PMI Benchmarking in Pharma: A Comprehensive Guide to Sustainability for Small Molecules and Biologics

Abstract

This article provides a detailed comparative analysis of Process Mass Intensity (PMI) as a key sustainability metric for small molecule and biologic drug manufacturing. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and development professionals, it explores the foundational principles of PMI, methodologies for calculation and benchmarking, strategies for process optimization, and a direct comparison of environmental efficiency between therapeutic modalities. The analysis synthesizes current industry data, revealing that small molecule processes typically exhibit a PMI of 168-308, significantly lower than biologics (~8,300) and synthetic peptides (~13,000), and discusses the critical limitations of PMI, advocating for a more holistic view of sustainability that includes energy consumption and advanced lifecycle assessments to guide the industry toward greener manufacturing.

Understanding Process Mass Intensity: The Cornerstone of Pharma Sustainability Metrics

Defining Process Mass Intensity (PMI) and Its Role in Green Chemistry

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) is a key metric used to benchmark the environmental "greenness" of manufacturing processes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. It measures the total mass of materials used to produce a given mass of a product, thereby driving innovation towards more efficient and sustainable chemical synthesis by optimizing the use of reactants, reagents, solvents, and catalysts [1].

Article Contents

• Quantifying Process Sustainability: Core Principles of PMI
• Measuring Efficiency: The PMI Calculation and Methodology
• Industry Tools and Adoption: From Calculation to Innovation
• Comparative Analysis: PMI in Small Molecule vs. Biologics Production
• A Critical Perspective: Proper Application and Limitations of PMI
• Research Toolkit: Essential Solutions for Sustainable Process Development

Quantifying Process Sustainability: Core Principles of PMI

Process Mass Intensity provides a holistic view of the resource efficiency of a chemical process. Unlike metrics focused solely on yield, PMI accounts for the total mass of all non-product materials, including water, used in the manufacturing process to produce one kilogram of the final product, such as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) [1] [2]. This comprehensive scope helps identify major areas of process inefficiency, cost, and environmental impact, making it a powerful driver for developing more sustainable and cost-effective processes [1] [3].

The industry has progressed from simple PMI calculators to more advanced tools, including a Convergent PMI Calculator for complex synthesis routes and a PMI Prediction Calculator that can estimate PMI ranges even before laboratory work begins, allowing for the early assessment and comparison of potential synthetic routes [1] [3].

Measuring Efficiency: The PMI Calculation and Methodology

The fundamental formula for calculating Process Mass Intensity is straightforward, but its application requires careful documentation of all input materials.

Experimental Protocol: PMI Calculation

The following protocol outlines the steps for determining the PMI of a chemical process.

1. Objective: To quantify the total mass of materials used per mass unit of product obtained, assessing the process's resource efficiency and environmental impact.

2. Principles: PMI is calculated as the total mass of all materials entering a process (or process step) divided by the mass of the product obtained. It is a dimensionless number [1]. The related metric, Process Mass Efficiency (PME), is the inverse of PMI and is often expressed as a percentage.

3. Procedure:

• Step 1: Material Inventory. Record the masses (in kg) of all input materials for the reaction and work-up/purification stages. This must include:
  • Reactants
  • Reagents
  • Solvents (for reaction and purification)
  • Catalysts
  • Water used in the process
• Step 2: Product Mass. Record the mass (in kg) of the final isolated and purified product.
• Step 3: Calculation. Apply the following formula: PMI = Total Mass of Input Materials (kg) / Mass of Product (kg)
• Step 4: Reporting. Report the PMI value as a dimensionless number. For multi-step or convergent syntheses, a Convergent PMI Calculator should be used to aggregate the inputs from different synthesis branches [3].

4. Data Interpretation: A lower PMI value indicates a more efficient and greener process. The ideal PMI is 1, representing a process with 100% atom economy and no auxiliary materials. The E-factor, another common metric, can be derived from PMI: E-factor = PMI - 1, representing the total waste generated per mass of product [4].

The logical workflow for this calculation, from data collection to interpretation, is outlined below.

Industry Tools and Adoption: From Calculation to Innovation

The pharmaceutical industry has widely adopted PMI for its ability to benchmark and drive improvements in process sustainability. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed standardized PMI calculators that enable quick determination of PMI values, facilitating the development of greener manufacturing processes [3].

Leading companies have integrated PMI into their core R&D operations. For example, Merck & Co. developed the SMART PMI tool (in-Silico MSD Aspirational Research Tool), which sets ambitious, molecule-aware PMI targets for API manufacturing processes based on chemical structure. This challenges chemists to invent new synthetic strategies with a lower environmental footprint [2].

The industry is also recognizing that for large-molecule processes, such as biologics and vaccine manufacturing, new modality-appropriate metrics are needed that can more effectively guide reductions in environmental impact than traditional PMI alone [2].

Comparative Analysis: PMI in Small Molecule vs. Biologics Production

The application and context of PMI differ significantly between traditional small molecule drugs and modern biologic therapies, reflecting their distinct manufacturing paradigms.

Quantitative Comparison of Small Molecules and Biologics

Characteristic	Small Molecule Drugs	Biologic Drugs
Molecular Weight	Typically < 900 Daltons [5]	Large, complex molecules [5]
Manufacturing Process	Chemical synthesis [5]	Produced using living cells [5]
Typical PMI Concerns	Solvents, reagents, catalysts [1]	Cell culture media, water, purification resins [2]
Process Development Cost	25-40% less expensive than biologics [5]	Estimated $2.6-2.8B per approved drug [5]
Manufacturing Cost	Cheaper, more reproducible [5]	Expensive facilities, batch variability [5]
Primary Dosage Form	Oral solid dose (e.g., tablets) [6]	Typically injectables (IV or subcutaneous) [5]

Market and Revenue Context

The differentiation in manufacturing is reflected in the market landscape. The global pharma market in 2023 was worth $1344 billion, split 58% to small molecules and 42% to biologics, with biologics sales growing three times faster [5]. This commercial reality influences R&D focus; biologics now consume 55-60% of the global pharmaceutical R&D budget, which has shifted from a majority spent on small molecules a decade ago [5].

A 2025 study in JAMA Health Forum highlighted a significant policy-relevant difference: biologics generate substantially higher cumulative revenues for manufacturers than small-molecule drugs—$4.9 billion more over 9 years and $7.9 billion more over 13 years on the market [7]. This revenue disparity exists alongside differing regulatory exclusivity periods in the U.S., which can influence investment decisions toward one modality over the other [7].

The following diagram synthesizes these factors to show the broader developmental and commercial context in which PMI is applied.

A Critical Perspective: Proper Application and Limitations of PMI

While PMI is a valuable tool, its application requires careful consideration to avoid misleading conclusions. A 2020 study in Green Chemistry titled "Why we might be misusing process mass intensity (PMI)" cautions that PMI can be misleading without due consideration of yield, concentration, and the molecular weight of reactants and products [4].

For instance, a direct comparison of PMI values for different chemical methodologies without context can be unfair. A high-yielding reaction that uses a large amount of a low-molecular-weight solvent might have a worse (higher) PMI than a lower-yielding reaction that uses a smaller amount of a high-molecular-weight solvent. Therefore, a fair appraisal of the green potential of different processes requires careful analysis of the underlying experimental data and reaction parameters [4].

Research Toolkit: Essential Solutions for Sustainable Process Development

The following table details key tools and reagents critical for experiments aimed at developing efficient, low-PMI processes, particularly for small molecule synthesis.

Research Tool / Reagent	Primary Function in Process Development
PMI Calculator (ACS GCI PR)	Enables quick determination of PMI values to benchmark and quantify improvements towards greener processes [3].
Convergent PMI Calculator	Allows PMI calculation for complex synthesis routes with multiple branches, providing a more accurate overall process intensity [3].
SMART PMI Tool (Merck)	An in-silico tool that sets aspirational, molecule-aware PMI targets for APIs, driving innovation in synthetic strategy [2].
Green Chemistry Solvent Selection Guides	Identifies safer, less hazardous solvents to reduce the environmental impact and health risks associated with the largest mass input in many processes.
Catalyst Libraries	Provides access to efficient catalysts that improve atom economy and reduce reagent waste, directly lowering PMI.
Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis Tools	Allows for a broader environmental impact assessment beyond mass efficiency, considering factors like energy use and carbon footprint [2].

Table of Contents

• PMI as a Cornerstone of Sustainable Manufacturing
• Benchmarking Small Molecules vs. Biologics
• Experimental Pathways in PMI Reduction
• The Scientist's Toolkit for PMI Analysis
• Strategic Implications for Drug Development

PMI as a Cornerstone of Sustainable Manufacturing

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a critical metric for measuring the environmental impact and efficiency of manufacturing processes. It is calculated as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified quantity of a product, with a lower PMI indicating a more efficient and less wasteful process [8]. The drive to reduce PMI is no longer just an environmental concern; it is a strategic imperative intertwined with business resilience, regulatory pressures, and environmental stewardship [9] [8]. Companies are facing stringent Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals and regulatory frameworks that incentivize greener manufacturing. A lower PMI directly translates to reduced waste generation, lower energy consumption, and decreased use of hazardous solvents and reagents, leading to cost savings and a smaller environmental footprint [8]. This convergence of economic and environmental benefits positions PMI optimization as a fundamental component of sustainable and resilient pharmaceutical operations.

Benchmarking Small Molecules vs. Biologics

The approach to PMI and process efficiency differs significantly between small molecule drugs and biologics due to their distinct manufacturing paradigms. The table below summarizes a quantitative comparison of PMI for different manufacturing modalities.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Manufacturing Process	Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	Key Drivers of PMI
Small Molecules	Traditional Chemical Synthesis	Often high [8]	Solvent volumes, protecting groups, metal catalysts, multi-step synthesis [8].
Small Molecules	Biocatalytic Synthesis	Significantly lower [8]	Mild conditions (aqueous solvents), high selectivity, fewer synthesis steps [8].
Biologics (mAbs)	Batch Processes	High and comparable to continuous processes [10]	Cell culture media, water for injection, purification resins, single-use components [10].
Biologics (mAbs)	Continuous Processes	High and comparable to batch processes [10]	Similar to batch; energy consumption becomes a more critical sustainability driver [10].

For small molecules, traditional synthetic routes are often resource-intensive. Biocatalysis—using engineered enzymes as catalysts—has become a powerful tool for PMI reduction. Enzymatic reactions typically operate under mild conditions, use aqueous solvents, and offer high selectivity, which eliminates many wasteful protection-deprotection steps and reduces solvent volumes [8]. This often results in a dramatically lower PMI compared to traditional chemistry.

In contrast, for biologics such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), the PMI is inherently high. Research indicates that both conventional batch processes and newer continuous manufacturing processes exhibit similar PMI values [10]. This highlights that for biologics, PMI alone may not be a sufficient metric for comparing sustainability. As noted in one analysis, "although PMI is a useful benchmarking metric of sustainability, it does not account for factors such as energy consumption which is a key driver of sustainability for biologics manufacturing" [10]. A continuous process with a higher PMI might still be more environmentally sustainable if its productivity (grams of drug substance per unit time) is multifold higher, leading to lower overall energy consumption per unit produced [10].

Experimental Pathways in PMI Reduction

Experimental Workflow for Biocatalyst Implementation

The development and implementation of a novel biocatalytic process to reduce PMI involve a structured, iterative workflow. The diagram below illustrates this integrated experimental pathway.

Diagram Title: Biocatalyst Development Workflow

Detailed Methodologies:

• Enzyme Discovery and Engineering: Initial discovery often involves metagenomic mining of environmental DNA to access a vast diversity of natural enzymes [8]. Promising enzyme candidates then undergo directed evolution or computational protein design to enhance their stability, activity, and substrate scope for non-natural reactions. This engineering cycle uses high-throughput screening to rapidly test thousands of variants [8].
• Process Optimization and Integration: The engineered enzyme is tested under various process conditions. Key parameters include solvent composition (often moving towards aqueous systems), temperature, pH, and the development of efficient cofactor recycling systems to make the process economically viable [8]. The biocatalytic step is then integrated into a hybrid chemo-enzymatic sequence, designing compatible reaction conditions to minimize intermediate isolation and purification [8].
• PMI and Environmental Impact Assessment: The final optimized process is rigorously evaluated using green chemistry metrics. Process Mass Intensity (PMI) is calculated as the total mass of materials used per mass of product. This is complemented by other metrics like the E-factor (mass of waste per mass of product) and an assessment of carbon efficiency to quantify the environmental and efficiency gains [8].

The Scientist's Toolkit for PMI Analysis

Successful PMI benchmarking and process optimization rely on a suite of analytical techniques and specialized reagents. The following table details key solutions and materials essential for this field.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Studies

Research Reagent / Material	Function in PMI Analysis
Engineered Transaminases	Catalyzes the synthesis of chiral amines, often replacing metal-catalyzed hydrogenations and reducing heavy metal waste [8].
Metagenomic Library	Serves as a source of novel enzyme sequences with diverse catalytic activities, providing starting points for biocatalyst development [8].
Immobilized Enzyme Systems	Enzymes bound to a solid support, enabling their reuse over multiple reaction cycles in batch or continuous flow reactors, which improves process efficiency and reduces catalyst-related PMI [8].
Cofactor Recycling Systems	Regenerates expensive enzymatic cofactors (e.g., NADH) in situ, making industrial-scale biocatalysis economically feasible and reducing waste [8].

Strategic Implications for Drug Development

The strategic adoption of PMI benchmarking has profound implications for drug development. It drives operational efficiency and cost optimization by shortening synthetic routes, reducing raw material consumption, and minimizing waste disposal costs [8]. This creates a more resilient business model less susceptible to resource price volatility. Furthermore, it directly addresses regulatory and ESG pressures, as regulators increasingly encourage greener chemistry and sustainable manufacturing practices [8]. Finally, a focus on PMI fosters innovation and competitive advantage. Companies that excel in developing efficient, low-PMI processes, such as the iconic biocatalytic synthesis of sitagliptin, not only reduce their environmental footprint but also establish faster, more cost-effective routes to market, securing a long-term strategic edge [8].

For researchers and drug development professionals engaged in Process Mass Intensity (PMI) benchmarking, understanding the fundamental distinctions between chemical synthesis and bioprocessing is crucial. These two manufacturing paradigms differ in their core principles, process parameters, and economic considerations. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison to inform decision-making for small molecule and biologic drug development.

Chemical synthesis relies on traditional organic chemistry reactions, often requiring high temperatures, high pressures, and metal catalysts in controlled chemical reactors [11]. In contrast, bioprocessing harnesses living cells—such as bacteria, yeast, or mammalian cells—as biological factories to synthesize desired compounds within bioreactors [12] [13]. This fundamental distinction creates divergent pathways with significant implications for process development, scalability, and environmental impact.

Core Manufacturing Principles and Process Parameters

Fundamental Process Characteristics

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Manufacturing Platforms

Characteristic	Chemical Synthesis	Bioprocessing
Process Basis	Abiotic chemical reactions using synthetic chemistry [11]	Biological transformations using living cells [12]
Primary Products	Small molecule APIs, chemicals [14]	Biologics, vaccines, recombinant proteins, complex molecules [15]
Typical Conditions	High temperature/pressure, metal catalysts [11]	Mild, aqueous, physiological conditions (controlled pH, temperature) [12]
Reaction Environment	Organic solvents, potentially toxic [16] [17]	Aqueous medium with nutrients [12]
By-products	Potentially toxic waste streams [11]	Generally biodegradable waste [13]

Critical Process Parameters and Control Strategies

Bioprocessing requires meticulous monitoring of critical process parameters (CPPs) that directly influence cell growth and product yield [12]. These parameters are tightly controlled throughout the fermentation process.

Table 2: Key Parameters in Bioprocessing and Their Impact [12]

Parameter	Optimal Range	Impact on Process	Measurement Methods
Dissolved Oxygen	Varies by organism	Critical for aerobic microorganisms; directly influences cell growth, metabolism, and product formation	Optical sensors, fluorescence-based sensors, spectroscopy
pH	Organism-specific (typically neutral)	Profound influence on microbial growth and enzyme activity; deviations cause metabolic shifts	Electrodes, chemical indicators, spectroscopy
Temperature	Strain-specific	Catalyzes optimal cell growth and metabolism; deviations decrease productivity	Thermocouples, RTDs, integrated heating/cooling systems
Biomass	Process-dependent	Indicates microbial growth and cell health; used to assess contamination	Optical density, cell counting
Substrate Concentration	Optimized to avoid limitation/toxicity	Fuels cellular activities; imbalance limits growth or causes wasteful pathways	Analytical chemistry, process analytics

Chemical synthesis optimization focuses on different parameters, including reaction kinetics, catalyst loading, solvent selection, and energy input. Scalability challenges often involve heat and mass transfer limitations, solvent availability, and maintaining consistent product quality across scales [16].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Economic and Environmental Metrics

Table 3: Quantitative Performance Comparison Between Methods

Performance Metric	Chemical Synthesis	Bioprocessing	Notes
Production Costs	Higher for complex molecules [17]	Lower production costs; cheaper raw materials, less energy [13]	Bioprocessing uses renewable resources
Yield Efficiency	Varies widely; can be lower (e.g., ~50% for ethanol) [13]	High yield production (e.g., >80% for ethanol) [13]	Microorganisms reproduce rapidly
Energy Consumption	High (high temperatures/pressures) [11]	Reduced energy consumption [13]	Reactions at lower temperatures/pressures
Environmental Footprint	Uses fossil fuels, generates polluting waste [11]	Environmentally friendly; uses renewable resources [13]	Reduces carbon footprint and pollution
Typical Scale	Often large-scale batch processing [16]	Flexible scales from lab to production [12]	Scaling challenges differ between platforms

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) Considerations

For PMI benchmarking, key differences emerge in material inputs and waste streams. Chemical synthesis typically has higher PMI due to solvent usage, purification steps, and lower atom economy [16]. Bioprocessing generally demonstrates better PMI profiles through aqueous-based reactions and metabolic efficiency, though nutrient media contributions must be accounted for. Advanced bioprocessing approaches like consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) aim to further improve PMI by combining enzyme production, biomass degradation, and fermentation in a single step, potentially reducing pretreatment requirements and associated costs [11].

Experimental Protocols for Process Characterization

Bioprocess Optimization Methodology

Protocol: Optimization of Exopolysaccharide Production in Extremophiles [18]

• Objective: Determine optimal conditions for maximizing EPS yield from extremophilic microorganisms.
• Microorganism: Extremophilic strains (e.g., thermophiles, psychrophiles, halophiles).
• Culture Medium:
  • Carbon Sources: Glucose, sucrose, lactose at varying concentrations (5-30 g/L)
  • Nitrogen Sources: Ammonium sulfate, peptone, yeast extract
  • Mineral Salts: Essential ions (Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, K⁺, PO₄³⁻)
  • pH Range: Test across spectrum (acidic, neutral, alkaline)
• Bioreactor Conditions:
  • Temperature: Varied according to extremophile type (e.g., 4°C for psychrophiles, 55°C for thermophiles)
  • Agitation: 150-500 rpm to maintain oxygen transfer
  • Aeration: 0.5-1.5 vvm (volume per volume per minute)
  • Dissolved Oxygen: Maintain at 20-40% saturation
• Analytical Methods:
  • EPS quantification: Precipitation with cold ethanol, gravimetric analysis
  • Biomass: Optical density at 600nm or dry cell weight
  • Substrate consumption: HPLC or spectrophotometric assays
• Experimental Design: Response Surface Methodology (RSM) to model interactive effects of parameters.

Chemical Synthesis Scale-up Protocol

Protocol: Solubility-Driven Process Scaling for API Synthesis [19]

• Objective: Develop scalable chemical synthesis process with optimized solubility parameters.
• Materials: Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API), organic solvents (DMF, DMSO, THF, ethyl acetate), antisolvents (water, heptane).
• Solubility Screening (SPA Platform):
  • Prepare stock solutions of API in various solvents
  • Conduct titrations with antisolvents
  • Monitor precipitation points via microscopy or turbidity
  • Determine optimal solvent/antisolvent ratios
• Reaction Optimization:
  • Identify critical quality attributes (CQAs)
  • Vary temperature, mixing rates, and addition times
  • Monitor reaction completion (HPLC, TLC)
• Crystallization Studies:
  • Determine metastable zone width
  • Optimize cooling profiles and seed crystal addition
• Scale-up Verification:
  • Transfer process from laboratory to pilot scale (1L to 100L)
  • Monitor consistency of yield, purity, and particle size distribution

Process Workflow Visualization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for Process Development

Reagent/Solution	Function	Application Context
Cell Culture Media	Provides nutrients for cell growth and product formation	Bioprocessing [12]
Optical DO Sensors	Monitors dissolved oxygen levels in real-time	Bioprocessing (aerobic fermentation) [12]
pH Electrodes & Buffers	Maintains optimal pH for enzymatic activity and cell growth	Bioprocessing [12]
Organic Solvents	Reaction medium for chemical transformations	Chemical Synthesis [16]
Metal Catalysts	Accelerates reaction rates and improves selectivity	Chemical Synthesis [11]
Enzymes/Biocatalysts	Biological catalysts for specific reactions	Bioprocessing (e.g., biocatalytic routes) [16]
Green Solvents	Environmentally benign alternatives to traditional solvents	Sustainable Chemical Synthesis [16]
Process Analytical Technology (PAT)	Monitors critical process parameters in real-time	Both Platforms (Quality Control) [20]

For PMI benchmarking between small molecules and biologics, this comparison reveals fundamental trade-offs. Chemical synthesis offers precise control but faces challenges with environmental impact and complex molecule production. Bioprocessing provides sustainable advantages for complex molecules but requires sophisticated biological control systems. The optimal manufacturing platform depends on molecule complexity, sustainability requirements, and economic considerations, with emerging technologies like consolidated bioprocessing and green chemistry principles continuing to reshape both fields.

In the pursuit of sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a key metric for evaluating environmental efficiency. PMI is calculated as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified mass of the final product, providing a comprehensive measure of resource utilization and waste generation. For researchers and drug development professionals, benchmarking PMI across different therapeutic modalities—specifically, small molecules and biologics—is crucial for guiding the development of greener, more efficient manufacturing processes. This guide objectively compares the typical PMI ranges for these two distinct classes, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies to facilitate direct comparison and informed decision-making.

The fundamental differences in the production of small molecules and biologics inherently influence their PMI values. Small molecules are typically synthesized through chemical reactions, often involving organic solvents and catalysts, and are characterized by their low molecular weight (typically <900 Da) and well-defined chemical structures [6]. In contrast, biologics, such as monoclonal antibodies and recombinant proteins, are produced in living systems (e.g., bacterial or mammalian cell cultures), which require complex nutrients and generate significant aqueous waste [15]. This analysis establishes baseline PMI ranges, examines the factors driving these values, and details the experimental protocols used for their determination.

Comparative PMI Analysis: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

The following table summarizes the typical PMI ranges and key characteristics for small molecules and biologics, synthesized from industry data and research findings.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking for Small Molecules and Biologics

Parameter	Small Molecules	Biologics
Typical PMI Range	50 - 200 kg/kg	1,000 - 10,000+ kg/kg
Molecular Weight	Low (<900 Da) [6]	High (e.g., antibodies ~150 kDa)
Production Process	Chemical synthesis [21]	Biosynthesis in living cells [15]
Key Material Inputs	Organic solvents, reagents, catalysts [21]	Cell culture media, buffers, water for injection [15]
Process Scale	Large-scale batch chemical synthesis [21]	Controlled bioreactor cultivation [15]
Primary Drivers of High PMI	Multi-step synthesis, solvent usage, and purification	Water-intensive cell culture and downstream purification

The data indicates that the PMI for biologics is significantly higher than for small molecules, often by one to two orders of magnitude. This disparity is primarily driven by the immense quantities of water and buffer solutions required for the cell culture process and subsequent purification steps in biologic manufacturing [15]. For example, the production of monoclonal antibodies can involve single-use bioreactors and extensive chromatography steps, contributing massively to the total mass input.

In contrast, small-molecule production, while still resource-intensive, benefits from more concentrated chemical processes and efficient purification techniques like crystallization and distillation. The PMI for small molecules is heavily influenced by the number of synthetic steps and the efficiency of solvent use and recovery [21]. A prominent example is metformin, a synthetic API known for its stability and efficient production, which represents a lower end of the PMI spectrum for small molecules [21].

Experimental Protocols for PMI Determination

To ensure the comparability of PMI data, consistent experimental protocols and calculation methods must be employed. The following sections detail the standard methodologies for determining the PMI of small molecule and biologic processes.

Small Molecule API Synthesis and PMI Calculation

The synthesis of small molecule APIs typically involves multi-step chemical reactions in a controlled laboratory or pilot-scale setting. The following protocol outlines a generalized procedure for a synthetic process and its subsequent PMI analysis.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Small Molecule API Synthesis

Reagent/Category	Example	Function in Protocol
Starting Materials	Varied by target molecule	Core chemical building blocks for the synthesis.
Solvents	Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Dichloromethane (DCM), Methanol	Medium for reactions, extraction, and purification.
Catalysts	Palladium on carbon (Pd/C), enzymes	Accelerate chemical reactions without being consumed.
Purification Agents	Silica gel, various solvents	Used in chromatography for isolating the pure API.

Protocol:

• Reaction Setup: The synthetic sequence is performed according to the established route. For example, a reaction may involve charging a flask with a starting material (e.g., 10 mmol) and a solvent (e.g., THF, 30 mL) under an inert atmosphere [21].
• Reaction Execution: The mixture is stirred and heated to a specified temperature. Reagents and catalysts are added sequentially. Reaction progress is monitored by analytical techniques like TLC or HPLC until completion.
• Work-up: The reaction mixture is cooled and quenched. The crude product is isolated through techniques like extraction, filtration, or evaporation.
• Purification: The crude intermediate or final API is purified. This may involve techniques such as recrystallization from a solvent mixture (e.g., methanol/water) or chromatography on silica gel, eluting with a defined solvent system [21].
• Data Collection & PMI Calculation: The mass of the final purified API is recorded. The PMI is calculated using the formula:
  • PMI = (Total mass of all input materials in kg) / (Mass of final API in kg)
  • All input masses, including starting materials, solvents, reagents, and purification agents, are summed for the total mass.

Biologic (Monoclonal Antibody) Production and PMI Calculation

The production of biologics like monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is a complex, multi-stage process involving living cells. The protocol below focuses on the upstream and downstream process for a mAb.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Biologic (mAb) Production

Reagent/Category	Example	Function in Protocol
Cell Culture Media	Commercially available powdered or liquid media	Provides nutrients (amino acids, glucose, vitamins) for cell growth and protein production.
Buffer Solutions	Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS), Tris-HCl	Maintains optimal pH and ionic strength during cell culture and purification.
Chromatography Resins	Protein A resin	Affinity chromatography resin that specifically captures antibodies from complex cell culture media.
Purification Chemicals	Acids/Bases for elution and cleaning, salts	Used to elute the mAb from chromatography columns and for sanitization.

Protocol:

• Upstream Process (Cell Culture):
  • A mammalian cell line (e.g., CHO cells) engineered to express the target mAb is expanded in a bioreactor.
  • The cells are cultivated in a defined volume (e.g., 1 L or 10,000 L) of cell culture media, often in a single-use bioreactor system [15].
  • Process parameters like temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen are tightly controlled. The culture is harvested after a set number of days once a sufficient cell density and product titer are achieved.
• Downstream Process (Purification):
  • Capture: The harvested cell culture fluid is clarified by filtration and then loaded onto a Protein A affinity chromatography column. The mAb binds to the resin, while impurities are washed away.
  • Polishing: The eluted mAb undergoes further purification steps, which may include ion-exchange chromatography and viral inactivation/filtration, to remove host cell proteins, DNA, and other contaminants.
  • Formulation: The purified mAb is concentrated and dialyzed into its final formulation buffer.
• Data Collection & PMI Calculation:
  • The mass of the final formulated mAb drug substance is recorded.
  • The PMI is calculated using the same formula as for small molecules. The total mass input includes the mass of all cell culture media, buffers, water for injection, and chemicals used in the purification process. The vast quantity of water and buffers used is the primary contributor to the high PMI of biologics.

Workflow and Mass Balance Visualization

The divergent paths for producing small molecules and biologics, leading to their distinct PMI profiles, are summarized in the following workflow diagram.

Diagram 1: Simplified PMI Workflow for Small Molecules and Biologics. This diagram illustrates the fundamental differences in production processes and waste streams that underlie the distinct Process Mass Intensity (PMI) profiles of small molecules and biologics.

The benchmarking data clearly establishes that biologics exhibit a significantly higher Process Mass Intensity than small molecules. This is an inherent consequence of their production methodologies: the water-intensive nature of cell culture and the complex purification trains required for large, complex proteins [15]. In contrast, small-molecule processes, while often involving hazardous solvents, are generally more mass-efficient on a kg/kg basis [21].

For drug development professionals, this analysis provides a critical baseline for environmental impact assessment and process design choices. The choice between a small molecule and a biologic is primarily driven by therapeutic target and mechanism of action. However, understanding their PMI implications empowers scientists to integrate sustainability considerations early in development. For small molecules, strategies like solvent substitution and recovery can dramatically reduce PMI. For biologics, innovations such as continuous processing and higher-yield cell lines are key to improving mass efficiency.

In conclusion, a clear PMI disparity exists between these two major therapeutic modalities. Ongoing advancements in green chemistry for small molecules and process intensification for biologics are essential for minimizing the environmental footprint of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole [21]. This guide provides the foundational data and methodological transparency needed to track and accelerate this progress.

Measuring and Benchmarking: Practical Approaches to PMI Calculation in Drug Development

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial metric for evaluating the environmental efficiency and sustainability of manufacturing processes. PMI provides a standardized quantitative measure that enables direct comparison across different therapeutic modalities, from traditional small molecules to complex biologics and peptide-based therapeutics. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has identified PMI as the key mass-related green chemistry metric and an indispensable indicator of the overall greenness of a process [22].

The PMI equation is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified mass of product, calculated as follows: PMI = Total mass of materials (water, raw materials, consumables) / Mass of product (API) [23]

This straightforward calculation, while not capturing the complete environmental footprint, provides a standardized efficiency benchmark that allows researchers and process developers to objectively compare the resource efficiency of fundamentally different manufacturing approaches. As the industry expands beyond small molecules to include more complex modalities, PMI offers a common language for assessing sustainability improvements across diverse production platforms [23] [22].

Quantitative PMI Comparison Across Modalities

Cross-modality PMI comparison reveals striking differences in the resource efficiency of various therapeutic manufacturing processes. The data demonstrates a clear hierarchy of environmental efficiency, with small molecules exhibiting significantly lower PMI values compared to larger, more complex biologics and synthetic peptides.

Table 1: PMI Comparison Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Typical PMI Range (kg material/kg API)	Average PMI	Primary Contributors to PMI
Small Molecules	168-308	238	Organic solvents, reagents [22]
Oligonucleotides	3,035-7,023	4,299	Solvents, reagents, energy-intensive purification [22]
Biologics (mAbs)	~8,300	~8,300	Water (94%), raw materials (5%), consumables (1%) [23] [22]
Synthetic Peptides (SPPS)	~13,000	~13,000	Solvents (DMF, DMAc, NMP), coupling agents, purification [22]

The data reveals that synthetic peptides manufactured via solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) have the highest environmental mass intensity, approximately 55 times greater than small molecule processes and 1.6 times greater than biologics [22]. This significant disparity highlights the need for innovative approaches to improve the sustainability of peptide manufacturing.

Table 2: PMI Distribution in Biologics Manufacturing by Process Stage

Process Stage	Contribution to Total PMI	Key Factors
Upstream Process	~40%	Cell culture media, buffers, water [23]
Harvest	~5%	Filtration, clarification [23]
Purification	~45%	Chromatography resins, buffers [23]
Final Formulation	~10%	Buffer exchange, excipients [23]

Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

Standardized PMI Calculation Methodology

The ACS GCIPR has developed standardized protocols for determining PMI across different modalities to ensure consistent comparison. The experimental approach involves comprehensive mass balancing of all material inputs throughout the manufacturing process [23] [22]:

• System Boundary Definition: The PMI assessment boundary typically begins with a clean facility at the inoculum stage through the bulk fill stage for biologics, or from initial synthesis through purification and isolation for synthetic peptides [23].

• Material Inventory: All water, raw materials, and consumables used in the process are quantified. This includes solvents, reagents, chromatographic materials, filtration devices, and buffer components [22].

• Product Mass Determination: The mass of the final active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) or drug substance is measured after the final purification and isolation step.

• Calculation: The total mass of inputs is divided by the mass of the final product using the standard PMI equation [23].

For biologics manufacturing, water usage accounts for approximately 94% of the total process mass, with raw materials and consumables contributing 5% and 1% respectively. This contrasts sharply with small molecule synthesis where organic solvents and reagents represent the majority of mass inputs [23].

Benchmarking Consortium Approach

The Industry Benchmarking Consortium (IBC), facilitated by Independent Project Analysis (IPA), has established a rigorous methodology for comparative PMI assessment across organizations [24]:

• Data Collection: Face-to-face interviews using structured questionnaires gather information on project objectives, scope, technology, costs, schedule, and project management practices, with over 2,000 different data elements collected [24].

• Normalized Databases: Data is translated into relational databases that enable statistical modeling and comparison group compilation for robust benchmarking [24].

• Confidentiality Protection: Member companies submit blinded PMI data through an independent third party to maintain confidentiality while enabling industry-wide comparison [22] [24].

Visualizing PMI Assessment Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the standardized workflow for cross-modality PMI assessment, highlighting the parallel evaluation pathways for different therapeutic modalities:

Diagram 1: Cross-modality PMI assessment workflow for pharmaceutical manufacturing processes.

Limitations and Complementary Metrics

While PMI provides valuable insights into material efficiency, it has recognized limitations as a standalone sustainability metric. PMI does not account for energy consumption, environmental impact of raw materials, or product complexity [23] [25]. This is particularly relevant for biologics manufacturing, where energy utilization to run equipment, cleanroom requirements, and HVAC systems represents a primary contributor to overall sustainability [25].

Research comparing continuous and batch manufacturing processes for biologics reveals that PMI alone may not correlate with overall sustainability. One study found that while a batch process had a 1.6-fold lower PMI than a continuous process, the continuous process required significantly fewer batches to meet typical demand, potentially resulting in lower overall energy consumption [25].

The industry is therefore moving toward holistic sustainability assessment that incorporates additional metrics alongside PMI:

• Energy Intensity: Accounting for electricity and utilities required for manufacturing
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Direct and indirect emissions throughout the process
• Water Scarcity Impact: Evaluating water sourcing and local scarcity conditions
• Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Factors: Considering reagent toxicity and waste treatment requirements [25]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for PMI Assessment

Reagent/Material	Function in Manufacturing	PMI Considerations
N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF)	Solvent for solid-phase peptide synthesis	Classified as reprotoxic; potential use restrictions [22]
Fmoc-protected amino acids	Building blocks for peptide synthesis	Poor atom economy due to protecting groups [22]
Chromatography Resins	Purification of biologics and peptides	Significant contributor to consumables mass [23]
Cell Culture Media	Nutrient source for biologics production	Major component of upstream PMI [23]
Coupling Agents	Activate amino acids for peptide synthesis	Potential explosive/sensitizing hazards [22]
Buffers and Salts	Maintain pH and ionic strength	High water usage for preparation [23]

The PMI equation provides a standardized framework for comparing the material efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing across therapeutic modalities. The quantitative data reveals significant disparities, with synthetic peptides exhibiting the highest PMI values approximately 55 times greater than small molecules. This cross-modality comparison highlights critical opportunities for sustainability improvements, particularly in peptide synthesis and biologics manufacturing where water usage dominates the PMI footprint.

While PMI offers valuable insights, comprehensive sustainability assessment requires complementary metrics that capture energy consumption, environmental impacts, and business factors beyond mass efficiency. The ongoing work by industry consortia to standardize PMI calculation methodologies and expand benchmarking databases will continue to enhance the pharmaceutical industry's ability to measure, compare, and improve the environmental profile of diverse therapeutic manufacturing processes.

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as the pharmaceutical industry's preferred metric for evaluating the material efficiency of manufacturing processes. Defined as the total mass of materials (including water, raw materials, and consumables) required to produce a specified mass of product, PMI provides a standardized way to quantify resource utilization across different production platforms [23]. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has championed PMI as a key environmental performance indicator, developing calculation tools and benchmarking methodologies to enable cross-industry comparisons [3]. For researchers and process development scientists, PMI offers a relatively simple yet comprehensive metric to identify improvement opportunities in manufacturing processes.

The PMI calculation follows a straightforward formula: PMI = Total mass of materials input (kg) / Mass of product output (kg). This calculation includes all water, raw materials, and consumables used within defined process boundaries, typically from the first manufacturing step through to the isolated active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) [23]. The inverse relationship between PMI and efficiency means that lower PMI values indicate more resource-efficient processes. While PMI doesn't capture all environmental impacts—such as energy consumption or material toxicity—it serves as an excellent starting point for sustainability assessments and process optimization [25].

This guide provides a detailed comparison of PMI components across small molecule, biologic, and peptide therapeutics, offering researchers standardized methodologies for consistent measurement and benchmarking.

Comparative PMI Analysis Across Therapeutic Modalities

PMI Ranges by Drug Modality

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Drug Modalities

Drug Modality	Typical PMI Range (kg input/kg API)	Dominant PMI Components	Key Process Characteristics
Small Molecules	168 - 308 [22]	Solvents (58%), Water (28%), Reactants (8%) [26]	Chemical synthesis, smaller reactor volumes, extensive solvent use
Biologics (mAbs)	~8,300 [22]	Water (94%), Raw Materials (5%), Consumables (1%) [23]	Fermentation-based production, large bioreactors, water-intensive purification
Synthetic Peptides	~13,000 [22]	Solvents (primary), Reagents, Resins	Solid-phase synthesis, large solvent excess, complex purification

The data reveals striking differences in resource efficiency across therapeutic modalities. Small molecule drugs demonstrate significantly lower PMI values (168-308) compared to larger, more complex biologics and peptides [22]. This efficiency stems from well-established chemical synthesis routes and smaller reactor volumes, though small molecule processes typically use more organic solvents [23]. The PMI for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) averages approximately 8,300, with water consumption accounting for the overwhelming majority (94%) of this mass [23]. Synthetic peptides exhibit the highest PMI at approximately 13,000, primarily due to the extensive solvent and reagent requirements of solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) [22].

Detailed Breakdown of PMI Components

Table 2: Component Contribution to Total PMI by Modality

Modality	Water Contribution	Raw Materials Contribution	Consumables Contribution	Notable Characteristics
Small Molecules	28% [26]	Reactants: 8% [26]	Not specified	Higher organic solvent usage; reagents and catalysts significant
Biologics (mAbs)	94% [23]	5% [23]	1% [23]	Water dominates for buffers, media; consumables minimal in comparison
Synthetic Peptides	Not specified	Solvents, protected amino acids, coupling reagents	Chromatography resins, filters	Problematic solvents (DMF, NMP, DCM) contribute significantly to waste

The composition of PMI varies dramatically between modalities. For biologics, water represents an extraordinary 94% of the total mass intensity, dwarfing contributions from raw materials (5%) and consumables (1%) [23]. This reflects the aqueous-based nature of bioprocessing, where thousands of liters of water are required for cell culture media, buffer solutions, and purification steps [27]. In contrast, small molecule synthesis shows more balanced distribution, with solvents comprising the largest category (58%), followed by water (28%) and reactants (8%) [26]. The high water intensity of biologics manufacturing creates particular vulnerability to water scarcity issues, which the World Economic Forum has identified as the number one threat to business over the next decade [23].

Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

Standardized PMI Calculation Methodology

The ACS GCIPR has developed clear guidelines for consistent PMI calculation across the industry. The fundamental formula remains: Total PMI = (Total water + raw materials + consumables used in process, kg) / (Mass of API produced, kg) [23]. For biologics, the process boundary typically begins with a clean facility at the inoculum stage and extends through to the bulk fill stage of drug substance manufacturing [23]. The calculation should encompass all materials directly used in the process, including media, buffers, solvents, reagents, and processing aids. For multi-step processes, particularly convergent syntheses, the ACS GCIPR provides specialized calculators to ensure accurate accounting [3].

PMI Calculation Workflow

Biologics-Specific PMI Assessment Protocol

For biologic drugs, particularly monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), PMI assessment follows a unit operation-based approach. The ACS GCIPR Biopharma Focus Group methodology divides the process into upstream processing (cell culture and bioreactor production), harvest operations, and downstream purification steps [23]. Water usage is tracked separately for process water and Water for Injection (WFI), with the latter assigned a conversion factor of 1.41 to account for the additional resources required for its production [27]. This granular approach enables researchers to pinpoint specific unit operations with the highest resource intensity, facilitating targeted process improvements.

Experimental Protocol:

• Define System Boundaries: Establish clear start and end points (typically from inoculum to bulk drug substance) [23]
• Catalog Input Materials: Document all water, raw materials, and consumables used within boundary
• Measure Output: Precisely quantify the final drug substance mass produced
• Calculate Component PMI: Compute individual PMI values for water, raw materials, and consumables
• Benchmark Against Industry Standards: Compare results with published values for similar processes [23] [22]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for PMI Assessment

Reagent/Material Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function in Manufacturing	PMI Impact Considerations
Solvents	DMF, DMAc, NMP, DCM, MTBE [22]	Reaction medium, purification, washing	Major PMI driver in small molecules and peptides; environmental and health hazards
Chromatography Resins	Protein A affinity resins, Ion-exchange resins, HPLC media [23]	Purification and separation of products	Contributes to consumables PMI; buffer consumption significant for biologics
Protected Amino Acids	Fmoc-amino acids, Boc-amino acids [22]	Building blocks for peptide synthesis	Atom-inefficient protecting groups increase raw material PMI
Coupling Reagents	HATU, HBTU, DIC [22]	Activate carboxyl groups for amide bond formation	Excess usage typical in SPPS; contributes to raw material PMI
Cell Culture Media	Chemically defined media, Fed-batch supplements [23]	Support cell growth and protein production	Significant water content; contributes to raw material PMI in biologics
Buffer Components	Salts, Detergents, Stabilizers [27]	Maintain pH and ionic strength	Major contributor to water PMI in biologics; chromatography steps dominant

The comparative analysis of PMI across therapeutic modalities reveals fundamental differences in resource utilization patterns. Small molecule manufacturing demonstrates superior mass efficiency, while biologics and peptide production face significant challenges related to their water and solvent intensity, respectively. For researchers and process scientists, this breakdown highlights critical intervention points for sustainability improvements: water reduction strategies for biologics, solvent optimization for peptides and small molecules, and process intensification across all modalities. As external pressures on pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate environmental responsibility continue to grow, PMI benchmarking provides an essential tool for measuring progress and driving innovation in sustainable manufacturing. Future work should focus on developing more comprehensive metrics that incorporate energy consumption and environmental impact factors alongside mass-based efficiency measures [25].

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial metric for evaluating the environmental footprint and efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. Defined as the total mass of materials input required to produce a unit mass of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), PMI provides a standardized measure for benchmarking process efficiency across the industry [23]. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has championed PMI as a key sustainability metric, developing specific calculation tools for both small molecules and biologics to enable consistent cross-industry comparison [23]. In the context of increasing pressure to reduce environmental impacts and manufacturing costs, PMI analysis offers a quantitative framework for identifying improvement opportunities throughout upstream and downstream processing stages.

The fundamental distinction between small molecule and biologic manufacturing processes leads to significantly different PMI profiles and environmental concerns. Small molecule drugs, typically produced through chemical synthesis, generally exhibit PMI values in the range of hundreds of kilograms of input per kilogram of API [23]. In contrast, biologic processes—particularly monoclonal antibody (mAb) production—demonstrate PMI values orders of magnitude higher, reaching thousands of kilograms input per kilogram API, primarily due to their water-intensive nature [23]. This analysis examines the mass-intensive unit operations in both upstream and downstream processing for small molecules and biologics, providing a comparative assessment framework for researchers and process development scientists seeking to improve manufacturing sustainability.

PMI Fundamentals and Calculation Methodology

PMI Equation and Boundary Conditions

The standard PMI calculation follows a straightforward formula that encompasses all material inputs throughout the manufacturing process:

Total PMI = Total (water, raw materials, consumables) used in process (kg) / Mass of API (kg) [23]

For biologics manufacturing, the ACS GCIPR has established specific boundary conditions for PMI calculation. The metric typically starts with a clean facility at the inoculum stage and extends through the bulk fill stage, covering all operations within a single manufacturing facility [23]. Inputs are categorized into Upstream Process (cell culture and bioreactor production), Harvest (separation of cells from culture fluid), and Downstream Process (purification steps), with detailed sub-categorization for precise analysis [23]. It is important to note that standard PMI calculations do not include contributions from cleaning processes, though separate cleaning mass intensity metrics are under development to address this significant contributor to water usage [23].

Experimental Protocol for PMI Determination

Data Collection Methodology:

• Material Inventory: Document all material inputs including water, raw materials, and consumables used throughout the defined process boundaries [23]
• Mass Quantification: Record masses in kilograms for each input category at the unit operation level
• Product Output: Precisely measure the final mass of API (drug substance) produced in kilograms
• Categorization: Assign inputs to appropriate categories (upstream, harvest, downstream) and subcategories

Calculation Procedure:

• Unit Operation PMI: Calculate PMI for individual unit operations by dividing total input mass by API output mass
• Category PMI: Sum unit operation PMI values within each process category
• Total PMI: Aggregate all category PMI values to determine overall process PMI
• Percentage Contribution: Determine each unit operation's percentage contribution to total PMI

Benchmarking Protocol:

• Collect PMI data from multiple process runs or facilities
• Compare against industry benchmarks where available
• Identify unit operations with disproportionately high PMI contributions
• Prioritize these high-PMI operations for intensification efforts

This standardized methodology enables consistent PMI comparison across different manufacturing processes and facilities, providing a foundation for targeted process improvements.

Comparative PMI Analysis: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

Quantitative PMI Benchmarking

Table 1: PMI Comparison Between Small Molecules and Biologics

Parameter	Small Molecules	Biologics (mAbs)
Typical PMI Range	100s kg/kg API [23]	1,000s kg/kg API [23]
Major Contributors	Organic solvents, reagents [23]	Water (94% of total mass) [23]
Upstream Contribution	Not applicable (chemical synthesis)	32-47% of total PMI [28]
Downstream Contribution	Varies by process	34-54% of total PMI [28]
Water Usage Profile	Moderate	Extreme (water-intensive processes) [23]

Mass Distribution Across Unit Operations

Table 2: PMI Distribution in mAb Manufacturing Unit Operations

Unit Operation	Contribution to Total PMI	Primary Mass Drivers
Upstream Processing	32-47% [28]	Cell culture media, buffers, water [23]
Harvest	5-10% (estimated)	Filtration membranes, centrifugation equipment [29]
Chromatography Steps	34-54% (total downstream) [28]	Resins, buffers, water [30] [23]
Buffer Preparation	Significant (within downstream)	Water for buffer solutions [30]
Viral Filtration	Minor	Filters, water for flushing [30]

The dramatically higher PMI values for biologics, particularly mAbs, primarily stem from their water-intensive nature, with water accounting for approximately 94% of the total process mass [23]. This fundamental difference in resource intensity highlights why PMI reduction strategies must be tailored to the specific characteristics of each manufacturing modality.

Upstream Processing Mass Intensity

Cell Culture Systems and Their PMI Impact

Table 3: PMI Characteristics of Upstream Bioreactor Operational Modes

Culture Method	PMI Impact	Key Mass Drivers	Typical Applications
Fed-Batch	Moderate	Basal media, feeds [31]	Standard mAb production [31]
Perfusion	Higher	Continuous media supply, cell retention devices [31]	Unstable proteins, high productivity requirements [31]
N-1 Perfusion	Variable	Seed train media, perfusion components [28]	Inoculum preparation, intensified processes [28]

Upstream processing contributes 32-47% of the total PMI in mAb manufacturing, with cell culture media and associated buffers representing the primary mass inputs [28] [23]. The choice of bioreactor operational mode significantly influences PMI, with perfusion systems typically requiring higher media volumes but potentially enabling downstream intensification that reduces overall process PMI [28].

Upstream Process Intensification Strategies

Recent advances in upstream process intensification focus on increasing titers and cell densities to reduce the relative PMI contribution. High-density cell banking and seed train intensification can significantly reduce media consumption during inoculum preparation [31]. Additionally, advances in cell line engineering have enabled substantial increases in titers, which effectively distribute upstream material inputs across more product, thereby reducing PMI per unit product [30] [32]. The integration of process analytical technology (PAT) and quality by design (QbD) principles further supports PMI reduction through improved process control and reduced batch failures [31].

Downstream Processing Mass Intensity

Chromatography: The Primary PMI Contributor in Downstream Processing

Chromatography steps represent the most mass-intensive operations in biologics purification, accounting for the majority of the 34-54% PMI contribution from downstream processing [28] [23]. The capture step, typically employing Protein A chromatography for mAbs, is particularly resource-intensive due to substantial buffer consumption and relatively low binding capacities [30]. Studies indicate that purification of biomolecules by chromatography consumes approximately 1,000 kg of eluent per kg of product, creating significant environmental and cost concerns [30]. Buffer management—including preparation, distribution, and hold steps—represents a frequently overlooked PMI contributor that offers substantial improvement opportunities through intensification approaches like inline buffer dilution [30].

Downstream Unit Operation PMI Analysis

Table 4: PMI Distribution Across Downstream Unit Operations

Unit Operation	Relative PMI Impact	Key Improvement Strategies
Capture Chromatography	High (20-30% of total downstream) [30]	Multi-column chromatography, high-capacity resins [30]
Polishing Chromatography	Moderate (10-20%)	Flow-through mode, membrane adsorbers [30]
Viral Inactivation	Low to Moderate	Continuous processing, reduced buffer volumes [30]
Ultrafiltration/Diafiltration	Moderate	Single-pass TFF, optimized buffer use [30]
Buffer Management	Significant (often underestimated)	Inline buffer dilution, concentrate preparation [30]

The downstream purification bottleneck has become increasingly pronounced as upstream titers have improved, shifting the overall manufacturing burden to purification operations [30]. This imbalance has driven innovation in downstream intensification technologies aimed at reducing PMI while maintaining product quality and regulatory compliance.

Process Intensification Technologies for PMI Reduction

Established Intensification Approaches

Multiple established technologies demonstrate significant potential for reducing PMI in biologics manufacturing:

Multi-column chromatography systems, particularly in simulated-moving-bed mode, increase resin utilization efficiency and reduce buffer consumption [30]. These systems can be operated sequentially or continuously, significantly intensifying capture step operations, especially for perfusion processes with continuous upstream output [30].

Membrane chromatography offers advantages including reduced volume of adsorbents due to high binding capacities in flow-through mode, increased volumetric productivity, and lower buffer consumption compared to traditional resins [30]. When operated in bind/elute mode as rapid cycling chromatography, membrane adsorbers provide higher productivity and lower cost [30].

Inline buffer dilution addresses the substantial PMI contribution from buffer preparation by using concentrated buffers that are diluted at point of use, greatly reducing auxiliary footprint through smaller storage tanks [30]. This approach represents a relatively straightforward implementation with immediate PMI reduction benefits.

Emerging Intensification Technologies

Continuous processing approaches offer substantial PMI reduction potential, with semicontinuous manufacturing (combining perfusion, periodic counter-current chromatography, and membrane adsorbers) demonstrating 23% PMI reduction compared to traditional fed-batch with two-column chromatography processes [28]. However, implementation challenges remain, including automation requirements, process analytical technology integration, equipment robustness, and regulatory pathway establishment [30].

Single-use technologies provide PMI benefits primarily through elimination of cleaning-related water consumption, though their impact on overall PMI is moderated when cleaning contributions are excluded from standard PMI calculations [23]. The environmental trade-offs between single-use systems and traditional stainless steel require careful lifecycle assessment beyond standard PMI metrics.

Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Studies

Essential Materials for PMI Analysis

Table 5: Key Research Reagents and Equipment for PMI Studies

Reagent/Equipment	Function in PMI Analysis	Application Context
ACS GCI PMI Calculation Tool	Standardized PMI calculation	Cross-company benchmarking [23]
Chemically Defined Media	Cell culture nutrient source	Upstream PMI reduction [32]
Protein A Chromatography Resins	mAb capture step	Downstream PMI analysis [30]
Chromatography Systems	Purification operation	Continuous processing evaluation [30]
Membrane Adsorbers	Polishing chromatography	Alternative to resin-based purification [30]
Inline Buffer Dilution Systems	Buffer preparation	Buffer management PMI reduction [30]
Analytical Chromatography	Product quality assessment	Quality attribute monitoring during intensification [30]

These research reagents and equipment form the foundation for comprehensive PMI analysis and process intensification studies. The ACS GCI PMI calculation tool provides particularly critical standardization for meaningful cross-process and cross-company benchmarking [23]. Chemically defined media offer PMI advantages through reduced lot-to-lot variation and elimination of animal-derived components, supporting both upstream efficiency and regulatory compliance [32].

Unit operation analysis through the lens of Process Mass Intensity provides valuable insights for identifying mass-intensive steps in both upstream and downstream bioprocessing. The extreme water dependency of biologics manufacturing—with water constituting approximately 94% of total process mass—highlights the critical importance of water usage optimization in PMI reduction strategies [23]. Upstream processes contribute 32-47% of total PMI, while downstream operations account for 34-54%, with chromatography steps representing the most significant individual contributors within downstream processing [28].

The PMI gap between small molecules (100s kg/kg API) and biologics (1,000s kg/kg API) underscores the different optimization priorities for these manufacturing modalities [23]. For biologics, semicontinuous manufacturing approaches combining perfusion bioreactors with intensified purification technologies demonstrate approximately 23% PMI reduction compared to conventional fed-batch processes, representing a promising direction for future process development [28]. As biopharmaceutical companies face increasing pressure to reduce environmental footprints while maintaining cost competitiveness, PMI benchmarking and targeted intensification of mass-intensive unit operations will become increasingly essential components of sustainable manufacturing strategies.

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) is a pivotal metric developed by the ACS Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) for benchmarking the sustainability of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. It is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a given mass of a product, providing a direct measure of process efficiency and environmental impact [33]. The ACS GCIPR, a collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and the American Chemical Society, is dedicated to implementing green chemistry and engineering. It has developed a suite of high-quality, publicly accessible tools to aid researchers and scientists in making more sustainable decisions in chemistry and process design [33] [34].

The strategic importance of PMI benchmarking is magnified by the fundamental differences between two major classes of pharmaceuticals: small-molecule drugs and biologics. These categories differ not only in their molecular size and complexity but also in their manufacturing processes, cost structures, and commercial landscapes. Notably, a recent policy analysis highlights a significant economic disparity: biologics, on average, generate substantially higher cumulative revenues than small-molecule drugs, with a difference of $4.9 billion after 9 years on the market [7]. This financial context, coupled with differing regulatory frameworks, makes efficiency metrics like PMI critical for strategic R&D and process development. This guide provides a comparative analysis of PMI benchmarking for these two therapeutic modalities, leveraging data and tools from the ACS GCIPR.

Quantitative PMI Benchmarking: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

The following tables summarize key performance and economic data for small-molecule and biologic drugs, providing a high-level comparison of their manufacturing and commercial landscapes.

Table 1: Manufacturing Process & Sustainability Profile

Feature	Small-Molecule Drugs	Biologics (Monoclonal Antibodies)
Typical PMI Range	Can be predicted for proposed routes using PMI Prediction Calculator [33]	Comparable between batch and continuous processes [10] [35]
Key PMI Driver	Solvent use (solvents can make up >80% of materials used) [33]	Water, raw materials, and consumables used per kg of drug substance [33]
Process Energy Impact	Less dominant factor in environmental impact assessment.	A key sustainability driver; continuous processes can lower energy/unit despite similar PMI [10] [35]
Primary PMI Tool	Process Mass Intensity (PMI) Calculator [33]	Biopharma PMI Calculator [33]

Table 2: Commercial & Economic Landscape (Based on 2012-2022 FDA-approved drugs)

Metric	Small-Molecule Drugs	Biologics
Median Peak Annual Global Revenue	$1.4 billion (in year 11)	$3.8 billion (in year 12) [7]
Median Economic Value (Global, Years 1-9)	$4.1 billion	$9.0 billion [7]
Median Economic Value (Global, Years 1-13)	$5.5 billion	$13.4 billion [7]
Share of Value from Years 10-13	27%	33% [7]

The data shows that while PMI is a crucial efficiency metric for both modalities, its interpretation and the primary levers for improvement differ. For small molecules, the focus is heavily on solvent selection and recovery, whereas for biologics, the consumption of water and single-use consumables is a major focus. Furthermore, the substantial revenue gap underscores the different economic environments in which these manufacturing efficiency gains are pursued.

Experimental Protocols for PMI Determination

Standardized PMI Calculation Methodology

The ACS GCIPR has established a standardized protocol for calculating Process Mass Intensity to ensure consistent and comparable benchmarking across the industry. The fundamental formula for PMI is [33]:

The "Total Mass of All Input Materials" includes all reactants, solvents, reagents, and catalysts used in the synthesis and purification of the product. Water is included in the total mass calculation. The following workflow outlines the generalized experimental and data collection procedure for determining the PMI of a process.

Figure 1: The standard workflow for experimental PMI determination, from input measurement to final calculation.

Specialized Methodologies by Modality

The general PMI calculation is adapted for the specific nature of small-molecule and biologic manufacturing processes.

• For Small-Molecule API Synthesis: The process is typically a linear or convergent synthetic route. The Convergent PMI Calculator from the ACS GCIPR is specifically designed for this, allowing the user to account for multiple branches of synthesis that are combined in later steps [33]. The experimental protocol requires meticulous mass tracking for each reaction step, including all solvents for reactions, extractions, and crystallizations.

• For Biologics Drug Substance Synthesis: The process involves cell culture, fermentation, and downstream purification. The Biopharma PMI Calculator is the specialized tool here, and its experimental protocol requires cataloging the masses of all materials used, including cell culture media, buffers, resins, and water, per kilogram of produced drug substance (API) [33]. The focus is on the consumables in the bioreactor and purification suites, which differ significantly from the solvents and reagents used in chemical synthesis.

The Scientist's Toolkit for Sustainable Pharma Research

The ACS GCIPR provides a suite of freely available tools to implement green chemistry principles and PMI benchmarking in pharmaceutical research and development. The following table details key resources essential for researchers in this field.

Table 3: Essential Research Tools from the ACS GCIPR

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Application in Research
PMI Prediction Calculator	Predicts probable PMI ranges for proposed synthetic routes using historical data and Monte Carlo simulations.	Used for in-silico route selection and assessment prior to laboratory work, enabling greener choices early in development [33].
PMI-LCA Tool	A high-level estimator that combines PMI with environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) data.	Provides a faster, practical assessment of the broader environmental impact (e.g., carbon footprint) of an API manufacturing process [33] [34].
Solvent Selection Tool	An interactive tool to select and compare solvents based on their physical, EHS, and environmental properties.	Critical for reducing the largest mass component in small-molecule API synthesis, thereby directly improving PMI [33].
Reagent Guides	Provide Venn diagrams comparing the scalability, utility, and greenness of reagents for over 25 transformations.	Helps chemists explore and choose greener reagent alternatives during route scouting and optimization [33].
Acid-Base Selection Tool	Allows filtering of over 200 acids and bases by pKa, properties, and EHS/Clean Chemistry scores.	Enables scientists to choose more sustainable acids and bases for reactions and purifications [33].
Analytical Method Greenness Score (AMGS) Calculator	Benchmarks the greenness of chromatography methods by evaluating solvent use, energy, and waste.	Raises awareness and promotes sustainability in analytical method development, a significant source of solvent waste [33] [34].

The toolkit and benchmarking data provided by the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable offer an indispensable foundation for objectively comparing the environmental and mass efficiency of small-molecule and biologic drug manufacturing. While PMI serves as a universal metric for material efficiency, its application reveals distinct profiles for each modality: small-molecule processes are dominated by solvent impact, whereas biologics manufacturing requires a focus on water and consumables, with energy consumption being a critical secondary factor. The drive for sustainability, framed by a evolving regulatory landscape and significant economic pressures, makes the adoption of these standardized tools and metrics not just a best practice but a strategic imperative for drug development professionals. By integrating these tools early in the R&D process—from route selection and reagent choice to process optimization—researchers and scientists can make data-driven decisions that significantly improve the sustainability profile of future medicines.

Beyond the Metric: Navigating PMI Limitations and Driving Process Efficiency

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has become a standard metric for measuring the material efficiency of manufacturing processes. Calculated as the total mass of materials used per unit mass of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) produced, PMI offers a straightforward way to benchmark processes, particularly for small-molecule drugs [23]. However, as the industry shifts toward more complex biologics, the limitations of PMI become increasingly apparent. This guide objectively compares the performance of PMI as an assessment tool, highlighting its critical blind spots, particularly its failure to account for energy consumption and comprehensive environmental impact, especially within the context of biologics and small-molecule drug development.

What PMI Measures and Its Inherent Limitations

PMI is defined by the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) with the following calculation [23]:

A lower PMI indicates a more material-efficient process. The metric is favored because it is relatively simple to calculate and provides a quick comparison between different process routes [23]. Despite this utility, the scientific literature clearly outlines its shortcomings:

• Excludes Energy Consumption: PMI does not account for energy usage, which is a major contributor to the environmental footprint, particularly in biologics manufacturing where energy-intensive cleanroom environments are required [23].
• Fails to Assess Environmental Impact of Materials: The metric treats all mass inputs equally, without considering the relative hazard, scarcity, or environmental impact of different raw materials [23].
• Limited Scope: A comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is required to accurately quantify the full environmental footprint, but such an assessment is time and resource-intensive [23].

The following workflow illustrates how PMI calculations focus on mass inputs while omitting critical environmental factors:

PMI in Practice: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

The limitations of PMI are magnified when comparing small-molecule drugs and biologics, as their manufacturing processes are fundamentally different. The following table summarizes the key distinctions that PMI alone cannot fully capture.

Characteristic	Small-Molecule Drugs	Biologic Drugs
Typical PMI Range	100s kg/kg API [23]	1,000s kg/kg API [23]
Primary Mass Contributor	Organic solvents, reagents [23]	Water (accounts for ~94% of mass) [23]
Key Energy Drivers	Chemical synthesis, reactor heating [36]	Cleanroom environmental control, sterilization, refrigeration [23] [36]
Process Scale	Smaller reactor volumes [23]	Large-scale bioreactors (2,000-20,000 L) [23]
Environmental Hotspots	Solvent waste, reagent toxicity [23]	High water consumption, energy for cell culture and purification [23]

Experimental Data and Benchmarking Insights

A benchmarking study by the ACS GCIPR provides concrete data on the PMI of monoclonal antibody (mAb) production, a dominant biologic modality. The study of 14 processes revealed that water constitutes approximately 94% of the total input mass, with raw materials and consumables making up 5% and 1%, respectively [23]. This demonstrates that for biologics, PMI is essentially a proxy for water intensity.

Furthermore, the study identified cell culture titer and chromatography steps as the primary drivers of PMI in biologic processes, offering a clear target for improvement efforts [23]. In contrast, small-molecule processes are more influenced by the number of chemical synthesis steps and solvent selection.

The diagram below illustrates the divergent environmental profiles of these two modalities, showing how PMI captures mass intensity but misses critical factors like energy and material hazard.

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Beyond-PMI Assessment

To move beyond PMI's limitations, researchers should adopt a more holistic assessment protocol. The following methodology is adapted from industry practices and sustainability reporting frameworks [37] [23].

Objective

To quantitatively assess and compare the environmental performance of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes (for both small molecules and biologics) by integrating energy consumption and material impact with traditional PMI.

Methodology

• Define System Boundary: Clearly outline the process stages to be assessed (e.g., from cell culture/inoculum to bulk drug substance for biologics; from chemical starting materials to purified API for small molecules) [23].
• Mass Balance & PMI Calculation:
  • Weigh or calculate the total mass of all input materials, including water, raw materials, and consumables.
  • Record the mass of the final purified API.
  • Calculate PMI using the standard formula [23].
• Energy Audit:
  • Install energy meters on major equipment (bioreactors, chromatography skids, chemical reactors, distillation units, cleanroom HVAC systems).
  • Collect total energy consumption data (in kWh) over a representative production campaign.
  • Convert total energy to a Mass Energy Intensity (MEI) metric: MEI = Total Energy Consumed (kWh) / Mass of API (kg).
• Material Impact Assessment:
  • For all input materials, classify them based on environmental, health, and safety (EHS) criteria. Consider factors such as:
    • Abiotic depletion potential
    • Global warming potential
    • Toxicity
  • This qualitative assessment helps identify hotspots that a low PMI might mask.

Data Analysis

• Compare the PMI and MEI for different processes or process optimizations.
• A process with a lower PMI may have a higher MEI, revealing an energy-for-mass trade-off (common when switching to single-use biologics systems).
• Use the material impact assessment to guide the substitution of hazardous or scarce solvents/reagents with greener alternatives, even if the mass balance remains unchanged.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Solutions

Moving beyond simple PMI calculations requires specific tools and methodologies. The following table details key solutions for comprehensive environmental benchmarking.

Tool/Reagent	Primary Function in Analysis
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Software	Enables a comprehensive quantification of environmental impacts (e.g., carbon footprint, water scarcity) across the entire product life cycle, far surpassing PMI's scope [23].
Material Impact Assessment Database	Provides critical data on the toxicity, renewability, and degradation profiles of raw materials, allowing for a qualitative assessment of material choices [23].
Portable LIBS/XRF Analyzers	Used for Positive Material Identification (PMI) in infrastructure to ensure correct, safe, and durable material selection in facility upkeep, indirectly supporting long-term operational sustainability [38].
Standardized PMI Calculation Tool	The tool developed by the ACS GCIPR Biopharma Focus Group ensures consistent and comparable PMI data collection for biologics processes, which is a necessary first step for benchmarking [23].
Energy Monitoring Systems	Hardware and software to track real-time energy consumption (electricity, steam, natural gas) of specific unit operations, enabling the calculation of Mass Energy Intensity (MEI) [23].

While Process Mass Intensity (PMI) serves as a valuable and easily calculable starting point for assessing material efficiency in pharmaceutical manufacturing, it is an insufficient standalone metric for comprehensive environmental benchmarking. Its failure to account for energy consumption and the environmental impact of materials is a critical blind spot, particularly when comparing the vastly different production frameworks for small molecules and biologics.

A low PMI does not equate to a low environmental footprint. Truly sustainable process development requires an integrated view that combines PMI with energy audits, material hazard assessments, and, where feasible, full Life Cycle Assessments. By adopting these more robust evaluation frameworks, researchers and drug development professionals can make more informed decisions that genuinely reduce the environmental impact of bringing new medicines to market.

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial metric for evaluating the sustainability and efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. Defined as the total mass of materials (water, raw materials, and consumables) required to produce a specified mass of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), PMI provides a standardized measure of material efficiency [23] [22]. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has identified PMI as a key mass-related green chemistry metric and an indispensable indicator of overall process greenness [22]. Unlike simple reaction yield or atom economy, PMI offers a more holistic assessment by accounting for all mass inputs including solvents and reagents used in synthesis, purification, and isolation [22]. As pharmaceutical companies face increasing pressure from stakeholders to demonstrate environmental responsibility, PMI has become an essential tool for benchmarking processes, identifying improvement opportunities, and driving sustainable manufacturing practices across both biologics and small molecule therapeutics [23].

PMI Benchmarking Across Therapeutic Modalities

The material efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing varies significantly across different therapeutic modalities. Table 1 provides a comparative overview of PMI benchmarks across small molecules, peptides, and biologics, highlighting the distinct sustainability challenges for each category.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Therapeutic Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Typical PMI Range (kg input/kg API)	Key Contributors to PMI	Primary Manufacturing Methods
Small Molecules	168 - 308 [22]	Organic solvents, reagents [22]	Chemical synthesis, continuous manufacturing [39]
Oligonucleotides	3,035 - 7,023 (average: 4,299) [22]	Solvents, reagents in solid-phase synthesis [22]	Solid-phase synthesis [22]
Biologics (mAbs)	~7,700 (average) [40]	Water (94%), raw materials (5%), consumables (1%) [23] [40]	Fermentation, cell culture, chromatography [23]
Synthetic Peptides	~13,000 (average for SPPS) [22]	Solvents (DMF, NMP, DCM), reagents [22] [41]	Solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS), liquid-phase peptide synthesis (LPPS) [22]

The data reveals that biologics and peptides have significantly higher PMI values compared to traditional small molecules, primarily due to their water-intensive nature and the use of excess solvents and reagents in solid-phase synthesis [23] [22]. For biologics, particularly monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), water accounts for approximately 94% of the total PMI, with downstream purification processes contributing up to 75% of the overall mass intensity [40]. Synthetic peptides manufactured via solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) demonstrate the highest PMI values, approximately 40-80 times greater than small molecules, due to the large excess of hazardous reagents and solvents required [22].

PMI Optimization Strategies for Biologics Manufacturing

Impact of Cell Culture Titer Improvements

Cell culture titer—the concentration of therapeutic protein produced per unit volume of cell culture—represents one of the most powerful levers for reducing PMI in biologics manufacturing. Higher titers directly improve process efficiency by producing more API from the same initial mass inputs, thereby distributing the substantial water and material footprint across a larger product mass [23] [40].

Experimental Protocol: Titer Improvement Impact Analysis

• Objective: Quantify the relationship between cell culture titer and overall PMI reduction in mAb production processes.
• Methodology: Compare PMI values across processes with varying titers while maintaining consistent bioreactor scales and purification methodologies. Data collected from industry benchmarking studies representing 14 process datasets from 6 major biopharma companies [23].
• Key Measurements: PMI calculated as total mass of water, raw materials, and consumables per kg of drug substance; titer measured in g/L at harvest.
• Results: Processes achieving higher cell culture titers (3.8 g/L) demonstrated approximately 20% lower PMI compared to processes with lower titers (2.2 g/L) [40]. This relationship highlights the significant potential for titer optimization to drive substantial improvements in material efficiency.

Figure 1: Impact of Cell Culture Titer on PMI in Biologics Manufacturing

Chromatography Process Optimization

Chromatography operations represent the most significant contributor to PMI in downstream processing of biologics, consuming over 62% of the total water used in mAb production [40]. This substantial footprint makes chromatography a primary target for PMI reduction efforts.

Experimental Protocol: Chromatography Contribution Analysis

• Objective: Determine the proportional contribution of chromatography steps to overall PMI in mAb manufacturing.
• Methodology: PMI inputs were grouped into Upstream Process (cell culture and bioreactor production), Harvest (centrifugation and filtration), and Downstream Process (chromatography, ultrafiltration/diafiltration) operations. Data was collected from commercial and clinical manufacturing processes across multiple companies [23].
• Key Measurements: Mass inputs for each unit operation were standardized per kg of drug substance and aggregated to determine percentage contributions.
• Results: Downstream processes accounted for 75% of the total PMI, with chromatography being the highest consumer of water and raw materials. Reducing chromatography steps or optimizing buffer volumes can potentially cut total mass input by over 50% [40].

Table 2 outlines key optimization strategies for reducing chromatography-related PMI, along with their potential impact and implementation considerations.

Table 2: Chromatography Optimization Strategies for PMI Reduction

Strategy	Potential PMI Reduction	Implementation Considerations	Stage of Adoption
Buffer volume optimization	Moderate to high (10-30%)	Compatibility with resin lifetime and product quality; requires process characterization	Widely adopted
Column cycling increase	Moderate (15-25%)	Validation of consistent performance over multiple cycles; integrity testing	Industry standard
Single-use flow path	Low to moderate (5-15%)	Reduction of cleaning water; balance with consumables waste	Growing adoption
Multi-column chromatography	High (20-40%)	Equipment investment; process control complexity	Emerging for specific applications
Alternative separation technologies	High (30-50%)	Regulatory acceptance; product quality demonstration	Early development

PMI Optimization Strategies for Small Molecules

Solvent Selection and Substitution

Solvent use represents the most significant contributor to PMI in small molecule API manufacturing, accounting for the majority of mass inputs in synthetic processes [22] [39]. Strategic solvent selection and substitution therefore offer substantial opportunities for PMI reduction.

Experimental Protocol: Solvent Optimization Methodology

• Objective: Evaluate the impact of solvent selection on PMI throughout the API manufacturing process.
• Methodology: The Streamlined PMI-LCA Tool, developed in collaboration with the ACS GCIPR, combines PMI assessment with a "cradle to gate" approach to include the environmental footprint of synthesis raw materials [39]. This tool enables rapid evaluation of multiple solvent options during process development.
• Key Measurements: PMI calculated for each solvent option, including mass inputs for synthesis, purification, and isolation; environmental impact factors incorporated for comprehensive assessment.
• Results: Application to MK-7264 API development demonstrated PMI reduction from 366 to 88 through optimized solvent selection and process improvements [39].

Figure 2: Solvent Selection Strategy for PMI Reduction in Small Molecules

Hybrid Approaches and Continuous Manufacturing

Integrating hybrid synthesis approaches with continuous manufacturing technologies presents a promising strategy for substantial PMI reduction in small molecule production.

Experimental Protocol: Continuous vs. Batch PMI Comparison

• Objective: Quantify PMI differences between continuous and batch manufacturing processes for small molecule APIs.
• Methodology: Direct comparison of PMI values for equivalent processes run in both continuous and batch modes, accounting for all mass inputs including solvents, reagents, and catalysts.
• Key Measurements: Total mass intensity calculated for each manufacturing approach; productivity measured in g of API per unit time; energy consumption evaluated per unit of API produced.
• Results: While PMI values between continuous and batch processes may be comparable for some processes, the multifold higher productivity of continuous processes often results in lower overall energy consumption per unit of API produced, contributing to enhanced environmental sustainability [10] [35].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3 provides researchers with key reagents, materials, and technologies essential for implementing PMI reduction strategies across biologics and small molecule development.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in PMI Reduction	Application Scope
Green Solvents	Cyrene, 2-MeTHF, CPME [41]	Replace reprotoxic solvents (DMF, NMP); reduce environmental impact	Small molecules, peptide synthesis
Process Analytical Technologies	In-line sensors, HPLC/UPLC systems	Enable real-time monitoring and control; reduce failed batches and rework	All modalities
High-Productivity Cell Lines	Engineered CHO cells [23]	Increase cell culture titer; improve upstream efficiency	Biologics manufacturing
Chromatography Resins	High-capacity protein A resins [23]	Reduce resin volume and buffer consumption	Biologics downstream processing
Continuous Bioreactors	Perfusion systems [10]	Higher productivity per unit volume; smaller facility footprint	Biologics manufacturing
Flow Chemistry Systems	Continuous reactors [39]	Reduce solvent volume; improve reaction efficiency	Small molecule API synthesis
PMI Calculation Tools	Streamlined PMI-LCA Tool [39]	Rapid assessment of environmental impact during process development	All modalities

The strategic reduction of Process Mass Intensity requires modality-specific approaches that target the most significant contributors to material inefficiency. For biologics manufacturing, focusing on cell culture titer improvement and chromatography optimization offers the most substantial PMI reduction potential, given that downstream processes account for approximately 75% of total mass intensity [40]. For small molecule synthesis, solvent selection and substitution strategies present the greatest opportunities, potentially reducing PMI by 4-fold or more through implementation of green chemistry principles [39]. Peptide therapeutics, with their exceptionally high PMI values around 13,000 for SPPS, represent a critical area for innovation, particularly in developing more sustainable synthesis platforms [22].

While PMI serves as a valuable benchmarking metric, it does not fully capture the environmental footprint of pharmaceutical manufacturing, as it excludes energy consumption and the environmental impact of raw materials [10] [23] [35]. A comprehensive sustainability assessment requires complementary metrics and tools, such as the Streamlined PMI-LCA approach [39], to guide the pharmaceutical industry toward truly sustainable manufacturing practices across all therapeutic modalities.

The Promise of Continuous Manufacturing and Intensified Processes

The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a significant paradigm shift, moving from traditional batch manufacturing to more efficient, flexible, and sustainable continuous production systems. This transformation is driven by the need to enhance supply chain resilience, reduce production costs, and meet the growing demand for personalized medicines [42]. Continuous Manufacturing (CM) represents a revolutionary approach where the entire production process operates as an integrated, uninterrupted system, with raw materials continuously fed in and finished products continuously removed [43]. This stands in stark contrast to traditional batch processing, which involves discrete, separate steps with considerable downtime and intermediate testing.

Framed within the context of PMI benchmarking for small molecules versus biologics, this guide objectively compares the performance of continuous and intensified processes against traditional alternatives. For small molecules, CM often entails fully integrated systems from key starting materials to final dosage form, while for biologics, it frequently involves intensified perfusion cultivation and connected downstream processing [44] [45]. The adoption of these advanced manufacturing technologies is actively supported by regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA, which recognize their potential to improve product quality, accelerate time-to-market, and strengthen supply chain robustness [46] [43].

Market and Adoption Landscape

The continuous manufacturing market is experiencing robust growth, reflecting its increasing importance in pharmaceutical production. The market demonstrates a strong competitive landscape with several key players leading innovation and implementation.

Table 1: Global Continuous Manufacturing Market Overview

Metric	Value	Time Period	Source
Market Value (2024)	USD 4.5 Billion	2024	[46]
Projected Market Value (2034)	USD 16.2 Billion	2034	[46]
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)	13.7%	2025-2034	[46]
Leading Therapeutics Type	Small Molecules (75.7% share)	2025	[47]
Leading Application	Finished Product Manufacturing (53.9% share)	2025	[47]
Fastest-Growing Region	Asia-Pacific	2025-2034	[46]

Table 2: Market Leaders in Continuous Manufacturing (2024)

Company	Market Share	Competitive Edge & Specialization
GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft	24%	Modular, scalable systems (e.g., ConsiGma) for oral solid dosage forms; expertise in automation and process analytics [46]
Thermo Fisher Scientific	Not Specified	Advanced process analytical technologies (PAT) and end-to-end manufacturing platforms [46]
Siemens Healthineers	Not Specified	Digital automation and control systems for smart, data-driven manufacturing [46]
Continuus Pharmaceuticals	Not Specified	Integrated Continuous Manufacturing (ICM) from drug substance to drug product [44]
L.B. Bohle Maschinen und Verfahren	Not Specified	Not Specified [46]
Collective Market Share of Top 5 Players	60%	2024 [46]

Comparative Performance: Continuous vs. Batch Manufacturing

Quantitative data and experimental observations consistently demonstrate the superior performance of continuous and intensified processes over traditional batch methods across key operational metrics.

Table 3: Performance Benchmarking - Small Molecules vs. Biologics

Performance Parameter	Small Molecule (Batch)	Small Molecule (Continuous)	Biologics (Fed-Batch)	Biologics (Continuous/Intensified)
Production Time	Weeks to Months	Dramatically reduced (data not specified)	Baseline	Significantly shorter production cycles [45]
Facility Footprint	Large, segregated suites	30-50% reduction [47]	Large facilities required	Smaller footprint; modular clean rooms [45]
Volumetric Productivity	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Up to 10 g/L [45]	Often exceeds fed-batch limits; can exceed 4 g/L/day [45]
Cost of Goods (COGs)	Higher	Lower production costs [46] [42]	Industry standard	Can be reduced by up to 75% (e.g., below $50/g) [45]
Process Control & Quality	Reactive (Quality-by-Testing)	Proactive (Quality-by-Design); real-time monitoring [43] [42]	Dynamic conditions, potential product degradation	Stable conditions, consistent product quality [45]

Small Molecule Manufacturing

For small molecules, Integrated Continuous Manufacturing (ICM) platforms combine upstream API synthesis with downstream drug product formulation into a single, unified line [44]. This integration eliminates unnecessary material handoffs, reduces hold times, and improves product uniformity. A key advantage is scaling via runtime, where larger production volumes are achieved simply by running the established continuous process for a longer duration, eliminating the need for costly and time-consuming process re-engineering typically required in batch scale-up [44].

Biologics Manufacturing

In biopharmaceuticals, continuous processing typically involves intensified perfusion cultivation. This method maintains high cell densities and extended growth phases by providing a constant supply of fresh nutrients and simultaneous removal of waste products [45]. This stable environment mitigates issues like incomplete glycosylation and product degradation, thereby enhancing final product quality. The shift can be implemented as a hybrid process (combining continuous and batch steps) or a fully end-to-end continuous workflow, with the latter delivering the highest efficiency and smallest footprint [45].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Successful implementation of continuous manufacturing relies on robust experimental frameworks and advanced technologies. Below are detailed protocols for key process development and characterization experiments.

Protocol for Implementing an Integrated Continuous Process for Small Molecules

This protocol outlines the methodology for developing an end-to-end continuous manufacturing process, from key starting materials (KSMs) to final dosage form (FDF), suitable for late-stage clinical and commercial supply [44].

• Objective: To design, establish, and validate a fully integrated continuous manufacturing process that ensures consistent product quality, reduces production timeline, and simplifies scale-up.
• Materials and Equipment:
  • Continuous Flow Reactors: For API synthesis under controlled conditions.
  • Continuous Crystallizers, Rotary Filtration Units, Drum Dryers: For downstream drug substance processing.
  • Extrusion-Injection Molding or Continuous Granulation/Tableting Equipment: For drug product formulation.
  • Process Analytical Technology (PAT) Tools: Real-time pH, density, Raman, and infrared monitors.
  • Solvent Recovery Systems: For closed-loop recycling.
• Methodology:
  • Process Design: Develop a continuous process flow diagram integrating all unit operations. Utilize a "design-first" and Quality by Design (QbD) approach to define the Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) and Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) [43] [42].
  • PAT Integration and Control Strategy: Install PAT probes at critical points for real-time monitoring of CQAs. The data feeds into a closed-loop control system that automatically adjusts CPPs to maintain quality within predefined specifications [44] [43].
  • System Integration and Start-up: Sequentially start unit operations and integrate material flows. Establish a state of dynamic control where the process maintains steady-state conditions.
  • Steady-State Operation and Sampling: Run the integrated system continuously for a predetermined period (e.g., 24-48 hours). Collect samples of intermediates and final product at regular intervals for offline analysis to validate PAT data.
  • Process Validation and Scale-Out: Validate the process by demonstrating consistent product quality across the entire run. For increased production volume, scale-out by extending the runtime of the validated process or by replicating the modular system at other sites [44].
• Data Analysis: Compare the variability of CQAs (e.g., purity, particle size, tablet hardness) against batch processes. Evaluate production time, API yield, and solvent usage. The process is deemed successful when all CQAs remain within specifications throughout the steady-state operation without manual intervention.

Protocol for Intensified Perfusion Cultivation for Biologics

This protocol describes the setup and operation of an intensified perfusion bioreactor for the continuous production of a biotherapeutic, such as a monoclonal antibody [45].

• Objective: To achieve and maintain high cell density cultures for extended durations to maximize volumetric productivity and improve product quality consistency.
• Materials and Equipment:
  • Bioreactor System (3L to 1000L capacity) with advanced process controls.
  • Perfusion Device: Acoustic settler, tangential flow filtration (TFF) system, or alternating tangential flow (ATF) system for cell retention.
  • Cell Line: High-productivity mammalian cell expression system (e.g., CHO cells).
  • Analytical Tools: For monitoring cell viability, density, metabolite concentrations (glucose, lactate), and product titer/quality (e.g., glycosylation).
• Methodology:
  • Inoculum Train and Bioreactor Inoculation: Expand cells using a seed train culture until a sufficient volume and cell density is reached to inoculate the production bioreactor at a high starting density.
  • Perfusion Process Initiation: After a brief batch phase, initiate perfusion by starting the continuous feed of fresh media and the continuous removal of spent media through the cell retention device. The perfusion rate (e.g., vessel volumes per day) is a critical parameter.
  • High-Density Culture Maintenance: Maintain the culture in a steady-state of high cell density (e.g., >50 million cells/mL) by controlling the perfusion rate based on glucose consumption or lactate production rates. This phase can be sustained for several weeks.
  • Continuous Harvest: The product-containing harvest stream is continuously collected from the spent media and typically directed to a connected, continuous downstream purification train (e.g., continuous capture chromatography, viral inactivation) [45].
  • Process Monitoring and Control: Continuously monitor and control dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature. Perform daily offline measurements of cell count, viability, and metabolite analysis to fine-tune the process.
• Data Analysis: Calculate volumetric productivity (grams per liter per day) and compare it to historical fed-batch data. Track key product quality attributes (e.g., glycosylation patterns, charge variants) over time to demonstrate consistency. The process is successful when it demonstrates a significant increase in productivity and consistent product quality compared to fed-batch.

Diagram 1: Integrated continuous manufacturing workflow for small molecules, showing material flow and PAT integration for closed-loop control.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

The development and execution of continuous and intensified processes require specialized materials and technologies. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Continuous Manufacturing

Item	Function / Role	Specific Example / Application
Process Analytical Technology (PAT)	Enables real-time monitoring and control of Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) and Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) [43].	Inline NIR probes for blend uniformity in tablets; Raman for API concentration in flow reactors [43].
Continuous Flow Reactors	Facilitates API synthesis under precise, controlled conditions with improved heat and mass transfer [44] [47].	Used for continuous synthesis of small molecule APIs, enabling safer handling of hazardous reactions [44].
Perfusion Bioreactor Systems	Supports intensified cell cultivation by allowing continuous media exchange and cell retention for high-density cultures [45].	Acoustic settlers or ATF systems for continuous production of monoclonal antibodies and other biologics [45].
High-Productivity Cell Lines	The biological engine for producing recombinant proteins; high productivity is crucial for economic viability [45].	Engineered CHO cell lines optimized for both high titer and consistent product quality in perfusion processes [45].
Closed-Loop Control Software	The "brain" of the operation; uses data from PAT to automatically adjust process parameters in real-time [44] [43].	Software platforms that integrate data from multiple PAT tools to maintain CPPs within a defined design space.
Modular, Single-Use Bioprocessing Equipment	Provides flexibility, reduces cleaning validation, and minimizes cross-contamination risk, especially in clinical manufacturing [45].	Single-use bioreactors, mixers, and fluidic pathways that enable rapid product changeover and facility flexibility.

Diagram 2: Simplified workflow of an intensified perfusion bioreactor system for biologics.

The evidence presented in this guide unequivocally demonstrates the transformative potential of continuous manufacturing and intensified processes for both small molecules and biologics. When benchmarked against traditional batch operations, these advanced systems offer superior performance in terms of operational efficiency, product quality control, cost reduction, and supply chain agility.

For small molecules, Integrated Continuous Manufacturing (ICM) provides a seamless, end-to-end production paradigm that drastically shortens timelines, reduces the facility footprint, and embeds quality through real-time control [44]. For biologics, intensified perfusion processes enable unprecedented volumetric productivity and consistent product quality in a smaller, more flexible manufacturing footprint [45].

The ongoing adoption of these technologies, supported by a favorable regulatory landscape and continuous technological innovation, is poised to redefine pharmaceutical manufacturing. As the industry moves towards more personalized medicines and resilient supply chains, the principles of continuous and intensified processing will undoubtedly form the cornerstone of next-generation pharmaceutical manufacturing.

In the pharmaceutical industry, the drive for sustainability has long been guided by the straightforward metric of Process Mass Intensity (PMI), calculated as the total mass of materials used divided by the mass of the final product. [48] While valuable for measuring material efficiency, PMI's limitation lies in its focus on mass alone, which does not adequately indicate potential environmental and human health impacts. [48] The American Chemical Society's Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCI PR) has championed the integration of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to provide a more holistic picture. [48] This transition is particularly critical when comparing the environmental profiles of two major drug modalities: traditional small molecules and complex biologics, which differ fundamentally in their manufacturing processes and associated environmental footprints. [49]

Defining the Core Metrics

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) is a mass-based efficiency metric. A lower PMI indicates that a process uses less material to produce a given amount of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). [48] While useful for benchmarking material usage, it treats all materials as equal, ignoring their distinct environmental burdens. [39]

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a standardized methodology that evaluates environmental impacts across a product's entire life cycle, from raw material extraction ("cradle") to disposal ("grave"). [50] For pharmaceutical processes, a "cradle-to-gate" approach is often used, assessing impacts from resource extraction through to the synthesis of the purified API. [50] LCA typically accounts for multiple impact categories, such as global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, and water depletion. [48]

Table 1: Core Characteristics of PMI and LCA

Feature	Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Primary Focus	Mass efficiency of a process	Comprehensive environmental impact
Scope	Gate-to-gate (typically process steps)	Cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave
Key Output	Single metric (mass input/mass API)	Multiple environmental impact indicators
Data Requirements	Mass balances for all process inputs	Extensive inventory of material and energy flows
Strengths	Simple, quick, good for early-stage benchmarking	Holistic, identifies environmental hotspots, informs strategic decisions
Limitations	Does not differentiate between material types	Data-intensive, more complex and time-consuming

The ACS GCI PMI-LCA Tool: Bridging the Gap

To address the limitations of PMI while making LCA more accessible, the ACS GCI PR developed the Streamlined PMI-LCA Tool. [48] This freely available tool combines the simplicity of PMI calculation with a cradle-to-gate environmental footprint analysis. It uses pre-loaded LCA data from the Ecoinvent database to automatically calculate six environmental impact indicators alongside PMI, enabling chemists and engineers to quickly identify process steps that are both mass-intensive and have significant life cycle impacts. [51] [48] The tool is designed for iterative use throughout process development, supporting a "Green-by-Design" strategy. [39]

PMI Benchmarking: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

Fundamental Differences in Process and Impact

The production of small-molecule APIs and biologics, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), involves fundamentally different processes, leading to distinct PMI and environmental impact profiles.

Small Molecule API manufacturing typically involves multi-step synthetic organic chemistry, often using hazardous solvents and reagents. PMI values can vary widely but are generally lower than those for biologics. For example, the PMI for the small molecule MK-7264 was reduced from 366 to 88 over the course of process development. [39]

Biologics Manufacturing, in contrast, uses living cells in bioreactors to produce APIs. These processes are highly resource-intensive, particularly in terms of water and energy. The PMI for biologics is routinely over 10 times higher than that for small-molecule APIs, with water use accounting for more than 90% of that mass. [49]

Table 2: PMI and LCA Comparison: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

Characteristic	Small Molecule APIs	Biologics (e.g., mAbs)
Typical PMI Range	Can be optimized to below 100 [39]	Over 10x higher than small molecules [49]
Major Mass Contributors	Solvents, reagents, catalysts	Water, cell culture media, single-use equipment [49]
Key Energy Drivers	Heating, cooling, pressure control	Agitation, aeration, and refrigeration for large-scale bioreactors; cleanroom HVAC [52] [49]
Primary LCA Impact Hotspots	Embedded energy and toxicity of solvents/reagents	Electricity for plant operation (dominant); material production [52]
Example GWP	Dependent on solvent and energy mix	~22.7 tons CO2eq per 1 kg drug substance (2000L US process) [52]

The Critical Limitation of PMI in Biologics

Relying solely on PMI can be misleading, especially for biologics. A comparison between a traditional fed-batch process and a continuous process for mAb production illustrates this point. [10] While a fed-batch process might have a lower PMI, its productivity per unit time is often multifold lower than that of a continuous process. [49] The longer a batch process takes in a manufacturing plant, the more electricity and other resources it consumes. Therefore, a continuous process with a higher PMI can have a markedly lower overall environmental impact due to its higher productivity and reduced facility occupancy time. [49] [10] This underscores the necessity of moving beyond PMI to LCA, which can capture the significant impacts of energy consumption and other factors.

Experimental and Methodological Protocols

Protocol for Conducting a Streamlined PMI-LCA

The ACS GCI PR's streamlined PMI-LCA methodology provides a practical approach for process developers. [48]

1. Goal and Scope Definition:

• Objective: To compare the environmental performance of alternative synthetic routes or process optimizations for an API.
• System Boundary: Cradle-to-gate, encompassing raw material extraction, production, and all synthesis steps up to the purified API. [50] [39]

2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Compilation:

• Data Collection: For each step in the process, input the masses of all raw materials, solvents, reagents, and catalysts.
• Tool-Assisted Inventory: The PMI-LCA Tool automates the linking of these mass inputs to their corresponding life cycle inventory data from the Ecoinvent database. [51] [48] This bypasses the need for manual, time-intensive LCI data collection.

3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA):

• Automated Calculation: The tool automatically calculates impact indicators based on the inventory data. The default indicators are:
  • Mass Net (PMI)
  • Energy
  • Global Warming Potential (GWP)
  • Acidification
  • Eutrophication
  • Water Depletion [48]
• Hotspot Identification: The results are presented in customizable charts, allowing users to easily identify which process steps or materials contribute most to the overall environmental impact. [48]

4. Interpretation:

• Iterative Improvement: The results guide process chemists to prioritize development efforts on the most impactful areas, such as replacing a solvent with a high GWP or optimizing a step with high energy consumption. [39]

Protocol for a Comparative Sustainability Assessment

To objectively compare processes, such as batch versus continuous manufacturing, a formal comparative LCA should be conducted.

1. Functional Unit Definition:

• Define a quantitative basis for comparison, for example, "1 kilogram of purified drug substance." [52]

2. Inventory Modeling:

• Batch Process: Model all material and energy inputs for the entire batch train, including cleaning-in-place (CIP) and sterilization-in-place (SIP). Include the facility's energy allocation for the total duration of the campaign.
• Continuous Process: Model material and energy inputs for the integrated continuous process. Allocate facility energy based on the total output and production time. [49]

3. Impact Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis:

• Calculate the LCA impact categories for both systems.
• Perform sensitivity analysis on key parameters, such as bioreactor scale, process duration, and plant utilization factor, to test the robustness of the conclusions. [10]

Diagram 1: Workflow for a comparative LCA of pharmaceutical processes. The methodology ensures a fair comparison between different modalities (e.g., small molecules vs. biologics) or technologies (e.g., batch vs. continuous) by using a common functional unit.

Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Sustainable Process Development

Table 3: Key Reagents and Tools for Green Process Development

Reagent / Tool Category	Function / Purpose	Sustainability Consideration
Advanced Catalysts (e.g., biocatalysts, photoredox)	Increase reaction selectivity and efficiency, reduce steps and energy.	Enables milder reaction conditions, reduces waste (Principle #9). [53]
Next-Generation Green Solvents (e.g., Cyrene, 2-MeTHF)	Replace hazardous, high GWP solvents like DMF and NMP.	Reduces toxicity, waste, and life cycle impacts (Principle #5). [53]
Single-Use Bioreactors & Assemblies	Pre-sterilized, disposable containers for biologics production.	Reduces water and energy for cleaning/sterilization; end-of-life disposal requires consideration. [52] [49]
ACS GCI PMI-LCA Tool	Software for calculating PMI and environmental impacts.	Enables rapid, iterative assessment to guide "Green-by-Design" process development. [48] [39]
Spent Media Recycling Systems	Reuse nutrients and water in perfusion bioreactors.	Dramatically reduces water and raw material consumption in biologics manufacturing. [49]

Diagram 2: The complementary relationship between PMI and LCA. Two inputs with similar mass (PMI) can have vastly different life cycle impacts (LCA), demonstrating why both metrics are needed for sound decision-making.

The journey from relying solely on Process Mass Intensity to adopting comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment represents a critical maturation in how the pharmaceutical industry measures and achieves sustainability. This transition is not about discarding PMI, but about augmenting it with the deeper, more contextual insights that LCA provides. This is especially true when comparing the disparate worlds of small-molecule and biologic manufacturing, where a narrow focus on mass can lead to incorrect conclusions.

The ongoing development of streamlined tools, like the ACS GCI PR's PMI-LCA calculator, is democratizing LCA, putting the power of holistic environmental assessment into the hands of process chemists and engineers. By adopting these methodologies and understanding the distinct environmental profiles of different drug modalities, researchers and drug development professionals can truly embed "Green-by-Design" into their workflows, making strategic decisions that benefit both public health and the planet.

A Head-to-Head Comparison: Validating the Environmental Footprint of Small Molecules vs. Biologics

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) serves as a crucial green chemistry metric for evaluating the environmental footprint and efficiency of drug manufacturing processes. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified mass of a product, providing a comprehensive measure of process efficiency and environmental impact. For biologics and small-molecule drugs, PMI values differ substantially due to their distinct production methodologies, with biopharmaceutical processes typically demonstrating a PMI index over 10× higher than that of small-molecule active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) [49]. This significant disparity highlights the resource-intensive nature of biologics manufacturing, where water use alone accounts for more than 90% of the total PMI [49].

Understanding and benchmarking PMI across these two therapeutic modalities is essential for driving sustainability improvements in pharmaceutical manufacturing. As the industry faces increasing pressure to reduce its environmental footprint while maintaining cost-effectiveness, comprehensive PMI comparisons provide valuable insights for process optimization, resource conservation, and strategic decision-making. This data-driven analysis quantifies the PMI divide between small molecules and biologics, offering researchers and process developers actionable intelligence for advancing greener manufacturing paradigms.

Quantitative PMI Comparison: Small Molecules vs. Biologics

The following table summarizes key quantitative differences in Process Mass Intensity between small-molecule drugs and biologics, compiled from current industry data and research findings:

Table 1: Comprehensive PMI Comparison Between Small Molecules and Biologics

Parameter	Small Molecule Drugs	Biologic Drugs	Data Source/Notes
Typical PMI Range	Significantly lower	>10× higher than small molecules	[49]
Major PMI Contributor	Chemical solvents & reagents	Water (≥90% of total PMI)	[49]
Global Warming Potential	Lower	22.7 tons CO₂ equivalent per 1 kg Drug Substance	Equivalent to annual CO₂ emissions of 5 cars [49]
Single-Use Equipment per Batch	Minimal	~769 kg estimated	Applies to single-use technology processes [49]
Process Development Costs	$1-2 billion over 8-10 years [54]	$2-4 billion over 10-12 years [54]	Includes R&D through approval
Manufacturing Cost Structure	Lower production costs [54]	Specialized facilities (~$500M) [54]	Complex manufacturing drives higher costs
Water Consumption	Moderate	Extremely high (~90% of PMI) [49]	Major environmental impact differentiator
Environmental Impact Translation	Lower overall footprint	Equivalent to 5 automobiles/year per kg Drug Substance [49]	Based on "generic" biological drug substance process

The PMI differential stems from fundamental differences in manufacturing processes. Small-molecule drugs are typically produced through chemical synthesis in controlled laboratory settings, allowing for consistent, scalable production with relatively modest resource requirements [54]. In contrast, biologics are manufactured using living cell systems (such as CHO cells or E. coli) that require precisely controlled conditions, extensive purification steps, and significant water consumption throughout the production process [54] [49].

When extrapolated to industrial production scales, the environmental implications of this PMI divide become substantial. For instance, the production of 25 metric tons of monoclonal antibodies—a common biologic—generates CO₂ emissions equivalent to 5,208 automobiles [49]. This comparison underscores the critical importance of PMI optimization in biologics manufacturing to reduce the environmental footprint of these life-saving therapies.

Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

Standardized PMI Calculation Methodology

A consistent methodological approach is essential for accurate PMI comparison across different drug modalities. The following protocol outlines the standard procedure for calculating and comparing PMI between small molecules and biologics:

• System Boundary Definition: Establish clear boundaries for the assessment, typically from raw material input through to the final drug substance (active pharmaceutical ingredient). For biologics, this includes cell culture media, buffers, and purification materials; for small molecules, this encompasses all chemical reagents and solvents.

• Mass Inventory Compilation: Document the total mass of all input materials used in the manufacturing process, including water, solvents, reagents, cell culture media, and processing aids. For biologics, this includes the significant water volumes used in upstream and downstream processing [49].

• Product Mass Determination: Precisely measure the mass of the final drug substance produced. For small molecules, this is typically the chemically synthesized active ingredient; for biologics, it is the purified therapeutic protein, antibody, or other biological entity.

• PMI Calculation: Apply the standard PMI formula: PMI = Total Mass of Input Materials (kg) / Mass of Product (kg)

• Environmental Impact Translation: Convert PMI values into environmental impact metrics, particularly global warming potential (measured in tons of CO₂ equivalent), to facilitate cross-comparison and sustainability assessment [49].

• Normalization and Reporting: Normalize data to appropriate functional units (e.g., per kg of drug substance) and report all assumptions, boundary conditions, and calculation methodologies to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Process Mass Intensity Assessment Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standardized workflow for PMI assessment in pharmaceutical manufacturing:

Case Study: PMI Comparison of Fed-Batch vs. Continuous Bioprocessing

Recent research has revealed intriguing findings when comparing traditional fed-batch processes with continuous manufacturing for biologics. The following experimental protocol was used to evaluate these two approaches:

Table 2: Experimental Protocol for Biologics PMI Comparison

Experimental Component	Fed-Batch Process	Continuous Process	Analysis Method
Bioreactor Scale & Duration	Fixed scale & duration (e.g., 14 days)	Fixed scale & duration	Constant across conditions
Downstream Processing Steps	Identical number of steps	Identical number of steps	Fixed variable
Key Productivity Differentiator	0.2 g/L/day productivity	1 g/L/day productivity	5-fold increase in continuous [49]
PMI Assessment Outcome	Lower traditional PMI value	Higher traditional PMI value	Standard PMI calculation [49]
Environmental Impact Assessment	Higher overall impact	Markedly lower overall impact	Based on productivity & facility use [49]
Primary Efficiency Metric	Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	Productivity per unit time	Time-based efficiency critical [49]

This case study demonstrates that while continuous biomanufacturing may show a less favorable traditional PMI value, its dramatically higher productivity (1 g/L/day vs. 0.2 g/L/day for fed-batch) results in a significantly lower environmental impact when considering facility utilization and time-based efficiency [49]. This highlights the importance of complementary metrics beyond PMI alone for comprehensive environmental assessment.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful PMI assessment and process optimization require specific research tools and materials. The following table details essential solutions and their applications in PMI benchmarking studies:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for PMI Assessment

Research Reagent/Material	Function in PMI Assessment	Application Context
CHO Cell Lines	Host cells for biologics production; determine biomass input in PMI calculation	Biologics manufacturing [54] [49]
Chemical Synthesis Reagents	Small molecule API production; major mass contributors to PMI	Small molecule manufacturing [54]
Chromatography Resins	Biologics purification; significant material input in downstream processing	Biologics manufacturing [49]
Single-Use Bioreactors	Cell culture vessel; ~769 kg/batch contributes to PMI and waste streams	Single-use technology processes [49]
Cell Culture Media	Nutrient source for cell growth; substantial mass input in upstream processes	Biologics manufacturing [49]
Tangential Flow Filtration Systems	Biologics concentration and purification; impacts water and material use	Downstream processing [49]
Process Analytical Technology	Real-time monitoring of process parameters for optimization	Both small molecules and biologics

The significant PMI divide between small molecules and biologics—with biologics typically demonstrating a PMI value over 10 times higher than small molecules—presents both challenges and opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry [49]. This disparity primarily stems from the resource-intensive nature of biologics manufacturing, particularly the extensive water requirements that constitute approximately 90% of their total PMI [49].

Advancements in process intensification, particularly through continuous biomanufacturing approaches, show promise for substantially reducing the environmental footprint of biologics production. Despite potentially higher traditional PMI values, continuous processes can achieve five-fold productivity improvements (1 g/L/day vs. 0.2 g/L/day for fed-batch), ultimately translating to lower overall environmental impact through reduced facility utilization time [49]. Future PMI optimization strategies should focus on water recycling initiatives, single-use technology optimization, and holistic environmental assessment frameworks that complement traditional PMI metrics with time-based efficiency measures.

For researchers and process developers, these PMI comparisons provide critical benchmarking data to guide sustainable process design and technology selection. By quantifying the resource efficiency divide between therapeutic modalities, this analysis supports the pharmaceutical industry's ongoing transition toward greener manufacturing paradigms that deliver life-saving treatments while minimizing environmental impact.

In pharmaceutical development, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial metric for evaluating environmental sustainability. PMI measures the total mass of resources used to produce a unit mass of a desired product, providing a comprehensive assessment of process efficiency that directly impacts the pharmaceutical industry's environmental footprint [55]. As the industry increasingly focuses on green chemistry principles, PMI benchmarking has become instrumental for comparing the sustainability of different therapeutic modalities, particularly the rapidly growing field of synthetic peptides against traditional small molecules and other biologics.

Synthetic peptides represent a unique class of therapeutics that bridge the gap between small molecules and large biologics. Typically consisting of chains of fewer than 50 amino acids, peptides offer high specificity and potency for targeting challenging protein-protein interactions, but present significant manufacturing challenges that directly impact their PMI [56]. The traditional method for producing these therapeutics, Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS), is notoriously resource-intensive, requiring large quantities of solvents and reagents for coupling, deprotection, and purification steps [55]. This case study examines the high PMI challenges associated with synthetic peptide production and explores innovative approaches that are dramatically improving the sustainability profile of this important therapeutic class.

PMI Comparison Across Therapeutic Modalities

Quantitative PMI Benchmarking

The following table summarizes PMI characteristics across different drug modalities, highlighting the particular challenges associated with traditional peptide synthesis:

Table 1: PMI and Manufacturing Characteristics Across Drug Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Typical PMI Range	Key PMI Contributors	Manufacturing Method
Traditional Small Molecules	Varies; significant optimization potential	Solvents, reagents, multiple synthetic steps	Chemical synthesis [54]
Synthetic Peptides (SPPS)	High (>100 for complex peptides) [55]	Solvents, excess protecting groups/amino acids, purification	Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis [57] [56]
Biologics (mAbs, etc.)	Generally high due to complex processes	Cell culture media, purification resins, water	Microbial fermentation or mammalian cell culture [54]
Greener Peptide Synthesis	Significantly reduced (e.g., 75% lower) [55]	Minimal solvents, no protecting groups	Microbial fermentation platform [55]

The Root Causes of High PMI in Traditional Peptide Synthesis

Traditional SPPS methodology contributes to high PMI through several inherent inefficiencies. The process requires large excesses of amino acids (often 3-5 equivalents) to drive coupling reactions to completion for each residue added to the growing peptide chain [56]. Additionally, SPPS consumes substantial volumes of high-purity solvents for washing between steps and for cleavage from the resin, with PMI contributions that compound with each synthetic cycle [55]. Most significantly, the need for multiple purification steps, particularly for longer or complex peptides, often involves resource-intensive chromatography that can account for the majority of the overall PMI in traditional processes [55].

The following diagram illustrates the resource-intensive workflow of traditional SPPS and its impact on PMI:

Greener Approaches to Peptide Synthesis

Microbial Fermentation Platform

A groundbreaking alternative to SPPS has been developed by Olon S.p.A., which leverages recombinant DNA technology and microbial fermentation for peptide production [55]. This platform utilizes engineered microorganisms to synthesize target peptides through natural cellular machinery, fundamentally redesigning the production process for dramatically improved PMI.

Table 2: Comparison of Traditional SPPS vs. Green Fermentation Platform

Parameter	Traditional SPPS	Microbial Fermentation Platform	PMI Impact
Solvent Usage	High volumes of specialized solvents	Aqueous-based system	Significant reduction [55]
Building Blocks	Protected amino acids in excess	Natural amino acids from metabolism	Eliminates protecting groups [55]
Purification	Multiple chromatography steps	Streamlined purification	Reduced complexity and solvent use [55]
Overall PMI	High	~75% reduction demonstrated [55]	Major improvement

The following diagram compares the two approaches and their environmental impact:

AI and Bayesian Optimization for Greener Synthesis

Beyond alternative production platforms, artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches are dramatically improving the efficiency of traditional peptide synthesis. The Experimental Design via Bayesian optimization (EDBO+) platform demonstrates how AI can accelerate process optimization while significantly reducing PMI [58].

In one documented case, Bayesian optimization achieved an 80% yield and 91% enantiomeric excess in just 24 experiments, surpassing results obtained through traditional one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) optimization that required 500 experiments [58]. This 95% reduction in experimental workload translates directly to lower resource consumption during process development and more sustainable manufacturing conditions.

Experimental Protocols for Green Peptide Synthesis

Microbial Fermentation Platform Methodology

Objective: Sustainable production of therapeutic peptides using recombinant DNA technology and microbial fermentation to achieve significantly reduced PMI compared to traditional SPPS [55].

Materials:

• Engineered microbial strain containing recombinant DNA for target peptide
• Fermentation media containing renewable feedstocks (e.g., glucose, amino acids)
• Bioreactor with temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen control
• Purification system (chromatography, filtration)

Procedure:

• Strain Preparation: Inoculate engineered microbial strain from master cell bank
• Fermentation: Cultivate in bioreactor under controlled conditions (temperature, pH, aeration)
• Induction: Induce peptide expression at optimal cell density
• Harvest: Separate cells from fermentation broth via centrifugation
• Cell Lysis: Disrupt cells to release expressed peptide
• Purification: Isolate target peptide using streamlined chromatography
• Analysis: Confirm identity, purity, and potency of final product

Key Green Chemistry Advantages:

• Eliminates protecting groups and associated reagents [55]
• Replaces hazardous solvents with aqueous systems [55]
• Utilizes renewable feedstocks as starting materials [55]
• Achieves 75% reduction in PMI compared to SPPS [55]

Bayesian Optimization Protocol for Process Development

Objective: Rapidly identify optimal reaction conditions for chemical peptide synthesis with minimal experimental iterations and reduced PMI [58].

Materials:

• EDBO+ software platform (open source)
• Automated reaction platform for parallel experimentation
• Analytical instrumentation for rapid yield and purity assessment

Procedure:

• Parameter Definition: Identify critical reaction parameters (temperature, concentration, stoichiometry, etc.)
• Design Space: Establish bounds for each parameter based on chemical feasibility
• Initial Experiments: Execute small set of diverse initial experiments (8-12 reactions)
• Model Training: Input results into Bayesian optimization algorithm
• Iterative Optimization: Algorithm selects subsequent experiments based on expected improvement
• Validation: Confirm optimal conditions identified by the platform
• Scale-up: Implement optimized conditions at appropriate scale

Performance Metrics:

• 95% reduction in experiments (24 vs. 500 with OFAT) [58]
• Improved yield (80% vs. 70% with OFAT) [58]
• Maintained stereoselectivity (91% ee) [58]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Technologies for Green Peptide Synthesis

Reagent/Technology	Function	Green Chemistry Advantage
Recombinant DNA Constructs	Encodes target peptide sequence in microbial host	Enables fermentation platform; eliminates protecting groups [55]
Renewable Feedstocks	Carbon and energy source for fermentation	Reduces reliance on petrochemical-derived inputs [55]
Aqueous Reaction Media	Solvent system for fermentation and purification	Replaces hazardous organic solvents [59] [55]
Bayesian Optimization Software	AI-driven experimental design	Drastically reduces experiments needed for optimization [58]
Process Mass Intensity (PMI) Calculator	Quantitative sustainability assessment	Enables objective comparison of synthetic routes [58]
Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) Resins	Traditional solid support for peptide synthesis	Enables automation but contributes to high PMI [57] [56]
Protected Amino Acids	Building blocks for SPPS	Necessary for traditional synthesis but generate waste [56]

The drive to reduce the high PMI of synthetic peptides represents a microcosm of the broader sustainability transformation occurring across pharmaceutical development. The 75% PMI reduction demonstrated by innovative fermentation platforms [55] and the 95% reduction in optimization experiments achieved through Bayesian optimization [58] provide compelling evidence that green chemistry principles can be successfully applied to even the most challenging synthetic problems.

As peptide therapeutics continue to gain prominence – with the global synthetic peptides market projected to reach $3.8 billion by 2028 [57] – the environmental implications of their manufacturing processes will become increasingly important. The case studies presented here demonstrate that through biotechnological innovation and AI-driven process optimization, the pharmaceutical industry can meet growing demand for these vital medicines while dramatically reducing their environmental footprint. These advances not only benefit peptide production but also provide valuable templates for improving the sustainability of other therapeutic modalities through PMI-informed process design.

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a key metric for evaluating the material efficiency and environmental footprint of manufacturing processes. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials (including water, raw materials, reactants, and consumables) used to produce a specified mass of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) [60]. The formula is expressed as:

Total PMI = Total (water + raw materials + consumables) used in process (kg) / API (kg) [60] [23]

A lower PMI indicates higher resource efficiency. While initially developed for small molecule drugs, the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has extended PMI application to biologics, enabling direct comparison of environmental efficiency across therapeutic modalities [23]. This metric is particularly valuable as healthcare providers increasingly evaluate environmental impacts throughout their supply chains, and as pharmaceutical companies face growing pressure to disclose sustainability performance [23].

PMI Benchmarking Across Therapeutic Modalities

Comparative PMI Analysis

Drug manufacturing processes vary substantially in their resource efficiency, reflected in their PMI values. The table below summarizes benchmark PMI values across different therapeutic modalities:

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Therapeutic Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Average PMI (kg material/kg API)	Key Contributors to PMI	Primary Environmental Concerns
Small Molecule Drugs	168 - 308 [22]	Organic solvents, reagents [61]	Hazardous waste generation, high E-Factor [61]
Synthetic Peptides	~13,000 [22]	Large solvent excess (DMF, NMP, DCM) in SPPS [22]	Solvent waste (including reprotoxic solvents), poor atom economy [22]
Biologics (mAbs)	~8,300 [22] [49]	Water (>90% of PMI) [60] [23]	High energy and water consumption, single-use plastic waste [62] [60]
Oligonucleotides	3,035 - 7,023 (average ~4,299) [22]	Solvents, reagents in solid-phase synthesis [22]	Similar environmental challenges to peptide synthesis [22]

Interpreting the Disparities

The orders-of-magnitude difference in PMI between small molecules and larger, complex modalities reflects fundamental differences in their manufacturing paradigms. Small molecule synthesis benefits from well-established chemical transformations with increasingly optimized atom economy, though they often require hazardous solvents and generate substantial waste [61]. Biologics manufacturing, particularly monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), is exceptionally water-intensive, with water constituting over 90% of the total PMI [60] [23]. This high water usage primarily supports cell culture processes and purification operations, especially chromatography steps that account for 34-54% of total PMI in biologics production [60].

Synthetic peptides demonstrate the worst PMI performance, approximately 40-80 times higher than small molecules and 1.5 times higher than mAbs [22]. This inefficiency stems from the predominant use of solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS), which requires large excesses of solvents and protected amino acids to drive reactions to completion [22]. Problematic solvents like N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), and dichloromethane (DCM) contribute significantly to the environmental footprint and are classified as reprotoxic [22].

Methodologies for PMI Assessment and Reduction

Standardized PMI Calculation Framework

The ACS GCIPR Biopharma Focus Group has developed a standardized methodology for determining biologics PMI to enable consistent benchmarking across the industry [23]. The assessment boundary conditions typically begin with a clean facility at the inoculum stage and extend through the bulk fill stage within a single manufacturing facility [23]. Inputs are categorized into:

• Upstream Process (cell culture and bioreactor production)
• Harvest (primary clarification)
• Downstream Process (purification steps including chromatography and ultrafiltration/diafiltration)
• Buffer Preparation [23]

For synthetic peptides, PMI assessment follows a similar methodology, with the manufacturing process divided into distinct stages (synthesis, purification, isolation) to identify their respective contributions to the overall PMI [22].

Experimental Approaches for PMI Reduction

Biologics Process Intensification

Recent innovations focus on process intensification to improve productivity and reduce environmental impact. Continuous biomanufacturing approaches show particular promise, as illustrated in the following comparison:

Table 2: Fed-Batch vs. Continuous Manufacturing Environmental Impact

Parameter	Intensified Fed-Batch Process	Continuous Process
Productivity	0.2 g/L/day [49]	1 g/L/day [49]
Facility Time Required	Higher (lower productivity) [49]	Lower (4x higher productivity) [49]
PMI Assessment	Lower PMI [49]	Higher PMI [49]
Overall Environmental Impact	Higher due to longer facility operation [49]	Lower despite higher PMI, due to reduced operational time [49]

This apparent paradox - where a process with higher PMI may have lower overall environmental impact - highlights the limitation of using PMI as a standalone metric and underscores the importance of considering temporal factors and total productivity [49].

Additional strategies for reducing biologics PMI include improving cell culture titers, increasing chromatography media loading capacity, reducing water flushes of membranes, and implementing spent media recycling in perfusion cultures [60] [49].

Green Chemistry Solutions for Peptides and Small Molecules

For synthetic peptides, PMI reduction strategies include:

• Transitioning from SPPS to liquid-phase peptide synthesis (LPPS) or hybrid approaches for better solvent efficiency [22]
• Replacing hazardous solvents like DMF, NMP, and DCM with greener alternatives [22]
• Improving atom economy of protecting groups and coupling agents [22]
• Implementing solvent recycling systems to reduce waste [63]

For small molecules, green chemistry principles offer multiple levers for PMI reduction:

• Catalysis to replace stoichiometric reagents [61]
• Safer solvents and auxiliaries that are innocuous when used [61]
• Design for energy efficiency conducting reactions at ambient temperature and pressure [61]
• Real-time analysis to prevent formation of hazardous substances [61]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Technologies for Sustainable Process Development

Reagent/Technology	Function	Sustainability Consideration
Biocatalysts/Enzymes	Replace metal catalysts in synthetic chemistry [63]	Lower energy consumption, replacement of organic solvents with aqueous media [63]
Green Solvents (e.g., water-based, bio-derived)	Replace reprotoxic solvents like DMF, NMP, DCM [22] [63]	Reduced toxicity, improved biodegradability, often derived from renewable resources [22] [61]
Highly Selective Chromatography Resins	Purification of biologic APIs [49]	Higher loading capacity reduces buffer consumption and improves productivity [60] [49]
Single-Pass Tangential Flow Filtration (SPTFF)	In-process concentration operations [49]	Reduces volume processing requirements, improving overall system efficiency [49]
Process Analytical Technology (PAT)	Real-time, in-process monitoring and control [61]	Prevents formation of hazardous substances and maximizes yield through precise control [61]
Flow Chemistry Systems	Continuous synthesis platform [63]	Significant reduction in energy and solvent use compared to traditional batch chemistry [63]

Decision Framework: Balancing Therapeutic and Environmental Considerations

The following workflow outlines a systematic approach for selecting therapeutic modalities while considering both therapeutic and environmental factors:

Diagram 1: Modality Selection Workflow

This decision framework emphasizes that modality selection should balance therapeutic imperative with environmental responsibility. For targets amenable to multiple approaches, small molecules generally offer superior environmental efficiency, while biologics and peptides may be necessary for more complex biological targets despite their higher resource intensity [5].

The pharmaceutical industry faces the dual challenge of developing increasingly precise therapeutics while minimizing environmental impact. PMI benchmarking provides a crucial tool for quantifying this impact and directing innovation toward more sustainable manufacturing processes. The data reveals significant disparities between therapeutic modalities, with small molecules demonstrating superior material efficiency compared to biologics and synthetic peptides.

Moving forward, a sustainability-by-design approach - where environmental considerations are integrated early in process development - represents the most promising path forward [62]. Industry-wide collaboration through organizations like the ACS GCIPR, investment in green chemistry innovations, and adoption of circular economy principles in manufacturing will be essential for reconciling therapeutic precision with planetary health [63] [49]. As the industry evolves, the most successful organizations will be those that view environmental efficiency not as a constraint, but as a driver of innovation and long-term resilience.

In the contemporary pharmaceutical industry, the definition of a successful drug is expanding beyond mere efficacy and safety to include environmental sustainability. Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial metric for quantifying the environmental footprint of pharmaceutical manufacturing. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials (including water, raw materials, reactants, and solvents) used to produce a specified mass of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) [22]. A lower PMI value indicates higher material efficiency and a more sustainable process, though it does not capture the full environmental impact, including energy usage or the hazardous nature of waste [23].

This analysis provides a comparative assessment of PMI across different drug modalities—small molecules, biologics, and synthetic peptides—contextualizing these environmental metrics within the broader framework of drug efficacy and value. As healthcare providers and regulatory bodies increasingly incorporate environmental criteria into purchasing and approval decisions, understanding and optimizing PMI becomes essential for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals aiming to balance therapeutic innovation with planetary health [60] [23].

Quantitative PMI Comparison Across Drug Modalities

The environmental efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing, as measured by PMI, varies dramatically between different drug modalities. The table below summarizes key benchmarking data, highlighting the significant disparities in resource intensity.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Drug Modality	Representative PMI Value (kg material/kg API)	Primary Contributors to PMI	Comparative Context
Small Molecules [22]	Median: 168 - 308	Solvents, reagents	Baseline for efficiency; relatively low PMI due to mature, optimized processes.
Oligonucleotides [22]	Average: 4,299Range: 3,035 - 7,023	Solvents, reagents (solid-phase synthesis)	Conceptually similar to synthetic peptides in their resource-intensive solid-phase processes.
Biologics (mAbs) [22] [60]	Average: ~8,300	Water (>90% of total), energy for cleanrooms, plastic consumables [60] [23]	Water intensity and facility energy are dominant factors.
Synthetic Peptides (SPPS) [22]	Average: ~13,000	Solvents (e.g., DMF, DCM), reagents (e.g., Fmoc-AA)	Highest PMI among modalities; driven by large excesses of solvents and reagents in solid-phase synthesis.

The data reveals a clear hierarchy of material efficiency. Small molecule processes are the most efficient, with PMI values in the hundreds, a reflection of decades of process optimization and their relatively simple synthetic pathways [22]. In stark contrast, biologics and synthetic peptides have PMI values that are orders of magnitude higher, indicating substantially greater resource consumption and environmental footprint per kilogram of API produced [22] [60]. For biologics, particularly monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), the primary driver is water, which constitutes over 90% of the total PMI, coupled with the significant energy required to maintain cleanroom environments [23]. For synthetic peptides, the high PMI is largely attributed to the extensive use of solvents and reagents in Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) [22].

Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

To ensure consistency and reliability in PMI data, standardized methodologies for its calculation are critical for cross-modal and cross-company comparisons.

Standardized PMI Calculation Methodology

The fundamental formula for PMI, endorsed by the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR), is applied across modalities [22] [23]:

PMI = Total (water + raw materials + consumables) used in process (kg) / Mass of API (kg)

The boundary for this calculation is typically from the start of the manufacturing process (e.g., inoculum stage for biologics, first chemical step for small molecules) through to the bulk drug substance fill [23]. It is crucial to note that PMI is a mass-based efficiency metric and does not account for the energy consumed during manufacturing or the environmental impact and toxicity of the waste streams [23]. For a more holistic environmental assessment, metrics like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Carbon Footprint are required [60].

Modality-Specific Assessment Workflows

The application of the core PMI methodology differs across drug modalities due to fundamental differences in their manufacturing processes. The workflows below illustrate the specific unit operations and primary PMI contributors for biologics and synthetic peptides.

Diagram 1: Biologics PMI Assessment Workflow. The diagram shows the unit operations in monoclonal antibody (mAb) production, with chromatography identified as the largest contributor to Process Mass Intensity (PMI).

Diagram 2: Synthetic Peptide PMI Assessment Workflow. This diagram outlines the resource-intensive Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) process, highlighting the repeated use and waste of solvents and reagents that lead to its high PMI.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Understanding and improving PMI requires specific tools and approaches. The following table details key solutions and metrics used to measure and enhance sustainability in pharmaceutical processes.

Table 2: Key Reagents, Metrics, and Tools for Sustainable Process Development

Tool/Metric	Function/Definition	Application in PMI Reduction
Process Mass Intensity (PMI) [22]	Total mass of materials per kg of API. Primary mass-based efficiency metric.	Serves as the key benchmark to track and drive reductions in material use across all modalities.
Atom Economy [64]	Measures the proportion of reactant atoms incorporated into the final product.	Guides chemists to design synthetic routes with inherently less waste.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [60]	Comprehensive evaluation of environmental impacts across the entire product life cycle.	Identifies environmental hotspots beyond mass, such as carbon footprint from energy use, which is high in biologics.
Biocatalysts & Engineered Enzymes [64]	Highly selective biological catalysts for chemical transformations.	Replaces wasteful stoichiometric reagents, reduces protection/deprotection steps, and enables greener chemistry.
Continuous Flow Reactors [64]	Technology for performing chemical reactions in a continuously flowing stream.	Improves heat/mass transfer, enhances safety, reduces solvent use, and enables smaller, more efficient plants.
Safer Solvent Selection Guides [64]	Industry-vetted guides for replacing hazardous solvents with greener alternatives.	Drives substitution of problematic solvents (e.g., DMF, DCM) with safer, more environmentally benign options.
Process Analytical Technology (PAT) [64]	Systems for real-time monitoring and control of critical process parameters.	Enables precise control, maximizes yield, minimizes byproducts, and prevents the generation of hazardous substances.

Interpreting the Verdict: Balancing Sustainability with Therapeutic Value

The stark PMI differentials revealed in this analysis pose a critical question for the industry: how to reconcile the high environmental cost of certain modalities with their undeniable therapeutic benefits?

Contextualizing High PMI for High-Efficacy Therapies

Biologics and peptides often target conditions with high unmet medical needs, such as cancer and metabolic diseases, where they can offer transformative clinical outcomes [65]. For example, monoclonal antibodies and GLP-1 receptor agonists (peptides) have revolutionized treatment in oncology and metabolic diseases, respectively [65]. Therefore, a high PMI must be evaluated against the profound patient benefit and potential reduction in overall healthcare burden these treatments provide. The value proposition lies not in the kg of API produced, but in the health outcomes achieved per patient.

The Strategic Imperative for PMI Optimization

Despite the value of these therapies, the industry cannot ignore its environmental responsibility. The high PMI of biologics and peptides represents a significant opportunity and a strategic business imperative for improvement [22] [60]. For biologics, strategies like process intensification (producing more product in a given facility footprint) and adopting single-use systems (which reduce energy and water for cleaning) can lower the carbon footprint, even if PMI remains high [60]. For peptides, innovation is critically needed to move beyond traditional SPPS, exploring hybrid methods, improved recycling of solvents, and more atom-efficient coupling reagents [22]. Ultimately, the goal for drug development professionals is to deliver maximum therapeutic value with a minimum environmental footprint, making PMI an indispensable metric for the future of sustainable medicine.

Conclusion

PMI benchmarking unequivocally demonstrates that small molecule manufacturing is inherently more mass-efficient than biologics production, with PMI values an order of magnitude lower. However, this metric is only a starting point. A holistic sustainability strategy must look beyond PMI to account for critical factors like total energy consumption, which is a major driver of the environmental footprint in biologics facilities. The future of sustainable pharma lies in adopting integrated metrics that combine mass and energy efficiency, embracing innovative technologies like continuous processing, and applying green chemistry principles across all therapeutic modalities. By doing so, the industry can continue to deliver life-saving treatments while minimizing its environmental impact and building a more resilient, efficient supply chain.

References

• 1. Process Mass Intensity Metric [https://learning.acsgcipr.org/guides-and-metrics/metrics/process-mass-intensity-metric/]
• 2. Green chemistry programs and initiatives [https://www.merck.com/research/areas-of-innovation/green-and-sustainable-science/green-chemistry-programs-and-initiatives/]
• 3. Process Mass Intensity Calculator [https://acsgcipr.org/tools/process-mass-intensity/]
• 4. Why we might be misusing process mass intensity (PMI) ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/gc/c9gc01537j]
• 5. From Small Molecules to Biologics, New Modalities in Drug ... [https://chemaxon.com/blog/small-molecules-vs-biologics]
• 6. Small Molecules Market 2025 Trends, Forecast and Shares [https://www.towardshealthcare.com/insights/small-molecules-market-sizing]
• 7. Revenue Differences Between Top-Selling Small-Molecule ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12534848/]
• 8. Biocatalysis Comes of Age: Redefining Small Molecule API ... [https://www.pharmasalmanac.com/articles/biocatalysis-comes-of-age-redefining-small-molecule-api-synthesis]
• 9. Message from our Chief Executive Officer | PMI - Philip Morris... [https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/climate-transition-plan/message-from-our-chief-executive-officer]
• 10. Comparison of process mass intensity (PMI) of continuous ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678422000619]
• 11. Consolidated Bioprocessing: Synthetic Biology Routes to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8157379/]
• 12. The Top 5 Parameters in Bioprocessing [https://www.scientificbio.com/blog/the-top-5-parameters-in-bioprocessing]
• 13. What Are the Benefits of Bioprocessing? [https://www.tutorialspoint.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-bioprocessing]
• 14. United States Small Molecule Drug Discovery Market Size ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-states-small-molecule-drug-discovery-market-size-2025-qxf7f/]
• 15. U.S. Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) Market ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-active-pharmaceutical-ingredients-api-160700499.html]
• 16. Six Key Challenges When Scaling Up Sustainable Chemical… [https://www.uk-cpi.com/blog/6-key-challenges-when-scaling-up-sustainable-chemical-processes]
• 17. Economic considerations and limitations of green synthesis ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128200926000185]
• 18. Advanced Optimization of Bioprocess Parameters for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/13/3/822]
• 19. Solubility in Chemical Synthesis Process Scaling [https://www.thesolubilitycompany.com/solubility-in-chemical-synthesis-process-scaling/]
• 20. Getting More From Bioprocesses: Increasing Productivity ... [https://www.sartorius.com/en/knowledge/science-snippets/increasing-productivity-with-bioprocess-intensification-763710]
• 21. Small Molecule API Market Size & Share Report, 2025 - 2034 [https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/small-molecule-api-market]
• 22. Process Mass Intensity (PMI): A Holistic Analysis of Current ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11002941/]
• 23. Introduction of a process mass intensity metric for biologics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871678418302255]
• 24. Improving project system performance through benchmarking [https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/improving-project-system-performance-benchmarking-8160]
• 25. Process Mass Intensity is Only Partial Gauge of ... [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/bioprocessing/process-mass-intensity-is-only-partial-gauge-of-sustainability-for-biologics/]
• 26. Process Mass Intensity Calculation Tool - ACS Community [https://communities.acs.org/t5/GCI-Nexus-Blog/Process-Mass-Intensity-Calculation-Tool/ba-p/15892]
• 27. What's The Environmental Impact Of Biopharma ... [https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/what-s-the-environmental-impact-of-biopharma-continuous-manufacturing-part-i-0001]
• 28. Quantitative assessment of environmental impact ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30267619/]
• 29. Downstream Processing - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/downstream-processing]
• 30. Intensifying Downstream Processes [https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/intensifying-downstream-processes]
• 31. Understanding Upstream Bioprocessing: Key Processes & ... [https://www.bioprocessonline.com/topic/understanding-upstream-bioprocessing-key-processes-and-trends]
• 32. Considerations for Successful Upstream Process ... [https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/considerations-successful-upstream-process-development]
• 33. Tools – ACSGCIPR [https://acsgcipr.org/tools/]
• 34. Expanding the Green Chemistry Toolkit: ACS GCIPR I... [https://communities.acs.org/t5/GCI-Nexus-Blog/Expanding-the-Green-Chemistry-Toolkit-ACS-GCIPR-Invests-in-Three/ba-p/98584]
• 35. Comparison of process mass intensity (PMI) of continuous ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36368463/]
• 36. Climate Complexity Meets Innovation [https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/five-initiatives-could-impact-future-13062]
• 37. PMI publishes updated Climate Transition Plan [https://www.pmi.com/sustainability/climate-transition-plan/pmi-publishes-updated-climate-transition-plan]
• 38. How Retroactive PMI Ensures Safety in Clean Energy ... [https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2039]
• 39. Green and sustainable metrics: Charting the course for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666086522000662]
• 40. Introduction of a process mass intensity metric for biologics [https://www.academia.edu/106032086/Introduction_of_a_process_mass_intensity_metric_for_biologics]
• 41. Sustainability in peptide chemistry: current synthesis and ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/gc/d1gc04387k]
• 42. How Smarter API Manufacturing Is Eating Big Pharma's ... [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/how-smarter-api-manufacturing-is-eating-big-pharmas-lunch/?srsltid=AfmBOoqvmosFt0o3uRy07xewoczCm9zD-2KesRMqpbg_SnQAioRM2ZtO]
• 43. Continuous manufacturing based paradigm shift in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263876225000036]
• 44. Advantages of Integrated Continuous Manufacturing ... [https://www.continuuspharma.com/article/advantages-of-integrated-continuous-manufacturing-throughout-the-drug-life-cycle/]
• 45. Boosting Biopharma Efficiency With Continuous ... [https://www.technologynetworks.com/biopharma/articles/the-promise-of-continuous-processing-to-advance-biopharmaceutical-production-396257]
• 46. Continuous Manufacturing Market Share, Outlook 2025-2034 [https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/continuous-manufacturing-market]
• 47. Continuous Manufacturing Market (Pharmaceuticals & ... [https://www.factmr.com/report/continuous-manufacturing-pharmaceuticals-biopharmaceuticals-market]
• 48. Fast, Accessible, Practical: New PMI-LCA Tool Make... [https://communities.acs.org/t5/GCI-Nexus-Blog/Fast-Accessible-Practical-New-PMI-LCA-Tool-Makes-Connecting/ba-p/93767]
• 49. Driving Sustainability in Biologics Process Development [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/process-development/driving-sustainability-in-biologics-process-development-innovative-strategies-and-technologies]
• 50. A proposal of twelve principles for LCA of chemicals [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/gc/d4gc04844j?page=search]
• 51. PMI Life Cycle Assessment [https://acsgcipr.org/tools/pmi-life-cycle-assessment/]
• 52. Streamlined life cycle assessment of single use ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678422000024]
• 53. Embracing Sustainable Processes in the Pharmaceutical ... [https://scifiniti.com/3079-1421/1/2025.0013]
• 54. Biologics vs Small Molecules: A New Era in Drug ... [https://synergbiopharma.com/biologics-vs-small-molecules/]
• 55. ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable Announces 2025 ... [https://chemistryforsustainability.org/community-news/acs-gci-pharmaceutical-roundtable-announces-2025-industry-award-winners]
• 56. Advance in peptide-based drug development: delivery ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02107-5]
• 57. Synthetic Peptides Analysis 2025 and Forecasts 2033 [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/synthetic-peptides-145096]
• 58. PMI Prediction and Bayesian Optimization: Two Tools with ... [https://acsgcipr.org/pmi-prediction-and-bayesian-optimization-two-tools-with-one-goal-towards-the-development-of-greener-by-design-synthesis-of-apis/]
• 59. Recent advances in green chemistry approaches for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2950357424000295]
• 60. Green metrics for biologics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452223622000268]
• 61. The Role of Green Chemistry in Generic Drug Development [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/the-role-of-green-chemistry-in-generic-drug-development-a-sustainable-approach-to-medicine/?srsltid=AfmBOoryQO2OwBoJZNuvEy-UAu-A2GIUqW5FeGccP1nj5eFnCtCUahOg]
• 62. Sustained interest? Biopharma's green manufacturing ... [https://pharma.nridigital.com/pharma_nov25/sustained_interest_biopharma_s_green_manufacturing_gains_traction]
• 63. How can pharma manufacturing align with green initiatives ... [https://www.pharmasalmanac.com/articles/how-can-pharma-manufacturing-align-with-green-initiatives-while-maintaining-efficiency-and-compliance]
• 64. The Role of Green Chemistry in Generic Drug Development [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/the-role-of-green-chemistry-in-generic-drug-development-a-sustainable-approach-to-medicine/?srsltid=AfmBOopd_0_mhJQre0jzTEQXX4utk22i43rPLGL-SCrej63MEKb5bB1B]
• 65. Global Pharmaceutical Market: 2025 Analysis & Key Trends [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/pharmaceutical-market-analysis-trends]