A life cycle assessment of injectable drug primary packaging: comparing the traditional process in glass vials with the closed vial technology (polymer vials)

Purpose This study compares environmental impacts of two primary packaging alternatives used for injectable drugs: the traditional method based on glass vials and the method developed by Aseptic Technologies based on polymer vials. A critical review by an external LCA expert was made. Methods The boundaries of the systems include the packaging production, the product assembly, the filling process, the distribution and the packaging end-of-life by incineration. The study was made in accordance with the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Some data were obtained in the scientific literature or by interview with packaging producers. Ecoinvent databases were also used. The LCA study was made using two methodologies: IMPACT 2002+ and ReCiPe. Some sensibility analyses were performed on different points of uncertainty both on method and on systems (polymer vial body and transport conditions). Results and discussion Results show an environmental gain using a polymer vial over glass. The impact is reduced by 23% for global warming, 25% for primary energy and 32% for respiratory inorganics. For each production step, the environmental impact of both technologies is nearly the same except for the material production, the filling step and the transportation of the finished goods. The production of the polymer vials, made of fuel, leads to a more important environmental impact, especially concerning global warming and primary energy. On the contrary, the two others steps, i.e. filling and transport of the finished goods are more favourable for the polymer vials. This technology allows the elimination of preparation and sterilisation steps which are highly energy consuming and mandatory in the case of the glass vials filling which are supplied unclean and unsterile. The major source of energy consumption comes from water heating, in order to clean the glass vial components. In addition, the filling process, made with a needle through the cork followed by laser re-sealing, is strongly simplified with additional beneficial impact as reduction of energy consumption and pollutants emissions. The transportation step has shown a more positive impact especially when exported over long distance. The sensitivity analyses show that the hypotheses made in both scenarios are rather conservative. Conclusions The life cycle assessment methodology has been successfully applied to both systems of production, filling, distribution and end-of-life of vials for injectable drugs. For identical disclosers, the polymer vials system has lower environmental impacts than the glass vials system.