Are disposable products really better for the environment?
Some time ago, I took part in an online seminar about the environmental impact of single-use products in the biopharmaceutical industry. A great subject to devote more attention to, because during the seminar it became clear for the umpteenth time that on all the different footprint levels (CO2, water, etc.) single-use beats the traditional stainless steel production systems every time.
Critical view
When I started working at Hitma UltraPure and my colleagues told me that single-use products are better for the environment than products that are used several times, I couldn’t help having my doubts. Based on my background, I always learned to look critically at every statement that is made. And let’s face it, I’m part of a generation that learned that replacement is better than repair and that sustainability is better for the environment. Perhaps that’s the reason why, when I come across research studies, I always look for the study bias. Did they also count transport? Surely gamma-irradiation also has an impact? And did they count the mountain of waste that it creates?
And guess what? If one particular study hasn’t taken something into account, the other study has. What perhaps makes it even more special is that every study arrives at the same results in its own way. Time after time, it turns out that single-use reduces water consumption to 30% to 40% compared to a stainless steel production environment. The fossil fuel depletion is less, despite the fact that there is multiple transport.
Waste production
But let’s not forget that single-use also creates a huge amount of waste. After all, the idea of single-use is that you use it for one batch and then throw it away. The mountain of waste that it creates must be immense compared to stainless steel. And the use of gamma irradiation also means that everything must be double-packed. Moreover, after you have run the batch you then go and throw away your entire system. But guess what? Stainless steel systems also create waste. Set against each other, single-use does generate more waste than traditional stainless steel production facilities. But the difference is actually not as significant as I had expected. And I’m happy to say that progress is also being made in this area. For example, there are already systems on the market that make it possible to reduce the volume.
Future of stainless steel
Does this mean that stainless steel will be completely replaced by single-use in a few years? I don’t think so. Stainless steel will always play a role. Bioreactors of 500L, 1000L or 2000L will always require support and stainless steel is the ideal solution for that. Do I think that they will have a single-use liner? Absolutely! The advantages of single-use are enormous. The cleaning is much less intensive and complicated. That makes the plug-and-play principle possible between the different systems. And this gives you infinite flexibility in your production facility. Switching from production A to production B means removing production A and then putting the systems in position for production B. And then I haven’t even started on the QA, QC and validation benefits that they give you.
Not yet convinced of the (environmental) benefits of single-use? I challenge you to look into it! If you find anything that backs up what I’ve said and/or proves the opposite, please let me know (azwarts@hitma.nl).