4.3 Article

Life-cycle and cost of goods assessment of fed-batch and perfusion-based manufacturing processes for mAbs

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 1324-1335

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/btpr.2323

关键词

life-cycle assessment (LCA); monoclonal antibody; environmental assessment; sustainability; decision-making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an environmental assessment tool that quantifies the environmental impact associated with a product or a process (e.g., water consumption, energy requirements, and solid waste generation). While LCA is a standard approach in many commercial industries, its application has not been exploited widely in the bioprocessing sector. To contribute toward the design of more cost-efficient, robust and environmentally-friendly manufacturing process for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), a framework consisting of an LCA and economic analysis combined with a sensitivity analysis of manufacturing process parameters and a production scale-up study is presented. The efficiency of the framework is demonstrated using a comparative study of the two most commonly used upstream configurations for mAb manufacture, namely fed-batch (FB) and perfusion-based processes. Results obtained by the framework are presented using a range of visualization tools, and indicate that a standard perfusion process (with a pooling duration of 4 days) has similar cost of goods than a FB process but a larger environmental footprint because it consumed 35% more water, demanded 17% more energy, and emitted 17% more CO2 than the FB process. Water consumption was the most important impact category, especially when scaling-up the processes, as energy was required to produce process water and water-for-injection, while CO2 was emitted from energy generation. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the perfusion process can be made more environmentally-friendly than the FB process if the pooling duration is extended to 8 days. (c) 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 32:1324-1335, 2016

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据