability gains do not come at the expense of occupational safety [3].

1. Elimination:

• Methodology: Completely remove the hazardous substance or process step. This is the most effective control.
• Application Example (Solvent Elimination): In the synthesis of Pregabalin, Pfizer identified new enzymes that eliminated several chemical conversion steps and the need for various solvents, thereby removing worker exposure to these substances entirely [3].

2. Substitution:

• Methodology: Replace a hazardous substance with a less hazardous alternative. This is a core principle of green chemistry.
• Application Example (Alternative Chemicals): Conduct an alternatives assessment for chemicals of concern. This requires evaluating the new substance for all potential hazards (e.g., toxicity, flammability) to avoid regrettable substitutions, as was the case with refractory ceramic fibers replacing asbestos [3].

3. Engineering Controls:

• Methodology: Isolate workers from hazards through physical means.
• Application Example: Implement closed-system processing or local exhaust ventilation to capture hazardous airborne chemicals at the source, preventing them from entering the breathing zone of workers [3].

4. Administrative Controls:

• Methodology: Change the way people work through procedures and training.
• Application Example: Establish standard operating procedures for safe handling of materials and implement robust employee training on sustainable practices and new technologies [3].

5. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE):

• Methodology: Use PPE as a last line of defense when hazards cannot be adequately controlled by other means.
• Application Example: Provide gloves, respirators, and goggles where risk remains after implementing the above controls. This is the least effective control as it relies on human behavior [3].

Hierarchy of Controls for Occupational Risk

Protocol C: Joint Inter-Agency Risk Assessment for One Health Threats

This protocol outlines the collaborative process for assessing complex threats that span human, animal, and environmental health, such as antimicrobial resistance.

1. Problem Formulation:

• Methodology: Define the scope of the cross-border health threat. Example: Investigate the impact of azole fungicides used in agriculture on the development of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus in the environment and the subsequent risk to human health [7].
• Stakeholder Engagement: Form a cross-agency task force (e.g., involving ECHA, EMA, ECDC, EFSA) to ensure all compartments are represented [7].

2. Evidence Gathering and Risk Assessment:

• Methodology: Each agency contributes compartment-specific data.
  • ECHA/EFSA: Data on fungicide use, environmental persistence, and agricultural exposure.
  • ECDC/EMA: Data on human and animal cases of resistant infections, treatment efficacy, and public health impact.
• Joint Analysis: Integrate data to model the pathway from chemical use to public health outcome.

3. Risk Management and Communication:

• Methodology: Develop integrated recommendations that may span regulatory areas (e.g., chemical restrictions, clinical guidelines). Communicate findings and recommendations to all relevant sectors and the public [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Sustainable Pharmaceutical Research

Reagent / Tool	Primary Function in Research	Sustainability Consideration
Enzymatic Catalysts [3]	- Replace traditional chemical catalysts in API synthesis.- Enable more efficient, selective reactions.	- Reduces or eliminates heavy metal waste.- Lowers energy requirements due to milder reaction conditions.
Bio-based / Biodegradable Polymers [38]	- Used in drug delivery systems (e.g., microspheres, implants).- Used in packaging.	- Sourced from renewable feedstocks, reducing fossil fuel dependence.- Naturally decompose, reducing persistent plastic waste.
Green Solvents (e.g., Water, Cyrene, 2-MeTHF)	- Replace traditional, hazardous organic solvents (e.g., DMF, DCM) in synthesis and purification.	- Lower toxicity and improved safety profile for workers [3].- Often biodegradable, reducing environmental impact.
Computational Toxicology Tools (e.g., EPA's T.E.S.T.) [3]	- Predict the toxicity of new chemical entities during the design phase.	- Enables Prevention through Design (PtD) by screening out hazardous molecules early.- Reduces the need for animal testing and lab-based toxicity studies.
Acoustic Dispensing Technology [29]	- Enables nanoliter-scale liquid handling in high-throughput screening (HTS).	- Drastically reduces solvent and reagent consumption in drug discovery [29].- Minimizes generation of hazardous waste.
Z-Phe-Leu-Glu-pNA	Z-Phe-Leu-Glu-pNA, MF:C34H39N5O9, MW:661.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Furan-3-methanol-d2	Furan-3-methanol-d2, CAS:1216686-59-7, MF:C5H6O2, MW:100.113	Chemical Reagent

One Health Inter-Agency Assessment Workflow

The One Health framework, which integrally links human, animal, and environmental health, is fundamentally reshaping drug discovery and development [42] [43]. Central to this approach is the understanding that the microbiome—a complex ecosystem of trillions of microorganisms inhabiting the gut and other body sites—acts as a critical interface between hosts and their environments. Research now demonstrates that gut microbiome composition can be influenced by drugs, while simultaneously, an individual's microbiome significantly determines their response to medication by modifying its bioavailability, bioactivity, and toxicity—a field now termed pharmacomicrobiomics [44] [45]. This bidirectional interaction presents both a challenge and an unprecedented opportunity. Ignoring these interactions risks overlooking a major source of individual variability in drug response (IVDR); addressing them systemically unlocks the potential for developing safer, more effective therapeutics that are aligned with ecological principles. This guide objectively compares the emerging tools, methodologies, and strategic approaches that are positioning microbiome-informed strategies as the new frontier for sustainable and precise pharmaceutical development.

Mechanisms: How the Microbiome Influences Drug Fate

The gut microbiome impacts drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics through a diverse array of direct and indirect mechanisms. Understanding these is prerequisite to designing drugs that either evade undesirable microbial metabolism or leverage it for therapeutic benefit.

Direct Microbial Metabolism and Bioaccumulation

Gut bacteria enzymatically transform the chemical structures of many drugs, leading to activation, inactivation, or conversion to toxic metabolites.

• Enzymatic Inactivation: The cardiac drug digoxin is inactivated by the cgr2 gene product in the bacterium Eggerthella lenta [46]. Similarly, the Parkinson's disease drug levodopa is decarboxylated to dopamine by a tyrosine decarboxylase (TyrDC) in Enterococcus faecalis, reducing its systemic bioavailability before it can cross the blood-brain barrier [46].
• Activation to Toxic Metabolites: The antiviral drug brivudine is converted by a microbial enzyme (BT4554 from Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron) into bromovinyluracil, a toxic compound that can cause severe hepatic injury [46].
• Bioaccumulation: Bacteria can sequester drugs without chemical modification, effectively reducing their available concentration. Specific strains of Escherichia coli can bioaccumulate the antidepressant duloxetine, as demonstrated by experiments showing reduced drug effects in C. elegans treated with the drug-exposed bacterial supernatant [46].

Indirect Modulation of Host Physiology

The microbiome indirectly alters drug absorption and metabolism by influencing host pathways.

• Modification of Host Drug Metabolism: Gut microbes can systemically regulate the expression and activity of host hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes. Studies in germ-free and antibiotic-treated mice show significant down-regulation of key cytochrome P450 enzymes, including CYP3A4 (homolog Cyp3a11) and CYP2B6 (homolog Cyp2b10) [46].
• Alteration of Drug Transport: Microbial metabolites can inhibit host drug efflux pumps. For instance, bacterial urolithins inhibit the ABCG2/BCRP efflux pump in intestinal cells, increasing the intracellular retention of drugs like mitoxantrone [46].
• Impact on Intestinal Barrier and Absorption: Microbial metabolites such as indole-3-propionic acid from Clostridium sporogenes activate host nuclear receptors like the pregnane X receptor (PXR), enhancing gut barrier integrity and potentially reducing the paracellular absorption of certain drugs [46].

The following diagram synthesizes these core mechanisms into a single, cohesive pathway, illustrating how a drug's journey is shaped by its interaction with the gut microbiome from absorption to systemic effect.

Microbiome-Drug Interaction Pathways

The Development Pipeline: Success Rates and Strategic Comparisons

Analysis of the historical microbiome drug development pipeline reveals distinct trends in success rates across therapeutic applications and drug modalities, providing a data-driven foundation for strategic decision-making. The following table summarizes key performance metrics.

Table 1: Microbiome Drug Development Pipeline Analysis

Therapeutic Application	Phase 1 Success Rate	Phase 2 Success Rate	Notable Indications	Comparison to Non-Microbiome Drugs
Gastrointestinal Diseases	~80% (≈2x higher than average) [47]	High (matches non-microbiome GI drugs) [47]	IBS, Celiac Disease, SIBO, GERD [47]	Outperforms in Phase 1; competitive in Phase 2 [47]
Infectious Diseases	Information Missing	~20% higher than non-microbiome anti-infectives [47]	Recurrent C. difficile infection [47]	Superior efficacy in Phase 2 for specific infections [47]
Autoimmunity & Oncology	Exceptionally high [47]	Significantly more modest [47]	Information Missing	High safety profile but efficacy challenges in mid-stage trials [47]

Note: Success rate is defined as the likelihood of a program transitioning to the next development phase. Data is based on an analysis of 2,020 programs tracked since 2016 [47].

A comparative analysis of different technological approaches further highlights specific risks and bottlenecks associated with each modality.

Table 2: Comparison of Microbiome Drug Modalities

Drug Modality	Phase 1 Success Rate	Phase 2 Success Rate	Key Challenges & Bottlenecks
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) / Donor-Derived Therapies	High (Phase 1 often waived) [47]	High for approved indications (e.g., C. diff) [47]	Standardization, batch-to-batch variability, safety profiling of undefined communities [47]
Bacteriophage Cocktails	Relatively low [47]	Aligned with pharma market average [47]	Manufacturing concerns (bacterial toxins), immunogenicity, complex dosage definition [47]
Molecules from the Microbiome	Sky-high [47]	Exceptionally low (≈70-75% lower than other classes) [47]	Transition from promising in vitro activity to demonstrated clinical efficacy [47]
Molecules for the Microbiome	Information Missing	Information Missing	Information Missing
Defined Bacterial Consortia	High (general perception of safety) [47]	Information Missing	Strain-strain interactions, community stability and engraftment [48]

The data indicates that microbiome-based drugs generally exhibit an excellent safety profile, with over 80% of candidates entering Phase 1 successfully transitioning to Phase 2 [47]. However, the journey is not uniform. The high attrition of "Molecules from the microbiome" in Phase 2 suggests that promising preclinical findings often fail to translate into clinical efficacy, highlighting a critical bottleneck for this modality [47].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Methodologies and Reagents for Translation

Translating the concepts of pharmacomicrobiomics into viable drugs requires a specialized set of tools. The following experimental workflows and reagent solutions are central to modern microbiome-informed drug development.

Core Experimental Protocols and Workflows

• High-Throughput In Vitro Screening: New platforms like RapidAIM (Rapid Assay of Individual Microbiomes) and HuMiX (Human-Microbial X-talk) enable the rapid screening of drug compounds against individual human microbiomes in a controlled, high-throughput manner [49]. These systems allow for the assessment of a drug's impact on microbial composition and function (pharmacodynamics) and the microbiome's effect on the drug molecule (pharmacokinetics) prior to animal or human trials [49].

  • Protocol Outline: Fecal samples from donors are collected and homogenized in an anaerobic chamber. The microbial community is diluted in a defined nutrient medium and aliquoted into multi-well plates. Test drugs are added at physiological concentrations. After anaerobic incubation, the samples are processed for multi-omics analysis (e.g., 16S rRNA sequencing, metatranscriptomics, metabolomics) to quantify microbial shifts and drug transformations [49].

• Functional Meta-Omics Analysis: Moving beyond census-taking (who is there), functional omics characterize the active biochemical processes within the microbiome.

  • Shotgun Metagenomics: Sequences all microbial DNA in a sample, providing a catalog of the potential functions encoded by the community [49]. It is essential for identifying genes like bacterial decarboxylases or hydrolases that can interact with drugs [46] [49].
  • Metatranscriptomics: Sequences all RNA transcripts, revealing which genes are actively being expressed under drug treatment [50] [49]. This can identify microbial metabolic pathways that are upregulated in response to a drug.
  • Metaproteomics: Identifies and quantifies the full suite of proteins present, providing a direct readout of functional activity [50] [49]. It is particularly powerful for detecting microbial effector proteins like virulence factors, toxins, and antimicrobial resistance proteins [50].
  • Metabolomics: Profiles the small-molecule metabolites, which represent the final output of microbial activity [49]. It is crucial for tracking the conversion of a parent drug into microbial metabolites [49].

The following workflow diagram illustrates how these technologies are integrated to form a comprehensive functional analysis pipeline.

Functional Meta-Omics Workflow

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Tools for Microbiome Drug Development

Reagent / Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in R&D
Stabilization Reagents	Commercially available stool preservatives (e.g., OMNIgene•GUT, RNA/DNA Shield)	Maintains microbial composition and nucleic acid integrity from sample collection to processing, enabling large-scale and decentralized clinical trials [51].
Anaerobic Culturing Systems	Anaerobic chambers, sealed fermentation vessels (e.g., for SHIME models)	Recreates the low-oxygen environment of the gut for cultivating fastidious microbes and maintaining complex communities in vitro [48] [49].
Reference Databases	Unified Human Gastrointestinal Genome (UHGG) catalog [49], Microbial Toxins DB [50], CARD [50]	Provides curated collections of microbial genomes, genes, and proteins essential for accurate taxonomic and functional annotation in meta-omics studies [50] [49].
Gnotobiotic Animal Models	Germ-free mice, mice humanized with specific microbial communities	Allows for causal studies of drug-microbiome interactions in a controlled, physiologically relevant whole-animal context [46] [48].
CLIA/CAP-Certified Pipelines	Validated protocols for nucleic acid extraction, sequencing, and analysis	Ensures data quality, reproducibility, and compliance for regulatory submissions in late-stage clinical trials [51].
rac-N-Boc Anatabine	rac-N-Boc Anatabine|CAS 1159977-12-4	rac-N-Boc Anatabine (CAS 1159977-12-4) is a derivative of the nicotinic receptor ligand Anatabine. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for diagnostic or therapeutic use.
Deschloro Dasatinib	Deschloro Dasatinib|CAS 1184919-23-0|Supplier	Deschloro Dasatinib is a pharmaceutical standard and metabolite. This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic or personal use.

The integration of microbiome science into drug development, guided by the integrative principles of One Health, is transitioning from a niche concept to a fundamental component of precision medicine. The evidence is clear: the microbiome is a significant contributor to individual variability in drug response, and accounting for it is no longer optional for optimizing therapeutic outcomes [44]. While the development pipeline shows that microbiome-based therapies are generally safe and have achieved notable regulatory successes, particularly in gastrointestinal and infectious diseases, challenges remain in demonstrating consistent efficacy across all modalities, especially for systemic conditions like cancer and autoimmune disorders [47].

The path forward hinges on the standardized adoption of the advanced tools and frameworks described here. This includes the widespread use of functional meta-omics to move beyond correlation to mechanism, the implementation of high-throughput in vitro models for predictive screening, and the application of integrative data analysis to account for the immense inter-individual variation in microbiome composition [49]. As these practices become embedded in the pharmaceutical R&D workflow, the vision of microbiome-informed drug development will be fully realized—delivering a new generation of therapeutics that are not only more effective and safer for individuals but also developed with a holistic consideration for the interconnected health of humans, animals, and our environment.

The One Health framework recognizes that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems is interconnected, and that addressing complex public health threats like antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires integrated approaches across these domains [52] [30]. Pharmaceutical products, particularly antibiotics, represent a quintessential One Health challenge—while essential for treating infections in humans and animals, their environmental persistence after excretion drives the selection and spread of resistant pathogens, creating a cycle of diminishing therapeutic efficacy [53] [52]. Conventional drug design has prioritized therapeutic performance metrics such as metabolic stability, bioavailability, and target affinity, often at the expense of environmental considerations [54]. This approach has contributed to the proliferation of chemical pollutants in ecosystems, selecting for resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) that circulate among humans, animals, and environments [52] [55].

The "Benign by Design" paradigm represents a fundamental shift in pharmaceutical development, advocating for the preemptive integration of environmental considerations into molecular design decisions [54]. This approach seeks to create effective therapeutics that also possess environmentally favorable properties, such as programmed degradability after fulfilling their therapeutic function and reduced potential for promoting antimicrobial resistance [54] [30]. By addressing environmental impacts at the molecular design stage, this strategy aligns with the principles of green chemistry and offers a proactive solution to the challenges framed by the One Health perspective [30]. This review examines current molecular strategies for reducing ecotoxicity and AMR selection, comparing their performance through experimental data and situating these approaches within the broader context of sustainable therapeutic development.

Molecular Design Strategies: Comparative Analysis

Biodegradability-Enhancing Molecular Modifications

Strategic molecular modifications can significantly enhance the biodegradability of pharmaceutical compounds without compromising therapeutic efficacy. These approaches represent a fundamental departure from traditional drug design that often prioritized extreme stability.

Table 1: Biodegradability-Enhancing Molecular Strategies

Strategy	Molecular Approach	Environmental Impact	Experimental Evidence
Introducing ester bonds	Incorporation of hydrolyzable ester linkages	Facilitates microbial degradation; reduces persistence [54]	25% of currently marketed drugs already contain biodegradable elements by chance [54]
Avoiding quaternary carbons	Replacing carbon atoms with four alkyl groups with alternative structures	Reduces steric hindrance to microbial degradation [54]	Experimental evidence shows hindered biodegradation with quaternary carbons [54]
Halogen reduction	Minimizing or eliminating stable carbon-halogen bonds	Decreases environmental persistence; fluorinated drugs like ciprofloxacin show extended environmental presence [54]	Ciprofloxacin with C-F bond persists in tropical environments where most needed [54]
Molecular size optimization	Designing molecules with appropriate molecular weight	Ensures uptake by biodegrading microorganisms; oversized molecules resist degradation [54]	Evidence suggests bacteria cannot degrade molecules too large for cellular uptake [54]

These molecular design strategies must balance therapeutic requirements with environmental considerations. For instance, fluorination is often used to enhance metabolic stability and bioavailability—as seen with ciprofloxacin, gemcitabine, and cytarabine—but this comes at the cost of environmental persistence [54]. The challenge lies in designing drugs that remain stable until reaching their target site but degrade efficiently once excreted into the environment.

Bioavailability-Enhancing Formulations

Reducing the environmental load of pharmaceuticals can also be achieved through enhanced bioavailability, which decreases the required dosage and consequently reduces the amount of active compound excreted into the environment.

Table 2: Bioavailability Enhancement Strategies

Strategy	Mechanism	Environmental Benefit	Performance Data
Formulation optimization	Improving drug delivery to target sites	Reduces total drug mass entering environment	Lipitor example: 12% bioavailability means 88% of ingested drug enters environment [54]
Controlled stability profiles	Designing drugs stable in package and patient but degradable in environment	Minimizes environmental persistence while maintaining efficacy	Conceptual framework established; limited commercial examples [54]
Excipient engineering	Using additives that maintain stability until environmental release	Enables triggered degradation in wastewater systems	Experimental approaches show promise but require further development [54]

Industry expert Berkeley W. Cue highlights that 80-85% of drugs have poor oral availability, representing a significant opportunity for reducing environmental pharmaceutical loads through improved bioavailability [54]. Doubling bioavailability could effectively halve the amount of drug entering the environment while maintaining therapeutic efficacy.

Advanced Materials for Environmental Remediation

Green-Synthesized Nanomaterials

While molecular design focuses on pharmaceutical properties themselves, complementary approaches involve developing advanced materials for environmental remediation of pharmaceutical contaminants. Green-synthesized nanoparticles represent a promising strategy for addressing pharmaceutical pollution already present in ecosystems.

Recent research has demonstrated the successful synthesis of dual herb-extracted silver nanoparticles (DHM-AgNPs) using Curcuma longa and Alpinia officinarum [56]. These nanoparticles showed enhanced antimicrobial properties while demonstrating lower ecotoxicity in soil and aquatic organisms compared to traditional synthetic chemicals [56]. In ecotoxicity testing using earthworms (Eudrilus eugeniae), the DHM-AgNPs exhibited significantly lower toxicity compared to conventional antimicrobials and pesticides, with mortality rates below 10% at concentrations effective against pathogens [56]. In aquatic environments testing with Artemia nauplii, the median lethal concentration (LC50) was 120 μg/mL, indicating substantially reduced toxicity compared to traditional antibiotics and silver nanoparticles synthesized through conventional methods [56].

Zinc Oxide Nanocomposites for Antibiotic Removal

ZnO-based nanocomposites have emerged as particularly effective materials for removing antibiotic residues from wastewater through combined adsorption and photocatalytic degradation mechanisms.

Table 3: Performance of ZnO-Based Nanocomposites for Amoxicillin Removal

Nanocomposite Type	Synthesis Method	Removal Efficiency	Conditions	Reusability
ZnO/Bi₂WO₆	Hydrothermal	93.1% degradation	Optimal pH and light exposure [57]	>75% after 4 cycles [57]
ZnO/MIL-53(Al)	Sol-gel	100% degradation	UV/simulated sunlight [57]	Maintained efficiency after multiple uses [57]
ZnO-coated pistachio shell	Combustion	163 mg/g adsorption capacity	Aqueous solution [57]	Limited data available
Fe-doped ZnO	Chemical precipitation	Enhanced vs. undoped ZnO	Visible light activation [57]	Improved corrosion resistance [57]

These composites leverage multiple removal mechanisms, including high surface area for adsorption and photocatalytic generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as hydroxyl radicals (•OH) and superoxide anions (•O₂⁻) that degrade antibiotics into harmless byproducts like water (H₂O) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) [57]. The integration of doping elements (e.g., Fe, Ni, Ce³⁺), carbon materials, and heterojunction formations further enhances performance by improving charge separation and expanding light absorption into the visible spectrum [57].

Experimental Protocols for Benign-by-Design Assessment

Green Synthesis of Herbal-Based Nanoparticles

The synthesis of environmentally benign antimicrobial nanoparticles requires standardized protocols to ensure reproducibility and accurate assessment of their properties.

Protocol: DHM-AgNP Synthesis using Dual Herb Extract [56]

• Plant material collection: Collect Alpinia officinarum and Curcuma longa during flowering or fruiting stages from their natural habitats. Authenticate specimens using appropriate botanical keys and deposit voucher specimens in a recognized herbarium.
• Extract preparation: Wash plant materials thoroughly, air-dry in shade, and pulverize. Prepare 10 g of mixed powder in 250 mL of distilled water, heat at 60°C for 30 minutes, and filter through Whatman No. 1 filter paper.
• Nanoparticle synthesis: Mix 90 mL of 1 mM aqueous silver nitrate (AgNO₃) solution with 10 mL of dual herb extract. Maintain reaction at 60°C for 4 hours with continuous stirring at 800 rpm until color change indicates nanoparticle formation.
• Purification: Centrifuge the solution at 12,000 rpm for 20 minutes, discard supernatant, and resuspend pellet in deionized water. Repeat three times.
• Characterization: Confirm synthesis using UV-Visible spectroscopy (peak at 450-470 nm), analyze size and morphology using SEM and TEM, and determine elemental composition through EDX spectroscopy [56].

Ecotoxicity Testing for Novel Compounds

Comprehensive ecotoxicity assessment is essential for evaluating the environmental safety of new pharmaceutical compounds and materials.

Protocol: Earthworm Ecotoxicity Testing [56]

• Test organism preparation: Collect mature earthworms (Eudrilus eugeniae) of similar size and age. Acclimate in artificial soil for 7 days before testing.
• Experimental setup: Prepare experimental containers with 1 kg of soil mixed with test compounds at concentrations ranging from 10-100 μg/g for nanoparticles or pharmaceutical compounds.
• Exposure conditions: Maintain ten earthworms per container under controlled conditions (20°C, 80% humidity, pH 7.2) for 14-28 days.
• Endpoint assessment: Monitor mortality weekly, measure weight changes, assess reproductive effects through cocoon production, and evaluate morphological and behavioral changes.
• Data analysis: Calculate LC50 values using probit analysis and determine no-observed-effect concentrations (NOEC) for sublethal endpoints [56].

Protocol: Aquatic Toxicity Testing with Artemia Nauplii [56]

• Organism cultivation: Hatch Artemia cysts in artificial seawater (35 ppt salinity) under continuous aeration and illumination for 24-48 hours.
• Exposure setup: Transfer ten nauplii to each well of 24-well plates containing 2 mL of test solution at varying concentrations.
• Test conditions: Maintain plates under controlled conditions (25°C, 16:8 light:dark cycle) for 24-48 hours without feeding during the test period.
• Endpoint measurement: Record mortality at 24-hour intervals, assess behavioral changes (swimming activity, phototaxis), and measure morphological alterations.
• Statistical analysis: Determine LC50 values using appropriate statistical methods and compare with positive and negative controls [56].

Visualization of Key Concepts and Workflows

One Health Pharmaceutical Lifecycle

Benign by Design Molecular Strategy Framework

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Benign-by-Design Pharmaceutical Development

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples
Silver nitrate (AgNO₃)	Precursor for nanoparticle synthesis	Green synthesis of AgNPs for antimicrobial applications [56]
Zinc acetate dihydrate	ZnO precursor	Synthesis of ZnO nanocomposites for photocatalytic degradation [57]
Alpinia officinarum extract	Reducing and stabilizing agent	Green synthesis of DHM-AgNPs [56]
Curcuma longa extract	Reducing and stabilizing agent	Green synthesis of DHM-AgNPs with enhanced antimicrobial properties [56]
Earthworms (Eudrilus eugeniae)	Soil ecotoxicity testing	Assessment of environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and nanomaterials [56]
Artemia nauplii	Aquatic ecotoxicity testing	Evaluation of aquatic toxicity for new compounds [56]
Bi₂WO₆	Photocatalyst component	ZnO nanocomposites for enhanced antibiotic degradation [57]
MIL-53(Al)	Metal-organic framework	Composite formation with ZnO for improved adsorption capacity [57]
Iron(2+) succinate	Iron(2+) succinate, CAS:17022-52-5, MF:C4H5FeO4+, MW:172.925	Chemical Reagent
H-Tic-Oet.HCl	H-Tic-Oet.HCl, CAS:15912-56-8, MF:C12H16ClNO2, MW:241.715	Chemical Reagent

The "Benign by Design" approach represents a paradigm shift in pharmaceutical development, aligning therapeutic innovation with environmental stewardship through the One Health framework. Molecular strategies that enhance biodegradability through ester bonds, minimize persistent structural elements like quaternary carbons and halogens, and optimize molecular size offer promising pathways to reduce the environmental footprint of pharmaceuticals [54]. Complementary advances in bioavailability enhancement through formulation science can further decrease the environmental load by reducing required dosages [54].

Simultaneously, green-synthesized nanomaterials and advanced composites demonstrate significant potential for addressing existing pharmaceutical pollution in ecosystems [56] [57]. These approaches, coupled with standardized ecotoxicity assessment protocols, provide a comprehensive toolkit for developing next-generation therapeutics that deliver clinical efficacy without perpetuating the cycle of antimicrobial resistance [56].

Future progress will require interdisciplinary collaboration across chemical sciences, pharmacology, environmental science, and regulatory affairs to establish standardized assessment frameworks and incentivize the adoption of benign-by-design principles [30]. By embracing this integrated approach, the pharmaceutical industry can transition toward sustainable innovation that protects both human health and ecological systems, embodying the essential vision of the One Health framework.

The rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most pressing global health threats of our time, with devastating projections indicating 10 million annual deaths by 2050 if left unchecked [58]. This complex challenge transcends human medicine, extending deeply into veterinary practice and ecosystem health, necessitating an integrated "One Health" approach that acknowledges the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health [59] [58]. The development of antimicrobials for veterinary medicine now faces a critical turning point, where traditional approaches must evolve to address ecological impacts alongside therapeutic efficacy. Within this context, the "green antibiotic" framework emerges as a transformative paradigm for veterinary drug development, aiming to break the link between animal treatment and the human resistome—the comprehensive collection of resistance genes in microbial populations [60] [61].

This case study examines the application of this innovative framework to veterinary antimicrobial development, comparing conventional antibiotics with emerging green alternatives through standardized experimental protocols and quantitative metrics. By evaluating therapeutic options through the dual lenses of clinical efficacy and ecological impact, we establish a comprehensive assessment methodology aligned with One Health principles and green chemistry objectives. The analysis specifically investigates three distinct therapeutic approaches: conventional veterinary antibiotics, proposed green antibiotic candidates with optimized properties, and plant-derived antimicrobials with validated traditional use. Through systematic comparison of their mechanisms, experimental performance, and ecological footprints, this study provides researchers and drug development professionals with a robust framework for designing next-generation veterinary therapeutics that balance therapeutic effectiveness with environmental sustainability.

Experimental Framework and Methodologies

Standardized Protocols for Antimicrobial Efficacy Testing

To ensure consistent and comparable evaluation of antimicrobial candidates, researchers must implement standardized testing protocols that assess both efficacy and potential ecological impact. The agar well diffusion method serves as a fundamental initial screening tool for determining antibacterial activity of plant extracts and novel compounds against target pathogens [62]. This protocol begins with preparation of Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) plates, which are uniformly inoculated with standardized suspensions (approximately 1.5×10^8 CFU/mL) of reference bacterial strains, including Pasteurella multocida and Mannheimia haemolytica for respiratory infections, or other relevant veterinary pathogens [62]. Wells of 6-8mm diameter are aseptically created in the solidified agar, into which 100μL of the test solution is introduced—typically crude plant extracts at concentrations ranging from 100-200 mg/mL dissolved in appropriate solvents like methanol or chloroform, or antibiotic solutions at clinically relevant concentrations [62].

Plates are subsequently incubated at 37°C for 18-24 hours, after which the zones of inhibition are measured in millimeters using precision calipers. For quantitative assessment of antimicrobial potency, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determinations are performed using broth microdilution methods according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Two-fold serial dilutions of test compounds are prepared in 96-well microtiter plates containing cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton broth, inoculated with standardized bacterial suspensions (5×10^5 CFU/mL), and incubated at 37°C for 18-24 hours [62]. The MIC is defined as the lowest concentration that completely inhibits visible growth. For assessment of bactericidal activity, minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) tests are conducted by subculturing aliquots from wells showing no visible growth onto fresh agar plates; the MBC is defined as the lowest concentration that kills ≥99.9% of the initial inoculum.

Phytochemical Analysis of Plant-Derived Antimicrobials

For plant-based antimicrobial candidates, comprehensive phytochemical screening is essential for identifying bioactive constituents responsible for therapeutic effects [62]. Standardized protocols for qualitative phytochemical analysis begin with preparation of crude extracts using sequential solvent extraction (in order of increasing polarity: hexane, chloroform, ethyl acetate, methanol, and water) to fractionate different classes of compounds. Alkaloids are detected using Dragendorff's reagent, yielding orange-red precipitation; flavonoids are identified through the alkaline reagent test, producing yellow coloration that disappears upon acidification; tannins are detected via the ferric chloride test, resulting in blue-black or brownish-green coloration; saponins are identified through the froth test, observing stable foam formation; and terpenoids are detected using the Salkowski test, producing a reddish-brown coloration at the interface [62]. For quantitative analysis, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with photodiode array detection provides precise quantification of specific bioactive compounds, while gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) enables comprehensive profiling of volatile constituents.

Pharmacokinetic Profiling for Ecological Impact Assessment

A critical component of the green antibiotic framework involves characterizing the pharmacokinetic and physicochemical properties that influence ecological impact [60] [61]. Standard protocols for assessing these parameters include determination of lipophilicity through measurement of partition coefficients (log P) in octanol-water systems using the shake-flask method. Hydrophilicity is evaluated through aqueous solubility measurements employing saturation shake-flask methods with HPLC-UV quantification. Plasma protein binding is assessed using equilibrium dialysis or ultrafiltration techniques, while metabolic stability is determined through incubation with liver microsomes and quantification of parent compound disappearance. Volume of distribution (Vd) and clearance (Cl) are calculated from plasma concentration-time profiles following intravenous administration, using non-compartmental analysis [63]. For veterinary-specific applications, allometric scaling techniques can extrapolate pharmacokinetic parameters across animal species, though this method shows higher accuracy for volume of distribution and clearance (R²>0.95) than for elimination half-life (R² 0.07-0.876) [63].

Table 1: Standardized Experimental Protocols for Antimicrobial Assessment

Assessment Type	Core Methodology	Key Output Parameters	Application Context
Antimicrobial Efficacy	Agar well diffusion	Zone of inhibition (mm)	Initial screening of antibacterial activity
Potency Quantification	Broth microdilution	Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)	Dose-response characterization
Bactericidal Activity	Subculturing from MIC plates	Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)	Distinction between bacteriostatic & bactericidal effects
Phytochemical Screening	Sequential solvent extraction & chemical tests	Identification of alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, etc.	Plant-derived antimicrobial characterization
Ecological Impact Potential	log P determination, protein binding, metabolic stability	Lipophilicity, protein binding, metabolic fate	Green antibiotic candidate profiling

Comparative Analysis of Antimicrobial Alternatives

Performance Metrics: Efficacy Against Veterinary Pathogens

The comparative efficacy of conventional antibiotics, proposed green antibiotics, and medicinal plant extracts varies significantly across different veterinary pathogens and administration contexts. For respiratory infections in small ruminants caused by Pasteurella multocida and Mannheimia haemolytica, methanol extracts of selected medicinal plants demonstrate inhibition zones comparable to conventional antibiotics at standardized concentrations of 200 mg/mL [62]. Specifically, Solanum incanum extracts show the highest activity with 26.3 mm inhibition zones, surpassing Nicotiana tabacum (19.8 mm) and Psidium guajava (19.6 mm), and approaching the efficacy of gentamicin and streptomycin controls [62]. Chloroform extracts display even more pronounced activity, with P. guajava exhibiting 30.2 mm inhibition zones against P. multocida at the same concentration.

For systemic infections requiring broad-spectrum activity, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins like ceftiofur, cefquinome, and cefepime remain clinically effective, though with notable pharmacokinetic variations across species [63]. Elimination half-lives for these compounds range from 4.23 hours in chickens to 21.5 hours in horses, reflecting substantial interspecies differences that must be considered in dosing regimen design [63]. Proposed green antibiotic candidates prioritize targeted spectrum activity against specific veterinary pathogens rather than broad-spectrum coverage, potentially reducing collateral damage to commensal microbiota [60] [61]. This targeted approach maintains clinical efficacy for specific indications while minimizing ecological disruption—a core principle of the green antibiotic framework.

Table 2: Comparative Efficacy of Antimicrobial Alternatives Against Veterinary Pathogens

Antimicrobial Category	Specific Agent/Extract	Target Pathogens	Efficacy Metrics	Clinical Context
Medicinal Plant Extracts	Solanum incanum (methanol)	P. multocida, M. haemolytica	26.3 mm zone at 200 mg/mL	Small ruminant respiratory infections
Medicinal Plant Extracts	Nicotiana tabacum (methanol)	P. multocida, M. haemolytica	19.8 mm zone at 200 mg/mL	Small ruminant respiratory infections
Medicinal Plant Extracts	Psidium guajava (chloroform)	P. multocida	30.2 mm zone at 200 mg/mL	Small ruminant respiratory infections
Conventional Antibiotics	Ceftiofur	Gram-negative pathogens	Species-dependent t½: 4.23h (chicken) to 21.5h (horse)	Broad-spectrum systemic infections
Conventional Antibiotics	Gentamicin	P. multocida, M. haemolytica	Comparable to plant extracts at 200 mg/mL	Small ruminant respiratory infections
Green Antibiotic Candidates	Targeted spectrum compounds	Specific veterinary pathogens	Maintained clinical efficacy with reduced ecological impact	Targeted therapy with minimized resistance selection

Ecological Impact Assessment

The ecological impact of veterinary antimicrobials extends beyond therapeutic efficacy to encompass effects on commensal microbiota and environmental resistomes—a consideration central to the green antibiotic framework [60] [61]. Conventional antibiotics administered to food-producing animals expose not only target pathogens but also the substantial commensal microbiota of the gastrointestinal tract (several kilograms of biomass) to selective pressure, potentially amplifying and disseminating resistance genes to human populations through direct and indirect pathways [60] [61]. This collateral damage to commensal communities represents a significant driver of AMR spread across the One Health continuum.

Green antibiotic candidates address this challenge through optimized physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties that minimize ecological disruption [60] [61]. Ideal properties include high hydrophilicity (minimizing distribution to gastrointestinal tract), relatively low potency (reducing selective pressure), slow clearance and small volume of distribution (limiting environmental persistence), and renal elimination as inactive metabolites [60] [64]. For oral administration, lipophilic pro-drugs can enhance bioavailability while maintaining the active moiety's desirable ecological properties; for parenteral administration, slow-release formulations of existing eco-friendly antimicrobials with short elimination half-lives can be developed [60]. These strategic modifications aim to break the link between veterinary antimicrobial use and the enrichment of human and environmental resistomes while maintaining clinical effectiveness for animal health applications.

Phytochemical Composition and Multi-Mechanistic Actions

Medicinal plant extracts offer complex phytochemical profiles that may provide therapeutic advantages through multi-mechanistic actions potentially delaying resistance development [62] [65]. Standardized phytochemical screening of bioactive plants like N. tabacum, P. guajava, and S. incanum reveals diverse secondary metabolites including alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, saponins, and terpenoids—each contributing to antimicrobial activity through distinct mechanisms [62]. Alkaloids typically intercalate with DNA and inhibit microbial enzymes; flavonoids disrupt microbial membrane integrity; tannins precipitate microbial proteins; saponins exert membrane-lytic activity; and terpenoids disrupt membrane permeability [62]. This multi-target mechanism contrasts with the specific molecular targets of conventional antibiotics, potentially reducing the likelihood of resistance development through single mutation events.

Beyond direct antimicrobial activity, many plant-derived compounds exhibit immunomodulatory properties that enhance host defense mechanisms and anti-inflammatory effects that mitigate infection-associated tissue damage [65]. For example, bioactive compounds in red ginger, curcumin, maize whiskers, and Terminalia Chebula demonstrate both bactericidal activity against mastitis pathogens and immune-regulating capabilities without stimulating conventional drug resistance despite prolonged use [65]. Similarly, essential oils from black seed, chamomile, and oregano not only exhibit antimicrobial properties but also improve feed efficiency, nutrient supplementation, and overall animal health [65]. This dual functionality represents a distinct advantage within the green antibiotic framework, addressing both pathogen control and host resilience.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Implementing the green antibiotic assessment framework requires specific research tools and methodologies to evaluate both therapeutic efficacy and ecological impact. The following reagents and instruments constitute essential components of the standardized toolkit for researchers in this field:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Instruments for Green Antimicrobial Assessment

Reagent/Instrument Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Function in Assessment
Culture Media	Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA), Cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton Broth	Antimicrobial susceptibility testing	Supports standardized bacterial growth for efficacy assessment
Reference Strains	Pasteurella multocida (ATCC), Mannheimia haemolytica (ATCC)	Controlled efficacy testing	Provides consistent benchmarks for antimicrobial activity comparison
Extraction Solvents	99.8% Methanol, 99.8% Chloroform, Hexane, Ethyl acetate	Plant extract preparation	Fractionates different classes of bioactive compounds from plant material
Phytochemical Screening Reagents	Dragendorff's reagent, Ferric chloride, Foaming test solutions	Identification of bioactive compounds	Detects specific phytochemical classes (alkaloids, tannins, saponins, etc.)
Analytical Instruments	HPLC with photodiode array, GC-MS systems, Rotary evaporator	Compound identification & quantification	Characterizes phytochemical composition and compound purity
Antibiotic Reference Standards	Gentamicin, Oxytetracycline, Streptomycin disks	Comparative efficacy benchmarks	Provides reference points for antimicrobial activity assessment
Pharmacokinetic Assessment Tools	Equilibrium dialysis devices, Liver microsomes, HPLC-MS systems	Ecological impact profiling	Determines protein binding, metabolic fate, and distribution properties
Pyrrole-2,3,4,5-d4	Pyrrole-2,3,4,5-d4, CAS:17767-94-1, MF:C4H5N, MW:71.115	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Glucosyl salicylate	Glucosyl salicylate, CAS:60517-74-0, MF:C13H16O8, MW:300.263	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Conceptual Framework for Green Antibiotic Development

The development of eco-friendly veterinary antimicrobials requires a paradigm shift from exclusively targeting therapeutic efficacy to simultaneously optimizing ecological parameters. The following conceptual framework illustrates the integrated assessment approach necessary for green antibiotic development:

Green Antibiotic Development Pathway: This framework illustrates the integrated assessment approach for veterinary antimicrobial development, balancing therapeutic efficacy with ecological impact within a One Health perspective.

Comparative Mechanisms of Action and Resistance Pathways

Understanding the distinct mechanisms of action and corresponding resistance development pathways is essential for positioning green antibiotics within the broader antimicrobial landscape. The following diagram compares conventional antibiotics, green antibiotic candidates, and plant-derived antimicrobials across these parameters:

Mechanism Comparison: This diagram contrasts the action mechanisms, resistance development pathways, and ecological impacts of conventional antibiotics, green antibiotic candidates, and plant-derived antimicrobials.

This case study establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating antimicrobial alternatives in veterinary medicine through the integrated lenses of therapeutic efficacy and ecological impact within a One Health paradigm. The comparative analysis demonstrates that green antibiotic candidates and selected plant-derived antimicrobials can achieve clinically relevant efficacy against important veterinary pathogens while potentially minimizing collateral damage to commensal microbiota and environmental ecosystems—key drivers of AMR dissemination. The experimental protocols and assessment methodologies presented provide researchers with standardized approaches for quantifying both therapeutic performance and ecological footprint, enabling evidence-based decisions in antimicrobial development and stewardship.

The successful implementation of this framework requires cross-disciplinary collaboration among microbiologists, pharmacologists, veterinary clinicians, and environmental scientists to address the complex challenge of AMR through integrated solutions. Future directions should prioritize the refinement of ecological impact assessment protocols, development of standardized biomarkers for resistance selection potential, and validation of green antibiotic candidates in diverse clinical veterinary settings. By adopting this comprehensive assessment framework, researchers and drug development professionals can contribute to a more sustainable antimicrobial future that balances essential therapeutic needs with ecological responsibility across the One Health continuum.

Navigating Implementation Challenges: Strategies for Effective One Health Adoption

In the pursuit of sustainable development and effective green chemistry assessment, a critical barrier persists: the profound collaboration gap created by sectoral silos. These silos—fragmented approaches across disciplines, institutions, and specialized fields—impede progress by fostering inefficient resource use, policy contradictions, and duplicated efforts [66]. Within the context of One Health and green chemistry research, this fragmentation is particularly problematic, as it prevents the integrated understanding necessary to address complex challenges spanning human, animal, and environmental health [7] [67].

The One Health approach, championed by the World Health Organization and other global bodies, recognizes that the health of people, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and inter-dependent [67]. This approach is not merely a conceptual framework but a practical necessity. It demands collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary engagement at all levels to effectively prevent, predict, and respond to global health threats [67]. Similarly, advancing green chemistry requires integrating knowledge across synthetic chemistry, toxicology, environmental science, and regulatory affairs—a integration often hampered by the same institutional and conceptual barriers [68].

This guide objectively compares collaborative versus siloed approaches, providing experimental data and methodologies to quantify the tangible benefits of breaking down these silos. By presenting quantitative frameworks and practical tools, we aim to equip researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with evidence to advocate for and implement more integrated research and development paradigms.

Quantifying the Gap: Experimental Data and Comparative Analysis

Experimental Protocol: Measuring Silos and Integration

To objectively compare siloed versus integrated approaches, researchers can employ the following experimental protocol designed to quantify outcomes across multiple dimensions:

Objective: To measure the impact of sectoral integration on research efficiency, innovation, and outcomes in green chemistry and One Health contexts.

Methodology:

• Study Design: Implement a comparative case study approach analyzing multiple research projects or chemical assessments conducted under different collaborative models.
• Variable Definition:
  • Independent Variable: Collaboration model (Siloed vs. Interdisciplinary vs. Transdisciplinary).
  • Dependent Variables: Research timeline, resource utilization, innovation output (e.g., novel solutions), policy impact, and quantitative green chemistry metrics.
• Data Collection: Utilize mixed methods including:
  • Process Mapping: Document information flow and decision points between sectors.
  • Stakeholder Surveys: Assess perceptions of collaboration effectiveness using Likert scales.
  • Output Analysis: Quantify publications, patents, policy citations, and sustainability metrics.
  • Economic Assessment: Calculate cost savings/avoidance from early hazard identification.
• Analysis: Employ statistical methods (e.g., ANOVA) to compare outcomes across models and qualitative analysis to identify success factors.

Controls: Standardize project complexity, budget constraints, and team expertise levels across comparisons to ensure validity.

Quantitative Comparison: Siloed vs. Integrated Approaches

The following table synthesizes experimental data from case studies in chemical assessment and health research, demonstrating the measurable impact of overcoming sectoral silos.

Table 1: Comparative Outcomes of Siloed vs. Integrated Approaches in Research and Assessment

Performance Metric	Siloed Approach	Interdisciplinary Approach	Transdisciplinary Approach	Data Source
Assessment Timeline	24-36 months	18-24 months	12-18 months	EU Joint Azole Fungicides Investigation [7]
Resource Efficiency	High duplication of efforts; inefficient resource use	Moderate efficiency gains	Optimal resource deployment; shared infrastructure	SCALE Framework Analysis [66]
Green Chemistry Score (DOZN Aggregate)	93 (Traditional Process)	N/A	46 (Re-engineered Process)	DOZN 2.0 Evaluation [68]
Policy Impact	Fragmented, conflicting policies	Improved policy coherence	Strong, aligned policies with high implementability	One Health Joint Plan of Action [67]
Innovation Output	Incremental improvements within narrow domains	Cross-domain applications	Novel, systemic solutions to wicked problems	Transdisciplinary Team Research [69]
Stakeholder Acceptance	Low local ownership; limited adoption	Moderate acceptance	High relevance and sustained local ownership	Participatory Co-design Studies [66]

The data reveals a clear pattern: integrated approaches consistently outperform siloed models. The DOZN 2.0 evaluation provides a particularly compelling quantitative example, where a re-engineered, systems-thinking approach to developing 1-Aminobenzotriazole nearly halved the aggregate environmental impact score (from 93 to 46), demonstrating dramatic improvements in resource efficiency and hazard reduction [68]. This aligns with findings from the EU's joint investigation into azole fungicides, where cross-agency collaboration created a more efficient assessment process, better equipped to tackle complex issues like antimicrobial resistance that span agricultural and human health domains [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Collaborative Research

Implementing successful transdisciplinary research requires specific "reagents"—both conceptual and technical—to facilitate collaboration and generate robust, integrated data.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Integrated One Health and Green Chemistry Studies

Tool/Reagent	Function in Integrated Research	Application Example
DOZN 2.0 Quantitative Framework	Web-based tool that calculates green scores for chemicals and processes against the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry, enabling direct comparison of alternatives.	Comparing synthetic pathways for a new API based on resource efficiency, energy use, and hazard metrics [68].
One Health Surveillance Model	Integrated framework for collecting, sharing, and analyzing data on human, animal, and environmental health to identify emerging threats and connections.	Tracking the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes from agricultural settings through water systems to human populations [67].
Shared Data Platforms	Secure, standardized databases that enable information sharing across institutional and sectoral boundaries while maintaining data integrity and privacy.	A joint platform for regulatory agencies (ECHA, EFSA, EMA) to share chemical assessment data, avoiding duplication [7].
Co-design Protocols	Structured methodologies for involving diverse stakeholders (including communities) in the research design process to ensure relevance and address real-world needs.	Designing a study on urban chemical pollution with input from toxicologists, city planners, and community health workers [66].
Stakeholder Mapping Tools	Systematic methods for identifying all relevant actors, their interests, and influence in a given problem space to enable effective engagement.	Mapping the network of actors involved in pesticide regulation and usage to identify collaboration gaps and leverage points [69].

Visualizing Integration: Pathways and Workflows

The transition from siloed to integrated research is a systematic process. The following diagram visualizes the logical pathway for breaking down sectoral silos, from initial diagnosis to the creation of sustainable, transdisciplinary systems.

Diagram 1: Pathway from Siloed to Integrated Research

The experimental workflow for a specific integrated assessment, such as evaluating a chemical's impact within a One Health framework, requires a carefully constructed, parallel process of investigation.

Diagram 2: Integrated One Health Assessment Workflow

The experimental data and comparative analysis presented in this guide provide compelling evidence that overcoming sectoral silos is not merely an ideological preference but a practical imperative. The quantitative superiority of integrated approaches—ranging from the dramatically improved green chemistry scores achieved through re-engineered processes [68] to the more efficient and effective pandemic prevention strategies championed by the One Health approach [67]—demonstrates a clear path forward.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the tools and frameworks outlined here provide a starting point. Adopting quantitative green chemistry metrics like DOZN 2.0, participating in cross-sectoral initiatives like the One Health Quadripartite, and embracing transdisciplinary team structures are no longer speculative strategies but proven methods for enhancing research impact [7] [69] [68]. The collaboration gap, while significant, can be bridged through intentional structural changes, shared epistemic foundations, and a commitment to co-design. By breaking down the institutional and conceptual barriers that create silos, the scientific community can accelerate the development of sustainable solutions that simultaneously advance human health, animal welfare, and environmental protection.

The One Health approach, which recognizes the inextricable links between human, animal, and environmental health, has emerged as a vital framework for addressing complex global health challenges. This approach emphasizes collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary strategies to achieve optimal health outcomes across species and ecosystems [70]. Simultaneously, the principles of green chemistry provide a systematic framework for designing chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate hazardous substances, thereby minimizing environmental impact [1]. The integration of these two paradigms offers tremendous potential for advancing sustainable drug development, particularly for parasitic and infectious diseases that cross species boundaries.

However, the effective integration of One Health approaches with green chemistry principles faces significant structural, financial, and governance barriers. These barriers hinder the development of pharmaceutical interventions that are simultaneously effective for human and animal health, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable. This analysis examines these integration barriers through the lens of policy, funding, and regulatory challenges, providing a comparative assessment of current limitations and potential pathways forward. Understanding these hurdles is essential for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working at the nexus of pharmaceutical innovation, environmental sustainability, and public health.

Policy Barriers: Fragmented Governance and Siloed Disciplines

Structural and Coordination Challenges

Policy barriers represent some of the most fundamental obstacles to integrating One Health and green chemistry approaches. These primarily manifest as institutional fragmentation and disciplinary silos that prevent the collaborative approaches necessary for success.

Table 1: Policy Barriers to One Health and Green Chemistry Integration

Barrier Category	Specific Challenges	Impact on Integration
Institutional Fragmentation	Separate governmental bodies for human health, animal health, and environmental protection [70]	Difficulties coordinating responses to health threats and implementing integrated strategies
Siloed Disciplines	Limited interaction between public health professionals, veterinarians, and environmental scientists [70]	Missed opportunities for collaboration and holistic problem-solving
Differing Priorities	Conflicting priorities and funding mechanisms across sectors [70]	Hindered efforts to align and coordinate activities toward common goals
Communication Gaps	Technical language and terminology barriers between fields [70]	Impaired dialogue and collaborative problem-solving capacity

The lack of political will and support from leadership for One Health initiatives further compounds these structural barriers, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where governance challenges may be more pronounced [71]. This is especially problematic given that many parasitic and vector-borne diseases disproportionately affect tropical regions and vulnerable populations [1].

Policy Integration Gaps in Green Chemistry

Green chemistry faces its own policy challenges that hinder integration with One Health approaches. There is often a disconnect between chemical policy and scientific advancement, with policy typically following scientific development rather than proactively driving innovation [72]. This creates a reactive rather than proactive policy environment. Additionally, poorly designed policies can serve as barriers to green chemistry implementation when they lack appropriate financial incentives or educational components to motivate industry adoption [72].

The regulatory landscape for chemical manufacturing also presents integration challenges. While regulations like the EU's REACH framework require chemical manufacturers to reduce their environmental footprint, implementation remains challenging without stronger collaboration between pharmaceutical companies, authorities, and academia [1].

Funding Barriers: Resource Limitations and Economic Disincentives

Financial Constraints Across Sectors

Funding limitations create significant barriers to implementing integrated One Health and green chemistry approaches. The systematic review of One Health implementation in low- and middle-income countries identified lack of financial resources as a critical barrier, coupled with insufficient human and logistics resources [71]. This resource constraint affects all aspects of integrated health initiatives, from research and development to implementation and surveillance.

In the pharmaceutical development sector, the high costs and lengthy timelines associated with traditional drug development create disincentives for adopting integrated approaches. Developing a new drug takes an average of 10-15 years and costs upwards of $2 billion, with a failure rate exceeding 90% before reaching regulatory approval [73]. This high-risk, high-cost environment creates conservative approaches that resist the additional complexities of integrating environmental sustainability and multi-species health considerations.

Economic Disincentives for Green Chemistry Adoption

Green chemistry implementation faces specific financial barriers, including a lack of financial incentives that motivate the chemicals industry to move toward greener chemistry practices [72]. Without appropriate economic motivations, industry adoption of sustainable practices remains limited despite potential long-term benefits.

The pharmaceutical industry's traditional focus on human health applications creates additional funding barriers for integrated approaches. While parasitic diseases affecting both humans and animals represent a significant global health burden, they often receive insufficient research and development investment relative to their disease burden, particularly when they primarily affect impoverished populations [1] [74].

Table 2: Funding Barriers and Their Impacts

Funding Constraint	Manifestation	Consequence
Limited Multi-Sector Funding	Lack of dedicated budgets for collaborative human-animal-environment health initiatives [71]	One Health projects struggle to bring together experts from diverse fields
High Drug Development Costs	Average 10-15 year development timeline costing >$2 billion [73]	Conservative approaches that resist additional complexity of integrated methods
Inadequate Green Chemistry Incentives	Lack of financial motivation for industry adoption [72]	Limited implementation of environmentally sustainable chemistry practices
Resource Inequalities	Disproportionate funding challenges in low- and middle-income countries [71]	Reduced capacity for integrated health approaches in regions with high disease burden

Regulatory Hurdles: Variability, Data Challenges, and Compliance Burdens

Global Regulatory Variability and Data Requirements

The regulatory landscape for drug development presents substantial hurdles for integrated approaches, beginning with global regulatory variability. While international agencies strive for harmonization through organizations like the International Council for Harmonisation, significant differences persist across regions in approval timelines, required documentation, and clinical trial expectations [73]. For instance, the FDA emphasizes randomized controlled trials as the gold standard for demonstrating efficacy, while the EMA often requires additional real-world evidence for certain drug classes [73].

The extensive data requirements for regulatory submissions further complicate integrated approaches. Regulatory agencies require comprehensive preclinical and clinical trial data covering toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and long-term safety monitoring [73]. These requirements become more complex when considering multi-species applications or environmental impact assessments aligned with green chemistry principles.

Manufacturing Compliance and Quality Control

Manufacturing compliance presents another significant regulatory hurdle. Regulatory bodies require strict adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure drugs are consistently produced at high quality [73]. Failure to comply with GMP standards can result in approval delays or post-market recalls, even for effective drugs. Integrating green chemistry principles into manufacturing processes adds additional complexity to these already stringent requirements.

The challenge of regulatory alignment across sectors is particularly difficult for One Health approaches. Human pharmaceuticals, veterinary medicines, and environmental protection each have distinct regulatory frameworks, standards, and approval processes, creating significant hurdles for interventions designed to address health challenges across these domains [70].

Data Integration Challenges for Integrated Approaches

Data Heterogeneity and Fragmentation

The integration of One Health and green chemistry approaches generates substantial data integration challenges stemming from the heterogeneous nature of data sources across human health, animal health, and environmental monitoring. These challenges include data fragmentation across electronic health records, insurance claims, laboratory systems, patient registries, and environmental monitoring data [75]. Each of these systems features different structures, semantics, and quality standards, creating significant integration barriers.

In precision medicine applications, which often serve as a foundation for One Health approaches, additional challenges emerge from the need to manage, visualize, and integrate large datasets combining structured and unstructured formats while respecting different levels of confidentiality [76]. This is particularly challenging when working with heterogeneous and unstructured data sources that were not designed for integrated analysis, such as electronic health records primarily developed for clinical and hospital logistics rather than data analytics [76].

Technical and Resource Constraints

Technical challenges in data integration include delays in delivering data when processes are handled manually, preventing real-time or near-real-time analysis that is often necessary for effective health interventions [77]. Additionally, different data formats from diverse sources require additional processing, transformation, and storage resources, increasing operational costs and complexity [77].

Security risks associated with integrating confidential data across systems present another significant challenge, particularly when dealing with sensitive patient information across health systems [77]. These challenges are compounded by resourcing constraints, as the implementation and management of high-volume integrations between data warehouses and source systems is extremely time-intensive when done in-house [77].

Overcoming Integration Barriers: Strategies and Solutions

Policy and Governance Solutions

Addressing policy barriers requires coordinated governance structures that facilitate multi-sectoral collaboration. The United States One Health Coordination Unit provides a promising model, involving 24 agencies from eight departments related to public health, agriculture, wildlife, environment, and other fields [70]. Such structures help overcome institutional fragmentation by creating formal mechanisms for collaboration.

Aligned policies and institutional frameworks are also essential for overcoming integration barriers. Governments can create multi-sectoral health councils or committees that bring together representatives from human health, veterinary medicine, environmental agencies, and other sectors to guide One Health policy development and implementation [70]. Successful collaborations typically feature a common goal, clear mandates with defined roles, rotational leadership, science-based outcomes, and a foundation of trust [70].

For green chemistry integration, policies must drive demand for safer alternatives while supporting the science that provides solutions [72]. This requires increased collaboration between green chemists and policymakers to create policy that motivates industry investment in green chemistry processes and materials.

Funding and Economic Strategies

Addressing funding barriers requires developing sustainable financing mechanisms for One Health approaches, including the support of technical and financial partners [71]. The existence of adequate resources coupled with partner support has been identified as a key enabler for One Health implementation [71].

For green chemistry, financial incentives are needed to motivate industry adoption of sustainable practices [72]. These could include tax incentives for green manufacturing processes, accelerated regulatory pathways for sustainable products, or research grants that specifically require green chemistry approaches.

Integrated funding streams that span traditional sectoral boundaries can also help overcome fragmentation. Rather than separate budgets for human health, animal health, and environmental protection, integrated approaches could benefit from combined funding mechanisms that support cross-cutting initiatives.

Regulatory and Data Integration Approaches

Navigating regulatory hurdles requires early engagement with regulatory agencies to clarify expectations, gain insight into study design, and ensure compliance with requirements [73]. Many agencies offer pre-IND meetings where companies can present research plans and receive guidance on data requirements for approval.

Meticulous documentation and regulatory submission management are also critical for regulatory success [73]. This includes detailed documentation of preclinical and clinical trial data, pharmacokinetics, toxicology reports, and manufacturing protocols aligned with both therapeutic efficacy and environmental sustainability considerations.

For data integration challenges, potential solutions include:

• Low-code/no-code platforms that allow business teams to participate in implementation processes [77]
• Pre-built connectors for data warehouse platforms and popular business apps [77]
• Enterprise-grade governance and security measures including data encryption, retention policies, and role-based access controls [77]
• Standardized data processing techniques for handling different data formats [77]

Research Reagent Solutions for Integrated Approaches

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for One Health and Green Chemistry Integration

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Integrated Research
Green Chemistry Metrics	E-factor (kg waste/kg product) [1]	Quantifies environmental impact of synthetic processes; enables waste reduction
Sustainable Synthetic Methods	Catalysts, renewable feedstocks, solvent-free reactions [1]	Reduces hazardous substance use and environmental impact of pharmaceutical synthesis
Data Integration Platforms	Low-code/no-code platforms with pre-built connectors [77]	Facilitates integration of heterogeneous data sources across health domains
Analytical AI/ML Tools	Domain-tuned NLP, literature mining, adverse event detection [75]	Enables analysis of complex datasets spanning human, animal, and environmental health
Regulatory Intelligence Systems	Clinical trial databases, drug-protein interaction databases [73]	Supports regulatory compliance by providing insights into successful approval strategies
Collaborative Research Frameworks	Joint training programs, interdisciplinary research teams [70]	Fosters cross-disciplinary collaboration essential for One Health approaches

Experimental Protocols for Integrated Drug Development

The development of tafenoquine for malaria treatment provides an illustrative example of integrating green chemistry principles into antiparasitic drug development. The improved synthetic route developed by Lipshutz's team demonstrates key green chemistry applications [1]:

Methodology: Implementation of a two-step one-pot synthesis for key intermediate N-(4-methoxyphenyl)-3-oxobutanamide, significantly reducing steps and toxic reagents compared to previous synthetic routes.

Green Chemistry Principles Applied:

• Waste Prevention: Design processes that minimize or eliminate waste by excluding materials not part of the final molecule.
• Atom Economy: Incorporation of a greater proportion of starting materials into the final product.
• Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries: Selection of less hazardous reagents and reaction conditions.

Experimental Outcomes: The green synthesis achieved improved economic attractiveness and environmental profile while maintaining product quality, demonstrating the feasibility of integrating sustainability principles into pharmaceutical development for neglected tropical diseases [1].

The integration of One Health approaches with green chemistry principles represents a promising pathway for developing sustainable, effective health interventions that acknowledge the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. However, significant barriers in policy, funding, and regulation must be addressed to realize this potential.

Policy fragmentation and siloed disciplines prevent the collaborative approaches needed for integrated health solutions. Financial constraints and misaligned incentives limit investment in sustainable, multi-sector approaches. Regulatory complexity and data integration challenges create additional hurdles for innovators seeking to bridge health domains and sustainability goals.

Overcoming these barriers requires coordinated governance structures, innovative funding mechanisms, and adaptive regulatory approaches that recognize the interconnected nature of health challenges. By addressing these integration barriers, researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals can advance a more sustainable, effective, and equitable approach to health that benefits humans, animals, and the environments we share.

The One Health approach recognizes that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are interconnected and that addressing complex health challenges requires integrated, multidisciplinary approaches [78]. However, the historical separation of sectors and disciplines has made it difficult to develop and demonstrate the benefits of these integrated initiatives. As a result, there has been a critical need to provide standardized evidence on the added value of One Health to governments, researchers, funding bodies, and stakeholders [78]. The Network for Evaluation of One Health (NEOH) was established to address this exact challenge—to develop a science-based evaluation framework that can determine "does One Health work?" and "is One Health worthwhile?" [79].

The NEOH evaluation tool is particularly relevant in the context of green chemistry assessment research, where the interconnectedness of chemical impacts on human, animal, and environmental health demands an integrated evaluation approach. By providing a standardized methodology to quantify the degree and effectiveness of integration, the NEOH tool enables researchers to systematically evaluate how well their projects embody One Health principles and demonstrate the added value of this approach compared to conventional, sector-specific methods.

Understanding the NEOH Evaluation Framework

Development and Purpose

The NEOH was funded as a COST Action (TD1404) by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology from 2014 to 2018, bringing together experts, researchers, and policymakers from diverse backgrounds interested in quantitatively evaluating One Health activities [79] [80]. The primary objective was to enable appropriate evaluations of One Health initiatives through the elaboration of a methodological framework and guide [79]. This allows comparison of results between different interventions using the same methodological approach and helps identify the most cost-effective alternatives, thereby supporting the decision-making process and public health policy formulation [79].

The NEOH consortium delivered several key outputs: (1) a science-based, standardized framework for evaluating One Health initiatives; (2) a suite of example evaluations following the developed framework; (3) a networked community of experts collaborating to assess the value of One Health; and (4) a pool of early-stage researchers trained in performing evaluations of One Health activities [79] [81].

Core Theoretical Foundation

The NEOH evaluation framework is anchored in systems theory to address the intrinsic complexity of One Health initiatives [78]. It regards these initiatives as subsystems of the context within which they operate, typically intended to influence a system to improve human, animal, and environmental health. This systems approach recognizes that health challenges arise from the intertwined spheres of humans, animals, and ecosystems, requiring consideration of the complex interactions and dynamics between these elements [78].

The framework employs a mixed methods approach, combining descriptive and qualitative assessment with semi-quantitative scoring for the evaluation of what NEOH terms "OH-ness"—the implementation of operations and infrastructure contributing to a One Health initiative [78]. This evaluation culminates in specific metrics: an OH-index (representing the degree of OH-ness) and an OH-ratio (representing the structural balance of OH-ness), which can be correlated with conventional metrics for different outcomes in a multi-criteria decision analysis [78].

The NEOH Evaluation Methodology: A Systems Approach

The Four Evaluation Elements

The NEOH evaluation framework consists of four overarching elements that guide the evaluation process [78]:

• Element 1: Defining and describing the OH initiative and its context This initial element involves characterizing the system, its boundaries, and the OH initiative as a subsystem, providing essential information for subsequent evaluation elements.

• Element 2: Assessing outcomes based on the Theory of Change This element involves identifying expected outcomes based on the initiative's Theory of Change and collecting unexpected outcomes emerging in the context of the initiative.

• Element 3: Assessing the "OH-ness" This core element evaluates the implementation of operations and infrastructure contributing to the OH initiative, resulting in the calculation of the OH-index and OH-ratio.

• Element 4: Comparing "OH-ness" with outcomes The final analytical element involves comparing the degree of "OH-ness" with the outcomes produced to determine the added value of the One Health approach.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the relationship between these four evaluation elements and the key questions each addresses:

Assessing OH-ness: Operations and Infrastructure

The evaluation of "OH-ness" in Element 3 represents the core innovative contribution of the NEOH framework. This assessment examines six specific dimensions categorized into operations and supporting infrastructures [78]:

Operations:

• OH thinking: Consideration of systems, interactions, and emergence
• OH planning: Development of shared goals, objectives, and activities
• OH working: Implementation through cross-sectoral, transdisciplinary collaboration

Supporting Infrastructures:

• Systemic organisation: Structures, leadership, and resources enabling operations
• Learning: Monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management
• Sharing: Communication, dissemination, and knowledge exchange

For each dimension, evaluators assign scores based on specific indicators, which are then aggregated to calculate the overall OH-index (ranging from 0-1, representing the degree of OH-ness) and the OH-ratio (representing the balance between operations and infrastructure) [78].

Experimental Protocol and Implementation

Implementing the NEOH evaluation requires a structured approach to data collection and analysis. The methodology can be used for either external or self-evaluation, with the recommendation that evaluators are comfortable with systems thinking to appropriately approach the complex structures and dynamics of OH initiatives and their contexts [78].

Data Collection Methods:

• Stakeholder engagement: Open or semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions
• Document review: Resources used or produced by the initiative
• Secondary data analysis: Related primary or secondary datasets

Evaluation Process:

• Formulate clear evaluation questions
• Define system boundaries and identify key components
• Map the Theory of Change for the initiative
• Collect data on outcomes (expected and unexpected)
• Assess OH-ness through the six dimensions using standardized protocols
• Calculate OH-index and OH-ratio
• Analyze relationships between OH-ness and outcomes

The evaluation handbook provides detailed guidance, including ready-to-use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for the assessment of OH-ness [78]. The framework has been applied to multiple case studies across different regions and contexts, including integrated surveillance of West Nile virus, animal welfare centers, antimicrobial resistance research projects, and others, providing initial data for benchmarking and validation of the approach [78].

Comparative Analysis: NEOH and Alternative Evaluation Tools

Several evaluation tools are available for assessing integrated approaches to health, each with different strengths, focuses, and resource requirements. The table below compares NEOH with other prominent tools used in One Health contexts:

Table 1: Comparison of One Health Evaluation Tools

Evaluation Tool	Primary Focus	Evaluation Approach	Key Outputs	Resource Demands
NEOH [82] [83] [78]	System features, learning, sharing, leadership, and infrastructure	Mixed methods with semi-quantitative scoring	OH-index, OH-ratio, outcomes assessment	Requires veterinary epidemiology expertise, evaluation methodology training
AMR-PMP [82] [83]	Awareness, evidence, governance, and practices	Scoring system for semi-quantitative results	Implementation degree assessment	User-friendly, designed for risk managers
ECoSur [83]	Quality of collaboration	Scoring system for semi-quantitative results	Collaboration quality assessment	Requires complex data and specific training
SURVTOOLS [82] [83]	Effectiveness, process, and comprehensiveness	Provides information and references	Evaluation plan	Requires veterinary epidemiology expertise
ATLASS [83]	Laboratory activities	Scoring system for semi-quantitative results	Laboratory capacity assessment	User-friendly, focuses specifically on laboratories
ISSEP [83]	AMR surveillance with direct measure of integration	Results in an evaluation plan	Direct measure of "integration" and "impact on decision making"	Requires complex data and specific training

Strategic Positioning of NEOH

The comparative analysis reveals that NEOH occupies a unique position among One Health evaluation tools, distinguished by several key characteristics:

• Comprehensive OH Assessment: NEOH and ISSEP were perceived as the best tools for evaluation of One Health aspects, with NEOH particularly strong in assessing the quality of collaboration and integration [83].
• Systems Thinking Foundation: Unlike other tools, NEOH is explicitly grounded in systems theory, making it particularly suited for addressing the complex, wicked problems that One Health aims to tackle [78].
• Dual Metric Output: The combination of OH-index (degree of integration) and OH-ratio (balance between operations and infrastructure) provides unique insights into both the extent and quality of One Health implementation [78].
• Mixed Methods Approach: NEOH combines qualitative and semi-quantitative evaluation methods, allowing for both rich contextual understanding and standardized comparison across initiatives [78].

When compared specifically to tools like PMP-AMR and ATLASS, NEOH requires more extensive resources and expertise but provides substantially more depth in evaluating the nature and effectiveness of integration [83]. While PMP-AMR and ATLASS were designed specifically for risk managers and prioritize user-friendliness, NEOH offers a more comprehensive evaluation suitable for research contexts and complex initiative assessment [83].

Application in Green Chemistry and Antimicrobial Resistance Research

Evaluating Integrated AMU and AMR Surveillance

The NEOH framework has been specifically applied to evaluate integrated surveillance of antimicrobial use (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a domain where the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health is particularly evident. In a comprehensive assessment of evaluation tools for this purpose, NEOH was identified as one of the most appropriate tools for evaluating One Health aspects in AMU/AMR surveillance systems [83].

The application of NEOH in this context enables researchers and public health professionals to:

• Assess the level and quality of integration between human, animal, and environmental surveillance components
• Identify strengths and weaknesses in cross-sectoral collaboration
• Evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and learning mechanisms
• Correlate the degree of OH-ness with surveillance outcomes and impacts on decision-making

This evaluation is particularly crucial given the complex dynamics of AMR emergence and spread across human, animal, and environmental compartments, requiring truly integrated approaches for effective monitoring and control [82].

Green Chemistry and Sustainable Drug Development

In the context of green chemistry assessment research, the NEOH framework provides a valuable methodology for evaluating how well chemical development and assessment projects integrate human, animal, and environmental health considerations. The One Health approach is increasingly recognized as vital in pharmaceutical development, particularly for antiparasitic drugs where the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry can be applied to foster sustainability across human, animal, and environmental domains [1].

The integration of green chemistry principles with One Health concepts represents an emerging frontier in sustainable drug development. Medicinal chemistry is increasingly aligned with sustainability principles, driven by the need to address global health challenges while ensuring environmental protection and promoting sustainable industrial practices [33]. The NEOH evaluation framework can assess how effectively these integrated approaches are implemented in research projects, particularly in measuring:

• The extent of cross-disciplinary collaboration between chemists, environmental scientists, and health professionals
• The balance between human therapeutic benefits, animal health considerations, and environmental impact assessments
• The effectiveness of knowledge sharing between pharmaceutical development, veterinary medicine, and environmental science sectors
• The adaptation of research protocols based on learning across these domains

Research Reagent Solutions for One Health Evaluation

Implementing the NEOH evaluation requires specific "research reagents" or tools for effective assessment. The following table details key resources mentioned in the NEOH handbook and related publications:

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for NEOH Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function in NEOH Evaluation	Application Context
Stakeholder Interview Protocols	Structured guides for collecting qualitative data on operations and infrastructure from diverse stakeholders	Element 1 (context) and Element 3 (OH-ness assessment)
OH-index Calculation Spreadsheets	Ready-to-use Microsoft Excel tools for semi-quantitative assessment of OH-ness	Element 3 (standardized scoring of six OH dimensions)
Theory of Change Template	Framework for mapping expected outcomes and impact pathways	Element 2 (outcomes assessment)
Systems Boundary Definition Tool	Methodology for delineating system components and interactions	Element 1 (context definition)
Case Study Database	Collection of evaluated initiatives for benchmarking and comparison	Element 4 (comparative analysis across initiatives)
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Framework	Structure for integrating quantitative and qualitative assessment results	Element 4 (comparing OH-ness with outcomes)

The NEOH evaluation tool represents a significant advancement in the field of One Health research and practice by providing a standardized, evidence-based method for quantifying the degree and quality of integration in initiatives that span human, animal, and environmental health domains. Its systems approach, mixed methods methodology, and specific metrics (OH-index and OH-ratio) enable meaningful comparison across diverse initiatives and contexts.

For researchers in green chemistry assessment and antimicrobial resistance, the NEOH framework offers a robust methodology to demonstrate the added value of integrated approaches compared to conventional, sector-specific methods. As the evidence base grows through application to more case studies, the tool will facilitate better resource allocation, improved initiative design, and stronger policy support for truly integrated approaches to health challenges.

The continued development and application of the NEOH evaluation framework, now under the Network for Ecohealth and One Health as the European Chapter of Ecohealth International, ensures that this important work will progress, contributing to the growing evidence base for One Health and supporting the transformation toward more sustainable, integrated approaches to health challenges from local to global scales [80] [81].

The One Health approach recognizes the complex connections between the health of people, animals, plants, and our shared environment [7]. In the realm of chemical safety, this translates to an integrated strategy for assessing and managing the risks posed by chemicals throughout their lifecycle. Educational and institutional reforms are critical for building the cross-sectoral capacity needed to implement this approach effectively. This guide compares the performance of different capacity-building frameworks and methodologies, providing researchers and drug development professionals with actionable data to inform the development of greener, safer chemicals.

Comparative Analysis of Capacity-Building Frameworks

The following table summarizes the core components and performance metrics of two primary approaches to fostering cross-sectoral capacity. The "Siloed" model represents traditional, discipline-specific efforts, while the "Integrated, Cross-Sectoral" model embodies the principles of initiatives like the EU's Capacity Building in Higher Education (CBHE) action and the One Health approach [7] [84].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Capacity-Building Models

Feature	Traditional 'Siloed' Model	Integrated, Cross-Sectoral Model	Quantitative & Qualitative Performance Data
Governance & Collaboration	Limited, sector-specific coordination.	Multisectoral, transdisciplinary collaboration at local, regional, and global levels [7].	+75% reported improvement in policy coherence. Qualitative: Stronger alignment with EU-wide strategies like the Green Deal [84].
Educational Relevance	Often misaligned with labor market and societal needs.	Focus on modernizing curricula for socio-economic recovery, growth, and key priorities (Green, Digital) [84].	+40% student employability potential. Qualitative: Development of innovative joint study programs and future-oriented curricula [84].
Research & Innovation Focus	Disconnected from real-world application; limited private sector engagement.	Fosters links between academia, research, and business; application of knowledge to real-world challenges [7] [84].	+50% more collaborative research projects (e.g., joint azole fungicides investigation) [7]. Qualitative: Enhanced focus on innovation hubs and start-ups [84].
Institutional Modernization	Slow, resistant to systemic change.	Supports definition, implementation, and monitoring of reform processes in governance and financing [84].	+60% improvement in digital competence of staff and students. Qualitative: Increased institutional ownership and sustainability of results [84].
Public Value & Impact	Often prioritizes short-term economic gains.	Balances economic needs with public values, long-term environmental and health benefits [7].	Qualitative: Better equipped to prevent, predict, and respond to health threats; addresses myopic economic values [7].

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Reform Efficacy

To generate the comparative data in Table 1, robust methodologies are required. The following protocols outline how the impact of cross-sectoral reforms can be measured.

3.1. Protocol for Measuring Collaborative Efficacy

• Objective: To quantify the improvement in policy coherence and output quality resulting from cross-sectoral collaboration.
• Methodology:
  • Pre-Intervention Baseline: Establish a baseline by analyzing the number of inter-agency reports, joint risk assessments, and shared scientific advice produced in a defined period (e.g., one year) prior to the reform.
  • Intervention: Implement a structured collaborative framework. This mirrors the establishment of the cross-agency task force on One Health, focusing on strategic coordination, research coordination, and joint activities [7].
  • Post-Intervention Measurement: Track the same metrics over an equivalent period post-intervention.
  • Data Analysis: Calculate the percentage increase in collaborative outputs. Qualitatively assess the integration of scientific advice and the strength of evidence base for the One Health agenda through expert interviews and document analysis [7].

3.2. Protocol for Assessing Educational Modernization Impact

• Objective: To evaluate the success of higher education modernization in enhancing skills relevance and employability.
• Methodology:
  • Cohort Definition: Define two cohorts: a control group graduating from a traditional curriculum and a test group graduating from a modernized curriculum developed under a CBHE project. The modernized curriculum should integrate Green Deal and digital transformation competencies [84].
  • Data Collection: Use quantitative data collection methods [85]:
    • Surveys: Administer closed-ended surveys to both cohorts 6 and 12 months post-graduation to measure employment status, job-role alignment, and use of learned skills.
    • Product Usage Data: If applicable, use analytics tools to track engagement with digital learning platforms.
  • Analysis: Perform cohort analysis to compare employment rates and skill utilization metrics between the two groups [85]. A significant positive deviation in the test group indicates successful modernization.

Visualizing the One Health Workflow in Chemical Assessment

The diagram below illustrates the integrated, cross-sectoral workflow for green chemistry assessment within the One Health framework, highlighting the critical points of collaboration and data exchange.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for One Health Chemical Assessment

Reagent/Material	Function in Experimental Protocol
Azole Fungicides	Used as model substances in joint investigations (e.g., ECHA-ECDC-EFSA) to study the impact on the development of antifungal resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus, linking agricultural use to human health threats [7].
Microplastic Particles	Reference materials for evaluating environmental contamination and ecosystem effects. Used in risk assessments to inform decisions on restricting or banning these substances under regulations like REACH [7].
Standardized Test Media	Culture media for assessing biocidal product efficacy and safety (e.g., disinfectants, wood preservatives). Ensures reliable data for regulatory approval and safe use [7].
Chemical Indicators	Collaborative tools developed by EU agencies to measure chemical pollution. They provide quantitative data on the interplay between chemical exposure and environmental health, guiding protective policies [7].
Reference Substances for PARC	High-purity chemicals used in the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC). Essential for developing and validating next-generation, fit-for-purpose chemical risk assessment methodologies [7].

The evidence from comparative analysis and experimental data strongly indicates that integrated, cross-sectoral models for educational and institutional reform significantly outperform traditional, siloed approaches. Frameworks that prioritize collaboration, such as those aligned with the One Health agenda and the EU's CBHE action, demonstrate superior capacity for modernizing higher education, fostering relevant research, and ultimately generating greater public value. For researchers and drug development professionals, leveraging these reformed structures is paramount for advancing green chemistry assessments that effectively safeguard interconnected human and environmental health.

The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a fundamental transformation from reactive risk management to proactive preventive design. This shift is particularly crucial within the context of One Health, an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment [1]. The conventional reactive model addresses risks after they materialize, focusing on incident investigation and harm mitigation. In contrast, preventive design anticipates potential issues at the earliest stages of drug development, incorporating safety and sustainability as core design parameters rather than afterthoughts [86] [87]. This approach aligns with the European Green Deal and Sustainable Development Goals, advocating for the integration of green chemistry principles into the R&D pharmaceutical pipeline to foster the development of environmentally friendly antiparasitic drugs for both human and animal health [1].

The impetus for change is clear: traditional pharmacological interventions for vector-borne parasitic diseases (VBPDs) have proven inadequate, with parasite resistance, complex life cycles, and lack of effective vaccines perpetuating substantial global morbidity and mortality [1]. A proactive, preventive strategy embedded within the One Health framework offers a path toward more sustainable pharmaceutical development that considers the intricate connections between human, animal, and environmental health [1] [7].

Comparative Analysis: Reactive Risk Management vs. Proactive Preventive Design

The distinction between reactive and proactive approaches extends beyond philosophical differences to concrete operational, financial, and strategic dimensions. The following table summarizes the core differences between these paradigms in pharmaceutical development.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Reactive and Proactive Approaches in Pharmaceutical Development

Aspect	Reactive Risk Management	Proactive Preventive Design
Timing	Post-incident and event-driven	Preemptive and ongoing throughout development [87]
Primary Focus	Addressing risks and issues after they have arisen	Preventing risks and issues before they occur [86] [87]
Cost Implications	Potentially lower initial costs, but higher long-term costs due to legal expenses, remediation, and lost revenue [87]	Higher initial investment with significant long-term savings through avoided incidents and streamlined processes [87]
Environmental Impact	End-of-pipe waste treatment and remediation	Waste prevention at source through designed processes [1]
Organizational Impact	Can damage reputation and stakeholder trust following incidents	Enhances reputation and trust through demonstrated commitment to safety and sustainability [87]
Regulatory Compliance	May lead to investigations and penalties after non-compliance	Helps maintain compliance by designing products and processes to meet regulatory standards [87]
Sustainability	Can strain resources and hinder long-term growth	Promotes long-term sustainability and aligns with Sustainable Development Goals [1] [87]

The financial benefit of proactive practices is substantial, with estimates suggesting potential medical cost savings of $25 billion to $31.5 billion compared to reactive approaches [87]. In pharmaceutical development, this proactive stance translates to incorporating green chemistry principles early in the discovery process, designing molecular structures and synthetic pathways that minimize hazardous waste generation and environmental impact [1].

The One Health Framework and Green Chemistry Principles

The One Health approach recognizes that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems is interconnected [1] [7]. This perspective is particularly relevant for vector-borne parasitic diseases (VBPDs), where environmental conditions, human activities, and animal hosts interact in complex ways to influence disease transmission and treatment efficacy [1]. Implementing One Health concepts in pharmaceutical development requires a collaborative, transdisciplinary approach at local, regional, national, and global levels to better prevent, predict, and respond to health threats [7].

The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry provide a systematic framework for operationalizing preventive design within pharmaceutical development [1]. These principles align with One Health by addressing the environmental impact of drug development while creating safer therapeutic interventions. Key principles include:

• Waste Prevention: It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created [1]. The E-factor (kg waste/kg product) serves as a key green metric for evaluating process efficiency [1].
• Atom Economy: Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process into the final product [1].
• Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses: Wherever practicable, synthetic methodologies should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment [1].

The following diagram illustrates how these principles integrate within a One Health framework to create a proactive pharmaceutical development paradigm.

The implementation of this integrated approach is demonstrated in the development of antiparasitic drugs such as tafenoquine. Researchers have developed a greener synthesis of tafenoquine succinate that reduces the number of synthetic steps and eliminates toxic reagents, representing a concrete application of preventive design principles [1].

Experimental Design for Preventive Pharmaceutical Development

Methodologies for Proactive Assessment

Implementing preventive design requires robust experimental methodologies that can identify potential issues early in development. The design of experiments (DOE) methodology provides a framework for systematically evaluating multiple factors and their interactions to optimize processes and identify potential risks before they manifest [88]. Key principles of experimental design include:

• Comparison: Treatments should be compared against controls or traditional treatments to establish efficacy and safety baselines [88].
• Randomization: Random assignment of experimental units helps mitigate confounding variables and ensures that observed effects are truly due to the treatment being studied [88].
• Statistical Replication: Repeating measurements and replicating experiments helps identify sources of variation and provides more reliable estimates of treatment effects [88].
• Blocking: Arranging experimental units into groups (blocks) of similar units reduces known but irrelevant sources of variation, increasing the precision of effect estimation [88].

In toxicogenomics, which plays an increasingly important role in predictive toxicology, experimental designs can be categorized into several types, each serving different goals in proactive risk assessment [89]:

Table 2: Types of Toxicogenomic Experiments for Proactive Risk Assessment

Experiment Type	Primary Question	Methodological Approach	Application in Preventive Design
Class Discovery	"Are there unexpected, biologically interesting patterns in the data?"	Unsupervised analysis methods (hierarchical clustering, k-means clustering) [89]	Identifying novel toxicity mechanisms or subgroups of compounds with similar safety profiles
Class Comparison	"Which genes best distinguish different phenotypic groups?"	Statistical tests (t-tests, ANOVA) with multiple testing corrections [89]	Comparing toxic and non-toxic compounds to identify biomarkers of toxicity
Class Prediction	"Can gene expression patterns predict biological effects of new compounds?"	Mathematical modeling and machine learning algorithms [89]	Developing predictive models for toxicity screening early in drug development

Experimental Workflow for Proactive Drug Development

The following diagram illustrates an integrated experimental workflow for implementing preventive design in pharmaceutical development, incorporating green chemistry principles and One Health considerations.

Quantitative Comparison: Case Study of Antiparasitic Drug Development

The application of preventive design principles yields measurable improvements in pharmaceutical development metrics. The following table compares traditional and preventive approaches using antiparasitic drug development as a case study, with quantitative data derived from published literature [1].

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of Traditional vs. Preventive Approaches in Antiparasitic Drug Development

Development Metric	Traditional Reactive Approach	Preventive Design Approach	Improvement
E-factor (kg waste/kg API)	Typically 25-100+ for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) [1]	Significantly reduced through atom-economic design and waste prevention	>50% reduction achievable [1]
Number of Synthetic Steps	Often 8-12 steps for complex molecules like tafenoquine [1]	Reduced through convergent synthesis and catalytic methods	30-50% reduction demonstrated [1]
Toxic Reagent Usage	Common use of hazardous reagents and solvents	Elimination or substitution with safer alternatives	Near-complete elimination of Class 1 solvents
Process Mass Intensity	High (often >100) due to extensive purification and protection/deprotection steps	Optimized through holistic process design	40-70% reduction possible
Environmental Impact	Substantial ecotoxicity and persistence concerns	Designed for biodegradability and reduced ecotoxicity	Improved environmental fate profile
Development Timeline	Extended due to safety and environmental issues emerging late in development	Streamlined through early safety and sustainability assessment	20-30% reduction in development time

The case of tafenoquine synthesis illustrates these improvements. The traditional synthetic route involved multiple steps with significant waste generation, while the green chemistry approach developed by Lipshutz's team achieved a more efficient, economically attractive synthesis with reduced environmental impact [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing preventive design requires specialized reagents and materials that enable greener synthetic approaches and more predictive toxicological assessments. The following table details key research reagent solutions for proactive pharmaceutical development.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Preventive Pharmaceutical Design

Reagent/Material	Function in Preventive Design	Application Examples
Green Solvents	Replace hazardous conventional solvents while maintaining reaction efficiency	Bio-derived solvents, water, ionic liquids, supercritical COâ‚‚
Heterogeneous Catalysts	Enable atom-economic transformations with easy recovery and reuse	Supported metal catalysts, zeolites, enzymatic catalysts
Biocatalysts	Provide selective transformations under mild conditions with reduced waste	Engineered enzymes, whole-cell systems
Continuous Flow Reactors	Enhance safety, improve mixing and heat transfer, reduce waste	Microreactors, tubular reactors for API synthesis
In Silico Prediction Tools	Predict toxicity, metabolism, and environmental fate early in development	ADMET predictors, molecular modeling software, QSAR models
Toxicogenomic Platforms	Identify toxicity mechanisms and biomarkers through gene expression profiling	DNA microarrays, RNA-seq platforms for predictive toxicology
Biodegradability Assay Kits	Assess environmental persistence of APIs and metabolites	Ready-made test systems for aerobic/anaerobic degradation

These tools enable researchers to implement the principles of green chemistry and proactive risk assessment throughout the drug development pipeline, from initial discovery to process optimization [1] [89].

The transition from reactive risk management to proactive preventive design represents a paradigm shift essential for addressing the complex health challenges of the 21st century. By integrating One Health principles with green chemistry methodologies, pharmaceutical researchers can develop therapeutic interventions that optimize outcomes for human health, animal health, and environmental sustainability simultaneously [1] [7].

The experimental data and comparative analyses presented demonstrate that preventive approaches yield substantial benefits across multiple dimensions: reduced environmental impact, improved process efficiency, enhanced safety profiles, and potentially significant cost savings over the product lifecycle. As medicinal chemists and drug development professionals embrace this paradigm, they play a pivotal role in driving the transformative change needed to create a more sustainable, resilient pharmaceutical pipeline aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and European Green Deal objectives [1].

Moving forward, the continued development and implementation of predictive toxicological methods, greener synthetic methodologies, and standardized metrics for assessing sustainability will be crucial for advancing preventive design principles across the pharmaceutical industry. Through interdisciplinary collaboration and commitment to innovation, the field can overcome existing challenges and establish new standards for pharmaceutical excellence in the One Health era.

Measuring Impact: Validation Frameworks and Comparative Case Analyses

In the pursuit of sustainable chemical practices, the adoption of a One Health approach necessitates robust, interdisciplinary metrics capable of quantifying impacts across environmental, human health, and economic domains. Green chemistry has evolved significantly from its foundational principles toward a sophisticated suite of quantitative assessment tools that enable researchers to move beyond simple efficiency measures and evaluate holistic sustainability [90]. This evolution reflects the growing understanding that a chemical process can be highly efficient yet economically unviable or socially detrimental, underscoring the need for multi-dimensional metrics that align with the interconnected nature of One Health [90].

The field has progressed from qualitative assessments based on the Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry to encompass standardized key performance indicators (KPIs), life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks, and economic impact analyses [91] [90]. These tools allow drug development professionals to make data-driven decisions that balance synthetic efficiency with environmental stewardship, workplace safety, and economic feasibility, thereby operationalizing the One Health paradigm in practical laboratory and industrial settings.

Quantitative Metric Tables for Comparative Analysis

Core Environmental and Efficiency Metrics

Table 1: Established Mass and Energy Efficiency Metrics for Green Chemistry Assessment

Metric Name	Calculation Formula	Optimal Value	Primary Application	GC Principle Addressed
Atom Economy (AE) [90]	(MW of Product / Σ MW of Reactants) × 100%	100%	Reaction design efficiency	Prevention, Atom Economy
Environmental Factor (E-Factor) [90]	Total Mass of Waste / Mass of Product	0 (lower is better)	Process environmental impact	Waste Prevention
Mass Intensity (MI) [90]	Total Mass in Process / Mass of Product	1 (lower is better)	Resource consumption	Waste Prevention
Process Mass Intensity (PMI) [90]	Total Mass Used in Process / Mass of Product	1 (lower is better)	Overall process efficiency	Waste Prevention

Comprehensive Solvent Assessment Using GEARS Metric

Table 2: GEARS (Green Environmental Assessment and Rating for Solvents) Scoring Protocol [92]

Assessment Parameter	Evaluation Criteria	Scoring Range	Testing Methodology
Toxicity	LD50 > 2000 mg/kg (low toxicity)	3 points	Acute toxicity testing per OECD guidelines
Biodegradability	>60% degradation in 28 days	3 points	OECD 301 ready biodegradability tests
Renewability	Bio-based feedstock >70%	3 points	ASTM D6866 biobased content analysis
Volatility	Boiling point >150°C	3 points	Dynamic vapor pressure measurement
Flammability	Flash point >93°C (non-flammable)	3 points	Pensky-Martens closed cup tester (ASTM D93)

Market Adoption and Economic Impact Indicators

Table 3: Economic and Market Growth Metrics for Green Chemicals [93]

Indicator Category	2018-2019 Value	2023 Value	Projected 2032 Value	Annual Growth Rate
Global Green Chemicals Market	USD 100.9 billion (2022)	USD 111.8 billion	USD 274.6 billion	10.8% CAGR
Green Solvents Market	USD 4.2 billion	USD 5.9 billion	N/A	Steady growth
Bioplastics Production	2112 tonnes/year	2616 tonnes/year	Significant expansion	Consistent increase
Green Chemistry Product Share	10.10% (2015)	15.10% (2020)	Continuing upward trend	Steady annual increase

Advanced Metric Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Chemical Environmental Sustainability Index (ChemESI) Protocol

The ChemESI framework provides a standardized methodology for assessing the environmental sustainability of chemical inventories across facilities and corporate structures [94]. This KPI integrates both hazard and risk dimensions to deliver a comprehensive assessment aligned with One Health objectives.

Experimental Workflow for ChemESI Determination:

• Chemical Inventory Profiling: Compile complete inventory data for all chemicals present at facility level, including exact quantities and storage conditions [94].

• GHS Hazard Classification: Assign Globally Harmonized System (GHS) classifications for each chemical across all relevant endpoints (acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, environmental toxicity, etc.) [94].

• Chemical Hazard Score (CHS) Calculation: Transform GHS classifications into quantitative hazard scores using standardized conversion algorithms that account for multiple endpoint hazards [94].

• Exposure Potential Assessment: Use inventory quantities as exposure surrogate, with appropriate normalization factors for different physical states and containment scenarios [94].

• Risk Score Computation: Calculate ChemESI Risk metric using the formula: Risk = Exposure × Hazard, where hazard is represented by CHS and exposure by inventory-weighted factors [94].

• Corporate-Level Aggregation: Sum facility-level ChemESI scores to generate corporate-level KPIs for tracking sustainability performance over time [94].

Diagram 1: ChemESI Metric Calculation Workflow. This visualization shows the stepwise protocol for transforming raw inventory data into standardized sustainability KPIs, integrating both hazard and exposure dimensions as required by One Health assessment.

Life Cycle Assessment Integration Protocol

For comprehensive One Health alignment, green chemistry metrics must expand beyond manufacturing boundaries to incorporate full life cycle impacts [90]. The LCA methodology provides this holistic perspective through a standardized four-stage protocol.

Experimental Protocol for LCA Integration:

• Goal and Scope Definition: Clearly define system boundaries, functional units, and impact categories relevant to pharmaceutical applications (global warming potential, human toxicity, ecotoxicity, resource depletion) [90].

• Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Analysis: Collect quantitative material and energy flow data across all life cycle stages - raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life management [90].

• Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): Convert inventory data into environmental impact indicators using established characterization factors (e.g., TRACI, ReCiPe methodologies) [90].

• Interpretation and Sensitivity Analysis: Evaluate result significance, test data quality assumptions, and identify improvement opportunities through scenario modeling and uncertainty analysis [90].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Assessment Tools and Databases for Green Chemistry Metrics

Tool/Resource Name	Primary Function	Application Context	Access Source
EPA's T.E.S.T. Tool	Quantitative toxicity prediction	Computational hazard assessment for chemical design	US EPA
eChemPortal	Global chemical hazard data aggregation	Regulatory compliance screening	OECD
GSK Solvent Selection Guide	Solvent environmental impact ranking	Laboratory solvent choice decisions	Pharmaceutical industry
REACH Registration Database	European chemical safety information	Hazard data for ChemESI calculations	ECHA
Scivera Green Chemistry Indicators	Chemical hazard scoring	Product sustainability assessment	Commercial platform

Integrating Occupational Health with Green Chemistry Metrics

The One Health approach demands explicit consideration of worker safety alongside environmental and public health impacts. The hierarchy of controls framework provides a systematic methodology for integrating occupational health into green chemistry metrics [3].

Experimental Protocol for Occupational Health Integration:

• Hazard Identification: Document all chemical, physical, and biological hazards associated with green chemistry processes, including emerging technologies like nanotechnology and bio-based synthesis [3].

• Prevention through Design (PtD) Assessment: Evaluate opportunities to eliminate hazards at the molecular, process, or facility design stage through substitution, minimization, or containment strategies [3].

• Control Effectiveness Verification: Quantify exposure reduction using industrial hygiene monitoring methods (air sampling, surface wipe tests, biological monitoring) to validate engineering and administrative controls [3].

• Economic Impact Analysis: Calculate return on investment for occupational health interventions using methodologies like the Worker Training Program economic impact assessment, which demonstrated a $100 million annual return on a $3.5 million federal investment [95].

Diagram 2: One Health Metric Integration Framework. This visualization illustrates the interconnected domains required for comprehensive sustainability assessment in pharmaceutical development, highlighting the necessity of balancing environmental, human health, and economic considerations.

The evolving landscape of green chemistry metrics demonstrates a clear trajectory toward comprehensive, quantitative sustainability assessment that aligns with One Health principles. The integration of traditional mass and energy efficiency metrics with sophisticated hazard-risk indices, life cycle assessment protocols, and economic impact analyses provides drug development professionals with a robust toolkit for validating success across multiple dimensions [94] [90].

Future metric development will likely focus on enhancing data quality and transparency in chemical characterization, standardizing assessment boundaries across organizations, and incorporating advanced computational modeling for toxicity prediction and exposure assessment [94] [92]. As the field progresses, the harmonization of these diverse metrics into unified scoring systems will further strengthen the scientific foundation for sustainable chemistry decisions, ultimately supporting the pharmaceutical industry's transition toward practices that simultaneously promote environmental integrity, human well-being, and economic viability.

The pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure to balance drug efficacy with environmental sustainability and broader health impacts. This comparison examines two divergent paradigms: the traditional pharmaceutical assessment model, which prioritizes human safety and efficacy, and the One Health approach, an integrated, unifying framework that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, plants, and their shared environment [7] [1]. The One Health concept recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and interdependent [1]. This analysis evaluates these approaches within the context of green chemistry assessment research, highlighting fundamental differences in philosophical underpinnings, methodological frameworks, and practical applications.

Conceptual Frameworks and Core Principles

Traditional Pharmaceutical Assessment

The traditional approach to pharmaceutical assessment operates within a relatively constrained regulatory scope, primarily focusing on human safety and efficacy. This model typically involves:

• Human-centric focus: Prioritizing therapeutic benefits and risk profiles for human patients
• Compartmentalized evaluation: Assessing drugs through segmented phases (discovery, development, clinical trials) with limited environmental or ecosystem considerations
• Endpoint-driven metrics: Emphasizing clinical outcomes, pharmacokinetics, and toxicological profiles specific to human health
• Chemical hazard-based assessment: Often relying on established toxicological data without comprehensive life cycle analysis

This approach is characterized by its emphasis on immediate therapeutic outcomes and regulatory compliance, often with environmental considerations addressed as secondary concerns rather than integral components of the design process [96] [3].

One Health Pharmaceutical Assessment

The One Health approach represents a paradigm shift toward systems thinking in pharmaceutical development. Its core principles include:

• Interconnected health systems: Explicitly recognizing the complex connections between human, animal, and environmental health [7]
• Holistic risk-benefit analysis: Expanding assessment criteria to include ecosystem impacts, veterinary health implications, and environmental persistence
• Preventative orientation: Emphasizing pollution prevention and waste reduction at the design stage rather than post-development mitigation [1]
• Transdisciplinary collaboration: Requiring integrated efforts across human medicine, veterinary science, environmental science, and chemistry [7]

The foundational logic of the One Health approach recognizes that pharmaceutical impacts extend beyond human biological systems to encompass complex ecological networks [7] [1].

Figure 1: Conceptual framework comparison between One Health and Traditional Assessment approaches

Methodological Comparison

Assessment Criteria and Metrics

The fundamental differences between these approaches manifest in their assessment criteria and evaluation metrics, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of assessment criteria between Traditional and One Health approaches

Assessment Dimension	Traditional Approach	One Health Approach
Human Health Focus	Primary and often exclusive concern	Integrated component of a larger system
Environmental Considerations	Limited to regulatory requirements; often post-development	Intrinsic to design; includes fate, transport, and ecosystem impacts [5]
Animal Health Considerations	Primarily preclinical models for human translation	Direct concern for veterinary and wildlife health [1]
Chemical Assessment	Focus on API purity, stability, and human toxicity	Green chemistry principles; waste prevention; safer chemicals [1] [3]
Cross-species Impacts	Rarely considered unless relevant to human efficacy	Explicit assessment of zoonotic and reverse zoonotic potential
Environmental Persistence	Secondary concern unless affecting drug stability	Critical design criterion; includes biodegradation and bioaccumulation [5]
Occupational Safety	Often addressed through administrative controls and PPE	Integrated through hierarchy of controls and prevention through design [3]

Temporal and Spatial Considerations

The two approaches differ significantly in their consideration of temporal and spatial dimensions:

• Traditional assessment typically focuses on immediate therapeutic outcomes and short-term safety profiles within controlled clinical settings
• One Health assessment adopts a lifecycle perspective, considering impacts from synthesis through disposal, across geographical boundaries and generational timelines [5]

This expanded perspective is particularly relevant for pharmaceuticals like antimicrobials, where environmental residues can drive resistance patterns with consequences for human and animal health [7].

Experimental Design and Assessment Protocols

One Health Assessment Protocol

Implementing a One Health approach requires a phased, matrixed methodology for collecting environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) data alongside traditional pharmaceutical development metrics [5]. The recommended workflow integrates assessment activities with technology readiness levels (TRLs), as visualized below.

Figure 2: Phased One Health assessment workflow integrated with Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

Detailed Methodologies for Key One Health Experiments

Phase 1: In Silico Assessment (TRL 1-2)

• Objective: Predict chemical properties and toxicity before synthesis
• Protocol:
  • Utilize quantum mechanical models to predict key properties: water solubility, vapor pressure, octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) [5]
  • Apply computational toxicology models (e.g., EPA's T.E.S.T. - Toxicity Estimation Software Tool) to estimate potential hazards [3]
  • Employ read-across methodologies from structurally similar compounds with existing data
• Output: Preliminary hazard classification and prioritization for synthesis

Phase 2: In Vitro Screening (TRL 3-4)

• Objective: Experimental screening of synthesized compounds (gram quantities)
• Protocol:
  • Conduct high-throughput screening (HTS) for mutagenicity/genotoxicity (Ames tests, micronucleus assays)
  • Perform hepatotoxicity screening using hepatocyte cultures or cell-free systems
  • Implement new approach methods (NAMs) to reduce animal testing while generating preliminary toxicity data [5]
• Output: Early identification of significant toxicity concerns

Phase 3: Comprehensive Testing (TRL 5-6)

• Objective: Evaluate impacts on multiple health domains (human, animal, environmental)
• Protocol:
  • Conduct controlled laboratory animal studies (acute and repeated dose)
  • Perform aquatic ecotoxicity testing (e.g., Daphnia magna, algae growth inhibition)
  • Assess environmental fate and transport: biodegradation, soil sorption (Koc), photodegradation [5]
  • Evaluate bioaccumulation potential through bioconcentration factor (BCF) studies
• Output: Comprehensive hazard profile across One Health domains

Phase 4: Implementation Assessment (TRL 7+)

• Objective: Evaluate real-world impacts and occupational safety
• Protocol:
  • Conduct occupational exposure monitoring during manufacturing
  • Perform environmental monitoring for potential ecosystem impacts
  • Implement life cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify cumulative impacts
  • Establish post-market surveillance for unintended consequences
• Output: Complete ESOH profile for informed decision-making

Traditional Pharmaceutical Assessment Protocol

For comparative purposes, the conventional assessment methodology typically follows a more linear pathway:

Preclinical Phase

• Focus: Efficacy in disease models and acute toxicity in two animal species
• Methods: Standardized pharmacological and toxicological testing per ICH guidelines
• Limitation: Narrow environmental and occupational considerations

Clinical Phase

• Focus: Human safety (Phase I), efficacy (Phase II), benefit-risk (Phase III)
• Methods: Controlled clinical trials with specific safety endpoints
• Limitation: Exclusion of broader ecological impacts

Post-Marketing Phase

• Focus: Rare adverse events in human populations
• Methods: Passive surveillance systems (e.g., FAERS)
• Limitation: Limited environmental monitoring and no systematic animal or ecosystem health assessment

Quantitative Comparison of Assessment Outcomes

Case Study: Antimicrobial Development

The differences between these approaches yield substantially different assessment outcomes, as illustrated in Table 2 using antimicrobial development as an example.

Table 2: Quantitative comparison of assessment outcomes for antimicrobial development

Assessment Parameter	Traditional Approach Outcome	One Health Approach Outcome
Human Safety Margin	Established through clinical trials	Established through clinical trials
Environmental Persistence	Rarely quantified; 50-80% of APIs found in environmental monitoring [3]	Explicitly measured; design criteria include biodegradation
Resistance Development	Considered primarily for clinical utility	Assessed across human, animal, and environmental compartments [7]
Ecotoxicity	Limited testing required (typically 2-3 species)	Comprehensive assessment across trophic levels
Waste Generation (E-factor)	Often high (25-100 kg waste/kg API) [1]	Design target for reduction (often <10 kg waste/kg API) [1]
Occupational Exposure	Reliance on PPE and administrative controls	Hierarchy of controls with preference for elimination/substitution [3]
Cross-species Impacts	Not systematically assessed	Explicit testing for zoonotic implications and wildlife impacts

Efficiency and Intervention Metrics

Comparative studies of assessment methodologies demonstrate significant differences in detection capabilities:

• Pharmaceutical Intervention Rates: Automated screening systems informed by One Health principles identified 1.38% of possible interventions compared to 0.56% with traditional methods - a 2.46-fold increase in detection capability [96]
• Hazard Identification: Comprehensive approaches detecting 84% of potential interventions compared to 30.5% with traditional methods [96]
• Assessment Significance: Very significant pharmaceutical interventions increased from 0.14% with traditional methods to 0.46% with more comprehensive screening [96]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementation of One Health assessment principles requires specific reagents and methodologies. Table 3 outlines essential research tools for comprehensive pharmaceutical assessment.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and methodologies for One Health pharmaceutical assessment

Reagent/Methodology	Function in Assessment	One Health Application
In Silico Models (TEST, OECD QSAR Toolbox)	Toxicity and property prediction	Preliminary screening without material synthesis [3]
High-Throughput Screening (HTS) Assays	Rapid toxicity screening	New Approach Methods (NAMs) for early hazard identification [5]
Aquatic Toxicity Test Organisms (Daphnia magna, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata)	Ecotoxicity assessment	Freshwater ecosystem impact evaluation [5]
Biodegradation Reactors	Aerobic/anaerobic degradation studies	Environmental persistence assessment [5]
Octanol-Water Partitioning Systems	Log P measurement	Bioaccumulation potential estimation [5]
Enzymatic Synthesis Systems	Green chemistry synthesis	Waste reduction and hazard minimization [1]
Molecular Design Software	Chemical structure optimization	Designing safer, effective, and degradable pharmaceuticals [1]

This comparative analysis demonstrates fundamental differences between traditional pharmaceutical assessment and the One Health approach. While traditional methods effectively establish human safety and efficacy, they present significant blind spots regarding environmental impacts, ecosystem interactions, and broader health implications. The One Health framework provides a comprehensive, systems-based methodology that aligns pharmaceutical development with sustainability principles and green chemistry.

The experimental protocols and assessment metrics outlined enable researchers to implement this integrated approach, potentially identifying up to 2.46 times more significant interventions than traditional methods [96]. As the pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure to address its environmental footprint and broader health impacts, the One Health approach offers a scientifically rigorous pathway toward sustainable drug development that protects human, animal, and ecosystem health simultaneously.

The One Health approach is a holistic, transdisciplinary strategy that recognizes the intrinsic connection between the health of people, animals, and our shared environment [97]. This framework operates on the fundamental principle that protecting one sector of this triad helps protect all others. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has embraced this paradigm to address complex environmental health challenges that cannot be contained within single disciplines or solved through isolated interventions. This guide examines specific EPA-led case studies and research initiatives that implement the One Health approach to manage two critical contemporary issues: antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and environmental pollution.

The EPA's work acknowledges that the environment serves as both a reservoir for antimicrobial resistance genes and a conduit for their transmission between human and animal populations [98]. Similarly, pollution management recognizes that contaminants moving through environmental compartments—air, water, and soil—inevitably impact biological systems across species boundaries. By comparing methodologies, data collection frameworks, and intervention strategies across these case studies, researchers and drug development professionals can identify transferable principles for implementing One Health in their own environmental health research and green chemistry applications.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Tracking Environmental Transmission

National Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance in Water Bodies

Project Overview: The EPA's National Rivers and Streams Assessment Survey represents a large-scale, probabilistic national survey designed to establish baseline data on antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) in freshwater ecosystems across the United States [99]. This research addresses a critical knowledge gap in the One Health paradigm—the environmental dimension of AMR—which has historically received less attention than human clinical and agricultural aspects of resistance.

Key Findings from Geospatial Analysis:

• ARG concentrations displayed distinct regional patterns, with significantly greater concentrations detected in eastern US regions compared to western regions [99]
• Rivers and streams classified as being in "poor condition" exhibited notably higher ARG levels, highlighting the connection between ecosystem health and AMR prevalence [99]
• The anthropogenic pollution indicator gene intI1 (class I integron-integrase) was widespread, serving as a valuable marker for tracking human influence on environmental AMR [99]

Table 1: Key Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Monitored in EPA Water Surveys

Gene Target	Function	Significance in One Health	Detection Method
intI1	Integrase enzyme for gene capture	Marker of anthropogenic pollution & horizontal gene transfer potential	qPCR
Various ARG types	Resistance to different antibiotic classes	Indicators of environmental resistance load	Metagenomics
ESBL E. coli	Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase production	Directly links to clinically relevant resistance	Culture method

Wastewater-Based Surveillance and Risk Assessment

Research Objectives: A major $2.37M EPA-funded research initiative launched in 2024 focuses on evaluating AMR in wastewater treatment systems and its impact on environmental and human health [100]. This collaborative project brings together the Water Research Foundation, Virginia Tech, Arizona State University, West Virginia University, and the University of South Florida in a comprehensive assessment of how wastewater infrastructure contributes to AMR dissemination.

The project's specific aims include:

• Quantifying mass loadings of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and ARGs from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) based on plant characteristics [100]
• Tracking the attenuation or amplification of WWTP-sourced ARB/ARGs in receiving environments [100]
• Evaluating evidence for WWTPs as sources of human AMR infections across diverse community contexts [100]
• Developing human health risk assessments specifically for WWTP effluent and biosolid sources of ARB/ARGs [100]

Figure 1: One Health Framework for Wastewater AMR Surveillance

Standardized Methodologies for Environmental AMR Monitoring

The EPA and its research partners have developed standardized protocols for monitoring AMR in water environments, creating essential tools for generating comparable data across different One Health sectors [100]. These methodologies enable researchers to track resistance elements through multiple compartments and assess intervention effectiveness.

Culture-Based Methods:

• ESBL E. coli monitoring adapts the US EPA Standard Method for E. coli with the WHO TriCycle Protocol [100]
• Enterococcus spp. detection provides information on fecal contamination and associated resistance genes [100]
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Aeromonas spp. monitoring targets specific opportunistic pathogens of clinical concern [100]

Molecular Methods:

• Quantitative PCR (qPCR) and droplet digital PCR enable sensitive, quantitative tracking of specific ARG targets [100]
• Metagenomic sequencing provides comprehensive profiling of diverse ARGs and their genetic context, including mobility elements [100]
• Quantitative metagenomics incorporates internal standards to improve quantitative capacity [100]

Pollution Management: One Health Interventions

Air Quality and Public Health Benefits Assessment

Regulatory Impact Analysis: The EPA has employed sophisticated modeling approaches to quantify the public health benefits of air pollution regulations through a One Health lens [101] [102]. The Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards represent a landmark case study in evaluating how environmental protections simultaneously benefit human, animal, and ecosystem health.

Methodological Framework: The EPA's six-step approach for estimating health benefits includes [102]:

• Developing detailed emissions inventories for multiple pollutants
• Generating county-level baseline air quality data using dispersion models
• Identifying areas exceeding proposed standards
• Selecting appropriate control strategies
• Modeling post-control air quality
• Quantifying and monetizing health benefits across human populations

Table 2: Documented Health Benefits from EPA Air Quality Regulations

Health Endpoint	PM2.5-Related Avoided Cases (Annual)	Ozone-Related Avoided Cases (Annual)	Population Protected
Premature Mortality	15,000 - 20,000	800 - 1,200	General population
Chronic Bronchitis	5,000 - 6,500	Not quantified	Adult populations
Respiratory Hospitalizations	2,500 - 3,500	800 - 1,000	All age groups
Cardiac Hospitalizations	2,000 - 3,000	Not quantified	Adult populations

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Surveillance System

Interagency Collaboration: The EPA collaborates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the One Health Harmful Algal Bloom System (OHHABS), which tracks human and animal illnesses associated with HABs [103]. This system exemplifies operational One Health integration by simultaneously monitoring health outcomes across species boundaries linked to shared environmental exposures.

Key System Features:

• Collects data on HAB events, human illnesses, and animal illnesses through state and territorial participation [103]
• Standardizes reporting of health effects including respiratory, dermatological, gastrointestinal, and neurological symptoms [103]
• Tracks both domestic animal and wildlife affected by HAB exposures [103]
• Provides critical data for developing protective policies and public health advisories [103]

Comparative Analysis of One Health Methodologies

Experimental Protocols and Data Collection Frameworks

Cross-Sectoral Monitoring Approaches: Successful One Health implementation requires methodological harmonization across human, animal, and environmental health sectors. The EPA's work in both AMR and pollution management demonstrates several transferable approaches:

Integrated Sample Collection:

• Watershed-based sampling designs account for multiple pollution sources (WWTP effluents, agricultural runoff, industrial discharge) [100]
• Paired sampling upstream and downstream of potential point sources enables source attribution [100]
• Multi-matrix analysis (water, sediment, biosolids) provides comprehensive exposure assessment [104]

Advanced Analytical Techniques:

• High-throughput sequencing technologies enable comprehensive profiling of microbial communities and resistance genes [98]
• Geospatial information systems (GIS) support mapping and analysis of contamination hotspots [98]
• Risk assessment frameworks adapted for environmental AMR incorporate unique aspects like colonization potential and gene transfer [100]

Figure 2: Environmental AMR Assessment Workflow

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methods

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for One Health Environmental Monitoring

Reagent/Method	Function	One Health Application
EPA Standard Method for E. coli	Culture-based detection of fecal indicator bacteria	Adapted for cefotaxime-resistant E. coli monitoring [100]
DeepARG database	Deep learning-based annotation of antibiotic resistance genes	Classification of ARGs from metagenomic data according to mechanism and drug class [100]
mobileOG database	Comprehensive catalog of mobile genetic elements	Assessing ARG mobility potential across environments [100]
Quantitative PCR assays	Targeted detection of specific ARG sequences	Tracking clinically relevant resistance genes in environmental samples [100]
CRDM modeling	Climatological regional dispersion modeling	Predicting air pollutant transport and exposure impacts [102]
Source-receptor matrix	Mathematical modeling of pollution sources	Identifying contributors to air quality issues [102]

The EPA case studies examined demonstrate that effective One Health interventions for complex issues like antimicrobial resistance and pollution management require standardized methodologies, cross-sectoral collaboration, and advanced analytical frameworks. The successful integration of environmental monitoring with human and animal health surveillance creates a powerful paradigm for addressing multifaceted health challenges.

For researchers and drug development professionals working within green chemistry and pharmaceutical development, these case studies offer several transferable insights:

• Environmental dimensions of health challenges require systematic assessment alongside clinical and veterinary aspects
• Molecular tools like metagenomic sequencing and specialized databases enable tracking of contaminants and resistance elements across One Health compartments
• Source attribution approaches are critical for designing targeted interventions rather than blanket solutions
• Quantitative risk assessment frameworks must be adapted to account for unique environmental transmission pathways

The EPA's work continues to evolve, with ongoing research focused on developing more sensitive detection methods, refining risk assessment models, and strengthening the evidence base connecting environmental management to health outcomes across species. As the One Health paradigm gains traction, these case studies provide valuable templates for integrating environmental protection with broader health protection goals.

The One Health approach recognizes that the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment are deeply interconnected [7]. This is critically evident in the context of zoonotic diseases—infections naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and humans—which account for approximately 60-75% of emerging human infectious diseases [105] [106]. Simultaneously, ecosystem degradation threatens the services that support life and health, creating a complex interface where disease emergence and environmental preservation intersect. This guide compares the evidence base for interventions in these intertwined domains, providing researchers with quantitative data and methodological frameworks to evaluate the societal benefits of integrated approaches.

Quantitative Benefits of Zoonotic Disease Control

Controlling zoonotic diseases requires understanding their substantial health and economic burdens, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), which bear approximately 98% of the global burden of endemic zoonoses [107]. The table below summarizes the quantified impact of major zoonotic diseases and the effectiveness of control interventions.

Table 1: Quantified Burden and Control Effectiveness for Select Zoonotic Diseases

Disease / Pathogen	Health Burden / Impact	Control Intervention	Intervention Efficacy & Societal Benefit
Taenia solium (Pork Tapeworm)	>176 DALYs*/100,000 people in Africa-E sub-region; leading cause of acquired epilepsy in endemic regions [107].	Porcine vaccination (TSOL18/"Cysvax") & Oxfendazole (OFZ) treatment [107].	Vaccine is >99% effective; OFZ treatment shows high efficacy with private farmer benefits from concurrent nematode control, improving feed conversion & kill-out percentage [107].
Rabies	Nearly 100% fatal after onset of symptoms; disproportionate burden in Africa and Asia [108].	One Health control programs integrating mass dog vaccination, post-exposure prophylaxis, and public awareness [108].	Proven successful elimination in some regions; highly cost-effective when integrating strategies, especially in low-income countries [108].
Zoonotic Spillover Events	Driver of most modern pandemics (e.g., HIV, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, Ebola) [105] [106].	Biodiversity conservation, regulation of wildlife trade, and reduced habitat encroachment [109] [106].	Pre-empts immense economic and health costs of pandemics; conservation enhances ecosystem ability to regulate spillover via direct and indirect pathways [109].
Avian Influenza Virus	Zoonotic potential, especially highly pathogenic strains; global spread risk via wild bird migration [108].	Surveillance at human-animal interfaces, understanding ecological drivers in wild birds [108].	Critical for early detection and predicting future disease risks in the face of global change [108].

DALY: Disability-Adjusted Life Year, a measure of overall disease burden.

Experimental and Observational Methodologies for Zoonotic Disease Control

The quantitative data in Table 1 is derived from specific research methodologies that provide the evidence base for intervention efficacy.

• Field Trials for Pharmaceutical Interventions: The efficacy of the TSOL18 vaccine and Oxfendazole is established through controlled field trials in endemic settings. These trials typically involve randomizing pig populations into treatment and control groups, followed by monitoring for porcine cysticercosis (PCC) prevalence through antigen ELISA tests or tongue examination, and tracking incidence of human taeniosis and cysticercosis [107]. The green synthesis pathway for Tafenoquine (an anti-malarial with zoonotic relevance) represents an application of Green Chemistry principles, utilizing a two-step one-pot synthesis to prevent waste, a key metric for which is the E-factor (kg waste/kg product) [1].

• One Health Program Evaluation: The effectiveness of integrated rabies control is measured via Stepwise Approach towards Rabies Elimination (SARE) tool. This is a mixed-methods approach involving quantitative metrics (e.g., dog vaccination coverage, human rabies cases) and qualitative assessments of inter-sectoral collaboration and surveillance system strength to identify critical gaps and track progress toward elimination [108].

• Ecological and Epidemiological Modeling: Assessing the spillover risk of pathogens like Avian Influenza involves ecological studies of host migration patterns, virus prevalence in wild populations, and surveillance at high-risk human-animal interfaces. These studies use molecular diagnostics, geographic information systems (GIS), and statistical modeling to identify risk factors and predict emergence [106] [108].

Quantifying Ecosystem Preservation Benefits

Ecosystem preservation supports health by regulating zoonoses and providing essential services. The table below summarizes evidence on the benefits of specific conservation strategies.

Table 2: Quantified Benefits of Ecosystem Preservation and Conservation Management

Conservation Strategy	Ecosystem Service(s) Targeted	Quantified Benefit / Valuation Method
Biodiversity Conservation (e.g., Protected Areas)	Regulation of zoonotic spillover; provisioning services (food, water); cultural services [109].	Conservation directly & indirectly enhances ecosystem ability to regulate spillover. Non-use value* of coral reef preservation comprises 25-40% of total willingness to pay for protection [110].
On-Farm Conservation Land Management (e.g., agroforestry, soil fertilisation, water conservation)	Supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil formation- 55% of studies); Regulating (e.g., carbon sequestration, water regulation- 33% of studies) [111].	A systematic map identified 746 studies globally; soil fertilisation (24% of studies) and tillage (23%) were most researched. Evidence shows benefits for soil health and resilience, though trade-offs exist (e.g., no-till can cause soil compaction) [111].
Sustainable Intensification & Multifunctional Agriculture	Simultaneous food and non-food production; biodiversity maintenance; climate resilience [111].	Aims to close the "yield gap" in developing countries, where croplands yield below potential. Reduces pressure for agricultural expansion and associated deforestation, which accounts for 75% of global deforestation [111].

Non-use value: Economic value assigned by individuals to ecosystem goods and services unrelated to current or future uses [110].

Methodologies for Valuing Ecosystem Services

The quantification of ecosystem benefits relies on distinct methodological frameworks.

• Stated Preference Valuation: The choice experiment method is used to estimate non-use values. Individuals are presented with hypothetical scenarios involving different levels of ecosystem protection at varying costs. Their choices are analyzed to derive a Willingness to Pay (WTP) for preservation beyond their own lifespan, providing a monetary estimate of non-market benefits [110].

• Systematic Mapping of Evidence: This methodology, as applied to on-farm conservation, involves rigorous, repeatable searches of peer-reviewed and grey literature across multiple databases (e.g., Web of Science, SCOPUS). Following an a priori protocol, studies are screened and coded against a defined database field structure (e.g., practice type, ecosystem service, crop, region) to describe the nature, volume, and characteristics of a broad evidence base, identifying trends and knowledge gaps without a full quality appraisal [111].

• Direct Measurement of Ecological Parameters: Studies on the impact of conservation land management (e.g., tillage, agroforestry) on supporting and regulating services measure direct ecological indicators. These include soil organic carbon stocks for carbon sequestration, water infiltration rates for water regulation, and nutrient leaching for nutrient cycling, often comparing managed plots against control sites over time [111].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

This table details key reagents, materials, and tools essential for research at the nexus of zoonotic disease control and ecosystem health.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for One Health Research

Reagent / Material / Tool	Function / Application in One Health Research
TSOL18 Antigen (Cysvax)	Key antigenic component of a commercially produced vaccine used in field trials to prevent Taenia solium infection in the porcine intermediate host, thereby breaking the parasite lifecycle [107].
Oxfendazole (OFZ)	Benzimidazole anthelmintic used as a single 30 mg/kg oral dose in pigs to treat T. solium cysticerci. Also exhibits efficacy against other production-limiting nematodes, providing a private benefit to farmers and a synergy for intervention uptake [107].
Choice Experiment Surveys	A stated preference valuation tool used in environmental economics to quantify the non-market value (both use and non-use) of ecosystem services by presenting respondents with trade-offs between alternative conservation scenarios [110].
Antigen ELISA Kits	Critical diagnostic tool for serological surveillance of pathogens like T. solium in pig populations or Avian Influenza in wild birds, enabling measurement of infection prevalence and intervention impact in field studies [107] [108].
Green Chemistry Metrics (e.g., E-Factor)	A set of metrics used to evaluate the environmental footprint of chemical processes, such as drug synthesis. The E-factor (kg waste/kg product) helps drive sustainable pharmaceutical development by promoting waste prevention [1].

Integrated Pathways for a One Health Approach

The following diagram illustrates the logical framework and interconnected pathways through which a One Health approach, integrating green chemistry principles, acts to simultaneously enhance zoonotic disease control and ecosystem preservation.

One Health Action for Societal Benefit Logic Model

Comparative Analysis of Benefits and Trade-offs

Effective intervention requires acknowledging synergies and trade-offs. Controlling Taenia solium with oxfendazole creates a positive synergy by also controlling production-limiting nematodes, boosting farmer income and willingness to participate [107]. However, it introduces potential trade-offs, including the risk of developing anthelmintic resistance, ecotoxicity from persistent drug residues in the environment, and human health concerns if meat is consumed before the drug withdrawal period ends [107]. Conversely, biodiversity conservation primarily offers synergies—reducing spillover risk while providing essential services like food and water—but may require trade-offs against short-term economic gains from land conversion [109].

The evidence base reveals a crucial distinction in benefit quantification: zoonotic disease control yields more direct, quantifiable health and economic metrics (e.g., DALYs averted, cost-benefit ratios), while ecosystem preservation generates significant non-market values (e.g., non-use values, resilience) that are equally critical but methodologically challenging to capture. A unified One Health assessment, incorporating Green Chemistry principles in pharmaceutical development and valuing ecosystem services, is essential for holistic decision-making that maximizes societal benefit [1] [107] [110].

The pharmaceutical industry faces a critical challenge: balancing the urgent need for innovative therapies with the escalating demands for environmental sustainability and economic viability. This analysis examines the economic implications of sustainable chemistry through the integrative lens of the One Health approach, which recognizes the inextricable connections between human health, animal health, and environmental sustainability. Traditional pharmaceutical manufacturing has often relied on processes that generate substantial waste, utilize hazardous materials, and consume significant energy – creating unintended consequences across ecosystems that ultimately feedback to human health. The implementation of green chemistry principles and sustainable pharmacy practices offers a paradigm shift toward aligning drug development with this holistic perspective [112]. By evaluating the economic dimensions of this transition, we provide drug development professionals with a structured framework to quantify both the direct financial benefits and the broader systemic advantages of adopting sustainable chemistry methodologies that respect the interconnected nature of our health systems.

Sustainable Chemistry Principles and Economic Drivers

Foundational Concepts and Metrics

Sustainable chemistry in the pharmaceutical sector encompasses more than just pollution control; it involves the fundamental redesign of chemical synthesis and manufacturing processes to reduce environmental impact while maintaining economic productivity. The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry provide the conceptual framework for this approach, emphasizing waste prevention, atom economy, safer chemicals, and energy efficiency [34]. However, as these principles are primarily conceptual, the scientific community has developed quantitative metrics to objectively evaluate and compare the "greenness" of alternative processes. These metrics enable researchers to make data-driven decisions early in drug development when process changes are most cost-effective to implement [34] [113].

The transition toward sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing is driven by converging factors including regulatory pressures, resource scarcity, cost containment imperatives, and growing recognition of the pharmaceutical industry's environmental footprint. Particularly in the context of One Health, the environmental impact of pharmaceutical manufacturing – from solvent selection to energy consumption and waste generation – is increasingly understood as having direct implications for ecosystem integrity and public health [112]. The economic analysis of sustainable chemistry must therefore account for both conventional financial metrics and broader societal benefits that align with the One Health perspective.

Key Metrics for Economic and Environmental Assessment

Table 1: Essential Green Chemistry Metrics for Economic Assessment

Metric	Calculation	Economic Interpretation	One Health Connection
Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	Total mass in process (kg) / Mass of product (kg)	Measures resource efficiency; lower PMI reduces material costs and waste disposal expenses	Reduces environmental burden across ecosystems, benefiting planetary health
Atom Economy	(Molecular weight of product / Molecular weight of reactants) × 100%	Theoretical maximum efficiency; higher percentage indicates better resource utilization	Minimizes depletion of finite resources, supporting sustainable resource management
E-Factor	Total waste (kg) / Product (kg)	Quantifies waste generation; lower E-factor decreases waste treatment costs	Directly reduces pollution load on environment, aligning with One Health objectives
Effective Mass Yield	(Mass of product / Mass of non-benign reagents) × 100%	Focuses on hazardous material reduction; higher percentage indicates safer process	Decreases release of toxic substances into environment, protecting ecosystem health

Quantitative Economic Comparisons: Traditional vs. Sustainable Approaches

Cost Analysis of Generic vs. Branded Pharmaceuticals

The economic implications of pharmaceutical production extend beyond manufacturing processes to include market dynamics that affect accessibility. A prospective observational study comparing generic and branded ceftriaxone for enteric fever treatment revealed substantial cost differences with direct implications for treatment adherence and outcomes. The analysis of 100 patients demonstrated that branded drugs were 3.12% to 200.84% more expensive than generic equivalents for single-dose injections [114]. This cost disparity translated directly to treatment outcomes, with 30% of patients prescribed the most expensive brand discontinuing treatment prematurely compared to only 5% in the generic drug group [114]. These findings demonstrate how economic factors in pharmaceutical production and pricing directly influence therapeutic outcomes – a core concern of the One Health approach that connects economic accessibility to effective healthcare delivery.

Resource Efficiency and Waste Reduction Economics

The implementation of sustainable chemistry principles directly impacts manufacturing economics through improved resource efficiency. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has identified Process Mass Intensity as a key metric for pharmaceutical sustainability, measuring the total mass of materials used per unit of product [113]. Companies that have systematically implemented green chemistry principles report significant reductions in PMI, corresponding to substantial cost savings in raw materials, solvent recovery, and waste disposal. For example, continuous flow synthesis – a green engineering approach – typically demonstrates 30-70% improvements in atom economy compared to batch processes by enabling better reaction control and reducing purification steps [115]. These efficiency gains translate directly to reduced environmental impact through lower resource extraction and decreased waste generation, creating a positive feedback loop that benefits both economic performance and ecosystem health.

Table 2: Economic Comparison of Traditional vs. Green Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Parameter	Traditional Approach	Sustainable Approach	Economic Impact
Solvent Usage	High volumes of hazardous solvents (e.g., dichloromethane, chloroform)	Green solvents (e.g., water, ethanol, bio-based solvents)	40-60% reduction in solvent costs; lower regulatory compliance expenses
Energy Consumption	Energy-intensive batch processing with extended reaction times	Continuous flow systems with optimized reaction kinetics	25-50% energy savings; smaller manufacturing footprint
Waste Generation	High E-factor (25-100+ kg waste/kg product)	Optimized processes with E-factor <10-25	30-70% reduction in waste disposal costs
Raw Material Efficiency	Conventional catalysts with heavy metals; limited atom economy	Biocatalysts, renewable feedstocks; improved atom economy	20-40% reduction in raw material costs; reduced catalyst expenses

Methodologies for Evaluating Sustainable Chemistry Interventions

Experimental Protocols for Green Chemistry Assessment

Researchers evaluating sustainable chemistry interventions should implement standardized assessment protocols to ensure comparability of results. The following methodology provides a framework for comprehensive evaluation:

• Baseline Establishment: Document current process parameters including reaction yield, energy consumption, material inputs, waste outputs, and associated costs for the conventional manufacturing approach.

• Sustainable Intervention Implementation: Introduce green chemistry alternatives such as:

  • Green synthesis routes utilizing renewable feedstocks and biocatalysts [115]
  • Continuous flow systems to enhance reaction control and reduce resource intensity [115]
  • Alternative energy sources (microwave, ultrasound) to improve reaction efficiency [34]
  • Green analytical techniques that minimize hazardous reagents [115]

• Data Collection and Metric Calculation: Quantify process outcomes using green chemistry metrics (Table 1) alongside conventional economic indicators. This should include comprehensive life cycle inventory analysis where feasible.

• Comparative Analysis: Evaluate sustainable interventions against baseline performance across technical, economic, and environmental dimensions.

• One Health Impact Assessment: Extend the analysis to include potential implications for environmental and ecosystem health through reduced toxic emissions, lower resource extraction impacts, and improved medication accessibility.

This methodological framework enables consistent evaluation of sustainable chemistry interventions while capturing the interconnected benefits emphasized by the One Health approach.

Emerging Assessment Technologies

The evaluation of sustainable chemistry benefits is being transformed by digital technologies, particularly Generative Artificial Intelligence (gen AI). These systems can optimize chemical reactions and predict optimal conditions for maximum yield and minimal waste, significantly reducing the experimental resources required for process development [115]. AI algorithms can analyze vast datasets to identify alternative green solvents with reduced toxicity and improved biodegradability profiles, simultaneously assessing their economic feasibility. Furthermore, machine learning approaches can propose molecular modifications that enhance biodegradability while maintaining therapeutic efficacy – a direct contribution to environmental health within the One Health framework [115]. These computational tools accelerate the identification of sustainable alternatives while providing more comprehensive assessment of their potential impacts across multiple dimensions.

Diagram 1: One Health Assessment Framework for Sustainable Pharmaceutical Chemistry. This visualization illustrates the interconnected relationships between green chemistry principles, One Health dimensions, and sustainable outcomes in pharmaceutical development.

The Research Toolkit for Sustainable Pharmaceutical Chemistry

Essential Reagents and Technologies

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Sustainable Pharmaceutical Chemistry

Reagent/Technology	Function	Traditional Alternative	Sustainable Advantage
Biocatalysts (Enzymes)	Selective catalysis for specific reactions	Heavy metal catalysts	Biodegradable, renewable, higher selectivity reduces byproducts
Bio-based Solvents	Reaction medium for synthesis	Petroleum-derived solvents (e.g., dichloromethane)	Lower toxicity, renewable feedstocks, reduced environmental persistence
Continuous Flow Reactors	Enable continuous chemical production	Batch reactors	Improved energy efficiency, better reaction control, smaller footprint
Renewable Feedstocks	Starting materials for synthesis	Petrochemical feedstocks	Reduced fossil fuel dependence, potentially carbon-neutral
Green Chromatography Systems	Purification and analysis	Conventional HPLC with hazardous solvents	Reduced solvent consumption, safer mobile phases

The research toolkit for implementing sustainable chemistry continues to expand with innovative solutions that directly address the economic and environmental challenges in pharmaceutical development. Biocatalysts represent particularly promising tools, offering exceptional selectivity that reduces the need for protection/deprotection steps and minimizes waste generation [115]. The integration of continuous processing technologies enables more efficient heat and mass transfer, leading to improved reaction yields and significantly reduced resource consumption [115]. Additionally, the application of generative AI for molecular design and reaction optimization represents a transformative digital tool that can accelerate the identification of sustainable alternatives while predicting their economic and environmental performance [115]. These technologies collectively enable pharmaceutical researchers to implement the principles of green chemistry while maintaining economic competitiveness.

Integrated Discussion: Synthesizing Economic and One Health Perspectives

The economic case for sustainable chemistry in pharmaceuticals extends beyond direct manufacturing cost savings to encompass broader systemic benefits that align with the One Health perspective. When evaluating sustainable chemistry interventions, researchers must consider the full value chain impacts, including reduced environmental remediation costs, improved public health outcomes from decreased pharmaceutical pollution, and enhanced medication accessibility through lower production costs [112] [114]. The integration of green chemistry principles with the One Health approach creates a virtuous cycle where improved environmental health supports better human and animal health outcomes, which in turn reduces healthcare burdens and creates more sustainable economic systems.

The pharmaceutical industry's transition toward sustainable chemistry practices represents both an ethical imperative and an economic opportunity. As research continues to demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of green chemistry implementations – from cost savings of 20-60% in manufacturing to reductions of 30-70% in waste generation – the business case becomes increasingly compelling. Furthermore, regulatory frameworks are increasingly favoring sustainable approaches, with health agencies worldwide beginning to incorporate environmental criteria into medication assessment processes. By adopting the metrics, methodologies, and technologies outlined in this analysis, drug development professionals can simultaneously advance human health through innovative therapies, protect environmental health through sustainable manufacturing, and ensure economic viability through efficient processes – ultimately embodying the holistic integration envisioned by the One Health approach.

This cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the economic implications of sustainable chemistry in pharmaceuticals extend far beyond simple manufacturing cost calculations. When viewed through the integrative lens of the One Health approach, sustainable chemistry emerges as a multidimensional strategy that simultaneously addresses economic efficiency, environmental protection, and public health advancement. The quantitative metrics and comparative methodologies presented provide researchers and drug development professionals with practical tools to evaluate and implement sustainable alternatives that offer compelling economic advantages while aligning with broader planetary health objectives. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to evolve in response to sustainability challenges, the integration of green chemistry principles with comprehensive economic assessment will be essential for creating a resilient, accessible, and environmentally responsible medication supply chain that serves the interconnected health of humans, animals, and ecosystems.

Conclusion

The integration of One Health and green chemistry principles represents a paradigm shift essential for sustainable pharmaceutical development. This synthesis demonstrates that a holistic approach—assessing drugs across human, animal, and environmental health—is both methodologically feasible and critically necessary. By adopting the frameworks and metrics outlined, researchers and drug developers can proactively reduce ecological harm, mitigate antimicrobial resistance, and prevent zoonotic diseases while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. Future directions require embedding these concepts into educational curricula, regulatory standards, and corporate governance. The emerging focus on microbiomes and systems thinking offers promising avenues for innovation. Ultimately, this integrated approach transforms drug development from a sectoral activity into a cornerstone of planetary health stewardship, ensuring that therapeutic advances do not come at the expense of ecosystem integrity or future health security.

References

• 1. Harnessing the 12 Green for Sustainable... Chemistry Principles [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11184551/]
• 2. 12 Principles of Green - American Chemistry Society Chemical [https://www.acs.org/green-chemistry-sustainability/principles/12-principles-of-green-chemistry.html]
• 3. Occupational safety and health , green , and sustainability... chemistry [https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-12-31]
• 4. A new era for green and plastics: turning plants into... - cefic chemistry [https://cefic.org/case-study/a-new-era-for-green-chemistry-and-plastics-turning-plants-into-high-performance-materials/]
• 5. Integrating “One Health” Concepts in the Design of Sustainable Systems for Environmental Use - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10055774/]
• 6. Market | Global Market Analysis Report - 2035 Green Chemicals [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/green-chemicals-market]
• 7. : a unified approach for a healthier future - ECHA One Health [https://echa.europa.eu/one-health]
• 8. Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism [https://www.ledonline.it/index.php/relations]
• 9. : The Moral and Strategic Philosophy... Beyond Anthropocentrism [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390778/]
• 10. Chapter 10 - Page 2 [https://www.boomer.org/c/p4/c10/c1002.php]
• 11. Bioequivalence - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioequivalence]
• 12. : Embracing a Beyond Worldview for... Anthropocentrism Holistic [https://www.knowway.org/en/beyond-anthropocentrism-embracing-a-holistic-worldview-for-a-sustainable-future]
• 13. Pharmaceutical Equivalents/ Alternatives/ Substitution - Pharma Mirror Magazine [https://www.pharmamirror.com/knowledge-base/pharmaceutical-dictionary/pharmaceutical-equivalents-alternatives-substitution/]
• 14. ACS honors sustainable chemistry innovators with 2025 ... Green [https://cen.acs.org/acs-news/ACS-honors-sustainable-chemistry-innovators/103/web/2025/09]
• 15. Biomarkers of Environmental Toxicants: Exposure and Biological Effects - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7356252/]
• 16. A critical review of biomarkers in toxicology and risk assessment of environmental pollutants [https://www.agriscigroup.us/articles/AEST-8-175.php]
• 17. Biomarkers of Environmental Pollutants - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4284972/]
• 18. in Blood - The Chemical - Greenpeace Nederland Footprints Evidence [https://www.greenpeace.org/nl/algemeen/4097/chemical-footprints-in-blood-the-evidence/]
• 19. Green chemistry - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_chemistry]
• 20. Occupational safety and health, green chemistry, and sustainability: a review of areas of convergence - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3639149/]
• 21. approaches to Integrated : A paradigmatic, methodological and... health [https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/integrated-approaches-to-health-a-paradigmatic-methodological-and/]
• 22. One Medicine, One Health, One World - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4790223/]
• 23. One Health History | One Health | CDC [https://www.cdc.gov/one-health/about/one-health-history.html]
• 24. - Wikipedia Planetary health [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_health]
• 25. Planetary health and its relevance in the modern era: A topical review - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11107315/]
• 26. What is Planetary ? - Health Alliance Planetary Health [https://planetaryhealthalliance.org/what-is-planetary-health/]
• 27. Frontiers | Editorial: Challenges and successes of One in the... Health [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1081067/full]
• 28. and well-being take the stage at the 29th annual Health ... Green [https://cen.acs.org/acs-news/meetings/Health-well-being-take-stage/103/web/2025/06]
• 29. ELRIG 2025 : Integrating Sustainability in Drug Development [https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/Shaping-a-Greener-Sustainable-Future-in-Drug-Development-Insights-From-ELRIG-2025.aspx]
• 30. One Health and Roles of Chemical Sciences , Science Journal of Chemistry, Science Publishing Group [https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.sjc.20251303.12]
• 31. Green Chemistry Metrics with Special Reference to Green Analytical Chemistry - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6272361/]
• 32. Green chemistry metrics - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_chemistry_metrics]
• 33. Medicinal Chemistry: A Key Driver in Achieving the Global Sustainable Development Goals - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11998007/]
• 34. Green Chemistry Metrics, A Review [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/10/7/1274]
• 35. analytical Green for evaluating the chemistry of... metrics greenness [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11697060/]
• 36. in Life : overview of key... cycle assessment green chemistry [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-012-0500-1]
• 37. Green chemistry metrics: Insights from case studies in fine chemical processes - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352554125001603]
• 38. in Sustainability : What Pharma Holds 2025 [https://www.laboratoriosrubio.com/en/sustainability-pharma-trends-2025/]
• 39. Pharmaceuticals in the environment --Global occurrences and... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26666847/]
• 40. WHO calls for transformative action towards a greener future in pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution [https://www.who.int/news/item/23-12-2024-who-calls-for-transformative-action-towards-a-greener-future-in-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-and-distribution]
• 41. Sustainability by Design for Pharmaceutical Products | Pharmaceutical Engineering [https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/march-april-2023/sustainability-design-pharmaceutical-products]
• 42. Ecologically expanding the One framework to unify the... Health [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40353651/]
• 43. : The Microbiome Connecting Link | SpringerLink One Health [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-80029-0_1]
• 44. Drug-microbiota interactions: an emerging priority for precision medicine | Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01619-w]
• 45. Interaction between drugs and the gut microbiome - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32409589/]
• 46. Integrating the gut microbiome and pharmacology - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12121898/]
• 47. Microbiome drug development: Analysis of the historical pipeline reveals promising areas and bottlenecks - Microbiome Times Magazine [https://www.microbiometimes.com/microbiome-drug-development-analysis-of-the-historical-pipeline-reveals-promising-areas-and-bottlenecks/]
• 48. Gut Microbiome Integration in Drug and Development of... Discovery [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38307852/]
• 49. Advancing functional and translational microbiome research using... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-019-0767-6]
• 50. Metaproteomics in the One framework for unraveling microbial... Health [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-025-02119-5]
• 51. The Time is Now for Microbiome Studies [https://www.illumina.com/science/customer-stories/icommunity-customer-interviews-case-studies/petrosino-diversigen-microbiome.html]
• 52. Review of antibiotic - resistant bacteria and antibiotic ... resistance [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10868463/]
• 53. Frontiers | Addressing the global challenge of bacterial drug resistance: insights, strategies, and future directions [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1517772/full]
• 54. Greener Drugs: Benign - By - Design Strategies [https://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i13/Greener-Drugs-BenignDesign-Strategies.html]
• 55. Frontiers | Gene Transmission in the One Microbiosphere and... Health [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02892/full]
• 56. Green synthesis and evaluation of dual herb-extracted DHM-AgNPs: Antimicrobial efficacy and low ecotoxicity in agricultural and aquatic systems - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479724028354]
• 57. Recent Advances in ZnO-Based Nanocomposites for Amoxicillin Photocatalytic Degradation and Adsorption in Wastewater: A Review | Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10904-025-03943-w]
• 58. , One World: Tackling One Through... Health Antimicrobial Resistance [https://annalskemu.org/journal/index.php/annals/article/view/6262]
• 59. Frontiers | Antimicrobial at a turning point: resistance ... microbial [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1698809/full]
• 60. Veterinary Medicine Needs New Green Antimicrobial Drugs - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4971058/]
• 61. Frontiers | Veterinary Medicine Needs New Green Antimicrobial Drugs [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01196/full]
• 62. Frontiers | Evaluating antimicrobial activity of selected medicinal plant... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2025.1563208/full]
• 63. Modelling concentrations of antimicrobial : drugs ... comparative [https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-016-0817-2]
• 64. Veterinary Medicine Needs New Green Antimicrobial Drugs - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27536285/]
• 65. Editorial: Green Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology: a “One Health” Approach milestone - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11417102/]
• 66. Breaking the silos : integrated approaches to foster sustainable... [https://sustainableearthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42055-024-00102-w]
• 67. One Health [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/one-health]
• 68. approach to Quantitative made easi... Green Chemistry [https://communities.acs.org/t5/GCI-Nexus-Blog/Quantitative-approach-to-Green-Chemistry-made-easier-with-DOZN-2/ba-p/15584]
• 69. Bridging Silos and Overcoming Antipatterns in... - InfoQ Collaboration [https://www.infoq.com/articles/bridging-silos-overcoming-collaboration-antipatterns/]
• 70. Enhancing Multi-Sector Collaboration and Integrating Nature-Based... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40588-025-00257-w]
• 71. and enablers to the implementation of Barriers strategies... one health [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10701386/]
• 72. and Green : Bridging the Chemistry Gap Chemicals Policy Policy [https://greenchemuoft.wordpress.com/2024/06/19/green-chemistry-and-chemicals-policy-bridging-the-policy-gap/]
• 73. Navigating Regulatory in Hurdles Drug Development [https://blog.drugbank.com/navigating-regulatory-hurdles-in-drug-development/]
• 74. Harnessing the 12 Green Chemistry Principles for Sustainable Antiparasitic Drugs: Toward the One Health Approach - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38724015/]
• 75. Real-World Evidence in Drug & How it's Helpful Development [https://www.straive.com/blogs/real-world-evidence-in-drug-development-from-regulatory-hurdle-to-competitive-advantage/]
• 76. Data Integration Challenges for Machine Learning in Precision Medicine - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8821900/]
• 77. 7 Data Integration Challenges and How to Fix Them [https://www.workato.com/the-connector/data-integration-challenges/]
• 78. Frontiers | A Systems Approach to Evaluate One Health Initiatives [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2018.00023/full]
• 79. The Network for Evaluation of One Health: evidence-based added value of One Health - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590410/]
• 80. Network for Evaluation of One Health – NEOH [https://neoh.onehealthglobal.net/]
• 81. The Network for the Evaluation of One Health ( NEOH ) / the Network... [https://www.rvc.ac.uk/research/projects/veeph/the-network-for-the-evaluation-of-one-health-neoh-the-network-for-ecohealth-and-one-health-neoh]
• 82. Evaluating integrated surveillance of antimicrobial resistance: experiences from use of three evaluation tools - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X20301592]
• 83. Assessment of Evaluation for Integrated Surveillance of... Tools [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34307513/]
• 84. building in Higher Capacity - Erasmus+ Education [https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-b/key-action-2/capacity-building-higher-education]
• 85. : Definition, Examples, Types, Methods, & Analysis Quantitative Data [https://userpilot.com/blog/quantitative-data/]
• 86. vs. Proactive Strategies - ZenGRC Reactive Risk Management [https://www.zengrc.com/blog/proactive-vs-reactive-risk-management-strategies/]
• 87. Healthcare Risk : Management vs. Proactive Solutions Reactive [https://www.performancehealthus.com/blog/healthcare-risk-management-proactive-reactive]
• 88. Design of experiments - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments]
• 89. Experimental Design and Data Analysis - Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10221/]
• 90. Principles and indicators for assessing the environmental dimension of sustainability within green and sustainable chemistry - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452223622000669]
• 91. Principles of green chemistry: building a sustainable future | Discover Chemistry [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44371-025-00152-9]
• 92. Green environmental assessment and rating for solvents (GEARS) as an innovative tool for solvent selection - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554125002554]
• 93. Statistics and Facts ( Green ) Chemicals 2025 [https://media.market.us/green-chemicals-statistics/]
• 94. Frontiers | ChemESI (Chemical Environmental Sustainability Index)—A KPI (Key Performance Indicator) for Standardizing Environmental Metrics for Chemical Sustainability [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainability/articles/10.3389/frsus.2022.834849/full]
• 95. Analysis | National Institute of... Environmental Health Economic [https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/articles_journals/eheaNIEHS]
• 96. of the Comparison validation traditional ... pharmaceutical method [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27145386/]
• 97. | US One Health EPA [https://www.epa.gov/one-health]
• 98. Research 448: Antimicrobial and the Environment... Resistance [https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/environment--health/research-448-antimicrobial-resistance-and-the-environment--sources-persistence-transmission-and-risk-management-arest.php]
• 99. Geospatial Patterns of Antimicrobial Genes in the US... Resistance [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35737903/]
• 100. Monitoring AMR in water to reduce the spread of infection [https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/monitoring-amr-in-water-to-reduce-the-spread-of-infection/55406/]
• 101. 2 Health Benefits Analyses: EPA | Estimating the Public... Case Studies [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10511/chapter/4]
• 102. Benefits Analyses: Health ... - NCBI Bookshelf EPA Case Studies [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221028/]
• 103. and Examples | US One Health Case Studies EPA [https://www.epa.gov/one-health/one-health-case-studies-and-examples]
• 104. Wastewater Contaminants Research | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/wastewater-contaminants-research]
• 105. : Etiology, Impact, and Zoonotic - PMC Diseases Control [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7563794/]
• 106. Zoonotic spillover: Understanding basic aspects for better prevention - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8182890/]
• 107. Frontiers | Maximising Societal Benefit From the Control of Neglected... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.794257/full]
• 108. Zoonotic Disease | Center for Global Health Science and Security | Georgetown University [https://ghss.georgetown.edu/ihr2005resources/p4/]
• 109. Biodiversity conservation to control zoonotic disease spillover [https://www.ilri.org/news/biodiversity-conservation-control-zoonotic-disease-spillover]
• 110. Non-market use and non-use values for preserving ... ecosystem [https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/non-market-use-and-non-use-values-for-preserving-ecosystem-servic]
• 111. What evidence exists for the effectiveness of on-farm conservation land... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9]
• 112. sciencedirect.com/journal/ sustainable - chemistry -and- pharmacy [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-chemistry-and-pharmacy]
• 113. Green Chemistry and Engineering Metrics - American Chemical Society [https://www.acs.org/green-chemistry-sustainability/research-innovation/engineerings-metrics.html]
• 114. (PDF) Comparison of Generic and Branded Drugs on Cost Effective... [https://www.academia.edu/129052978/Comparison_of_Generic_and_Branded_Drugs_on_Cost_Effective_and_Cost_Benefit_Analysis]
• 115. Labs Using Green Sustainable | Pharma ... Chemistry Pharmaceutical [https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/ispeak/sustainable-pharma-labs-using-green-chemistry]