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

Phumthep Bunnak, Richard Allmendinger, Sri Vaitheki Ramasamy, Paola Lettieri, Nigel J. Titchener‐Hooker

Biotechnology Progress · 2016 · 82 citations · 24 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Life‑cycle assessment (LCA) quantifies environmental impacts such as water, energy, and waste, but its use in bioprocessing remains limited. The study aims to design a more cost‑efficient, robust, and environmentally friendly mAb manufacturing process by integrating LCA, economic analysis, sensitivity analysis, and scale‑up. The authors evaluate this framework through a comparative analysis of fed‑batch and perfusion upstream configurations, assessing their environmental and economic performance. The framework shows that a standard 4‑day perfusion process has similar cost of goods to fed‑batch but a 35 % higher water use, 17 % higher energy use, and 17 % higher CO₂ emissions, while extending perfusion pooling to 8 days can reduce its environmental footprint. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol.

Abstract

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. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 32:1324-1335, 2016.

References

24