Process Mass Intensity (PMI) in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Complete Guide to Metrics, Calculation, and Sustainable Optimization

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of Process Mass Intensity (PMI), a key green chemistry metric for assessing the environmental impact and efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it covers the foundational definition and importance of PMI, methodological approaches for its calculation and application, practical strategies for troubleshooting and optimization, and its role in validation and comparative analysis against other industry metrics. The content synthesizes current industry practices, tools from the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable, and forward-looking trends to equip readers with the knowledge to drive more sustainable and cost-effective drug development.

What is Process Mass Intensity? Defining the Core Metric for Sustainable Pharma

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has been established as a key green chemistry metric to benchmark the environmental performance and efficiency of manufacturing processes within the pharmaceutical industry. It provides a holistic measure of the total mass of resources required to produce a specified mass of an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCI PR) has championed the use of PMI to drive the industry toward more sustainable and cost-effective processes by focusing attention on the main drivers of process inefficiency [1]. Unlike simpler metrics such as atom economy or yield, PMI accounts for all materials used in a process, including reactants, reagents, solvents, and catalysts, offering a more comprehensive view of resource efficiency [2] [3]. The ongoing adoption of PMI has facilitated significant benchmarking exercises and tool development, helping to quantify improvements in process sustainability across the pharmaceutical sector [1].

The PMI Formula and Calculation

Fundamental Equation

The definition of Process Mass Intensity is expressed through a straightforward formula. PMI is the ratio of the total mass of all input materials to the mass of the final API produced [4] [3]. The formula is:

PMI = Total Mass of Input Materials (kg) / Mass of API Produced (kg)

This calculation includes all materials that enter the process and are not part of the final product. The key components tallied in the "Total Mass of Input Materials" are [2] [5]:

• Reagents and Reactants: All raw materials and intermediates that participate in the chemical reactions.
• Solvents: Those used in reactions, work-ups, and purification steps.
• Catalysts: All catalytic agents, even if they are not stoichiometric.
• Process Aids: Any other single-use consumables utilized during process execution.

A closely related metric is the Environmental Factor (E-factor), which quantifies the total mass of waste generated per mass of product. PMI and E-factor are directly interconnected, as a process's waste is simply its total inputs minus its product output. The relationship is defined as [2]:

PMI = E-factor + 1

Calculation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for calculating the Process Mass Intensity for a single-step or multi-step synthesis process, leading to the final Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API).

Calculator Tools for the Pharmaceutical Industry

The ACS GCI PR has developed specific tools to standardize PMI calculation. The original PMI Calculator enables quick determination of PMI by accounting for raw material inputs against bulk API output [1]. This was later enhanced with the Convergent PMI Calculator to accommodate the multi-branch synthetic routes common in complex molecule synthesis [1] [4]. More recently, a PMI Prediction Calculator has been introduced, which uses historical data from nearly 2,000 scale-up reactions to estimate plausible PMI ranges for proposed synthetic routes before any laboratory work begins [3] [5].

PMI Benchmarking and Industry Data

PMI Values Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Extensive industry benchmarking reveals significant differences in PMI values across various pharmaceutical modalities. The following table summarizes key comparative data, highlighting the resource intensity of different production methods.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Pharmaceutical Modality	Reported PMI (kg input/kg API)	Key Contributing Factors
Small Molecule APIs [6]	Median: 168 – 308	Solvent use, number of synthetic steps, reaction selectivity.
Biologics [6]	Average: ~8,300	Fermentation media, water for injection, purification processes.
Oligonucleotides [6]	Average: 4,299 (Range: 3,035 – 7,023)	Excess protected nucleotides, solvents in solid-phase synthesis, purification.
Synthetic Peptides (SPPS) [6]	Average: ~13,000	Large solvent volumes (e.g., DMF, DCM), excess reagents and protected amino acids, purification (e.g., HPLC).

Material Breakdown of a Typical Pharmaceutical Process

An initial benchmarking exercise by the ACS GCI PR using the PMI tool revealed a typical mass composition for pharmaceutical manufacturing inputs, which can be broken down as follows [4]:

Table 2: Typical Mass Contribution of Inputs in Pharma API Synthesis

Input Category	Average Contribution to Total Input Mass
Solvents	58%
Water	28%
Reactants	8%
Other (e.g., Catalysts)	6%

Experimental and Methodological Framework

Standardized Protocol for PMI Assessment

Adhering to a consistent methodology is critical for obtaining accurate and comparable PMI data. The following protocol outlines the key steps for a gate-to-gate PMI assessment, which focuses on the direct manufacturing process.

Table 3: Experimental Protocol for Gate-to-Gate PMI Assessment

Step	Action	Documentation & Considerations
1. Process Scoping	Define the system boundary for the analysis (e.g., from starting materials to isolated, purified API).	Document all stages included (synthesis, purification, isolation). Consistency is key for benchmarking [6].
2. Data Collection	For each process step, record the masses of all input materials and the mass of the isolated output.	Use batch manufacturing records. Inputs include all reactants, solvents, reagents, and catalysts. Masses should be in kg [5].
3. Mass Aggregation	Sum the masses of all input materials across every step in the defined process.	Ensure no double-counting of recycled solvents (typically counted as fresh input each use) [2].
4. Output Mass Recording	Record the mass of the final, isolated, and purified API batch.	Use the mass of the API meeting quality specifications. This is the denominator in the PMI formula.
5. PMI Calculation	Input the aggregated total mass and final API mass into the PMI formula.	Calculate overall PMI. Optionally, calculate step-level PMI to identify hotspots of mass inefficiency [5].

Advanced Consideration: Expanding System Boundaries

While the standard "gate-to-gate" PMI is valuable for assessing the direct manufacturing process, recent research emphasizes the importance of expanding system boundaries to include upstream supply chain impacts. This "cradle-to-gate" perspective, sometimes called Value-Chain Mass Intensity (VCMI), accounts for the mass intensity of producing the raw materials themselves [7]. Studies have shown that a broader system boundary strengthens the correlation between mass intensity and full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental impacts for most impact categories, providing a more accurate sustainability picture [7]. The following diagram contrasts these two system boundary approaches.

The Scientist's Toolkit for PMI Analysis

Table 4: Essential Reagents and Materials for PMI-Focused Process Development

Tool / Material Category	Specific Examples	Function & Relevance to PMI Reduction
Green Solvent Guides [5]	ACS GCI PR Solvent Guide	Provides ranked lists of solvents based on safety, health, and environmental criteria. Switching to greener, more easily recyclable solvents is a primary lever for reducing PMI.
Reagent Guides [5]	ACS GCI PR Reagent Guide	Highlights preferred reagents with higher atom economy and lower hazard. Selecting efficient reagents minimizes waste and reduces the mass of reagents needed.
PMI Calculation Tools [1] [5]	ACS GCI PR PMI Calculator, Convergent PMI Calculator, PMI Prediction Calculator	Standardized software tools for calculating, predicting, and benchmarking PMI for proposed and developed synthetic routes.
Catalysts	Selective catalysts (e.g., for hydrogenation, cross-coupling)	Improve reaction efficiency, reduce byproducts, and allow for lower reaction temperatures, thereby reducing the mass of wasted reactants and energy.
Process Analytical Technology (PAT)	In-line IR, HPLC sensors	Enables real-time monitoring and control of reactions. Leads to better process understanding, higher yields, and less rework, directly improving PMI.

Process Mass Intensity has proven to be an indispensable metric for quantifying the sustainability and efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing. Its straightforward formula—total input mass per kilogram of API—belies its comprehensive nature, as it captures the cumulative impact of all materials used in a synthetic process. As the industry continues to face pressure to reduce its environmental footprint and costs, the role of PMI in driving innovation toward greener by design processes remains paramount. Future advancements will likely focus on the integration of PMI with more holistic lifecycle assessment tools and the continued development of predictive models, enabling scientists to make smarter, more sustainable choices earlier in the drug development process [1] [7] [3].

In the pharmaceutical industry, the efficiency of synthesizing new chemical entities is a critical determinant of both environmental impact and economic viability. Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a pivotal metric for benchmarking green chemistry and engineering performance, enabling the industry to quantify and drive improvements in sustainable manufacturing [1]. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials input into a process per mass of output produced, providing a straightforward measure of resource efficiency [8]. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute (ACS GCI) Pharmaceutical Roundtable has championed PMI as a key performance indicator since its first benchmarking exercise in 2008, helping focus industry attention on the main drivers of process inefficiency, cost, and environmental, safety, and health impact [1].

The fundamental calculation for PMI is expressed as: PMI = Total Mass of Inputs (kg) / Mass of Product (kg) This encompasses all materials used in the manufacturing process, including solvents, reagents, catalysts, and process chemicals [1]. A lower PMI value indicates a more efficient and environmentally favorable process, as it signifies less waste generation and lower resource consumption. The adoption of PMI represents a paradigm shift from traditional yield-focused metrics to a more holistic assessment that aligns pharmaceutical manufacturing with the principles of green chemistry and sustainability.

PMI Calculation and Methodology

Standard PMI Calculation Framework

The foundational PMI calculation employs a gate-to-gate system boundary, accounting for all raw material inputs on the basis of the bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) output [1]. This approach has been widely adopted throughout the pharmaceutical industry for its practicality and direct relevance to manufacturing processes. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable provides a standardized PMI calculator that enables rapid determination of this value, facilitating consistent benchmarking across different processes and organizations [1].

For more complex synthetic routes, the Convergent PMI Calculator extends this capability to accommodate convergent synthesis pathways with multiple branches. This enhanced tool uses the same fundamental calculations but allows for the assessment of more sophisticated synthetic strategies involving parallel synthesis streams that converge in later stages [1]. The methodology maintains the same systematic accounting of all input materials while accurately reflecting the mass flows in convergent syntheses.

Expanding System Boundaries: From PMI to MMI and VCMI

Recent advancements in mass intensity assessment have revealed limitations in the traditional gate-to-gate PMI approach. In response, the concept of Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) has been developed to build upon and expand PMI's scope to account for additional raw materials required for API manufacturing [8]. This evolution recognizes that a comprehensive assessment of environmental impact requires consideration beyond immediate process inputs.

A systematic study evaluating the correlation between mass intensities and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental impacts found that expanding system boundaries from gate-to-gate to cradle-to-gate strengthens correlations for fifteen of sixteen environmental impacts [7]. This has led to the development of Value-Chain Mass Intensity (VCMI) metrics, which incorporate upstream resource consumption by dividing value chain products into seven product classes based on the Central Product Classification (CPC) system [7]. The relationship between these metrics and their system boundaries is illustrated below:

Table: Mass Intensity Metrics Comparison

Metric	System Boundary	Materials Included	Primary Application
PMI (Process Mass Intensity)	Gate-to-gate	Solvents, reagents, water, catalysts used directly in manufacturing process	Internal process optimization, efficiency benchmarking
MMI (Manufacturing Mass Intensity)	Enhanced gate-to-gate	PMI materials plus other raw materials required for API manufacturing	Comprehensive manufacturing efficiency assessment
VCMI (Value-Chain Mass Intensity)	Cradle-to-gate	Natural resources extracted from environment for entire value chain	Holistic environmental impact assessment, life cycle analysis

The variation in system boundaries significantly affects the assessment of process sustainability. Research indicates that different environmental impacts are approximated by distinct sets of key input materials, meaning that a single mass-based metric cannot fully capture the multi-criteria nature of environmental sustainability [7]. For instance, the input material coal serves as a proxy for climate change impacts due to its associated carbon dioxide emissions during combustion, while other materials might better correlate with water usage or toxicity impacts.

PMI Implementation and Experimental Protocols

Standardized PMI Assessment Protocol

Implementing PMI assessment requires a systematic approach to data collection and calculation. The following workflow outlines the standardized protocol for comprehensive PMI evaluation:

Step 1: Define System Boundary

• Determine whether to use gate-to-gate (traditional PMI) or cradle-to-gate (VCMI) boundaries
• Document all included processes, synthetic steps, and purification stages
• For convergent syntheses, map all branches and convergence points

Step 2: Catalog Input Masses

• Record masses of all solvents, reagents, catalysts, and process chemicals
• Maintain detailed records of water usage in reactions, extractions, and purifications
• Account for recovery and recycling rates for solvents and other materials

Step 3: Measure Product Output

• Precisely measure the mass of isolated and purified API
• Document purity specifications and adjust calculations if necessary
• Account for any process losses or yield variations

Step 4: Calculate PMI

• Apply the formula: PMI = Total Input Mass / Product Mass
• Calculate separate PMI values for different process segments if needed
• For convergent syntheses, use the Convergent PMI Calculator [1]

Step 5: Analyze Results

• Compare against industry benchmarks (typical API PMI values range from 50-200 kg/kg)
• Identify process steps with highest mass intensity
• Correlate PMI with other green chemistry metrics (E-factor, atom economy)

Step 6: Identify Improvements

• Target high-PMI steps for optimization
• Evaluate alternative solvents, catalysts, or reaction conditions
• Implement process intensification strategies

Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

Table: Essential Reagents and Materials for Green Chemistry Implementation

Reagent/Material	Function	PMI Reduction Mechanism	Application Examples
Biocatalysts (Enzymes)	Biological catalysts for specific transformations	Higher selectivity reduces protecting groups and purification steps; milder reaction conditions	Synthesis of chiral intermediates, asymmetric reductions [9]
Green Solvents (Supercritical CO₂, water, ionic liquids)	Reaction media replacing VOCs	Reduced solvent usage through improved recovery; lower toxicity eliminates treatment steps	Supercritical CO₂ for extraction and reactions; water as reaction solvent [10] [9]
Heterogeneous Catalysts (Supported metals, zeolites)	Recyclable catalysts for various transformations	Recoverable and reusable multiple times without loss of activity	Hydrogenation, oxidation, and acid-base catalyzed reactions [11]
Renewable Feedstocks (Bio-based platform chemicals)	Starting materials from biomass	Reduced lifecycle impact; often biodegradable with lower synthesis complexity	Sugar-derived chemicals for API synthesis [11]
Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)	Customizable, biodegradable solvents for extraction	Low toxicity and energy-intensive purification; can be derived from natural compounds	Extraction of bioactive compounds from natural sources; metal recovery [10]

Current Trends and Future Directions

Industry Adoption and Benchmarking

The pharmaceutical industry's commitment to PMI benchmarking has yielded significant environmental benefits. Major pharmaceutical companies are expected to spend $5.2 billion on green chemistry initiatives in 2025, representing a 300% increase from 2020 [12]. This substantial investment reflects the growing recognition that sustainable practices align with economic objectives, as green chemistry adoption has been linked to a 19% reduction in waste and 56% improvement in productivity compared to past production standards [13].

The global market for green chemistry in pharmaceuticals is projected to grow at a CAGR of 10%, reaching $35 billion by 2033, up from $16.5 billion in 2024 [14]. This growth is driven by increasing regulatory pressures, consumer demand for sustainable products, and the demonstrated economic benefits of greener processes. Leading pharmaceutical companies including Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Roche have emerged as sustainability leaders, implementing comprehensive PMI tracking and reduction programs across their manufacturing networks [13].

Emerging Technologies Enhancing PMI Performance

Several innovative technologies are driving PMI reduction in pharmaceutical manufacturing:

Continuous Flow Chemistry

• Transforms traditional batch processes into constant workflows
• Enables significant PMI reduction through enhanced efficiency and reduced waste [15]
• Allows for real-time monitoring and quality control, minimizing rework and losses

Mechanochemistry

• Utilizes mechanical energy through grinding or ball milling to drive reactions
• Enables solvent-free synthesis, eliminating the largest contributor to PMI [10]
• Particularly valuable for reactions involving low-solubility reactants or unstable compounds

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

• AI optimization tools predict reaction outcomes and optimize conditions for sustainability
• Machine learning models suggest safer synthetic pathways with lower material requirements [10]
• Digital twins create virtual process models to simulate and optimize PMI before implementation [15]

In-Water and On-Water Reactions

• Leverage water's unique properties as a renewable, non-toxic reaction medium
• Reduce or eliminate organic solvents, significantly lowering PMI and waste treatment requirements [10]
• Recent breakthroughs demonstrate unexpected catalytic effects at water-organic interfaces

Limitations and Complementary Assessment Methods

While PMI provides valuable insights into process efficiency, recent research highlights important limitations. A 2025 study by Eichwald et al. systematically analyzed whether mass intensities can reliably approximate Life Cycle Assessment environmental impacts and found that mass intensities lack standardized system boundaries and their reliability as environmental proxies is highly time-sensitive [7]. This is particularly relevant in light of the chemical industry's transition toward defossilized production.

The study recommends that future research should focus on simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods that more directly reflect environmental performance, rather than relying solely on mass-based proxies [7]. This suggests that while PMI remains valuable for internal benchmarking and process improvement, comprehensive environmental assessment requires complementary methods that account for factors beyond mass, including energy source, material renewability, and specific toxicity profiles.

Process Mass Intensity has established itself as a crucial benchmark for driving sustainable practices in pharmaceutical manufacturing. By providing a quantifiable measure of resource efficiency, PMI enables researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to identify improvement opportunities, track progress, and align synthetic route development with green chemistry principles. The evolution from basic PMI to more comprehensive metrics like MMI and VCMI represents the industry's growing sophistication in environmental performance assessment.

While PMI remains an essential tool, its future lies in integration with broader assessment frameworks that incorporate energy consumption, renewable feedstocks, and complete lifecycle impacts. The pharmaceutical industry's continued investment in green chemistry—projected to reach $5.2 billion in 2025—demonstrates the strategic importance of sustainable manufacturing. As emerging technologies like continuous processing, mechanochemistry, and AI-driven optimization mature, PMI will continue to serve as a key indicator of progress toward the dual goals of environmental stewardship and economic viability in pharmaceutical development.

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) is a pivotal metric used to benchmark the sustainability, or “greenness,” of manufacturing processes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. It is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a given mass of a product [3]. Unlike simpler metrics that may focus only on waste, PMI provides a holistic view by accounting for all materials used within a process, including reactants, reagents, solvents (used in both reaction and purification steps), and catalysts [3]. The core objective of utilizing PMI is to improve the efficiency of pharmaceutical syntheses by optimizing resource use, thereby driving focus on the main areas of process inefficiency, cost, environmental impact, and health and safety [3].

The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCI PR) has been instrumental in championing PMI for over 15 years to evaluate and benchmark progress towards more sustainable manufacturing [8]. The industry's adoption of PMI has led to the development of tools like the PMI Calculator, the Convergent PMI Calculator, and the PMI Prediction Calculator, which help scientists quickly determine PMI values and compare potential synthetic routes prior to laboratory evaluation [3] [1].

The Critical Role of PMI in the Pharmaceutical Industry

In the context of pharmaceutical industry research, PMI serves as a crucial key performance indicator (KPI) that aligns process chemistry with the principles of green chemistry and engineering. Its role extends beyond mere waste measurement to become a comprehensive indicator of process efficiency and environmental stewardship.

The adoption of PMI has helped the industry focus attention on the primary drivers of process inefficiency, cost, and environment, safety, and health impact [1]. Because pharmaceutical syntheses often involve multiple steps and use significant amounts of solvents, reducing the PMI directly translates to substantial cost savings (from purchasing fewer materials and reducing energy consumption in workup and isolation) and a lower environmental footprint [1].

The industry's progression in sustainable manufacturing is evidenced by the recent introduction of Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI), a metric that builds upon PMI by expanding the scope to account for other raw materials required for active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing [8]. This evolution demonstrates how the foundational concept of PMI continues to drive more sustainable practices across the sector.

Calculating and Interpreting PMI

The PMI Formula

The calculation for Process Mass Intensity is straightforward but comprehensive. It is defined as the total mass of all materials input into a process divided by the mass of the final product output, typically expressed in kilograms of input per kilogram of output (kg/kg).

PMI = Total Mass of Inputs (kg) / Mass of Product (kg)

All materials used in the manufacturing process are included in the numerator: reactants, reagents, solvents, catalysts, and water [3] [1]. The denominator is the mass of the bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) output [1].

PMI Calculation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the systematic workflow for calculating and analyzing Process Mass Intensity:

Experimental Protocol for PMI Determination

For researchers seeking to determine the PMI of a chemical process, the following detailed methodology provides a standardized approach:

• Process Scoping: Clearly define the synthetic route to be analyzed, including all reaction steps, workup procedures, and purification stages. Document all intermediates and the final API specification.

• Material Inventory: Create a comprehensive list of all input materials. This must include:

  • Stoichiometric Reactants: All raw materials that participate in the chemical transformation.
  • Solvents: All solvents used in reaction media, workup (extractions, washes), and purification (recrystallization, chromatography). Note that solvent is often the largest contributor to PMI in pharmaceutical processes.
  • Reagents and Catalysts: All reagents, catalysts, and ligands that facilitate the reaction, even if used in small quantities.
  • Auxiliary Process Materials: This includes acids, bases, drying agents, and filtration aids.

• Mass Quantification: Accurately measure or calculate the masses of all input materials based on the process recipe or experimental procedure. All masses should be in a consistent unit (typically kilograms).

• Product Measurement: Isolate and accurately weigh the final API product. Ensure the product meets the required quality and purity specifications, as off-spec material would distort the PMI value.

• PMI Calculation: Input the total mass of all inputs and the mass of the final product into the PMI formula. The ACS GCI PR's PMI Calculator can be used to standardize this calculation, especially for multi-step or convergent syntheses [1].

• Data Analysis and Benchmarking: Compare the calculated PMI against internal benchmarks or industry data to assess the relative efficiency and environmental performance of the process.

PMI Performance Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis

Industry PMI Data and Comparisons

The table below summarizes PMI values from different manufacturing contexts, illustrating the variability and scope for improvement. A lower PMI indicates a more efficient and less resource-intensive process.

Process Type	Therapeutic Category / Type	PMI (kg/kg)	Key Contextual Notes
Batch Manufacturing [16]	Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs)	Comparable to Continuous	PMI for biologics is typically high; batch processes are the traditional standard.
Continuous Manufacturing [16]	Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs)	Comparable to Batch	PMI is similar to batch, but productivity (g DS/time) can be much higher, potentially lowering other environmental impacts.
Small Molecule API (Early Development) [3]	Various	Can exceed 100	Early-stage processes are often unoptimized.
Small Molecule API (Optimized Commercial) [3]	Various	Can be <25	Result of extensive process development and green chemistry principles.

Framework for PMI-Based Process Analysis

This diagram outlines a structured approach for comparing processes and identifying optimization opportunities based on PMI analysis:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials for PMI-Optimized Synthesis

Efficient process development requires careful selection of materials. The following table details key research reagent solutions and their roles in creating efficient, low-PMI synthetic processes.

Material Category	Specific Examples	Function in API Synthesis	PMI Optimization Consideration
Catalysts	Palladium catalysts (e.g., Pd/C, Pd(PPh₃)₄), organocatalysts	Enable key bond-forming reactions (e.g., cross-couplings, hydrogenations) at low loadings.	High turnover number and easy removal/recycling are critical to minimize mass contribution from precious metals.
Green Solvents	2-MethylTHF, Cyclopentyl methyl ether (CPME), water, bio-based solvents	Serve as reaction media, extraction agents, and for purification.	Solvent choice is the single biggest lever for PMI reduction. Prioritize safer, recyclable, and low-boiling point solvents to reduce overall mass [3].
Reagents	Polymer-supported reagents, flow reagents, biodegradable separations agents	Facilitate oxidation, reduction, and protection/deprotection steps.	Solid-supported reagents can simplify workup and reduce solvent use. Stoichiometry and atom economy are key selection factors.
Purification Media	Chromatography resins, crystallization additives, filtration aids	Isolate and purify the intermediate or final API to meet quality standards.	Traditional silica gel chromatography is a major PMI driver. Developing crystallization-based purifications can dramatically lower PMI.

Advanced Applications and Future Directions

Expanding Beyond PMI: Manufacturing Mass Intensity and iGAL

While PMI is a powerful first-order metric, the field is evolving towards more comprehensive assessments. The ACS GCI PR has introduced Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI), which builds upon PMI by accounting for additional raw materials required for API manufacturing beyond the immediate chemical process, providing an even more complete picture of resource use [8].

Furthermore, the Green Chemistry Innovation Scorecard Calculator (iGAL), established by the IQ Consortium, ACS GCI PR, and academic leaders, provides a relative process greenness score by focusing on waste. This allows for comparisons between different processes and their waste reductions, complementing the insights gained from PMI analysis [3].

The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Tools

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are poised to revolutionize PMI optimization. AI can enhance drug characterization, target discovery, and small molecule drug design, thereby shortening development timelines and reducing costs [17]. Through molecular generation techniques, AI facilitates the creation of novel drug molecules while predicting their properties and activities, which can help designers select synthetic routes with inherently lower PMI [17].

The PMI Prediction Calculator, created by the ACS GCI PR, represents an early form of this approach, allowing scientists to estimate probable PMI ranges prior to any laboratory evaluation [3]. This enables the assessment and comparison of potential route changes at the earliest stages of development, preventing resource-intensive, high-PMI processes from being carried forward.

PMI in Biologics and Continuous Manufacturing

The application of PMI is also expanding beyond traditional small-molecule pharmaceuticals. In biologics manufacturing for products like monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), PMI is used to benchmark processes, though its limitations become more apparent. A study found that a continuous manufacturing process for mAbs had a PMI comparable to traditional batch processes [16].

This highlights a critical insight: while PMI is a useful metric, it should not be used in isolation. A process with a higher PMI might be more sustainable overall if it has significantly higher productivity (in grams of drug substance per unit time), leading to lower overall energy consumption per unit of product [16]. This underscores the need for a multi-metric approach to true sustainability assessment, especially in complex biologics manufacturing.

The Evolution from PMI to Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) for a Broader Scope

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has served as a cornerstone green chemistry metric within the pharmaceutical industry, enabling researchers to benchmark and quantify the efficiency and environmental impact of synthetic processes. This whitepaper examines the evolution of mass-based metrics, focusing on the industry's drive towards a more comprehensive assessment of manufacturing sustainability. While PMI provides a critical foundation by measuring the total mass of materials used per mass of product, the concept of Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) represents a logical expansion to encompass a broader scope of the production lifecycle. This guide details the fundamental principles, calculation methodologies, and practical applications of these metrics, supported by current quantitative data and experimental protocols to aid researchers and drug development professionals in implementing more sustainable processes.

In the pursuit of sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing, simple and informative mass-based metrics are essential for benchmarking and driving improvement. Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has been widely adopted for this purpose. PMI is defined as the ratio of the total mass of materials used in a process to the mass of the final product [3]. It accounts for all inputs, including reactants, reagents, solvents (for reaction and purification), and catalysts [6]. A lower PMI signifies a more efficient process with less waste and a reduced environmental footprint.

The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has championed PMI as a key metric to help the industry focus attention on the main drivers of process inefficiency, cost, and environment, safety, and health impact [1]. The drive for greater sustainability, coupled with the need to reduce resource consumption across the entire manufacturing landscape, has stimulated the conceptual evolution from a process-focused view (PMI) to a broader Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) perspective. While a standardized definition for MMI was not identified in the available literature, it logically extends the PMI concept beyond the single chemical process to encompass a wider range of manufacturing inputs, potentially including utilities, packaging, and other ancillary materials, thereby providing a more holistic view of the resource efficiency of producing a final drug product.

Quantitative Analysis of PMI Across Therapeutic Modalities

Cross-company benchmarking studies conducted by the ACS GCIPR have provided critical data on the PMI of various pharmaceutical modalities. The table below summarizes the typical PMI ranges, revealing significant differences in the material efficiency of producing different types of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).

Table 1: Comparison of PMI Values Across Different Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Reported PMI Range (kg input/kg API)	Average/Median PMI (kg input/kg API)	Key Drivers of High PMI
Small Molecules [6]	168 - 308	Median: 168 - 308	Solvent use in reactions and purifications; excess reagents.
Oligonucleotides [6]	3,035 - 7,023	Average: 4,299	Large excesses of reagents and solvents in solid-phase synthesis; challenging purifications.
Synthetic Peptides [6]	Up to ~13,000	Average: ~13,000	High solvent and reagent use in Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS); purification challenges.
Biologics (e.g., mAbs) [6]	~8,300	Average: ~8,300	Complex fermentation and downstream processing; water-for-injection.

The data shows that synthetic peptides, primarily manufactured via Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS), have the highest average PMI, approximately 40-80 times higher than that of traditional small molecules [6]. This stark contrast highlights a critical area for sustainability-focused research and underscores why the industry is seeking broader metrics and solutions.

PMI Analysis in Peptide Synthesis: A Detailed Case Study

A 2024 cross-company study analyzed the PMI of 40 synthetic peptide processes at various development stages. The research broke down the PMI contribution by stage to identify key areas for improvement [6].

Table 2: Stage-Wise PMI Contribution in a Typical Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) Process

Process Stage	Contribution to Total PMI	Primary Materials & Challenges
Synthesis (SPPS)	Significant portion	Excess solvents (e.g., DMF, NMP, DCM) and reagents (e.g., Fmoc-AA, coupling agents); atom-inefficiency of protecting groups.
Purification	Significant portion	Large volumes of solvents for chromatography (e.g., acetonitrile, water, buffers).
Isolation	Significant portion	Solvents for precipitation and washing (e.g., Diethyl Ether, MTBE); highly corrosive trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) for cleavage.

The study concluded that the high PMI in peptide synthesis warrants a concerted effort to develop more environmentally friendly processes, including the adoption of green chemistry principles and alternative technologies [6].

Core Concepts and Calculation Methodologies

Defining Process Mass Intensity (PMI)

PMI is calculated using a straightforward formula, which provides a comprehensive view of material efficiency [18]:

PMI = (Total Mass of All Inputs) / (Mass of Product)

The "total mass of all inputs" includes the mass of reactants, reagents, solvents used in the reaction and purification, catalysts, and any other auxiliary process materials [6]. It is a more holistic metric than traditional yield or atom economy because it accounts for all non-product outputs, whether they are recycled, treated as waste, or emitted [18].

The Relationship Between PMI and Other Metrics

PMI is a key member of a family of green chemistry metrics. Its relationship to other common metrics is an important concept for researchers.

The diagram illustrates that while Atom Economy (AE) and Chemical Yield are fundamental, they do not account for solvents and other process materials. PMI offers a more complete picture of the process itself. The Complete Environmental Factor (cEF) is closely related, focusing specifically on the total waste stream [6]. The conceptual evolution towards MMI involves expanding the system boundaries to include a wider array of manufacturing inputs beyond the immediate chemical synthesis steps.

Experimental Workflow for PMI Determination

The standard methodology for determining PMI involves a systematic procedure. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable provides a PMI Calculator to facilitate this process [1] [3].

For convergent syntheses, the ACS GCIPR has developed an enhanced Convergent PMI Calculator which uses the same calculations but allows for multiple branches in the synthesis [1]. Furthermore, a PMI Prediction Calculator was created to estimate probable PMI ranges prior to any laboratory evaluation, allowing for the assessment and comparison of potential synthetic routes early in development [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

Understanding the function and environmental impact of common materials is crucial for reducing PMI. The following table details key reagents and solvents used in peptide synthesis, a modality with a high PMI, and highlights associated challenges and green chemistry principles.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions and Challenges in Peptide Synthesis

Reagent/Solvent	Function in Process	Green Chemistry Challenges & Principles
N,N-Dimethylformamide (DMF) / N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)	Primary solvent for Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) [6].	Classified as reprotoxic; use may be restricted/banned [6]. Principle: Use Safer Solvents.
Dichloromethane (DCM)	Swelling resin; coupling and washing steps [6].	Hazardous solvent; regulated for its environmental and health impacts [6]. Principle: Use Safer Solvents.
Fmoc-Protected Amino Acids (Fmoc-AA)	Building blocks for peptide chain assembly in SPPS [6].	Inherently poor atom economy due to the mass of the protecting group that is cleaved and discarded [6]. Principle: Atom Economy.
Coupling Agents (e.g., HATU, DIC)	Activate amino acids for amide bond formation [6].	Can be explosive or sensitizing; used in large excess [6]. Principle: Reduce Derivatives & Prevent Waste.
Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA)	Cleaves the finished peptide from the solid support and removes protecting groups [6].	Highly corrosive; generates hazardous waste [6]. Principle: Use Safer Solvents & Auxiliaries.
Diethyl Ether (DEE) / tert-Butyl Methyl Ether (MTBE)	Precipitation and washing of the isolated peptide [6].	Toxic and highly flammable [6]. Principle: Use Safer Solvents.

The evolution from Process Mass Intensity to a broader Manufacturing Mass Intensity concept signifies the pharmaceutical industry's commitment to deepening and widening its sustainability efforts. PMI has proven to be an invaluable, simple metric for benchmarking and driving efficiency improvements at the chemical process level, as evidenced by the stark PMI comparisons across different drug modalities. The high PMI of peptide synthesis, in particular, underscores the need for continued innovation. The future of sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing lies in the widespread adoption of these metrics, the development of greener chemistries and technologies, and the systematic application of green chemistry principles. By embracing this evolved, holistic view of mass intensity, researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals can make meaningful contributions to reducing the environmental footprint of medicine production, aligning industrial practice with the needs of the planet.

How to Calculate and Apply PMI: Tools and Techniques for Drug Development

Utilizing the ACS GCI PMI and Convergent PMI Calculators

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a critical green chemistry metric within the pharmaceutical industry for benchmarking the environmental performance and efficiency of chemical processes. Process development chemists and engineers in pharmaceutical companies face the ongoing challenge of identifying efficient routes and processes for new chemical entities that ultimately become active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in final drug products [1]. The efficiency of any molecular synthesis represents a combination of the strategic route selection and the subsequent process design optimization. PMI was proposed as a means of benchmarking green chemistry and engineering performance among member companies of the ACS Green Chemistry Institute (GCI) Pharmaceutical Roundtable from its earliest days, with the first benchmarking exercise conducted in 2008 and regularly thereafter [1].

The fundamental importance of PMI stems from its ability to help the industry focus attention on the main drivers of process inefficiency, cost, and environment, safety and health impact [1]. In the pharmaceutical industry, where approximately 50% of materials used to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients are solvents, decreasing materials usage not only provides environmental benefits but also generates significant cost savings through reduced material purchases and lower energy consumption during workup and isolation [1] [19]. The progression of tool development has evolved from a simple PMI calculator to more sophisticated versions including a convergent PMI calculator, a PMI life cycle assessment tool, and predictive PMI calculators that provide estimations based on the phase of drug development [1].

Understanding PMI Calculators: Types and Applications

The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable Tool Ecosystem

The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed a suite of complementary tools to support sustainable process development, with PMI calculation at its core. These tools represent the unique output of the Roundtable's collaboration among member companies and encompass hundreds of hours of work [19]. The innovative green chemistry tools have been made available to the greater community to encourage wider adoption of sustainable practices [19]. The progression beyond the simple PMI calculator to a Convergent PMI Calculator and a PMI Prediction Calculator employs the same fundamental principles while offering more advanced calculation capabilities [3].

Table 1: Overview of ACS GCI PMI-Related Calculators

Calculator Type	Primary Function	Key Features	Applications
Process Mass Intensity Calculator	Basic PMI calculation	Accounts for raw material inputs against API output	Quick determination of PMI values for linear syntheses [1]
Convergent PMI Calculator	Enhanced PMI calculation for complex syntheses	Accommodates multiple branches for convergent synthesis	Benchmarking and quantifying improvements in greener manufacturing processes with complex routes [1] [19]
PMI Prediction Calculator	Predictive analytics for proposed routes	Uses historical PMI data and Monte Carlo simulations	Estimating probable PMI ranges prior to laboratory evaluation [19] [20]
PMI Life Cycle Assessment Tool	Environmental impact assessment	Customizable for linear/convergent processes with ecoinvent dataset	High-level estimation of PMI and environmental life cycle information [21] [20]
Green Chemistry Innovation Scorecard	Waste-focused assessment	Statistical analysis of 64 drug manufacturing processes	Providing relative process greenness score focusing on waste reduction [19] [3]

Core Calculation Methodology

The fundamental PMI calculation represents the total mass of materials used in a process divided by the mass of the final product. The standard PMI formula is expressed as:

PMI = Total Mass of Materials / Mass of Product

This calculation accounts for all materials used within a pharmaceutical process, including reactants, reagents, solvents (used in both reaction and purification), and catalysts [3]. The Convergent PMI Calculator uses the same fundamental calculations as the basic PMI calculator but extends this methodology to accommodate multiple branches for single-step or convergent synthesis [1] [20]. This enhancement is particularly valuable for complex pharmaceutical syntheses where multiple synthetic pathways converge to form the final API.

The PMI Prediction Calculator incorporates historical PMI data from multiple pharmaceutical companies and employs predictive analytics, specifically Monte Carlo simulations, to estimate probable PMI ranges at various phases of drug development [20]. This tool can predict PMI prior to any laboratory evaluation of a chemical route or at any other stage of a molecule's development, enabling assessment and comparison of potential route changes [3]. The underlying statistical framework is backed by the analysis of 64 drug manufacturing processes encompassing 703 steps across 12 companies, providing a robust foundation for its predictions [19].

Figure 1: PMI Calculator Selection Workflow

Implementation Protocols for PMI Calculation

Data Collection and Input Methodology

The accurate implementation of PMI calculators requires systematic data collection and input methodology. For both the basic and convergent PMI calculators, researchers must account for all material inputs across the synthetic process. The experimental protocol begins with comprehensive mass balancing of all chemical transformations. For each reaction step, record the masses of all input materials including starting materials, reagents, solvents, catalysts, and process aids [1] [3]. This data collection should be performed under standardized conditions to ensure comparability across different processes and development stages.

For convergent syntheses, the experimental approach requires additional coordination of multiple synthetic branches. The Convergent PMI Calculator accommodates this complexity by allowing independent tracking of each synthetic branch while automatically calculating the cumulative mass intensity at convergence points [1]. When implementing the calculator, researchers should document the exact isolation points, yields, and purification methods for each intermediate, as these significantly impact the overall PMI. The mass of water used in workup procedures should be included in the calculations, as its exclusion can lead to significant underestimation of environmental impact [8].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

Reagent Category	Key Functions	PMI Reduction Strategy	Sustainability Considerations
Solvents	Reaction medium, extraction, purification	Solvent recovery and reuse; selection of safer alternatives	Follow ACS GCI Solvent Selection Guide; minimize hazardous solvents [19]
Catalysts	Accelerate reactions, improve efficiency	Use highly active catalysts at low loadings; implement recycling	Prefer non-precious metal catalysts; immobilized enzyme systems [3]
Reagents	Enable bond formation, functional group transformations	Stoichiometric optimization; atom economy consideration	Choose reagents with benign byproducts; avoid toxic derivatives [19] [3]
Purification Materials	Chromatography media, crystallization solvents, filters	Minimize chromatographic steps; optimize crystallization efficiency	Implement greener purification techniques; membrane filtration [20]

Step-by-Step Calculation Procedure

The experimental workflow for PMI calculation follows a systematic procedure to ensure accurate and reproducible results. First, define the synthetic route and identify all input materials, including their masses and purities. For convergent syntheses, map the complete synthetic tree with all branches and convergence points. Input this data into the appropriate PMI calculator, ensuring all mass values are recorded in consistent units (typically kilograms). The calculator will automatically compute the PMI for each step and the overall process. Researchers should then analyze the results to identify "hot spots" - process steps with disproportionately high mass intensity - which represent priority targets for optimization [1] [3].

For the PMI Prediction Calculator, the methodology differs as it utilizes historical data rather than actual experimental measurements. Input the proposed synthetic route, including the number of steps, reaction types, and expected yields. The tool applies predictive analytics based on historical PMI data from pharmaceutical companies to generate probable PMI ranges. This enables early-stage evaluation of synthetic routes before significant laboratory resources are committed [19] [20]. When using the PMI-LCA Tool, additional environmental impact assessment data is generated using the ecoinvent dataset, providing a more comprehensive sustainability profile beyond simple mass accounting [21].

Figure 2: PMI Implementation in Process Development

Advanced Applications and Industry Case Studies

PMI in Accelerated Drug Development Programs

The pharmaceutical industry's evolving landscape, characterized by accelerated approval pathways and increased competition, has heightened the importance of efficient PMI implementation. Streamlined clinical development programs with smaller patient populations often reduce the amount of drug substance needed for clinical development, potentially altering the traditional emphasis on cost of goods and process scalability [22]. In this context, PMI calculators provide critical decision-support for resource allocation and process optimization under compressed timelines. The case of divarasib, a KRASG12C inhibitor from Roche/Genentech, illustrates the practical application of PMI in addressing synthetic challenges while maintaining development speed [22].

For divarasib, which features considerable synthetic challenges including a rotationally hindered heterobiaryl axis and a reactive acrylamide warhead, process development focused on PMI reduction through strategic improvements [22]. The first-generation process required chiral chromatographic purification, limiting its scalability. Second-generation process development implemented multiple PMI-reduction strategies: a continuous flow process for efficient quinazoline synthesis, improved access to aminopyrimidine building blocks from readily available starting materials, and an operationally simple, low-PMI access to key precursors [22]. Most significantly, an improved catalyst system for the Negishi coupling avoided the chromatographic purification entirely, demonstrating how PMI-focused process development can simultaneously enhance sustainability and scalability.

Limitations and Future Directions

While PMI has become an established metric in pharmaceutical development, recent research has highlighted important limitations that users must consider. A 2025 systematic analysis questioned whether mass intensities should be used as reliable environmental proxies, finding that expanding system boundaries from gate-to-gate to cradle-to-gate strengthens correlations for fifteen of sixteen environmental impacts, but a single mass-based metric cannot fully capture the multi-criteria nature of environmental sustainability [7]. The study demonstrated that the reliability of mass-based environmental assessment is highly time-sensitive, particularly during the transition toward a defossilized chemical industry [7].

These limitations have prompted the development of more comprehensive assessment frameworks. Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) has been proposed as a metric that builds upon and expands PMI's scope to account for other raw materials required for API manufacturing [8]. Additionally, the PMI-LCA Tool represents an important advancement by integrating life cycle assessment methodology with traditional mass intensity calculations [21]. For researchers utilizing PMI calculators, these developments underscore the importance of using PMI as one component within a broader sustainability assessment framework rather than as a standalone environmental metric.

The ACS GCI PMI and Convergent PMI Calculators represent sophisticated tools that have become integral to modern pharmaceutical process development. By providing standardized methodologies for quantifying mass efficiency, these calculators enable researchers and drug development professionals to benchmark processes, identify improvement opportunities, and drive sustainable innovation. The progression from basic PMI calculation to predictive analytics and life cycle assessment integration reflects the pharmaceutical industry's evolving understanding of sustainability. As chemical processes grow increasingly complex and development timelines compress, these tools will continue to play a vital role in balancing environmental responsibility with the urgent need for new therapeutics. By implementing the methodologies and protocols outlined in this guide, scientific professionals can fully leverage PMI calculators to advance both process efficiency and broader sustainability goals within pharmaceutical research and development.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Accounting for Raw Material Inputs

Within the pharmaceutical industry, the precise accounting of raw material inputs is not merely a procedural task; it is a fundamental practice for developing sustainable, efficient, and economically viable manufacturing processes. Framed within the broader thesis of Process Mass Intensity (PMI) definition and research, this accounting forms the essential data foundation for one of the industry's most pivotal green chemistry metrics [1] [3]. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified mass of a product, typically an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) [6]. It provides a holistic assessment of the mass requirements of a process, including synthesis, purification, and isolation [6].

The drive towards more sustainable manufacturing has made PMI a key benchmark for the industry, helping to focus attention on the main drivers of process inefficiency, cost, and environmental, safety, and health impact [1]. A robust and accurate accounting of all raw material inputs is the critical first step in calculating the PMI and, by extension, in quantifying and improving the environmental performance of pharmaceutical synthesis [3]. This guide provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a detailed, technical protocol for this essential practice.

Core Principles: Understanding Process Mass Intensity (PMI)

Definition and Calculation of PMI

Process Mass Intensity is a comprehensive metric that accounts for the total mass of resources consumed in a process relative to the mass of the product obtained. The standard formula is:

PMI = Total Mass of Inputs (kg) / Mass of Product (kg)

A PMI value of 100 indicates that 100 kilograms of materials are used to produce 1 kilogram of final API. A lower PMI signifies a more efficient and less wasteful process. Unlike simpler metrics such as atom economy, which only considers the atoms incorporated into the final product from the reactants, PMI includes all materials introduced into the process [6]. This includes:

• Reactants and reagents
• Catalysts
• Solvents (used in reaction, work-up, and purification)
• Process chemicals

It is crucial to note that PMI is a mass-based metric and does not, by itself, account for the toxicity, renewability, or inherent environmental impact of the materials used, nor does it directly include energy usage [7] [6]. Its strength lies in providing a clear, quantifiable measure of overall resource efficiency.

PMI in Context: Industry Benchmarks

To contextualize the importance of rigorous raw material accounting, it is helpful to understand typical PMI values across different pharmaceutical modalities. These benchmarks illustrate the significant room for improvement in certain areas and highlight the value of PMI as a comparative tool.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarks for Different Pharmaceutical Modalities

Pharmaceutical Modality	Typical PMI (kg input/kg API)	Key Contextual Notes
Small Molecule APIs [6]	Median: 168 - 308	Represents the most efficient modality due to well-established, optimized synthetic processes.
Oligonucleotides [6]	Average: ~4,300 (Range: 3,035 - 7,023)	Solid-phase synthesis, similar to peptides, leads to higher material use.
Biopharmaceuticals [6]	Average: ~8,300	Includes monoclonal antibodies and other biotechnology-derived molecules.
Synthetic Peptides (SPPS) [6]	Average: ~13,000	The use of large excesses of solvents and reagents in solid-phase peptide synthesis results in the highest PMI.

A Step-by-Step Methodology for Accounting for Raw Material Inputs

Defining the System Boundary

The first and most critical step is to define the system boundary for the analysis. The most common boundary in pharmaceutical process development is the "gate-to-gate" boundary, which encompasses all inputs from the point they enter the manufacturing facility until the final API is produced [7]. However, a more holistic view considers the "cradle-to-gate" boundary, which includes the mass of natural resources required to produce the raw materials used in the process [7]. For the purpose of this guide, we will focus on the gate-to-gate boundary, which forms the basis of the standard PMI calculation.

Diagram 1: System Boundaries for Raw Material Accounting

Categorizing Raw Material Inputs

For a precise accounting, all raw materials must be systematically categorized. This ensures no materials are omitted and facilitates later analysis for improvement opportunities.

Table 2: Raw Material Input Categories for PMI Calculation

Category	Description	Specific Examples	Included in PMI?
Reactants	Starting materials and intermediates that contribute atoms to the final API structure.	Aniline, Acetic Anhydride, Protected Amino Acids (Fmoc-AAs) [6]	Yes
Reagents	Substances used to carry out a chemical transformation but whose atoms are not incorporated into the final API.	Oxidizing/Reducing agents, Coupling agents (e.g., HATU, DCC) [6], Acids/Bases	Yes
Catalysts	Substances that increase reaction rate without being consumed in the overall reaction.	Palladium on Carbon (Pd/C), Enzymes, Ligands	Yes
Solvents	Liquids used to dissolve reactants, facilitate reactions, and in purification steps.	Reaction Solvents: NMP, DMF [6]Work-up Solvents: Ethyl acetate, WaterPurification Solvents: Hexanes, Heptane, Acetonitrile (for HPLC)	Yes
Processing Aids	Materials used in purification and isolation that do not participate in chemical reactions.	Chromatography resins, Filter aids (Celite), Crystallization seeds	Yes
Water	Water used as a solvent, for extraction, or for quenching reactions.	Process Water, Deionized Water	Yes
Energy	Electricity, steam, and other energy carriers used to operate the process.	Natural Gas, Electricity	No (Note: Not included in mass-based PMI, but critical for Life Cycle Assessment)

Data Collection and Measurement Protocol

Accurate data collection is the foundation of reliable PMI calculation. The following protocol outlines the key steps and methodologies.

Step 1: Process Definition and Reaction Sequence Mapping

• Action: Create a detailed process flow diagram (PFD) for the entire synthetic sequence, from raw materials to isolated API. This includes all reaction steps, work-ups, isolations, and purification stages [6].
• Documentation: The PFD should be the primary reference document, listing every vessel and operation where materials are introduced.

Step 2: Mass Balance Closure for Each Unit Operation

• Action: For every discrete step in the PFD (e.g., reaction, crystallization, filtration, drying), perform a mass balance.
• Experimental Protocol:
  • Charge Inputs: Accurately weigh and record the mass of all raw materials added to the vessel.
  • Process Execution: Carry out the chemical reaction or unit operation according to the defined parameters.
  • Output Measurement: Isolate and weigh all output streams. This includes the desired intermediate or product, by-products, and waste streams (e.g., mother liquors from crystallizations, aqueous layers from extractions) [23].
  • Closure Check: The total mass of outputs should equal the total mass of inputs, within a reasonable margin of error for measurement uncertainty and potential volatilization. A significant discrepancy may indicate unaccounted losses or measurement error.

Step 3: Aggregation of Total Input Mass

• Action: Sum the masses of all input materials used across the entire synthetic sequence. It is critical to account for materials used in multiple steps (e.g., solvents for extractions and washes).
• Tool: Utilizing a tool like the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable's PMI Calculator or Convergent PMI Calculator can streamline this aggregation, especially for complex, multi-step, or convergent syntheses [1].

Step 4: Final API Mass Measurement

• Action: Weigh the final, isolated, and purified API. This should be a dry, pure substance that meets the required specifications.
• Analytical Verification: The identity, purity, and quality of the final API should be confirmed using techniques such as HPLC for assay and related substances, NMR, and Karl Fischer for water content [24] [25]. This ensures the mass recorded is for the correct and high-quality product.

Step 5: PMI Calculation and Analysis

• Action: Calculate the PMI using the formula in Section 2.1.
• Advanced Analysis: Break down the PMI by category (e.g., solvent PMI, reagent PMI) or by process stage (synthesis, purification, isolation) to identify the largest contributors to waste and inefficiency [6].

Diagram 2: Experimental Workflow for Raw Material Accounting and PMI Calculation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Analytical Methods for Input Verification

The accurate accounting of raw materials goes beyond mass. The quality and identity of these inputs directly impact yield, PMI, and final product quality. The following table details key analytical techniques used for this verification.

Table 3: Key Analytical Techniques for Raw Material Verification and Testing

Analytical Technique	Primary Function in Raw Material Analysis	Common Applications
HPLC / GC [23]	Separation, identification, and quantification of components in a mixture.	Assay/Potency of APIs [25], Impurity/Related Substances profiling [25], Residual Solvent testing (USP <467>) [24].
FTIR Spectroscopy [26] [25]	Rapid identity verification of raw materials via functional group "fingerprinting".	Identity testing of incoming raw materials, often using ATR (Attenuated Total Reflection) for solids and liquids without preparation [26].
Karl Fischer (KF) Titration [24]	Highly specific quantification of water content in raw materials.	Water content analysis for solvents, APIs, and excipients [23].
ICP-MS / ICP-OES [24] [25]	Sensitive detection and quantification of metallic elements and heavy metals.	Heavy metals testing as per USP <232> and <233> [24] [25], catalyst residue analysis.
NMR Spectroscopy [26]	Elucidating molecular structure and composition. Can be quantitative (qNMR).	Identity confirmation [25], purity assessment, and quantification of unknowns when impurities are detected [26].
X-ray Diffraction (XRD) [26]	Determining the crystalline structure and phase composition of solid materials.	Assessing polymorphism, crystallinity, and absolute phase abundance in mixtures [26].

Advanced Considerations: Beyond Gate-to-Gate PMI

While gate-to-gate PMI is an invaluable internal metric, the pharmaceutical industry is increasingly looking at a broader environmental context.

• Expanding to Value-Chain Mass Intensity (VCMI): Recent research advocates for a cradle-to-gate perspective, calculating a Value-Chain Mass Intensity (VCMI) that includes the natural resources required to produce the raw materials [7]. This provides a more complete picture of a process's total resource footprint. Studies show that expanding the system boundary in this way strengthens the correlation between mass intensity and full life cycle environmental impacts for most impact categories [7].
• Limitations of Mass-Based Metrics: Mass intensities like PMI are simple and useful but do not capture the multi-criteria nature of environmental sustainability [7]. A process with a low PMI might still use highly toxic or environmentally damaging solvents. PMI should therefore be used as one of several metrics, ideally in conjunction with a more complete Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which evaluates multiple environmental impacts such as global warming potential and water use [7].

The meticulous accounting of raw material inputs is a non-negotiable discipline in modern pharmaceutical research and development. By following the structured, step-by-step methodology outlined in this guide—defining system boundaries, categorizing inputs, rigorously collecting mass data, and employing analytical verification—scientists and engineers can generate reliable PMI values. This data is the cornerstone for benchmarking performance, driving process innovation, and making informed decisions that ultimately lead to more sustainable, cost-effective, and greener manufacturing processes for the pharmaceutical industry.

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial mass-based metric for evaluating the environmental impact and efficiency of synthetic routes. PMI provides a holistic assessment of the mass requirements of a process and is defined as the total mass of materials used—including raw materials, reactants, and solvents—to produce a specified mass of product [6]. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has identified PMI as a key green chemistry metric and an indispensable indicator of the overall greenness of a process [6]. Unlike simpler metrics such as atom economy or chemical yield, PMI accounts for all materials consumed during synthesis, purification, and isolation, offering a more comprehensive view of resource utilization [6]. This case study explores the application of PMI as a strategic tool for assessing and comparing synthetic routes within the context of pharmaceutical research and development, with particular emphasis on its role in driving sustainable manufacturing practices.

Theoretical Foundations and Calculation Methodology

PMI Definition and Formula

The fundamental calculation for Process Mass Intensity is straightforward yet powerful. PMI is determined using the following formula, which accounts for all mass inputs relative to the output:

PMI = Total Mass of Materials Used (kg) / Mass of Product (kg) [6]

The "Total Mass of Materials Used" encompasses all substances entering the process, including starting materials, reagents, solvents, water, and process aids. This comprehensive scope enables PMI to provide a complete picture of material efficiency, as it captures waste generated not only from chemical reactions but also from purification and isolation steps [6].

Comparative Framework for Pharmaceutical Modalities

PMI values vary significantly across different pharmaceutical modalities, reflecting fundamental differences in their manufacturing processes. The table below summarizes typical PMI ranges for major therapeutic modalities, highlighting the substantial environmental footprint of peptide synthesis compared to other categories:

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Typical PMI Range (kg material/kg API)	Key Characteristics
Small Molecules [6]	168 - 308 (median)	Efficient synthetic methods; well-established optimization approaches
Biopharmaceuticals [6]	~8,300 (average)	Biotechnology-derived; includes monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins
Oligonucleotides [6]	3,035 - 7,023 (average: 4,299)	Solid-phase synthesis with excess reagents and solvents; challenging purifications
Synthetic Peptides [6]	~13,000 (average for SPPS)	Resource-intensive solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) with significant solvent use

Relationship to Other Green Chemistry Metrics

PMI exists within a broader ecosystem of green chemistry metrics, each offering distinct insights:

• Atom Economy (AE) quantifies the efficiency of a reaction by measuring the percentage of reactant atoms incorporated into the final product but assumes 100% yield and stoichiometric loading [6].
• Complete Environmental Factor (cEF) measures the complete waste stream, factoring in all process materials [6].
• Process Mass Intensity (PMI) provides a more comprehensive assessment by including the total mass requirements for the entire process (synthesis, purification, and isolation) [6].

A key limitation of PMI is that it does not account for the environmental impact incurred during the manufacture of starting building blocks and reagents, nor does it consider energy usage, logistics, or material toxicity [6]. Despite these limitations, PMI remains highly valuable for comparative assessments during process development.

Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

Data Collection Methodology

Accurate PMI assessment requires meticulous tracking of all material inputs throughout the synthetic process. The experimental protocol involves:

Step 1: Process Segmentation Divide the synthetic route into distinct stages—typically synthesis, purification, and isolation—to identify the most resource-intensive steps [6]. For peptide synthesis, this would include solid-phase synthesis, cleavage from resin, and purification by preparative HPLC.

Step 2: Mass Balance Documentation Record the masses of all input materials at each stage, including:

• Starting materials and reagents (with exact stoichiometries)
• Solvents (for reactions, extractions, and washing)
• Purification materials (chromatography resins, filters, etc.)
• Process water [6]

Step 3: Output Quantification Precisely measure the mass of the final isolated product, ensuring it meets predetermined quality specifications [6].

PMI Calculation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the systematic workflow for PMI calculation:

Diagram 1: PMI Calculation Workflow

Advanced PMI Assessment Techniques

For complex synthetic routes, particularly those with convergent pathways, specialized methodologies are required:

Convergent Synthesis PMI Assessment The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed a Convergent PMI Calculator that accommodates multiple branches in synthetic routes [1]. This tool uses the same fundamental PMI calculations but allows for accurate assessment of complex synthetic strategies where multiple intermediates are synthesized separately and combined [1].

Stage-Gate Analysis Divide the synthetic route into discrete stages and calculate PMI for each segment. This approach enables researchers to identify specific "hot spots" of material inefficiency. For example, in peptide synthesis, the purification stage often contributes disproportionately to the overall PMI [6].

Case Study: PMI Analysis of Peptide Synthesis Routes

Background and Methodology

The Peptides Focus Team within the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable conducted a comprehensive cross-company assessment of synthetic peptide processes [6]. This study analyzed PMI data from 40 synthetic peptide processes at various development stages across 14 pharmaceutical companies, representing the most comprehensive assessment of synthetic peptide environmental metrics to date [6]. The synthetic peptide manufacturing process was divided into three key stages: synthesis, purification, and isolation, with PMI determined for each segment.

Comparative Analysis of Synthesis Strategies

The study compared two primary approaches for peptide manufacturing: solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) and liquid-phase peptide synthesis (LPPS). The table below summarizes the PMI characteristics and key considerations for each approach:

Table 2: PMI Comparison of Peptide Synthesis Strategies

Synthesis Strategy	PMI Profile	Advantages	Disadvantages
Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) [6]	High PMI (~13,000 average) due to excess solvents and reagents	Reliable technology; established building blocks; amenable to automation	Limited opportunities for solvent recovery; large volumes of hazardous solvents
Liquid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (LPPS) [6]	Potentially lower PMI through optimization	Opportunities for solvent recovery; better reaction monitoring	More extensive process development required; limited automation capabilities

Stage-Wise PMI Breakdown

The analysis revealed significant differences in PMI contribution across process stages. For SPPS processes, the synthesis stage typically contributes substantially to the overall PMI due to the use of large excesses of solvents and reagents [6]. The purification stage, particularly reverse-phase HPLC, also represents a major PMI contributor because of the substantial solvent volumes required [6]. Understanding this distribution enables targeted optimization efforts where they will have the greatest impact on overall PMI reduction.

Advanced Analytical Techniques for Route Assessment

Molecular Complexity and Similarity Metrics

Beyond traditional PMI assessment, advanced analytical approaches are emerging that combine molecular complexity metrics with similarity analysis to evaluate synthetic routes. This methodology, described in recent literature, represents molecular structures using coordinates derived from similarity and complexity, allowing individual transformations to be viewed as vectors where magnitude and direction assess efficiency [27].

The approach uses two primary similarity metrics:

• Molecular Fingerprints (Morgan Fingerprints) generated from SMILES strings using RDKit, with similarity calculated via the Tanimoto coefficient (SFP) [27]
• Maximum Common Edge Subgraph (MCES) which finds the largest fragment common to two molecular structures, also using Tanimoto similarity (SMCES) [27]

When applied to synthetic routes, these metrics can quantify how efficiently each transformation advances toward the target structure, providing complementary insights to mass-based metrics like PMI.

Computer-Aided Synthesis Planning (CASP) Tools

Computer-assisted synthetic planning tools have advanced significantly, leveraging large reaction databases and artificial intelligence methodologies. Tools such as SynRoute utilize retrosynthetic planning with general reaction templates along with literature-based reaction databases to find short, practical synthetic routes [28]. These systems can propose multiple routes ranked by specific metrics that combine route length with building block costs, enabling researchers to evaluate both synthetic efficiency and environmental impact during route design [28].

Another tool, AiZynthFinder, uses an artificial neural network policy to perform retrosynthetic prediction quickly and efficiently, providing potential precursors for a given molecule [29]. Visual analytics systems like SynthLens further enhance this capability by enabling researchers to compare and evaluate multiple synthetic routes according to various criteria, including yield, reaction duration, and experimental difficulty [29].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful PMI assessment and optimization requires specific reagents, tools, and methodologies. The following table details key resources for implementing PMI analysis in pharmaceutical research:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for PMI Assessment

Tool/Reagent	Function in PMI Assessment	Application Context
ACS GCI PMI Calculator [1]	Standardized PMI calculation for linear and convergent syntheses	Process development across all modalities
Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis Reactors [6]	Automated peptide synthesis with controlled reagent delivery	Peptide API manufacturing (250 mL to 6000 L scales)
RDKit Cheminformatics Toolkit [27]	Generation of molecular fingerprints and similarity metrics	Computer-aided synthesis planning and route evaluation
HPLC Purification Systems [6]	Purification of synthetic intermediates and final products	All modalities, particularly peptides and oligonucleotides
SMILES String Representations [27]	Standardized molecular representation for computational analysis	Molecular complexity and similarity calculations
Solvent Recovery Systems [6]	Reduction of net solvent consumption through recycling	All synthetic processes, particularly solvent-intensive steps

Implementation Framework and Process Optimization

Strategic Approach to PMI Reduction

Implementing PMI assessment within pharmaceutical development requires a systematic approach to process optimization. Based on industry best practices, the following strategies have proven effective for reducing PMI:

Route Selection and Optimization

• Prioritize synthetic routes with fewer steps and higher atom economy [30]
• Employ convergent synthetic strategies rather than linear approaches [1]
• Minimize protection/deprotection sequences and functional group interconversions [27]

Solvent Management

• Replace problematic solvents (e.g., DMF, NMP, DCM) with greener alternatives [6]
• Implement solvent recovery and recycling systems [6]
• Optimize solvent volumes for reactions and workups [30]

Reagent Optimization

• Utilize catalytic rather than stoichiometric reagents where possible [30]
• Select reagents with favorable environmental, health, and safety profiles [30]
• Optimize reagent stoichiometry to minimize excess [30]

Integration with Quality by Design (QbD) Frameworks

PMI assessment aligns naturally with Quality by Design (QbD) principles in pharmaceutical development. The concept of Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) has been introduced to expand upon PMI by accounting for additional raw materials required for API manufacturing [8]. This evolution reflects the growing recognition that comprehensive environmental assessment must consider the full manufacturing lifecycle.

Advanced computational frameworks like PharmaPy enable in-silico design and optimization of pharmaceutical processes, incorporating both batch and continuous manufacturing scenarios [31]. These tools facilitate the identification of optimal operating conditions that simultaneously satisfy quality constraints while minimizing environmental impact through reduced PMI.

This case study demonstrates that Process Mass Intensity serves as a powerful metric for assessing and comparing synthetic routes in pharmaceutical research. The application of PMI analysis reveals significant differences in environmental efficiency across therapeutic modalities, with synthetic peptides exhibiting particularly high PMI values compared to small molecules and other modalities. The stage-wise analysis of PMI enables targeted optimization efforts, focusing resources on process segments with the greatest impact potential.

Future developments in PMI assessment will likely include greater integration with computer-aided synthesis planning tools, enhanced lifecycle assessment methodologies, and more sophisticated metrics that account for material criticality and environmental impact factors beyond mass alone. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to prioritize sustainability, PMI will remain a cornerstone metric for driving innovation in green chemistry and engineering, ultimately contributing to more efficient and environmentally responsible manufacturing processes across the sector.

Integrating PMI with Green Chemistry Principles in Process Design

In the pharmaceutical industry, the drive towards sustainable manufacturing has made Process Mass Intensity (PMI) a critical metric for evaluating and improving the environmental performance of drug development and production processes. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a unit mass of a specified product, typically expressed as kilograms of input per kilogram of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) output [3]. This metric accounts for all materials used within a pharmaceutical process, including reactants, reagents, solvents (used in the reaction and purification), and catalysts [3]. The fundamental relationship is expressed as PMI = Total Mass Input (kg) / Mass of Product (kg).

The adoption of PMI aligns directly with the first principle of green chemistry: waste prevention [32]. The pharmaceutical industry faces significant environmental challenges, with global API production estimated at 65-100 million kilograms annually generating approximately 10 billion kilograms of waste, incurring disposal costs of around $20 billion [11]. Traditional pharmaceutical processes often exhibit PMI values exceeding 100, meaning over 100 kg of materials are consumed to produce just 1 kg of final API [32]. By focusing on PMI reduction, organizations can simultaneously advance green chemistry objectives while achieving substantial cost savings through reduced material consumption and waste disposal.

Core Principles and Theoretical Framework

The Synergy Between PMI and Green Chemistry Principles

The integration of PMI with green chemistry creates a powerful framework for sustainable process design. PMI serves as a quantitative implementation tool for multiple green chemistry principles, creating a synergistic relationship that drives continuous improvement. The following table illustrates how PMI reduction aligns with specific green chemistry principles:

Table 1: Alignment of PMI Reduction with Green Chemistry Principles

Green Chemistry Principle	Relationship to PMI	PMI Impact
Prevention	Preventing waste rather than treating it after it is formed	Directly reduces total mass input
Atom Economy	Maximizing incorporation of materials into the final product	Reduces wasted atoms, lowering PMI
Safer Solvents & Auxiliaries	Using innocuous solvents and auxiliaries	Often enables solvent recovery, reducing PMI
Catalysis	Using catalytic rather than stoichiometric reagents	Dramatically reduces reagent mass in PMI
Reduce Derivatives	Avoiding unnecessary blocking/protecting groups	Eliminates multiple steps, significantly lowering PMI
Design for Energy Efficiency	Reducing energy requirements	Indirect PMI benefit through reduced fuel inputs

This framework demonstrates that PMI is not merely a measurement tool but a comprehensive guide for implementing green chemistry principles throughout process development. For instance, the principle of catalysis directly impacts PMI by replacing stoichiometric reagents that become waste with catalytic amounts that can potentially be recovered and reused [32]. Similarly, the principle of reducing derivatives avoids protection/deprotection sequences that add multiple steps, each contributing solvents, reagents, and waste to the overall PMI [32].

Systematic PMI Assessment Framework

A critical advancement in PMI implementation has been the recognition that different system boundaries provide different insights into process sustainability. Recent research has demonstrated that expanding system boundaries from gate-to-gate to cradle-to-gate strengthens the correlation between mass-based metrics and environmental impacts for fifteen of sixteen LCA categories [7]. The following diagram illustrates the multi-scale PMI assessment framework:

Multi-scale PMI Assessment

This systematic approach recognizes that a comprehensive sustainability assessment requires consideration of both immediate process efficiency (gate-to-gate PMI) and broader value chain impacts (cradle-to-gate VCMI - Value Chain Mass Intensity) [7].

Practical Implementation Strategies

PMI Reduction Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Successful PMI reduction requires methodical approaches throughout process development. The following experimental protocols have demonstrated significant PMI reductions in pharmaceutical manufacturing:

Protocol 1: Route Scouting and Selection for PMI Optimization

• Objective: Identify the synthetic route with inherently lower PMI prior to optimization
• Procedure:
  • Generate 3-5 potential synthetic routes to the target molecule
  • Calculate theoretical PMI for each route using stoichiometric inputs
  • Identify routes with minimal protection/deprotection sequences
  • Prioritize convergent syntheses over linear approaches
  • Select 1-2 routes for experimental validation
• Case Example: Merck's development of Sacituzumab tirumotecan involved reimagining a 20-step synthesis into just three OEB-5 handling steps derived from a natural product, reducing PMI by approximately 75% [33] [34].

Protocol 2: Solvent System Optimization and Recovery

• Objective: Reduce solvent contribution to PMI through selection and recovery
• Procedure:
  • Map all solvent inputs across the synthetic sequence
  • Evaluate alternative solvent systems using green solvent selection guides
  • Implement solvent recovery and reuse systems
  • Optimize solvent volumes through process intensification
  • Establish solvent recycling protocols with quality control
• Success Metrics: Pharmaceutical processes typically reduce solvent-related PMI by 40-60% through systematic optimization [35].

Protocol 3: Catalytic System Implementation

• Objective: Replace stoichiometric reagents with catalytic systems to reduce PMI
• Procedure:
  • Identify stoichiometric steps with poor atom economy
  • Research catalytic alternatives (metal, biocatalysis, organocatalysis)
  • Screen catalyst libraries for activity and selectivity
  • Optimize catalyst loading and recovery methods
  • Implement continuous processing where applicable
• Case Example: Corteva Agriscience developed a manufacturing process for Adavelt active that eliminated precious metals and unnecessary protecting groups, dramatically reducing waste generation [33] [34].

Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

The following table details essential reagents and materials that enable PMI reduction in pharmaceutical process development:

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

Reagent/Material	Function in PMI Reduction	Application Examples
Immobilized Catalysts	Enables catalyst recovery and reuse, reducing metal contributions to PMI	Heterogeneous metal catalysts for hydrogenation, cross-coupling
Biocatalysts (Enzymes)	Highly selective catalysis under mild conditions, avoiding protecting groups	Ketoreductases for asymmetric synthesis, transaminases for chiral amines
Renewable Feedstocks	Reduces dependency on petrochemical sources, often with simpler synthesis	Furfural, alanine, ethyl lactate in Corteva's Adavelt process [34]
Green Solvents	Lower toxicity enables recycling, reduced safety overhead	2-MeTHF, Cyrene, dimethyl isosorbide, water
Flow Chemistry Systems	Enables process intensification, reduced solvent volumes	Continuous reactors for photochemistry, hazardous intermediates

The integration of these specialized reagents and materials creates opportunities for substantial PMI reduction while maintaining or improving process efficiency and product quality.

Case Studies and Quantitative Analysis

Industrial Case Studies in PMI Reduction

Recent award-winning implementations demonstrate the significant impact of integrating PMI with green chemistry principles:

Table 3: Quantitative PMI Reduction in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Case Study	Original Process	Optimized Process	PMI Reduction	Key Green Chemistry Strategies
Merck: ADC Sacituzumab tirumotecan [33] [34]	20-step synthesis with chromatography bottleneck	3 steps from natural product	~75%	Route redesign, natural product derivation, chromatography elimination
Corteva: Adavelt active [33] [34]	Multi-step process with protecting groups	Streamlined synthesis	92% waste reduction	Eliminated 3 protecting groups, 4 steps, precious metals, hazardous reagents
Olon S.p.A.: Peptide Therapeutics [34]	Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS)	Microbial fermentation platform	Significant PMI improvement	Eliminated protecting groups, reduced solvent and toxic material usage

These case studies demonstrate that PMI reductions of 75% or more are achievable through systematic application of green chemistry principles, with corresponding improvements in both environmental impact and economic performance.

Experimental Workflow for PMI-Driven Process Design

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive workflow for integrating PMI assessment throughout process development:

PMI Integration Workflow

This workflow emphasizes the iterative nature of PMI optimization, where assessment and improvement opportunities are continuously identified throughout the development lifecycle.

Advanced Tools and Future Directions

Computational and Analytical Tools for PMI Optimization

The pharmaceutical industry has developed sophisticated tools to support PMI-driven process design:

PMI Calculation Tools: The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed a suite of PMI calculators, including a basic PMI calculator, convergent PMI calculator for complex syntheses, and PMI prediction calculator for early-phase development [1] [3]. These tools enable standardized PMI assessment across different organizations and development phases.

Machine Learning and AI Optimization: Advanced computational approaches are transforming PMI optimization. Merck and Sunthetics developed an Algorithmic Process Optimization (APO) technology that uses Bayesian Optimization to locate global optima in complex operational spaces, minimizing material use and selecting non-toxic reagents [34]. Similarly, AstraZeneca has implemented machine learning models to predict reaction outcomes and optimize conditions, reducing waste and energy consumption [36].

High-Throughput Experimentation: Miniaturization approaches allow extensive reaction optimization with minimal material consumption. AstraZeneca's collaboration with Stockholm University enables performing thousands of reactions using as little as 1mg of starting material, dramatically reducing PMI during early-phase optimization [36].

Emerging Challenges and Research Directions

Despite significant progress, challenges remain in PMI implementation:

System Boundary Limitations: Recent research questions whether mass intensities alone can reliably proxy environmental impacts, particularly during the transition toward a defossilized chemical industry [7]. This suggests the need for simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods to complement PMI metrics.

Technical Implementation Barriers: Widespread adoption faces obstacles including technical difficulties, economic considerations, knowledge gaps, and resistance to unproven methods [11]. Overcoming these barriers requires continued education, tool development, and demonstration of successful case studies.

Future Research Directions: Emerging areas include photoredox catalysis, electrochemical methods, continuous flow manufacturing, and biocatalyst engineering [35] [36]. These technologies promise further PMI reductions through unprecedented reaction efficiencies and selective transformations.

The ongoing development of PMI prediction tools, combined with advanced analytical approaches, will continue to drive innovation in sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing. As the industry moves toward increasingly sophisticated assessment methods, PMI will remain a cornerstone metric for quantifying progress toward green chemistry objectives.

Strategies for PMI Reduction: Overcoming Challenges and Improving Efficiency

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a key metric for benchmarking the environmental sustainability and efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. Defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified mass of product, PMI provides a comprehensive assessment of process inputs including raw materials, reactants, solvents, and catalysts [3] [6]. 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 [6]. Unlike simpler metrics such as atom economy or chemical yield, PMI accounts for all materials used within a pharmaceutical process, including those consumed in reactions, purification, and isolation steps [3] [6]. This holistic perspective has helped drive industry focus toward the main areas of process inefficiency, cost, environmental impact, and health and safety, allowing for the development of more sustainable and cost-effective processes [3].

The pharmaceutical industry faces significant environmental challenges, with global production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) estimated at 65-100 million kilograms annually generating approximately 10 billion kilograms of waste [11]. This massive waste generation incurs disposal costs of around $20 billion, creating a compelling economic and environmental imperative for process optimization [11]. PMI serves as a crucial tool in this optimization effort by enabling quantitative comparison between processes and identifying primary contributors to material inefficiency.

Quantitative Analysis of PMI Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

The environmental impact of pharmaceutical manufacturing varies significantly across different therapeutic modalities. Recent benchmarking studies conducted by ACS GCIPR member companies have revealed substantial differences in PMI values, highlighting the relative efficiency challenges of various manufacturing approaches.

Table 1: PMI Comparison Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Typical PMI Range (kg material/kg API)	Key Characteristics Influencing PMI
Small Molecule APIs	168 - 308	Well-controlled synthetic methods; mature purification techniques
Biologics & Monoclonal Antibodies	~8,300	Biotechnology-derived; complex purification requirements
Oligonucleotides	3,035 - 7,023 (Avg: 4,299)	Solid-phase processes with excess reagents/solvents
Synthetic Peptides	~13,000 (SPPS)	Extreme solvent consumption; excess reagents; challenging purifications

Data compiled from cross-company assessments reveals that synthetic peptides manufactured via solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) demonstrate the highest PMI values, approximately 13,000 kg material/kg API [6]. This does not compare favorably with other modalities, being nearly double the PMI of oligonucleotides and substantially higher than biologics. The significantly higher PMI for peptide synthesis underscores the urgent need for more environmentally friendly processes in peptide manufacturing and highlights the importance of understanding the specific contributors to this inefficiency [6].

When analyzing PMI by process stage, peptide synthesis demonstrates particularly concerning metrics. The synthesis stage typically accounts for 45-65% of total PMI, purification for 20-35%, and isolation for 10-25% [6]. This distribution highlights the dominant impact of synthesis choices on overall process efficiency and identifies key areas for targeted improvement efforts.

Primary Contributors to High PMI

Solvents: The Dominant Contributor

Solvents represent the most significant contributor to high PMI across pharmaceutical manufacturing processes, particularly in peptide synthesis and other solid-phase methodologies. The extensive use of solvents occurs throughout API manufacturing: for reaction media, reagent delivery, resin swelling in SPPS, washing steps, chromatography, and crystallization [6].

Problematic solvents commonly used in pharmaceutical manufacturing include N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAc), and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) [6]. These solvents are globally classified as reprotoxic, facing potential restrictions or bans in the near future [6]. Other concerning solvents with high environmental and safety impacts include dichloromethane (DCM), diethyl ether (DEE), and tert-butyl methyl ether (MTBE), along with highly corrosive trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) used in peptide synthesis [6].

In SPPS, solvents dominate PMI due to the massive volumes required for resin swelling, repeated washing between coupling and deprotection steps, and final cleavage. The high dilution factors needed to drive reactions to completion and prevent intermolecular side reactions further exacerbate solvent usage [6]. Additionally, chromatography purification methods, particularly reverse-phase HPLC commonly used for peptides and complex molecules, consume enormous volumes of high-purity solvents, contributing significantly to the overall PMI [6].

Reagents and Protecting Groups

Reagents and protecting groups constitute the second major contributor to high PMI, particularly through their inefficient usage patterns. In solid-phase synthesis methodologies, large excesses of reagents (typically 2-5 fold) are employed to drive reactions to completion, a practice that substantially increases PMI [6].

In peptide synthesis, the poor atom efficiency of fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl protected amino acids (Fmoc-AAs) represents a fundamental contributor to high PMI [6]. The Fmoc protecting group constitutes a significant portion of the molecular weight of building blocks but is entirely discarded as waste after deprotection. This structural inefficiency is compounded by the cumulative impact of repetitive coupling and deprotection cycles throughout peptide chain assembly.

Other problematic reagents include potentially explosive and sensitizing coupling agents used in peptide synthesis, such as carbodiimides and uranium/phosphonium salts [37]. These reagents often require special handling precautions and generate significant waste streams. Additionally, the use of scavengers during cleavage steps and purification further adds to the reagent-related PMI through additional mass inputs that do not appear in the final product.

Catalysts and Ligands

Catalysts and their associated ligands represent a more complex contributor to PMI assessment. While catalytic amounts are typically used relative to stoichiometric reagents, their environmental impact extends beyond simple mass calculations. Transition metal catalysts, particularly those based on precious metals like palladium, platinum, or rhodium, raise significant environmental concerns even at low loadings due to their natural resource depletion potential and toxicity [38].

The case of Letermovir synthesis highlights this complexity, where LCA revealed a critical sustainability hotspot in the Pd-catalyzed Heck cross-coupling step, despite the catalytic nature of the palladium [38]. This demonstrates that mass-based metrics like PMI must be complemented with additional environmental impact assessments to fully understand catalyst contributions.

Similarly, asymmetric catalysis often employs complex chiral ligands that require multi-step syntheses themselves, creating embedded PMI that may not be fully captured in a simple process assessment [38]. The synthesis of these ligands frequently involves additional solvent consumption, protecting groups, and purification steps, creating upstream environmental impacts that contribute to the overall footprint of the catalytic process.

Methodologies for PMI Assessment and Analysis

Experimental Protocols for PMI Determination

Standardized methodologies for PMI calculation enable consistent assessment and benchmarking across processes and organizations. The basic PMI calculation follows a straightforward formula:

PMI = Total Mass of Materials Used (kg) / Mass of Product (kg) [37]

The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed standardized PMI calculators to facilitate consistent application across the industry. These tools have evolved from a simple PMI calculator to more advanced versions including a Convergent PMI Calculator for complex syntheses and a PMI Prediction Calculator for estimating PMI ranges prior to laboratory evaluation [3] [1].

For comprehensive PMI assessment, the following experimental protocol is recommended:

• Material Inventory Compilation: Document all input masses including reactants, reagents, solvents, catalysts, and process aids. Water should be included if used as a process solvent [6].
• Process Segmentation: Divide the manufacturing process into discrete stages (synthesis, purification, isolation) to identify PMI hotspots [6].
• Data Normalization: Express all inputs relative to a fixed product mass (typically 1 kg of API) for comparative purposes.
• Waste Stream Analysis: Account for all output masses, including desired product, byproducts, and waste streams to ensure mass balance.
• Iterative Assessment: Conduct PMI analysis at multiple stages of process development to track improvements and guide optimization efforts.

For peptide synthesis PMI assessment, a specialized approach is required due to the unique architecture of these processes. The assessment should separately quantify PMI for individual stages: resin loading, amino acid coupling cycles (including deprotection and washing), final cleavage, and purification [6]. Additionally, PMI per amino acid residue provides a normalized metric for comparing peptides of different lengths [6].

Advanced Assessment: Integrating Life Cycle Assessment

While PMI provides valuable mass-based efficiency data, it does not inherently account for the environmental impact incurred during the manufacture of starting building blocks and reagents, nor does it differentiate materials based on their ecological toxicity or resource depletion potential [6] [38]. To address these limitations, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies are increasingly being integrated with PMI analysis [38].

LCA provides a more comprehensive environmental evaluation by considering broader impact categories including global warming potential, ecosystem quality, human health, and natural resources [38]. This approach captures impacts throughout the entire supply chain, from raw material extraction to manufacturing, use, and disposal.

Recent advances in LCA methodology address the challenge of limited data availability for fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals. An innovative approach described in recent literature employs an iterative closed-loop strategy, bridging LCA and multistep synthesis development [38]. This methodology uses documented sustainability data augmented by information extrapolated from basic chemicals through retrosynthesis, creating a more complete environmental inventory despite data gaps in standard databases [38].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated PMI and LCA assessment approach:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Reduction

Reagent Category	Standard Materials	Green Alternatives	Function
Solvents	DMF, DCM, NMP, Diethyl ether	Bio-based solvents (ethyl lactate, dimethyl carbonate), Water-based systems, Supercritical CO₂, Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)	Reaction media, purification, extraction
Coupling Reagents	HATU, HBTU, DCC (with poor atom economy)	Sustainable coupling agents, Enzymatic coupling	Peptide bond formation, amide coupling
Catalysts	Pd-based cross-coupling catalysts, Heavy metal catalysts	Biocatalysts (CALB), Recyclable catalysts, Brønsted acid catalysts	Reaction acceleration, stereocontrol
Protecting Groups	Fmoc, Boc, Cbz (atom-inefficient)	Minimal protection strategies, Orthogonal protecting groups	Temporary functional group masking
Purification Materials	Silica gel chromatography, HPLC solvents	Crystallization techniques, Membrane filtration, Aqueous workup	Isolation and purification of products

The toolkit for PMI reduction extends beyond simple material substitution to include process intensification technologies. Flow chemistry systems enable significantly reduced solvent consumption through continuous processing, improved mixing, and heat transfer [37]. Supported reagents and catalysts facilitate recycling and reuse, while integrated purification approaches minimize intermediate isolation and associated solvent use [37].

For peptide synthesis specifically, emerging technologies include soluble tag-assisted liquid phase peptide synthesis, hybrid SPPS/LPPS approaches, and enzymatic fragment assembly [6]. Each of these offers potential pathways to reduce the excessive solvent and reagent consumption characteristic of traditional SPPS.

The identification of primary contributors to high PMI – solvents, reagents, and catalysts – provides a clear roadmap for sustainability improvements in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Solvents emerge as the dominant factor, particularly in solid-phase synthesis methodologies, while reagents and catalysts present significant opportunities for optimization through atom-economic alternatives and catalytic technologies.

Addressing these contributors requires integrated assessment approaches that combine PMI with life cycle assessment, enabling comprehensive environmental evaluation beyond simple mass metrics. The development of green chemistry innovations across all three categories, coupled with process intensification strategies like flow chemistry, presents a promising path toward more sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing.

As regulatory pressures increase and the industry aligns with UN Sustainable Development Goals, targeted PMI reduction represents both an environmental imperative and economic opportunity. Through focused efforts on the major contributors detailed in this analysis, pharmaceutical researchers can significantly advance the sustainability of drug development while maintaining the high quality standards essential for patient care.

Route Scouting and Reaction Optimization to Minimize Process Steps

In the pharmaceutical industry, the efficiency of synthesizing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) directly impacts development timelines, cost, and environmental footprint. The complexity of small molecule APIs has steadily increased, with routes often consisting of at least 20 synthetic steps [39]. This complexity makes route scouting and reaction optimization critical for developing viable manufacturing processes. These activities are framed within the imperative to improve Process Mass Intensity (PMI), a key metric for benchmarking green chemistry and engineering performance in the pharmaceutical industry [1]. PMI measures the total mass of materials used per unit mass of final API, making its minimization synonymous with reduced waste, lower cost, and more sustainable processes [1].

This technical guide examines advanced strategies for efficient route design and model-based optimization to minimize synthetic steps and improve overall process efficiency. It details how these methodologies, supported by artificial intelligence and high-throughput experimentation, contribute directly to PMI reduction by enhancing material efficiency and reducing the resource intensity of pharmaceutical development and manufacturing.

The Process Mass Intensity (PMI) Framework

PMI Definition and Significance

Process Mass Intensity is calculated as the total mass of materials used in the process divided by the mass of the final API produced [1]. A lower PMI indicates a more efficient and environmentally friendly process. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has championed PMI as a primary metric for benchmarking and driving continuous improvement in process sustainability [1]. Unlike simple yield calculations, PMI accounts for all material inputs, including solvents, reagents, and process chemicals, providing a more comprehensive view of resource efficiency.

PMI in Route Scouting and Optimization

Route scouting and optimization decisions profoundly influence the final PMI. Key strategic considerations include:

• Convergent vs. Linear Synthesis: Convergent syntheses often offer lower PMI by reducing material losses at each step compared to long linear sequences [1].
• Atom Economy: Selecting reactions with high atom economy minimizes the incorporation of reagents into byproducts, reducing waste.
• Solvent and Reagent Selection: Choosing recyclable solvents and efficient reagents decreases the overall mass of materials consumed.

The industry has developed specialized tools, such as the Convergent PMI Calculator from the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable, to accurately model and compare the PMI of complex synthetic routes during the design phase [1].

Table 1: PMI Benchmarks and Improvement Goals

Process Stage	Typical PMI Range	Industry Leadership Target
Early Clinical Development	Often >100 kg/kg	N/A
Late-Stage Commercial Process	~50-100 kg/kg	<50 kg/kg
Optimized Commercial Process	N/A	As low as 20-30 kg/kg

Advanced Route Scouting Strategies

AI-Enabled Route Scouting

Artificial intelligence has transformed route scouting from a largely empirical exercise to a predictive science. AI algorithms can rapidly analyze vast datasets of chemical reactions to propose viable synthetic pathways [40]. Lonza's AI-enabled route scouting service, for example, combines proprietary commercial data with computer-aided synthesis planning technology. This integration allows for the identification of synthetic routes that are not only chemically feasible but also commercially viable and supply-chain resilient [40]. The primary advantage is the ability to explore a much wider range of potential routes in silico before committing to laboratory experiments, significantly accelerating the scouting timeline.

Key capabilities of AI in route scouting include [40]:

• Retrosynthetic Analysis: Deconstructing target molecules to identify optimal disconnections.
• Starting Material Prediction: Identifying commercially available and cost-effective starting materials early in route design.
• Bottleneck Identification: Anticipating potential synthetic challenges or regulatory concerns (e.g., genotoxic impurities).

High-Throughput Experimentation (HTE)

While AI provides theoretical routes, High-Throughput Experimentation (HTE) delivers empirical validation. HTE platforms enable the rapid, parallel testing and comparison of hundreds of reaction conditions on micro-scale [39]. This approach generates robust datasets that inform decisions on the most promising routes. When combined with AI, HTE creates a powerful feedback loop: AI proposes candidate routes, HTE tests them, and the resulting data refines the AI models for future predictions [39].

Reaction Optimization Methodologies

Model-Based Optimization with Design2Optimize

Traditional optimization often relies on one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) approaches, which are inefficient and can miss complex interactions. Model-based optimization represents a significant advancement. Lonza's Design2Optimize platform, developed with the Fraunhofer Institute, exemplifies this approach. It combines physicochemical and statistical models with an optimization loop to enhance chemical processes with fewer experiments than traditional methods [39].

The platform uses an optimized Design of Experiments (DoE) to guide experimental setup based on predicted optimal conditions [39]. This methodology maximizes information gain from each experiment, reducing the total number of experiments required. A key feature is the creation of a digital twin of the process, which enables extensive scenario testing in silico without further physical experimentation. This leads to accelerated development and an increased likelihood of right-first-time processes in manufacturing [39].

Quality by Design (QbD) and Design of Experiments (DoE)

The QbD framework, as outlined in ICH Q8, provides a systematic approach to development that emphasizes product and process understanding based on sound science and quality risk management [41]. A core component of QbD is the use of statistical DoE to understand the relationship between process parameters and critical quality attributes (CQAs).

A comprehensive DoE approach typically involves [41]:

• Cause and Effect Analysis: Using tools like Ishikawa (fishbone) diagrams to identify all potential parameters that could impact product quality.
• Parameter Ranking: Employing risk-assessment to prioritize parameters for investigation based on their potential impact on CQAs.
• Screening Experiments: Narrowing down the list of significant factors.
• Optimization Studies: Modeling the relationship between critical process parameters (CPPs) and CQAs to establish a design space—a multidimensional combination of parameters proven to assure quality.

Diagram 1: QbD Optimization Workflow

Integrated Workflow for Efficient Process Development

Combining these advanced methodologies creates a powerful, integrated workflow for efficient process development. The synergy between AI-driven route scouting, model-based optimization, and HTE enables a holistic approach that minimizes process steps and optimizes each remaining step for maximum efficiency and minimal PMI.

Diagram 2: Integrated Route Scouting & Optimization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Route Scouting and Optimization

Reagent/Material Category	Key Function in Route Scouting & Optimization	Representative Examples
Catalysts (Homogeneous & Heterogeneous)	Accelerate reactions, improve selectivity, enable novel transformations.	Palladium catalysts (e.g., for cross-couplings), organocatalysts, biocatalysts.
Ligands	Modulate catalyst activity and selectivity, particularly in metal-catalyzed reactions.	Phosphine ligands, N-heterocyclic carbenes.
Activating and Protecting Agents	Enable specific functional group transformations and prevent side reactions.	Silylating agents (TMS, TBS), acylating agents (Ac₂O, BzCl), carbamate-forming agents (Cbz-Cl, Fmoc-Cl).
Specialized Solvents	Influence reaction kinetics, selectivity, and mechanism; enable specific reaction conditions.	Polar aprotic (DMF, DMSO), ethers (THF, 2-MeTHF for water-sensitive reactions), green solvents (Cyrene, 2-MeTHF).
High-Purity Starting Materials & Building Blocks	Ensure reproducible reaction outcomes and prevent catalyst poisoning.	Commercial or custom-synthesized intermediates with well-defined purity profiles.

Route scouting and reaction optimization are pivotal in developing efficient, sustainable, and economically viable pharmaceutical processes. The industry is moving decisively away from empirical, OFAT approaches towards integrated, model-based strategies that leverage AI, HTE, and digital twins. These advanced methodologies enable a significant reduction in process steps and a thorough optimization of each remaining step, directly contributing to lower Process Mass Intensity. By adopting these strategies, researchers and drug development professionals can accelerate the delivery of new therapies while adhering to the principles of green chemistry and sustainable manufacturing.

The relentless pursuit of more efficient and sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing is driving the adoption of innovative chemical methodologies. This technical guide examines the synergistic relationship between two transformative approaches: late-stage functionalization (LSF) for rapid drug candidate diversification and reaction miniaturization for enhanced process efficiency. Framed within the critical context of Process Mass Intensity (PMI) reduction, this document provides drug development professionals with a detailed analysis of how these strategies contribute to greener, more cost-effective drug discovery and development. We present quantitative PMI data, detailed experimental protocols for key LSF reactions, and visual workflows to aid in the implementation of these advanced techniques.

The global pharmaceutical market is projected to reach approximately $1.6 trillion in 2025, underscoring the immense scale of medicine production [42]. This growth, coupled with the industry's complex research and development challenges, has intensified the focus on sustainable manufacturing practices. In this context, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a key metric for benchmarking the environmental impact and efficiency of pharmaceutical processes.

PMI is defined as the total mass of materials used in a process (including reactants, reagents, solvents, and catalysts) per unit mass of the final active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) produced [3] [43] [6]. A lower PMI signifies a more efficient, less wasteful process. The industry-wide push for PMI reduction is not merely an environmental goal; it directly correlates with lower production costs, reduced waste handling, and improved overall process robustness. For small molecule APIs, typical PMI values range from 168 to 308 kg/kg, setting a benchmark for efficiency [6]. In contrast, peptide synthesis via Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) exhibits a significantly higher average PMI of approximately 13,000 kg/kg, highlighting a critical area for improvement and the potential impact of innovative strategies [6].

This guide explores how late-stage functionalization and reaction miniaturization serve as powerful tools for achieving substantial reductions in PMI, thereby aligning drug discovery with the principles of green chemistry.

Process Mass Intensity: The Defining Metric for Sustainable Pharma

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) provides a holistic assessment of the total mass of resources consumed to manufacture a specified mass of a drug substance. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCIPR) has championed PMI as a key mass-based metric to drive sustainability efforts [1] [6].

PMI Calculation and Industry Benchmarks

PMI is calculated using the formula: PMI = Total Mass of Input Materials (kg) / Mass of Product (kg) [43].

This metric encompasses all materials entering the process, from reaction and work-up to purification and isolation. The ideal PMI is 1, indicating perfect atom and mass efficiency where all input materials are incorporated into the final product. The following table summarizes PMI benchmarks across different pharmaceutical modalities, illustrating the relative efficiency of various production methods.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarks for Different Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	Typical PMI Range (kg/kg API)	Key Factors Influencing PMI
Small Molecule APIs [6]	168 – 308 (Median)	Number of synthetic steps, solvent volume, chromatography usage.
Peptides (SPPS) [6]	~ 13,000 (Average)	Large excesses of reagents & solvents, resin use, purification challenges.
Oligonucleotides [6]	3,035 – 7,023	Solid-phase synthesis, high reagent excess, complex purification.
Biologics [6]	~ 8,300 (Average)	Cell culture media, water for injection, purification processes.

The Strategic Value of PMI

Unlike simpler metrics such as yield or atom economy, PMI accounts for the total material footprint, making it exceptionally effective at highlighting the massive environmental impact of solvents and reagents used in stoichiometric excess [6]. By focusing optimization efforts on steps and modalities with the highest PMI, companies can achieve the most significant gains in sustainability and cost-effectiveness. This makes PMI an indispensable tool for process chemists aiming to design greener synthetic routes from the earliest stages of development.

Late-Stage Functionalization: Accelerating Discovery and Reducing Waste

Late-stage functionalization (LSF) refers to the direct chemical modification of complex, advanced intermediates or drug candidates to create new analogues. This strategy is transformative because it avoids the need to de novo synthesize each new derivative from simple starting materials, a process that is often long, inefficient, and generates significant waste.

LSF Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Recent advances in catalysis have significantly expanded the toolbox of LSF reactions. Below are detailed protocols for two groundbreaking LSF methods.

C–C Cross-Coupling of Phenol-Derived Electrophiles

This method overcomes the historical underutilization of stable and abundant phenols as coupling partners [44].

• Objective: To form C–C bonds via cross-coupling of phenol-derived C–O electrophiles with organometallic nucleophiles on complex pharmaceutical scaffolds.
• Reaction Design: The system addresses key challenges: 1) moisture stability of the C–O electrophile, 2) fast oxidative addition to prevent hydrolysis, and 3) facile reductive elimination to minimize side-reactions [44].

• Materials and Equipment:

  • Precatalyst: Well-defined, air- and bench-stable [(IPr)Pd(μ-Cl)Cl]₂ (IPr = 1,3-bis(2,6-bis(diphenylmethyl)-4-methylphenyl)imidazol-2-ylidene) [44].
  • Ligand: Wingtip-flexible N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) ligands.
  • Electrophile: Drug molecule functionalized as a phenol-derived aryl fluorosulfonate (e.g., from repaglinide, ezetimibe) or pivalate.
  • Nucleophile: Aryl boronic acid or similar organometallic reagent.
  • Base: Mild carbonate or phosphate base.
  • Solvent: Anhydrous toluene or dioxane.
  • Equipment: Schlenk line or glovebox for air-sensitive catalysis, reflux apparatus.

• Experimental Procedure:

  • In a nitrogen-filled glovebox, charge a reaction vial with the Pd–NHC precatalyst (1-2 mol% Pd).
  • Add the pharmaceutical electrophile (1.0 equiv), organometallic nucleophile (1.5-2.0 equiv), and base (2.0 equiv).
  • Add anhydrous solvent to achieve a substrate concentration of ~0.1 M.
  • Seal the vial, remove it from the glovebox, and heat the reaction mixture to 80-100 °C with stirring.
  • Monitor reaction progress by TLC or LC/MS until the starting material is consumed.
  • After cooling, quench the reaction with aqueous NH₄Cl and extract with ethyl acetate.
  • Purify the crude product via flash chromatography or recrystallization to obtain the functionalized pharmaceutical analogue.

• Key Applications: Successful functionalization of pharmaceuticals including repaglinide, ezetimibe, and complex natural products like cholesterol and estradiol [44].

Hydrazination of Aryl Halides for Nitrogen Heterocycle Synthesis

This protocol addresses the long-standing challenge of cross-coupling with hydrazine, a valuable bis-nitrogen nucleophile [45].

• Objective: To synthesize arylhydrazines directly from aryl halides for subsequent conversion into privileged nitrogen heterocycles (e.g., pyrazoles, indoles).
• Reaction Design: The use of designed biaryl, sterically demanding, and flexible N-heterocyclic carbene (ImPy) ligands is critical. Their strong σ-donation and controlled catalytic pocket architecture prevent catalyst deactivation and ensure mono-arylation selectivity [45].

• Materials and Equipment:

  • Precatalyst: [Pd(cin)Cl]₂ (cin = cinnamyl) with ImPyTrippIPr*·HCl as the ligand precursor [45].
  • Nucleophile: Hydrazine hydrate (NH₂NH₂·H₂O).
  • Electrophile: Aryl chlorides or bromides from complex drugs.
  • Base: Potassium hydroxide (KOH) or mild carbonate base.
  • Solvent: 1,4-Dioxane or toluene.
  • Equipment: Schlenk flask, stirring hotplate.

• Experimental Procedure:

  • In a Schlenk tube under nitrogen, combine [Pd(cin)Cl]₂ (1-3 mol%), the ImPy ligand (2-6 mol%), and base (1.5-2.0 equiv).
  • Add solvent and stir the mixture for 5-10 minutes to pre-form the active catalyst.
  • Add the pharmaceutical-derived aryl halide (1.0 equiv) and hydrazine hydrate (1.2-2.0 equiv).
  • Heat the reaction to 60-80 °C and monitor by TLC/LC-MS.
  • Upon completion, cool the mixture and dilute with water and ethyl acetate.
  • Separate the organic layer and wash with brine. Dry over Na₂SO₄, filter, and concentrate.
  • Purify the resulting arylhydrazine via flash chromatography.

• Key Applications: Diversification of >20 complex pharmaceuticals covering various metabolic diseases. The resulting arylhydrazines serve as springboards to heterocycles like pyrazoles, indoles, and carbazoles [45].

The PMI Advantage of LSF

The power of LSF in reducing PMI lies in its convergent logic. A traditional linear synthesis to access multiple analogues requires re-running many steps for each new molecule, each step cumulatively adding to the total PMI. In contrast, LSF acts as a single, low-PMI step branching off from a common, complex intermediate. This drastically reduces the total mass of materials required to generate a library of drug candidates for structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies, accelerating the identification of optimal clinical candidates while minimizing the environmental footprint of discovery research.

Diagram 1: Convergent Logic of Late-Stage Functionalization for generating multiple analogues from a single intermediate via low-PMI pathways, in contrast to traditional linear synthesis.

Reaction Miniaturization and the Scientist's Toolkit

Reaction miniaturization, while not explicitly detailed in the search results, is a natural complement to LSF and PMI reduction. The principle involves conducting chemical reactions on a smaller scale without sacrificing efficiency or data quality. This is enabled by advanced tools and reagents.

Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced Catalysis

The success of modern LSF methodologies hinges on the availability of specialized, robust catalysts and ligands.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Late-Stage Functionalization

Reagent / Material	Function	Key Characteristic / Benefit
Wingtip-Flexible NHC Ligands [44]	Ancillary ligand for Pd-catalyzed C-O coupling.	Air/moisture stability; flexible steric pocket enables challenging oxidative addition & reductive elimination.
Imidazo[1,5-a]pyridin-3-ylidene (ImPy) Ligands [45]	Ancillary ligand for Pd-catalyzed hydrazination.	Rigid, L-shaped architecture with high steric bulk (%Vbur) controls selectivity and prevents Pd decomposition.
Phenol-Derived Electrophiles(e.g., Aryl Pivalates, Fluorosulfonates) [44]	Bench-stable coupling partners derived from abundant phenols.	Superior stability against hydrolysis compared to other leaving groups; abundant feedstock.
Well-Defined Pd-NHC Precatalysts(e.g., [(IPr*)Pd(μ-Cl)Cl]₂ ) [44]	Air-stable source of monoligated Pd–NHC active species.	Ease of handling; eliminates ligand loading uncertainty; facilitates reproducible, high-yielding reactions.

Integrated Workflow and Future Outlook

The true power of LSF and miniaturization is realized when they are integrated into a holistic, PMI-aware drug discovery workflow. This begins with target identification and proceeds through route scouting, where LSF-friendly handles are strategically incorporated. Miniaturized, high-throughput experimentation (HTE) is then used to screen LSF conditions rapidly and with minimal material waste. The most promising conditions are scaled with a focus on solvent and reagent reduction, directly improving the PMI of the overall process. This data-driven cycle continuously informs and optimizes future discovery campaigns.

Diagram 2: Integrated PMA-Aware Drug Discovery Workflow, showing a cyclical process from design to scaled synthesis with continuous feedback for PMI reduction.

Looking forward, the integration of Large Quantitative Models (LQMs) and AI promises to further revolutionize this field. These physics-based simulations can predict the outcomes of LSF reactions and optimize synthetic routes for low PMI in silico, drastically reducing the need for resource-intensive trial-and-error experimentation in the lab [46]. This represents the next frontier in making pharmaceutical R&D not only faster and cheaper but also fundamentally more sustainable.

Late-stage functionalization and reaction miniaturization are not isolated technical improvements; they are pivotal components of a strategic shift towards sustainable pharmaceutical innovation. By enabling the rapid diversification of complex molecules and drastically reducing the material intensity of research and production, these methodologies directly address the core challenge of minimizing Process Mass Intensity. As the industry continues to embrace these approaches, supported by advanced computational tools and a steadfast commitment to green chemistry principles, we can anticipate a future where the discovery of life-saving medicines is both accelerated and aligned with the imperative of environmental stewardship.

Sustainable Catalysis and Solvent Selection to Dramatically Lower Input Mass

In the pursuit of sustainable pharmaceutical production, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a pivotal metric for benchmarking environmental performance and driving efficiency. PMI is quantitatively defined as the ratio of the total mass of all materials used in a process to the mass of the desired product obtained [18]. Mathematically, this is expressed as PMI = (Total Mass of Inputs) / (Mass of Product). Unlike simple yield calculations, PMI provides a holistic assessment by accounting for all material inputs—including reactants, solvents, reagents, catalysts, and process chemicals—thereby revealing the true resource efficiency of a synthetic route [3] [1]. The global production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), estimated at 65–100 million kilograms annually, generates approximately 10 billion kilograms of waste, with disposal costs reaching around $20 billion [11]. This stark reality underscores the critical need for PMI reduction, as it directly correlates with lower resource consumption, waste minimization, reduced energy demand, and diminished environmental footprint [18].

The pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure to mitigate its substantial environmental impact, and the adoption of green chemistry and engineering principles is now a strategic imperative [11]. Within this framework, PMI serves as a universal, easily understandable measure for comparing the environmental footprint of different synthetic routes or manufacturing methodologies [18]. This guide details how the strategic integration of sustainable catalysis and green solvent selection can dramatically lower PMI, aligning economic goals with ecological responsibility in pharmaceutical research and development.

The Critical Role of Green Solvents in Reducing PMI

Solvents typically constitute the largest proportion of mass in API synthesis, often contributing significantly to high PMI values. Conventional solvent use presents challenges including volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, worker safety issues, and complex waste treatment. Transitioning to green solvents addresses these problems while improving overall process efficiency.

Categories of Green Solvents

Table 1: Categories and Examples of Green Solvents for Pharmaceutical Synthesis

Solvent Category	Key Examples	Properties & Advantages	Pharmaceutical Applications
Bio-based Solvents	Dimethyl carbonate, Limonene, Ethyl lactate	Low toxicity, biodegradable, reduced VOC emission [47]	Reaction medium, extraction [47]
Water-based Systems	Aqueous solutions of acids, bases, alcohols	Non-flammable, non-toxic, inexpensive [47]	Reaction medium, crystallization [48]
Supercritical Fluids	Supercritical CO₂ (scCO₂)	Tunable solvation, facile separation, non-flammable [47]	Selective extraction of bioactive compounds [47]
Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)	Choline chloride-Urea mixtures	Tunable polarity, low volatility, biodegradable [47]	Chemical synthesis, extraction processes [47]

Systematic Solvent Selection Methodology

A computer-aided methodology enables the identification of optimal solvents that improve multiple process Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) simultaneously. This approach integrates property prediction with process modeling and optimization to simultaneously identify optimal solvents, compositions, and process conditions for integrated synthesis and crystallization [48].

Experimental Protocol: Integrated Solvent Selection and Process Optimization

• Define Property Constraints: Establish critical physical property constraints (e.g., boiling point, miscibility, stability) and environmental, health, and safety (EHS) criteria (e.g., persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, carcinogenicity) [49].
• Database Screening: Screen molecular databases (e.g., COSMObase) using property prediction models like COSMO-RS (Conductor-like Screening Model for Real Solvents) to eliminate unsuitable candidates [49].
• Process Modeling: Develop integrated process models that couple reaction and separation units, avoiding energy-intensive solvent swap operations [48].
• Multi-objective Optimization (MOO): Deploy bi-objective optimization to explore trade-offs between competing goals, such as minimizing the solvent E-factor (a waste metric) while maximizing crystal yield or safety indicators [48].
• Experimental Validation: Validate top-performing solvent candidates through laboratory-scale experiments to confirm predicted performance.

This methodology was successfully applied to replace the toxic polar solvent N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) in a hydroformylation process, identifying ecologically benign alternatives that performed similarly without the developmental toxicity concerns [49].

Diagram 1: Computer-Aided Green Solvent Selection Workflow. This systematic approach integrates property prediction, process modeling, and optimization to identify optimal, sustainable solvents.

Sustainable Catalysis for Atom Economy and Waste Reduction

Catalysis is a cornerstone of green chemistry, directly enhancing atom economy—a key principle that aims to maximize the incorporation of starting materials into the final product [11]. By enabling milder reaction conditions, increasing selectivity, and reducing energy consumption, advanced catalytic systems are transformative in lowering PMI.

Advanced Catalytic Systems

• Biocatalysis: Utilizes enzymes or whole cells as selective, biodegradable catalysts. These systems operate under mild conditions (aqueous medium, ambient temperature) and often eliminate the need for protective group chemistry, significantly reducing synthetic steps and associated waste [11].
• Photocatalysis: Employs light energy to drive chemical transformations, often via radical intermediates. This approach provides unique reaction pathways, enables the use of abundant reagents, and reduces reliance on stoichiometric oxidants/reductants, thereby minimizing waste [11].
• Continuous-Flow Catalysis: Implements catalytic reactions within continuous-flow reactors, often with immobilized catalysts. This strategy enables process intensification, improving heat and mass transfer, enabling safer handling of hazardous intermediates, and facilitating easier catalyst recycling, all contributing to a lower PMI [11].

Catalysis-Enabled PMI Reduction Workflow

Experimental Protocol: Evaluating Catalysts for PMI Reduction

• Route Scoping: Identify key disconnections in the synthetic route where catalytic methods could replace stoichiometric reactions or improve selectivity.
• Catalyst Screening: Employ high-throughput experimentation to evaluate a diverse range of catalytic systems (homogeneous, heterogeneous, enzymatic, photocatalytic) for the target transformation.
• Reaction Optimization: Use design of experiments (DoE) to efficiently map the relationship between critical process variables (e.g., temperature, pressure, catalyst loading, residence time) and performance outcomes (conversion, selectivity, yield).
• PMI Assessment: Calculate the PMI for the optimized catalytic process and compare it against the baseline stoichiometric or non-catalytic method. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable's PMI Calculator is a standardized tool for this assessment [3] [1].
• Catalyst Recycling Studies: For heterogeneous or immobilized catalysts, conduct lifecycle studies to determine stability, leaching levels, and the number of times the catalyst can be effectively reused without significant loss of activity.

Integrated Approaches and Enabling Technologies

The greatest reductions in PMI are often achieved by integrating solvent and catalysis strategies with advanced engineering approaches.

Process Intensification through Continuous Manufacturing

Transitioning from traditional batch processes to continuous-flow synthesis represents a paradigm shift in API manufacturing. Continuous processing enables safer operation with hazardous reagents, superior control over reaction parameters, dramatic reductions in reactor volume, and the integration of multiple synthetic steps without intermediate isolation, thereby minimizing solvent and material requirements [11].

Diagram 2: Simplified Continuous-Flow API Synthesis with Recycling Loops. This integrated system intensifies the process and enables the recycling of solvents and catalysts, directly lowering PMI.

The Role of AI and Predictive Tools

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are playing an increasingly pivotal role in green process design. These tools can accelerate solvent and catalyst selection by predicting properties and performance, optimize reaction conditions in silico, and enable predictive toxicology, reducing the need for extensive laboratory experimentation [11]. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed a PMI Prediction Calculator that estimates probable PMI ranges for a molecule prior to any laboratory evaluation, allowing for the assessment and comparison of potential synthetic route changes early in development [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Metrics

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Sustainable Synthesis

Tool/Reagent	Function/Description	Role in PMI Reduction
Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)	Formed by hydrogen-bond donors and acceptors; tunable properties for specific applications [47].	Replaces volatile organic solvents, enables recyclable reaction media.
Immobilized Catalysts	Catalysts anchored to solid supports (e.g., polymers, silica) [11].	Facilitates catalyst separation and reuse, minimizing metal waste and product contamination.
Bio-based Solvents (e.g., Ethyl Lactate)	Derived from renewable resources like corn or sugarcane [47].	Reduces reliance on petrochemical feedstocks, often less toxic and biodegradable.
Supercritical CO₂ (scCO₂)	CO₂ used above its critical temperature and pressure as a tunable solvent [47].	Replaces organic solvents in extraction; easily removed by depressurization, leaving no residue.
PMI Calculator (ACS GCI PR)	Standardized tool to calculate Process Mass Intensity [3] [1].	Quantifies material efficiency, benchmarks processes, and identifies areas for improvement.
iGAL Calculator	Green Chemistry Innovation Scorecard that calculates a relative process greenness score [3].	Provides a standardized metric for comparing waste reduction across different processes.

The strategic integration of green solvents and sustainable catalysis is a powerful lever to dramatically lower Process Mass Intensity in pharmaceutical manufacturing. This approach, supported by enabling technologies like continuous processing and AI, transforms environmental responsibility into a source of innovation and competitive advantage. By adopting the methodologies and tools outlined in this guide, researchers and drug development professionals can design more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable processes, ensuring the industry's viability while contributing to a healthier planet.

Benchmarking and Validating Sustainable Processes: PMI in a Regulatory Context

How PMI Benchmarking Drives Industry-Wide Sustainable Practices

In the pharmaceutical industry, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a crucial metric for benchmarking and driving sustainable manufacturing practices. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a specified mass of product, accounting for all raw materials, reactants, solvents, and reagents involved in the process [3] [6]. 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 [6]. Unlike simpler metrics such as atom economy, PMI provides a more holistic assessment of the mass requirements of an entire process, including synthesis, purification, and isolation phases [6].

The pharmaceutical industry faces substantial environmental challenges, with global production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) estimated at 65-100 million kilograms annually, generating approximately 10 billion kilograms of waste [11]. This waste incurs disposal costs of around $20 billion, creating a compelling economic and environmental imperative for efficiency improvements [11]. PMI benchmarking addresses this challenge by enabling cross-company comparisons, establishing industry baselines, and identifying opportunities for process optimization across the sector [1] [6]. By focusing on maximizing value and efficiency, PMI has become an essential tool for quantifying progress toward more sustainable manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry [8] [1].

PMI Fundamentals and Calculation Methodology

Definition and Core Calculation

Process Mass Intensity is calculated as the ratio of the total mass of all materials input into a process to the mass of the final active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) produced [43] [6]. The fundamental formula is:

PMI = Total Mass of Materials Used (kg) / Mass of Final Product (kg)

The ideal PMI value is 1, indicating that all input materials are incorporated into the final product with no waste [43]. In practice, pharmaceutical processes typically have PMI values significantly greater than 1 due to solvents, reagents, and purification materials that are not incorporated into the final API [6]. All materials used in the process must be accounted for, including reactants, reagents, catalysts, solvents (used in both reaction and purification), and any materials used during workup and isolation [3] [43]. Water is typically excluded from PMI calculations in most standard assessments, though some comprehensive evaluations may include it [43].

Relationship to Other Green Chemistry Metrics

PMI is related to but distinct from other green chemistry metrics. The E-Factor (Environmental Factor), another widely used metric, calculates the mass of waste produced per mass of product [43]. The relationship between PMI and E-Factor can be described as:

E-Factor = PMI - 1 [43]

This mathematical relationship means that PMI provides a more comprehensive view of total resource consumption, while E-Factor focuses specifically on waste generation. Unlike Atom Economy, which only considers the incorporation of reactant atoms into the final product and assumes 100% yield, PMI incorporates actual process efficiency including yield, solvents, and all other materials used [6]. This makes PMI particularly valuable for assessing real-world manufacturing processes rather than theoretical reaction efficiency.

Table: Comparison of Key Green Chemistry Metrics

Metric	Calculation	Scope	Limitations
Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	Total mass of inputs / Mass of product	Comprehensive: includes all materials	Doesn't differentiate material environmental impact
E-Factor	(Total mass of inputs - Mass of product) / Mass of product	Focuses on waste generation	Derived from PMI calculation
Atom Economy	(Molecular weight of product / Molecular weight of reactants) × 100%	Theoretical efficiency of reaction design	Assumes 100% yield and stoichiometric loading
Reaction Mass Efficiency (RME)	(Mass of product / Total mass of reactants) × 100%	Actual mass efficiency of reaction	Excludes solvents and other process materials

Experimental Protocol for PMI Determination

Determining an accurate PMI value requires systematic data collection and calculation following standardized protocols:

• Define System Boundaries: Clearly establish which process steps are included in the assessment (typically from initial reactants to isolated final API) [6].

• Inventory All Input Materials: Precisely measure or calculate the masses of all materials entering the process, including:

  • Starting materials and reagents
  • Catalysts
  • Solvents (for reactions, extractions, and purifications)
  • Processing aids (filter aids, drying agents)
  • Purification materials (chromatography media, recrystallization solvents) [6]

• Determine Product Mass: Precisely measure the mass of the final isolated and purified API [6].

• Calculate PMI: Apply the PMI formula using the collected data.

• Segment Analysis (Optional): For detailed insights, calculate PMI for individual process stages (synthesis, purification, isolation) to identify key improvement areas [6].

The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed standardized PMI calculators to ensure consistency in calculations across the industry, including tools for linear and convergent syntheses [3] [1].

PMI Benchmarking Initiatives and Industry Impact

The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable Initiative

The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has been instrumental in establishing PMI as an industry-standard benchmarking metric [1] [6]. Since its formation, the Roundtable has conducted regular PMI benchmarking exercises among member companies, with the first formal exercise taking place in 2008 [1]. This consortium approach enables collaborative competition, where companies share anonymized process data through a trusted third-party mechanism to establish industry performance baselines without compromising proprietary information [50] [6].

The Roundtable has developed a progression of tools to support PMI benchmarking, including:

• Simple PMI Calculator: For linear synthetic routes [1]
• Convergent PMI Calculator: For processes with multiple synthetic branches [3] [1]
• PMI Prediction Calculator: For estimating PMI during early development phases [3]

These tools create a common methodology that enables meaningful cross-company and cross-process comparisons, helping to drive continuous improvement across the sector [1].

Industry-Wide PMI Benchmarking Data

The collaborative benchmarking efforts through the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable have generated comprehensive PMI data across multiple therapeutic modalities:

Table: PMI Benchmarks Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	PMI Range (kg material/kg API)	Key Drivers of High PMI
Small Molecule APIs	168 - 308 [6]	Solvent use in reactions and purifications
Biopharmaceuticals	~8,300 (average) [6]	Cell culture media, purification processes
Oligonucleotides	3,035 - 7,023 (average: 4,299) [6]	Solid-phase synthesis, solvent-intensive steps
Synthetic Peptides	~13,000 (average) [6]	Large solvent volumes in SPPS, purification challenges

The data reveals that synthetic peptides currently have the highest PMI values, approximately 40-80 times higher than small molecule APIs [6]. This significant disparity highlights a critical area for sustainability improvement efforts and has driven increased industry focus on developing more efficient peptide synthesis technologies.

Advanced Benchmarking: Manufacturing Mass Intensity

Building on PMI foundations, the industry is progressing toward Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI), which expands the scope to account for additional resource requirements in API manufacturing [8]. While PMI focuses primarily on the chemical synthesis process, MMI incorporates a broader range of manufacturing inputs, providing an even more comprehensive assessment of environmental impact [8]. This evolution demonstrates how PMI benchmarking has created a foundation for increasingly sophisticated sustainability metrics across the pharmaceutical industry.

Implementation Framework for PMI Benchmarking

Organizational PMI Benchmarking Methodology

Implementing an effective PMI benchmarking program requires a structured methodology:

• Data Collection Standardization: Establish uniform protocols for data collection across all development and manufacturing sites, using ACS GCI Roundtable calculators as a foundation [1].

• Process Segmentation: Divide manufacturing processes into discrete stages (synthesis, purification, isolation) to identify specific improvement opportunities [6].

• Cross-Functional Team Engagement: Involve chemists, engineers, and environmental specialists in both data collection and improvement initiatives [6].

• Longitudinal Tracking: Monitor PMI trends over time to measure improvement and assess the impact of optimization efforts [1].

• External Benchmarking: Participate in industry consortiums to compare performance against peers and identify best practices [50] [6].

The benchmarking process follows a systematic workflow that transforms raw process data into actionable sustainability insights:

Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Reduction

Implementing PMI improvements requires specific reagents and technologies designed to enhance process efficiency:

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

Reagent Category	Representative Solutions	Function in PMI Reduction
Green Solvents	Cyrene (dihydrolevoglucosenone), 2-MeTHF, cyclopentyl methyl ether (CPME)	Replace problematic solvents (DMF, NMP, DCM) with safer, often more efficient alternatives [11] [6]
Advanced Catalysts	Heterogeneous catalysts, biocatalysts, flow chemistry catalysts	Enable higher selectivity, reduced loading, and easier separation [11]
Process Intensification Technologies	Continuous flow reactors, membrane reactors, microwave reactors	Reduce solvent volumes, improve reaction kinetics, enable smaller equipment footprints [11]
Sustainable Protecting Groups	Emerging alternatives to Fmoc (for peptide synthesis)	Reduce atom economy penalty in complex molecule synthesis [6]
Recyclable Reagents	Polymer-supported reagents, silica-bound catalysts	Enable reagent recovery and reuse across multiple batches [11]

Case Study: PMI Benchmarking in Peptide Synthesis

Experimental Analysis of Peptide Manufacturing

A recent comprehensive assessment of synthetic peptide processes across 14 Pharmaceutical Roundtable member companies analyzed PMI data for 40 synthetic peptide processes at various development stages [6]. The study implemented a detailed experimental protocol:

• Process Segmentation: Each peptide manufacturing process was divided into three distinct stages:

  • Synthesis: Including resin swelling, deprotection, coupling, and washing steps
  • Purification: Typically involving reversed-phase HPLC with acetonitrile/water gradients
  • Isolation: Including lyophilization or precipitation and drying [6]

• Data Normalization: PMI values were normalized per amino acid residue to enable comparison across peptides of different lengths [6].

• Technology Comparison: Data was collected for different synthesis approaches, including solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS), liquid-phase peptide synthesis (LPPS), and hybrid approaches [6].

The results demonstrated that solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS), while reliable and widely applicable, generates significantly higher PMI compared to other therapeutic modalities, primarily due to large solvent volumes required for resin swelling and washing steps [6].

Improvement Strategies from Benchmarking Insights

The peptide PMI benchmarking study identified several key strategies for improvement:

• Solvent Selection and Recycling: Transitioning from problematic solvents like DMF, NMP, and DCM to greener alternatives, coupled with implementing solvent recovery systems [6].

• Process Intensification: Implementing continuous manufacturing approaches and hybrid SPPS/LPPS strategies to reduce material consumption [6].

• Equipment Optimization: Utilizing modern SPPS reactors designed for efficient mixing and reduced solvent requirements [6].

• Alternative Technologies: Developing improved liquid-phase synthesis methods and exploring enzymatic synthesis for specific peptide sequences [6].

This case study demonstrates how detailed PMI benchmarking at the process stage level can reveal specific improvement opportunities that might be overlooked in whole-process analysis.

Future Directions and Strategic Implications

Evolving PMI Applications

The application of PMI benchmarking continues to evolve beyond small molecules to encompass emerging therapeutic modalities. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has expanded its benchmarking activities to include oligonucleotides and peptides, with future work planned for additional modality classes [6]. Additionally, the industry is moving toward life cycle assessment integration, combining PMI data with environmental impact factors to create more comprehensive sustainability metrics [6].

The progression from PMI to Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) represents another important evolution, expanding the scope to include additional manufacturing inputs beyond the immediate chemical process [8]. This development acknowledges that true sustainability requires a holistic view of all resource inputs across the entire manufacturing ecosystem.

Strategic Implementation Recommendations

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals implementing PMI benchmarking:

• Embed PMI Early: Incorporate PMI assessment during early process development rather than as a retrospective analysis [3].

• Set Ambitious Targets: Establish PMI reduction targets based on industry benchmarking data, aiming for top-quartile performance [6].

• Cross-Functional Collaboration: Engage environmental specialists alongside chemists and engineers to balance PMI improvements with other critical quality attributes [6].

• Leverage Digital Tools: Utilize predictive PMI calculators during route selection to choose more sustainable synthetic pathways before laboratory evaluation [3].

• Share Best Practices: Participate in industry consortia to both contribute to and benefit from collective learning on PMI reduction strategies [50] [6].

PMI benchmarking has transformed from a simple metric to a comprehensive framework for driving sustainability improvements across the pharmaceutical industry. By providing objective, quantifiable data on process efficiency, it enables targeted optimization, facilitates cross-company learning, and accelerates the adoption of more sustainable manufacturing technologies throughout the sector.

In the pursuit of a more sustainable pharmaceutical industry, the adoption of quantitative green chemistry metrics has become indispensable for benchmarking environmental performance and driving innovation. The global production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), estimated at 65–100 million kilograms annually, generates approximately 10 billion kilograms of waste, incurring disposal costs of around $20 billion [11]. Within this context, Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a cornerstone metric for assessing the efficiency of pharmaceutical processes. PMI is defined as the total mass of materials used to produce a unit mass of a target product, providing a comprehensive measure of resource efficiency that accounts for reactants, reagents, solvents, and catalysts [3]. The American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable (ACS GCI PR) has championed PMI as a key metric for benchmarking green chemistry and engineering performance, with the first industry-wide benchmarking exercise conducted in 2008 and regularly thereafter [1].

This critical analysis examines PMI within the broader landscape of green metrics, evaluating its theoretical foundations, practical applications, and limitations relative to other assessment methods. While PMI offers significant advantages through its straightforward calculation and direct relevance to process economics, recent research questions whether expanding its system boundaries alone sufficiently addresses the need for comprehensive environmental impact assessment [7]. As the pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure to reduce its environmental footprint—with a carbon intensity 55% higher than the automotive industry—understanding the appropriate role and limitations of PMI becomes crucial for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals committed to sustainable process design [51].

Theoretical Foundations and Calculation Methods

Process Mass Intensity (PMI): Definition and Calculation

Process Mass Intensity represents the total mass of materials entering a process divided by the mass of product obtained, expressed mathematically as:

PMI = Total Mass of Input Materials (kg) / Mass of Product (kg)

This calculation encompasses all materials used within a pharmaceutical process, including reactants, reagents, solvents (employed in both reaction and purification steps), and catalysts [3]. A lower PMI value indicates higher efficiency, as it reflects less material consumption per unit of product. The ideal PMI value is 1, indicating perfect mass transfer with no waste generation, though this theoretical optimum is rarely achieved in practical pharmaceutical synthesis.

The ACS GCI PR has developed specialized calculation tools to accommodate various development scenarios. The standard PMI calculator enables rapid determination of PMI values by accounting for raw material inputs relative to bulk API output [1]. For more complex syntheses, the Convergent PMI Calculator accommodates multiple branches for single-step or convergent synthesis pathways, employing the same fundamental calculation principles while addressing the complexities of modern API manufacturing [1]. Additionally, the PMI Prediction Calculator allows for estimation of probable PMI ranges prior to laboratory evaluation, facilitating early-stage assessment and comparison of potential route changes [3].

System Boundaries in PMI Calculation

A critical aspect of PMI implementation involves defining appropriate system boundaries for calculation. The most fundamental approach employs a gate-to-gate system boundary, which accounts only for materials directly used in the manufacturing process from factory entrance to exit [7]. This perspective, while practical for direct process optimization, fails to capture upstream resource consumption.

Recognizing this limitation, researchers have proposed expanded system boundaries that provide a more comprehensive assessment. Cradle-to-gate system boundaries incorporate value chain processes, extending back to the extraction of natural resources from the environment [7]. This approach, termed Value-Chain Mass Intensity (VCMI), categorizes value chain products into distinct classes and systematically includes these in environmental assessments. The diagram below illustrates the relationship between different system boundary approaches:

The expansion from gate-to-gate to cradle-to-gate system boundaries represents a significant evolution in mass intensity assessment. Recent research systematically analyzes how different system boundaries influence the correlation between mass intensities and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental impacts [7]. This study demonstrates that expanding system boundaries strengthens correlations for fifteen of sixteen environmental impact categories, though the degree of improvement varies depending on the specific environmental impact considered and the product classes included in the assessment.

Key Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

Material Inventory Methodology

Accurate PMI assessment requires rigorous experimental protocols for data collection and calculation. The foundational methodology involves creating a comprehensive material inventory for each process step. Researchers must document all input masses, including starting materials, reagents, solvents, catalysts, and process aids. Simultaneously, the mass of all products, byproducts, and isolated intermediates must be recorded. This data is typically collected during process development and optimization studies, with particular attention to solvent usage, which often constitutes the largest mass component in pharmaceutical synthesis.

The experimental workflow for PMI determination follows a systematic approach:

Research Reagent Solutions for Green Metrics Evaluation

The experimental assessment of green metrics requires specific materials and reagents tailored to sustainable process evaluation. The following table details essential research reagent solutions used in PMI and related green metrics studies:

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents for Green Metrics Evaluation

Reagent/Material	Function in Green Metrics Evaluation	Application Context
K–Sn–H–Y-30-dealuminated zeolite	Catalyst for epoxidation reactions	Case study: R-(+)-limonene epoxidation for green metrics calculation [52]
Sn4Y30EIM zeolite	Catalyst for cyclization reactions	Case study: Florol synthesis via isoprenol cyclization [52]
Dendritic zeolite d-ZSM-5/4d	Catalyst for transformation of epoxides	Case study: Dihydrocarvone synthesis from limonene-1,2-epoxide [52]
Synth ASil reagent	Activator for aPTT measurement	Monitoring anticoagulation therapy (non-pharma case study) [53]
ACTALYKE MINI	Portable analyzer for coagulation time	Bedside monitoring application (non-pharma case study) [53]

Comparative Analysis of Green Metrics

PMI in Relation to Other Green Chemistry Metrics

While PMI provides a comprehensive assessment of overall material efficiency, it exists within a broader ecosystem of green chemistry metrics, each offering distinct insights into process performance. The pharmaceutical industry employs multiple metrics to evaluate different dimensions of sustainability, with PMI distinguished by its inclusive scope that accounts for all materials used in a process.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Key Green Chemistry Metrics

Metric	Calculation Formula	What It Measures	Advantages	Limitations
Process Mass Intensity (PMI)	Total input mass / Product mass	Total mass efficiency of process	Comprehensive scope; easy to calculate; direct cost implications	Does not distinguish between material types; no environmental impact assessment
Atom Economy (AE)	Molecular weight of product / Sum of molecular weights of reactants	Incorporation of reactant atoms into product	Theoretical ideal; easy early-stage calculation	Ignores yield, solvents, and actual reaction conditions
Reaction Mass Efficiency (RME)	(Mass of product / Total mass of reactants) × 100%	Effective utilization of reactants	Accounts for yield and stoichiometry; practical efficiency measure	Excludes solvents and other process materials
E-factor	Total waste mass / Product mass	Environmental impact via waste generation	Focuses on waste minimization; industry standard	Sensitive to byproduct definition; excludes upstream impacts
Carbon Intensity	tCO₂e / Million USD revenue	GHG emissions per economic output	Direct climate impact assessment; aligns with ESG reporting	Complex calculation; requires extensive data collection [51]

Recent case studies in fine chemical production demonstrate the complementary nature of these metrics. For example, in the epoxidation of R-(+)-limonene over K–Sn–H–Y-30-dealuminated zeolite, researchers reported AE = 0.89 and RME = 0.415, while the synthesis of florol via isoprenol cyclization exhibited perfect atom economy (AE = 1.0) but lower reaction mass efficiency (RME = 0.233) [52]. These variations highlight how different metrics capture distinct aspects of process performance, reinforcing the need for a multi-metric assessment approach.

Quantitative Comparison of Metrics in Pharmaceutical Applications

The relationship between PMI and other green metrics can be quantitatively demonstrated through pharmaceutical manufacturing data and case studies. The ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has utilized PMI benchmarking for over 15 years to evaluate and drive progress toward more sustainable manufacturing [8]. This longitudinal assessment has revealed significant improvements in industry-wide PMI values, though specific numerical data was not provided in the available search results.

A 2025 study by Eichwald et al. systematically analyzed the correlation between mass intensities and LCA environmental impacts across 106 chemical productions [7]. This research examined Spearman correlation coefficients between sixteen LCA environmental impacts and eight mass intensities with varying system boundaries. The findings demonstrated that expanding system boundaries from gate-to-gate to cradle-to-gate strengthened correlations for fifteen of sixteen environmental impacts, though each environmental impact was approximated by a distinct set of key input materials.

Table 3: Mass Intensity Correlations with Environmental Impacts (Eichwald et al., 2025) [7]

System Boundary	Number of Mass Intensities Analyzed	Environmental Impacts with Strengthened Correlation	Key Finding
Gate-to-Gate (PMI)	1	1 of 16 impacts	Limited correlation with most environmental impacts
Cradle-to-Gate (VCMI)	7	15 of 16 impacts	Significant improvement in correlation for most impacts
Overall Analysis	8 mass intensities	Varies by impact category	No single mass-based metric can fully capture multi-criteria environmental sustainability

The transition from PMI to the more comprehensive Manufacturing Mass Intensity (MMI) represents another evolution in green metrics. MMI builds upon PMI by expanding the scope to account for other raw materials required for API manufacturing, thus providing an even more complete picture of resource requirements [8].

Limitations and Critical Perspectives

Methodological Constraints of PMI

Despite its widespread adoption, PMI faces significant methodological constraints that limit its effectiveness as a standalone environmental assessment tool. The fundamental limitation stems from PMI's foundation in mass accounting rather than environmental impact assessment. This approach implicitly assumes that lower mass expenditures automatically translate to reduced environmental impacts, an oversimplification that fails to account for variations in material-specific environmental effects [7].

Recent research critically examines whether expanding system boundaries adequately addresses PMI's limitations. Eichwald et al. (2025) demonstrate that while cradle-to-gate system boundaries improve correlations with environmental impacts, a single mass-based metric cannot fully capture the multi-criteria nature of environmental sustainability [7]. The study identifies that different environmental impacts are approximated by distinct sets of key input materials, which serve as proxies because their consumption implies specific processes in the value chain. For example, coal consumption implies combustion processes with carbon dioxide emissions, making it a key input material for approximating climate change impact.

The time-sensitivity of mass-based environmental assessment represents another critical limitation. As processes evolve toward a defossilized chemical industry, the relationship between mass intensity and environmental impacts changes substantially. This temporal dimension questions the reliability of PMI as a long-term proxy for environmental performance, particularly during the transition to renewable feedstocks and energy sources [7].

Practical Challenges in Pharmaceutical Applications

The implementation of PMI in pharmaceutical development faces several practical challenges. First, the lack of standardized system boundaries creates inconsistencies in calculation and comparison across organizations. While the ACS GCI PR has developed calculators and guidelines, practical application varies, particularly in defining which materials to include in the assessment [1] [3].

Second, PMI fails to account for critical dimensions of environmental impact, including material toxicity, renewability, and degradability. For instance, PMI assigns equal weight to benign solvents like water and hazardous solvents like chlorinated hydrocarbons, potentially leading to misleading environmental assessments [11]. This limitation becomes particularly significant in pharmaceutical synthesis, where solvent use typically constitutes the largest mass component and varies considerably in environmental impact.

The regulatory landscape presents additional challenges. While environmental considerations are gaining prominence in pharmaceutical regulation—exemplified by the WHO's 2024 call for action titled "Greener Pharmaceuticals' Regulatory Highway"—current frameworks primarily focus on safety and efficacy rather than comprehensive environmental impact assessment [51]. This regulatory gap limits the incentive structure for adopting more sophisticated environmental metrics beyond basic mass-based efficiency measures.

Integrated Assessment Frameworks

The limitations of PMI and other individual green metrics point toward the need for integrated assessment frameworks that combine the simplicity of mass-based metrics with the comprehensive perspective of Life Cycle Assessment. Recent research suggests that further expansion of mass intensity system boundaries alone is insufficient to address current methodological gaps [7]. Instead, the development of simplified LCA methods tailored to specific applications where comprehensive environmental assessments are essential but LCA data or expertise are lacking represents a promising direction.

The Green Chemistry Innovation Scorecard Calculator (iGAL) exemplifies this integrated approach. Developed by the IQ Consortium, ACS GCIPR, and academic leaders, iGAL incorporates PMI within a broader assessment framework that focuses on waste generation and provides a relative process greenness score for comparisons between different processes [3]. This multi-dimensional approach acknowledges that no single metric can adequately capture all aspects of environmental sustainability.

Future methodological developments should focus on dynamic assessment models that account for evolving energy systems and feedstock transitions. As the chemical industry progresses toward defossilization, the relationship between mass consumption and environmental impacts will fundamentally change, requiring metrics that can adapt to these systemic transformations [7].

This critical analysis demonstrates that while PMI provides valuable insights into material efficiency, its utility as a comprehensive environmental assessment tool remains limited. Pharmaceutical researchers and development professionals should consider the following conclusions:

First, PMI serves best as a complementary metric rather than a standalone environmental indicator. Its strong correlation with process economics and straightforward calculation make it valuable for rapid assessment and benchmarking, but it should be supplemented with other environmental indicators, particularly for climate change, toxicity, and resource depletion impacts.

Second, system boundary selection significantly influences PMI's correlation with environmental impacts. Cradle-to-gate approaches generally provide better environmental relevance than gate-to-gate calculations, though the optimal boundary depends on the specific environmental impact of interest [7].

Third, the pharmaceutical industry's sustainability journey should progress beyond mass-based efficiency metrics toward comprehensive environmental assessment methods. As regulatory pressure increases and stakeholder expectations evolve, the limitations of PMI will become increasingly significant, necessitating more sophisticated assessment frameworks that directly address the multi-dimensional nature of environmental sustainability.

In conclusion, while PMI has played a crucial role in focusing industry attention on resource efficiency and waste reduction, future progress in green pharmaceutical manufacturing requires both refinement of existing metrics and development of next-generation assessment tools that more accurately and comprehensively reflect environmental performance.

The Role of PMI in Process Validation and Lifecycle Management

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a fundamental green chemistry metric within the pharmaceutical industry, providing a holistic assessment of the mass efficiency of manufacturing processes. It is defined as the total mass of materials used in a process to produce a specified mass of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). 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 the overall greenness of a process [6]. The PMI is calculated using the formula:

PMI = Total Mass of Materials Used (kg) / Mass of Product (kg) [43]

Unlike simpler metrics such as atom economy, PMI offers a more comprehensive evaluation by including all raw materials, reactants, and solvents used in the synthesis, purification, and isolation stages of API manufacturing [6]. This makes it an exceptionally valuable tool for benchmarking environmental performance and driving continuous improvement in process sustainability. As the pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure to reduce its environmental footprint, PMI provides a clear, quantifiable measure to guide process design and optimization throughout the validation lifecycle [1].

PMI Across Pharmaceutical Modalities: A Quantitative Benchmark

The utility of PMI becomes particularly evident when comparing the mass efficiency of different pharmaceutical manufacturing modalities. Recent comprehensive assessments reveal significant variation in PMI values across therapeutic agent classes, highlighting areas where sustainability efforts can be most impactful.

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Pharmaceutical Modality	Reported PMI (kg/kg API)	Key Environmental Implications
Small Molecule APIs	Median: 168 - 308 [6]	Relatively efficient; established optimization methods
Oligonucleotides	Average: 4,299 [6]	High due to solid-phase processes and challenging purifications
Biologics (mAbs, etc.)	Average: ~8,300 [6]	Resource-intensive cell culture and purification
Synthetic Peptides	Average: ~13,000 [6]	Extreme solvent/resin consumption in SPPS

Data from a 2024 cross-company analysis of synthetic peptide processes, the most comprehensive to date, demonstrates that Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis (SPPS) does not compare favorably with other modalities, with an average PMI of approximately 13,000 [6]. This extraordinarily high value is primarily driven by the large excess of solvents and reagents required for resin-based synthesis, coupling reactions, and repetitive washing steps. The analysis further breaks down the PMI contribution across manufacturing stages, with synthesis, purification, and isolation each contributing significantly to the total mass intensity. These benchmarks allow companies to identify improvement targets and prioritize research into more sustainable alternative processes.

The Integration of PMI within the Process Validation Lifecycle

The FDA's Process Validation Guidance outlines a lifecycle approach encompassing Stage 1 (Process Design), Stage 2 (Process Qualification), and Stage 3 (Continued Process Verification) [54]. PMI serves as a crucial quality and efficiency metric throughout this framework, enabling a data-driven approach to continuous process verification and improvement.

Stage 1: Process Design

In this development stage, PMI data from laboratory and pilot-scale experiments guide the selection of the most efficient and sustainable synthetic routes. Chemists and engineers use PMI calculations to compare alternative routes, optimize reaction parameters, and minimize solvent and reagent usage before technology transfer to manufacturing scale.

Stage 2: Process Qualification

During process qualification, PMI establishes the baseline for the commercial manufacturing process. It becomes part of the validation protocol, ensuring that the process can consistently deliver API within predefined quality attributes and mass efficiency targets.

Stage 3: Continued Process Verification

In this ongoing monitoring stage, PMI acts as a key performance indicator (KPI). Tracking PMI over time helps identify process drift, inefficiencies, or deviations from the validated state, triggering timely corrective actions and supporting continuous improvement efforts in a real-world manufacturing environment [54] [55].

Figure 1: The Role of PMI Across the Three Stages of Process Validation Lifecycle. PMI serves different but critical functions in each stage, from initial design to continuous monitoring.

Methodologies for PMI Assessment and Calculation

Standard PMI Calculation Protocol

The fundamental methodology for determining PMI involves a comprehensive accounting of all material inputs relative to the output of final API.

Experimental Protocol:

• Material Input Tracking: Record the mass (in kg) of all raw materials, reactants, reagents, catalysts, and solvents introduced into the manufacturing process. Do not exclude water.
• Product Output Measurement: Precisely measure the mass (in kg) of the final isolated and purified API.
• PMI Calculation: Compute the ratio using the standard formula: PMI = Total Mass of Input Materials (kg) / Mass of API Product (kg)

Convergent Synthesis PMI Calculation

For complex molecules like peptides and oligonucleotides involving convergent syntheses, the ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable has developed a Convergent PMI Calculator [1]. This tool accommodates multiple synthesis branches, ensuring accurate aggregation of material inputs from parallel synthesis streams before their combination in the final assembly stage.

Stage-Gated PMI Analysis

A more sophisticated approach involves partitioning the PMI assessment according to specific unit operations. For synthetic peptide manufacturing, the process is typically divided into three distinct stages [6]:

• Synthesis Phase: PMI contribution from amino acid building blocks, coupling reagents, and resins.
• Purification Phase: PMI contribution from chromatography solvents and buffers.
• Isolation Phase: PMI contribution from lyophilization or precipitation solvents.

This granular analysis pinpoints which manufacturing stages contribute most significantly to the overall environmental footprint, directing targeted optimization efforts.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Assessment

Reagent/Material	Function in PMI Analysis	Application Context
Process Mass Intensity (PMI) Calculator	Quantifies total material input per kg API produced [1]	Standardized efficiency benchmarking
Convergent PMI Calculator	Handles material accounting for multi-branch syntheses [1]	Complex molecules (peptides, oligonucleotides)
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	Evaluates full environmental impact (energy, logistics) [6]	Comprehensive sustainability profiling
Complete Environmental Factor (cEF)	Measures complete waste stream [6]	Holistic waste generation analysis

Strategic Implementation of PMI for Enhanced Lifecycle Management

The integration of PMI into pharmaceutical quality systems provides a strategic framework for data-driven decision-making from discovery through commercial manufacturing. This approach aligns with the FDA's emphasis on continuous process verification and modern quality metrics [54] [55].

Figure 2: Strategic Applications of PMI Data in Pharmaceutical Development. PMI analysis informs multiple critical business and development functions, leading to significant operational and environmental benefits.

PMI in Technology Transfer and Scale-Up

During technology transfer from R&D to manufacturing, PMI provides an objective measure of process efficiency and consistency. Establishing PMI acceptance criteria ensures that the scaled-up process maintains the mass efficiency validated at pilot scale, preventing costly inefficiencies from being embedded in commercial manufacturing.

PMI in Continuous Process Verification

Within the CPV framework, PMI serves as a leading indicator of process health. Statistical tracking of PMI trends can signal subtle process deviations before they impact critical quality attributes, enabling proactive process adjustments and maintaining validation status while minimizing waste generation [55].

PMI and Digital Transformation

The pharmaceutical industry's digital transformation enables more sophisticated PMI monitoring through Digital Validation Platforms like ValGenesis and Kneat Gx [54]. These systems integrate PMI tracking with Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) and Quality Management Systems (QMS), facilitating real-time mass efficiency monitoring and supporting the industry's shift toward paperless, data-rich validation ecosystems.

Process Mass Intensity has evolved from a simple green chemistry metric to an essential component of modern process validation and lifecycle management. By providing a comprehensive measure of mass efficiency, PMI enables pharmaceutical companies to simultaneously achieve environmental sustainability goals, reduce manufacturing costs, and maintain rigorous quality standards throughout the product lifecycle. As regulatory expectations advance toward continuous verification and data-driven compliance, the systematic application of PMI will become increasingly critical for pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to demonstrate both operational excellence and environmental stewardship in an increasingly competitive and sustainability-conscious global market.

Process Mass Intensity (PMI) has emerged as a critical metric for evaluating the environmental footprint and material efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. Defined as the total mass of materials (including water, raw materials, and consumables) required to produce a specified mass of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), PMI provides a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization throughout the production lifecycle [56] [57]. 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 the overall greenness of a process [6]. Unlike simple reaction yield or atom economy, PMI offers a more holistic evaluation by accounting for all mass inputs used in synthesis, purification, and isolation, making it particularly valuable for comparing the sustainability of different manufacturing approaches across therapeutic modalities [6].

The pharmaceutical industry faces increasing pressure from various stakeholders, including healthcare providers, investors, and employees, to quantify and reduce its environmental footprint [56]. As biologics and advanced therapies represent a growing proportion of the pharmaceutical market—with the global biologics market projected to exceed USD 1 trillion by 2030-2034—understanding and optimizing their resource efficiency becomes increasingly crucial for corporate sustainability strategies and regulatory compliance [58]. This technical guide examines the expanding role of PMI in benchmarking and improving the manufacturing processes for biologics and advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), providing researchers and drug development professionals with methodologies, benchmarks, and strategies for future-proofing their manufacturing approaches.

PMI Fundamentals and Calculation Methodologies

Core Principles and Definitions

Process Mass Intensity represents a comprehensive mass-based metric calculated as the total mass of materials entering a process divided by the mass of product obtained [6]. The fundamental equation is:

PMI = Total mass of inputs (kg) / Mass of product (kg)

This calculation includes all water, raw materials, and consumables used in the manufacturing process [56] [57]. A closely related metric, the Environmental Factor (E-factor), describes the total mass of waste generated per mass of product, with the relationship between the two being PMI = E-factor + 1 [56]. PMI differs from traditional chemical metrics such as atom economy (which only considers reactant atoms appearing in the final product) and yield (which measures conversion efficiency) by incorporating all resource requirements, including solvents and process materials [6]. This comprehensive scope makes PMI particularly valuable for identifying improvement opportunities throughout the entire manufacturing process rather than just at the reaction level.

The ACS GCIPR has developed standardized calculation methods to ensure consistent PMI assessment across the industry. For biologics, the PMI boundary conditions typically start with a clean facility at the inoculum stage and extend through the bulk fill stage within a single manufacturing facility [56]. This systematic approach enables meaningful comparisons between different processes and manufacturing technologies.

Experimental Protocols for PMI Assessment

Standardized Data Collection Protocol:

• Define System Boundaries: Clearly establish process start and end points (e.g., from cell vial thaw to purified bulk drug substance for biologics) [56]
• Catalog Input Materials: Document all raw materials, solvents, water, and consumables entering the process
• Quantify Material Masses: Record accurate masses for all inputs using calibrated equipment
• Measure Product Output: Determine the mass of final product (API or drug substance) using qualified analytical methods
• Calculate PMI: Apply the standard PMI formula to determine the process efficiency [57]
• Segment by Unit Operations: Break down PMI contributions by individual process steps to identify improvement opportunities [6]

For complex biologics and ATMPs, additional considerations include:

• Scale Considerations: Account for differences between clinical and commercial manufacturing scales
• Technology Platforms: Document whether processes use single-use or stainless-steel equipment
• Facility Impacts: Consider including utilities and cleaning solutions for comprehensive assessment
• Multi-product Facilities: Implement allocation methods for shared resources

The ACS GCIPR Biopharma Focus Group has developed a specialized PMI calculator tool to standardize this assessment for biologics manufacturing processes, enabling consistent data collection and industry benchmarking [57].

PMI Analysis Across Therapeutic Modalities

Comparative PMI Benchmarking

The resource intensity of pharmaceutical manufacturing varies significantly across different therapeutic modalities, with biologics and advanced therapies generally demonstrating higher PMI values than traditional small molecules. The table below summarizes published PMI benchmarks for major therapeutic categories:

Table 1: PMI Benchmarking Across Pharmaceutical Modalities

Therapeutic Modality	PMI Range (kg input/kg API)	Key Contributors	Primary References
Small Molecule Drugs	168 - 308 (median)	Organic solvents, reagents	[6]
Oligonucleotides	3,035 - 7,023 (average: 4,299)	Solvents, excess reagents	[6]
Monoclonal Antibodies	~7,700 (average)	Water, cell culture media, buffers	[56] [59]
Synthetic Peptides	≈13,000 (average for SPPS)	Solvents (DMF, DCM), reagents	[6]

The significantly higher PMI values for biologics and advanced therapies primarily reflect their manufacturing complexity, water-intensive processes, and lower final product concentrations. For monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which represent the most mature class of biopharmaceuticals, water accounts for approximately 94% of the total PMI, with raw materials and consumables contributing 5% and 1%, respectively [56]. This distribution highlights the critical importance of water management in biomanufacturing sustainability efforts.

PMI Distribution in Biologics Manufacturing

Understanding how PMI distributes across various unit operations enables targeted improvement strategies. Research across multiple biopharmaceutical companies has revealed consistent patterns in PMI distribution for mAb production:

Table 2: PMI Distribution Across Monoclonal Antibody Manufacturing Unit Operations

Unit Operation	Contribution to Total PMI	Dominant Input Materials
Upstream Process	15-25%	Cell culture media, buffers, water
Harvest/Clarification	5-15%	Filters, centrifugation consumables
Purification	45-65%	Chromatography resins, buffers, water
Formulation	10-20%	Buffers, excipients, water

Upstream improvements, particularly increased cell culture titers, have significantly reduced the PMI contribution from cell culture operations over the past decade. However, purification operations remain the most resource-intensive phase due to large buffer volumes and relatively low product concentrations throughout the downstream process [56]. This distribution pattern underscores the need for innovation in purification technologies to drive substantial PMI reductions in biologics manufacturing.

PMI Challenges in Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

Unique Manufacturing Complexities

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), including gene therapies, somatic cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products, present distinctive challenges for PMI assessment and optimization [60] [61]. Unlike traditional biologics, ATMPs often involve living cells as active components, introducing unprecedented variability and complexity into manufacturing processes [62]. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) categorizes ATMPs into three main types: gene therapy medicines, somatic-cell therapy medicines, and tissue-engineered medicines, with some products combining these elements with medical devices as combined ATMPs [60].

Key factors complicating PMI analysis for ATMPs include:

• Low Production Scales: Most ATMPs are manufactured in small batch sizes for specific patient populations, resulting in disproportionately high PMI values compared to large-volume biologics
• Aseptic Processing Requirements: Inability to use traditional sterilization methods necessitates extensive environmental controls and monitoring [62]
• Product Variability: Biological starting materials (e.g., patient-derived cells) exhibit inherent variability that challenges process standardization
• Limited Manufacturing Platforms: Immature and often manual manufacturing processes lacking the optimization history of mAb production [62]

These challenges are compounded by regulatory complexities, as only a few regions have established comprehensive regulatory frameworks for ATMPs, creating uncertainty in requirements for regulatory approval and subsequent processes [61].

Analytical Framework for ATMP PMI Assessment

A systematic approach to PMI evaluation for ATMPs must account for their unique manufacturing characteristics:

ATMP PMI Assessment Workflow

The workflow emphasizes critical decision points in ATMP manufacturing that significantly impact PMI, particularly the choice between open and closed processing systems. Closed and automated systems can substantially reduce contamination risk and resource utilization by minimizing manual interventions and environmental controls [62]. Additionally, the assessment must incorporate product-specific considerations such as:

• Vector Production Efficiency: For gene therapies, the yield and quality of viral vector production dramatically influence overall PMI
• Cell Expansion Efficiency: The number of population doublings required to achieve therapeutic cell doses directly correlates with resource consumption
• Release Testing Complexity: Extensive quality control testing for ATMPs, including sterility, potency, and identity tests, contributes significantly to overall material use

PMI Reduction Strategies and Implementation Frameworks

Process Intensification and Optimization

Strategic PMI reduction requires systematic approaches targeting the most resource-intensive process steps. For biologics manufacturing, where purification accounts for nearly two-thirds of total PMI, implementation of advanced purification technologies offers substantial improvement opportunities [56]. Process intensification strategies include:

• Multi-Column Chromatography: Moving from single-column to multi-column continuous chromatography systems can reduce buffer consumption by 30-60%
• Single-Pass Tangential Flow Filtration: Implementing more efficient filtration formats decreases water and buffer usage in concentration and diafiltration steps
• In-line Buffer Dilution: Replacing manual buffer preparation with automated in-line dilution systems reduces water consumption and tank requirements
• Continuous Bioprocessing: Transitioning from batch to continuous processing modalities improves overall resource utilization

For synthetic peptides, which demonstrate the highest PMI among established therapeutic modalities (approximately 13,000 for solid-phase peptide synthesis), green chemistry alternatives present significant reduction opportunities [6]. These include:

• Replacement of problematic solvents (DMF, NMP, DCM) with safer alternatives
• Optimization of amino acid coupling reagents to reduce excesses
• Development of hybrid solid-phase/liquid-phase synthesis approaches
• Implementation of flow chemistry methods

Organizational Implementation Framework

Successful PMI reduction initiatives require both technical solutions and organizational commitment. A comprehensive implementation framework includes:

PMI Reduction Implementation Framework

Companies like WuXi STA have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach, achieving a 25% PMI reduction annually for six consecutive years through a structured program incorporating data-driven best practice identification, cross-team knowledge transfer, and performance recognition [63]. Critical success factors include:

• Early Integration: Incorporating PMI considerations during early process development rather than as a post-hoc optimization [63]
• Standardized Targets: Establishing PMI reduction targets tailored to different process types and development stages
• Performance Management: Integrating PMI metrics into key performance indicators for process development teams

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Key Reagents and Materials for PMI-Optimized Processes

Selecting appropriate reagents and materials is fundamental to developing manufacturing processes with improved PMI profiles. The following table details essential solutions for researchers working toward PMI reduction in biologics and advanced therapies:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for PMI Optimization

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Process	PMI Optimization Role
Green Solvents	Cyrene (dihydrolevoglucosenone), 2-MethylTHF, cyclopentyl methyl ether	Replacement for DMF, NMP, DCM in peptide synthesis	Reduces use of reprotoxic solvents; enables solvent recycling [6]
High-Performance Chromatography Resins	MabSelect PrismA, Eshmuno HCX, CaptivA	Protein A and ion-exchange chromatography for mAb purification	Higher dynamic binding capacity reduces resin volume and buffer consumption [56]
Cell Culture Media	BalanCD HEK293, Efficient-FX, ActiCHO	Nutrient supply for cell growth and protein production	Enhanced titer reduces relative PMI of upstream process [56]
Single-Use Bioreactors	Xcellerex XDR, Biostat STR, Mobius	Scalable cell culture in disposable systems	Eliminates cleaning water and reduces cross-contamination risk [56] [63]
Concentrated Buffer Systems	Phosphate, Tris, HEPES at 10-50x concentrations	pH maintenance in bioprocessing	Redoves water volume for transportation and storage [56]

These reagent solutions enable researchers to directly address the major contributors to PMI in their specific processes. For ATMP manufacturing, additional specialized materials include GMP-compliant cell dissociation enzymes, serum-free media formulations, and viral vector purification ligands, all selected for their ability to maintain product quality while minimizing resource consumption [62].

Future Perspectives and Emerging Technologies

Innovative Technologies Shaping PMI Reduction

The future of PMI-optimized manufacturing for biologics and ATMPs will be shaped by several emerging technologies that promise substantial improvements in resource efficiency:

• Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: AI algorithms can optimize process parameters in real-time, predicting optimal feeding strategies, harvest times, and purification conditions to maximize yield while minimizing resource consumption [62]
• Continuous and Integrated Bioprocessing: End-to-end continuous manufacturing eliminates hold steps and reduces buffer volumes, with recent advances showing 40-60% reduction in water usage compared to batch processes
• Novel Purification Modalities: Membrane chromatography, precipitation-based purification, and aqueous two-phase systems offer alternatives to traditional column chromatography with significantly lower buffer requirements
• Modular and Closed Processing: Standardized closed systems for ATMP manufacturing reduce facility demands and enable dramatic scaling of production capacity without proportional increases in cleanroom space or utilities [62]

For ATMPs specifically, technologies such as organoids, dynamic culture systems, and advanced biobanking are addressing manufacturing challenges by providing more physiologically relevant models for process optimization and product characterization [62]. These innovations potentially enhance process consistency and reduce batch failures, which represent significant contributors to overall PMI through wasted materials and capacity utilization.

Strategic Implementation Roadmap

Future-proofing manufacturing operations against evolving sustainability expectations requires a strategic, phased approach to PMI reduction:

• Immediate Term (0-18 months)

  • Implement comprehensive PMI tracking across all development and manufacturing activities
  • Establish baseline PMI values for each product category and process type
  • Initiate "low-hanging fruit" projects targeting solvent substitution and buffer volume reduction

• Medium Term (18-36 months)

  • Develop platform processes with built-in PMI optimization for new product introductions
  • Invest in pilot-scale equipment enabling continuous processing and in-line monitoring
  • Create PMI-focused design criteria for facility upgrades and new capital projects

• Long Term (3+ years)

  • Deploy fully continuous manufacturing platforms for both upstream and downstream processes
  • Integrate advanced process control and AI-driven optimization across the manufacturing network
  • Establish circular economy approaches for key process inputs, including water recycling and solvent recovery

This roadmap emphasizes early action on measurable opportunities while building toward transformative manufacturing paradigms that fundamentally redefine resource efficiency in biopharmaceutical production.

Process Mass Intensity has evolved from a simple green chemistry metric to an essential tool for evaluating and improving the sustainability of biologics and advanced therapy manufacturing. As these therapeutic modalities represent an increasingly dominant segment of the pharmaceutical market—with biologics projected to comprise over half of global pharma value by 2030—their environmental footprint demands careful management [58]. The significantly higher PMI values for modalities like monoclonal antibodies (~7,700) and synthetic peptides (≈13,000) compared to small molecules (168-308) highlight the critical importance of targeted reduction strategies [6] [56] [59].

Successful PMI optimization requires understanding distribution across unit operations, with particular attention to water-intensive purification processes for biologics and the unique challenges of ATMP manufacturing [56] [62]. Implementation of standardized assessment methodologies, combined with emerging technologies such as continuous processing, AI-driven optimization, and novel purification modalities, provides a pathway to substantial PMI reduction while maintaining product quality and regulatory compliance.

For researchers and drug development professionals, integrating PMI considerations throughout the development lifecycle—from early process design to commercial manufacturing—represents an opportunity to simultaneously improve environmental sustainability, reduce costs, and enhance supply chain resilience. As external pressures on pharmaceutical manufacturers to demonstrate sustainable operations continue to intensify, PMI-focused process development will become increasingly central to long-term competitive advantage and corporate citizenship.

Conclusion

Process Mass Intensity has proven to be more than a simple metric; it is a fundamental driver for integrating sustainability into pharmaceutical development. By providing a clear measure of resource efficiency, PMI enables scientists to design processes that are not only more environmentally sound but also more cost-effective and robust. The key takeaways underscore that optimizing PMI requires a holistic approach, combining strategic route design, adoption of innovative technologies like AI and machine learning, and the implementation of green chemistry principles. As the industry advances, the scope of PMI is expanding into Manufacturing Mass Intensity and being adapted for complex biologics, signaling its enduring value. For biomedical and clinical research, embracing PMI signifies a commitment to developing the next generation of medicines in a way that ensures both patient health and the health of the planet.

References

• 1. Process Mass Intensity Calculator [https://acsgcipr.org/tools/process-mass-intensity/]
• 2. Process chemistry - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_chemistry]
• 3. Process Mass Intensity Metric [https://learning.acsgcipr.org/guides-and-metrics/metrics/process-mass-intensity-metric/]
• 4. Process Mass Intensity Calculation Tool - ACS Community [https://communities.acs.org/t5/GCI-Nexus-Blog/Process-Mass-Intensity-Calculation-Tool/ba-p/15892]
• 5. GitHub - chepyle/ PMI _Calculator: shiny app to calculate process mass ... [https://github.com/chepyle/PMI_Calculator]
• 6. Process Mass Intensity (PMI): A Holistic Analysis of Current ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11002941/]
• 7. Assessing mass intensity as a green chemistry metric [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/gc/d5gc02994e]
• 8. Manufacturing mass intensity: 15 ​Years of Process ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666086521001764]
• 9. Green Chemistry in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing [https://www.techsciresearch.com/blog/green-chemistry-in-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-a-sustainable-future/4653.html]
• 10. Green chemistry: Six key trends to watch [https://www.cas.org/resources/cas-insights/green-chemistry-trends]
• 11. Embracing Sustainable Processes in the Pharmaceutical ... [https://scifiniti.com/3079-1421/1/2025.0013]
• 12. Global Pharmaceutical Industry Outlook 2025 Market ... [https://store.frost.com/global-pharmaceutical-industry-outlook-2025.html]
• 13. Top Trends in Pharmaceutical Sustainability for 2025 - BioFocus [https://www.bio-focus.co.uk/sustainability/top-trends-in-pharmaceutical-sustainability-for-2025]
• 14. Green Chemistry In Pharma Market Size, Growth, Trends [https://www.htfmarketintelligence.com/report/global-green-chemistry-in-pharma-market]
• 15. Top Trends in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing for 2025 [https://www.mrlcg.com/resources/blog/top-trends-in-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-for-2025/]
• 16. Comparison of process mass intensity (PMI) of continuous ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678422000619]
• 17. The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177925000656]
• 18. Process Mass Intensity → Term [https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/term/process-mass-intensity/]
• 19. Green Chemistry Research Tools, Guides & Best Practices [https://www.acs.org/green-chemistry-sustainability/research-innovation/research-tools.html]
• 20. Calculator | Chemistry For Sustainability [https://chemistryforsustainability.org/taxonomy/term/794]
• 21. PMI Life Cycle Assessment [https://acsgcipr.org/tools/pmi-life-cycle-assessment/]
• 22. Chemical Process Development in the Pharmaceutical ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12051753/]
• 23. Big data collection in pharmaceutical manufacturing and its ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01203-x]
• 24. Pharmaceutical Raw Materials Testing Solutions [https://www.pacelabs.com/life-sciences/central-laboratory-services/raw-materials-starting-materials/]
• 25. Pharmaceutical Raw Material Testing & Analysis | ARBRO [https://aurigaresearch.com/pharmaceutical-testing/raw-materials/]
• 26. Raw Materials Analysis [https://www.bruker.com/en/applications/pharma/drug-manufacturing/raw_materials_analysis.html]
• 27. Measuring the efficiency of synthetic routes and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12368604/]
• 28. SynRoute: A Retrosynthetic Planning Software - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10498441/]
• 29. Visual Analytics for Facilitating Multi-step Synthetic Route ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2412.00729v2]
• 30. Process Optimization for API Synthesis [https://www.gd3services.com/divisions/chemistry/process-chemistry-large-scale-synthesis/process-optimization-for-api-synthesis/]
• 31. OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR PHARMACEUTICAL ... [https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/OPTIMIZATION_TECHNIQUES_FOR_PHARMACEUTICAL_MANUFACTURING_AND_DESIGN_SPACE_ANALYSIS/20348853]
• 32. 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=AfmBOopUZKcz37McRC5uPu6Yjq3S227nXscjMjdGTYjnpV-5UH1hRtiq]
• 33. Celebrating Breakthroughs in Sustainable Manufacturing [https://www.acs.org/acs-webinars/library/green-pharma-breakthroughs-2025.html]
• 34. ACS GCI Pharmaceutical Roundtable Announces 2025 ... [https://chemistryforsustainability.org/community-news/acs-gci-pharmaceutical-roundtable-announces-2025-industry-award-winners]
• 35. Recent advances in green chemistry approaches for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2950357424000295]
• 36. Sustainable drug discovery using Green Chemistry [https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/what-science-can-do/topics/sustainability/sustainable-drug-discovery-using-green-chemistry.html]
• 37. Green Chemistry Pharmaceutical Industry [https://www.syrris.com/green-chemistry-pharamaceutical-industry/]
• 38. Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Guides Sustainability in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12593353/]
• 39. Lonza Launches Design2Optimize™ Platform to ... [https://www.lonza.com/media-advisories/2025-05-22-14-00]
• 40. The role of AI and ML in drug development [https://pharmaceuticalmanufacturer.media/pharmaceutical-industry-insights/pharmaceutical-manufacturing-insights/the-role-of-ai-and-ml-in-drug-development/]
• 41. Strategic Approaches to Process Optimization and Scale-up [https://www.pharmtech.com/view/strategic-approaches-process-optimization-and-scale]
• 42. Global Pharmaceutical Market: 2025 Analysis & Key Trends [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/pharmaceutical-market-analysis-trends]
• 43. Mass Intensity - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/mass-intensity]
• 44. Late-stage functionalization of pharmaceuticals by C–C ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2667109325000351]
• 45. Diversification of Pharmaceuticals via Late-Stage Hydrazination [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12362435/]
• 46. How Large Quantitative Models Are Shaping the Future Of ... [https://www.sandboxaq.com/post/how-large-quantitative-models-are-shaping-the-future-of-drug-discovery]
• 47. Eco-friendly alternatives to conventional solvents [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772826925000859]
• 48. Model-based solvent selection for the synthesis and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250922007096]
• 49. Systematic Selection of Green Solvents and Process ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/7/12/882]
• 50. Improving project system performance through benchmarking [https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/improving-project-system-performance-benchmarking-8160]
• 51. Tracking Environmental Sustainability and GHG Targets in ... [https://druganddeviceworld.com/2025/04/21/tracking-environmental-sustainability-and-ghg-targets-in-pharmaceutical-sector/]
• 52. Green chemistry metrics: Insights from case studies in fine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352554125001603]
• 53. A Comparison of Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10281775/]
• 54. The Future of US FDA Pharmaceutical Validation Services ... [https://confiancapharmazon.com/future-us-fda-pharmaceutical-validation-services-2025/]
• 55. Leading Pharmaceutical Validation Trends for 2025 [https://www.ellab.com/blog/transforming-the-industry-landscape-leading-pharmaceutical-validation-trends-for-2025/]
• 56. Introduction of a process mass intensity metric for biologics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871678418302255]
• 57. Biopharma PMI Calculator [https://acsgcipr.org/tools/biopharma-pmi-calculator/]
• 58. The Future of Biologics: 'Bio-Betters' and the Dawn of Next- ... [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/the-future-of-biologics-bio-betters-and-the-dawn-of-next-generation-therapies/?srsltid=AfmBOoq4m0hdoAsf2Y3aJcdVAF9Y8dLT2QtTcIljGUV5WPE9owTbqkTH]
• 59. Introduction of a process mass intensity metric for biologics [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30121383/]
• 60. Advanced therapy medicinal products: Overview [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-overview]
• 61. Biotherapeutics and advanced therapies [https://www.ifpma.org/areas-of-work/strengthening-regulatory-systems/biotherapeutics-and-advanced-therapies/]
• 62. Current challenges and future directions of ATMPs in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12274769/]
• 63. Improving Process Mass Intensity for Bio/ ... [https://www.pharmtech.com/view/improving-process-mass-intensity-biopharmaceutical-production]