IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i10d10.1007_s10668-021-01948-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the environmental impacts of paracetamol dosage forms using life cycle assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Rachit Kumar Sharma

    (Indian Institute of Technology Ropar)

  • Geo Raju

    (Indian Institute of Technology Ropar)

  • Prabir Sarkar

    (Indian Institute of Technology Ropar)

  • Harpreet Singh

    (Indian Institute of Technology Ropar)

  • Ekta Singla

    (Indian Institute of Technology Ropar)

Abstract

A medicine can be administered in varied dosage forms which are having different environmental impacts. Two dosage forms of paracetamol (tablet and syrup) have the same function but are prepared and packaged differently, meaning that the environmental impacts arising out of their production will be of different magnitude. This study utilizes the life cycle assessment technique to find and compare the environmental impacts of two dosage forms of the paracetamol. Life cycle assessment software ‘GaBi’ v 8.0 has been utilized to carry out this study. Midpoint and endpoint impact assessment methods from ‘ReCiPe’ impact assessment method are used to carry out the life cycle impact assessment. The midpoint impact assessment results show that syrup production has 90% contribution in climate change impact category and more than 50% environment impact in fine particulate matter formation, fossil depletion, freshwater consumption, freshwater eutrophication, freshwater ecotoxicity, ionizing radiation, photochemical ozone formation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and terrestrial ecotoxicity midpoint impact categories. Tablet production has major impacts in 3 midpoint impact categories that are human toxicity, ionizing radiation, and metal depletion. Syrup production has major impacts (more than 70%) in 8 out of the 11 endpoint impact categories considered, while tablet production has a major impact in 3 impact categories that are human toxicity and ionizing radiation endpoint impact categories. Syrup production has a visibly higher impact in more number of midpoint as well as endpoint impact categories considered. The environmental hotspot is, however, dependent on the individual impact categories. The results of the study add to the existing knowledge of environmental sustainability assessment in the pharmaceutical sector and will benefit the environmental managers to better manage the environmental sustainability of pharmaceutical products.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachit Kumar Sharma & Geo Raju & Prabir Sarkar & Harpreet Singh & Ekta Singla, 2022. "Comparing the environmental impacts of paracetamol dosage forms using life cycle assessment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 12446-12466, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01948-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01948-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01948-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01948-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yee, Kian Fei & Tan, Kok Tat & Abdullah, Ahmad Zuhairi & Lee, Keat Teong, 2009. "Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel: Revealing facts and benefits for sustainability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(Supplemen), pages 189-196, November.
    2. Egilmez, Gokhan & Kucukvar, Murat & Tatari, Omer & Bhutta, M. Khurrum S., 2014. "Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: A life cycle-based frontier approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 8-20.
    3. Mayyas, Ahmad T. & Qattawi, Ala & Mayyas, Abdel Raouf & Omar, Mohammed A., 2012. "Life cycle assessment-based selection for a sustainable lightweight body-in-white design," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 412-425.
    4. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chye Ing Lim & Wahidul Biswas, 2015. "An Evaluation of Holistic Sustainability Assessment Framework for Palm Oil Production in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Vladimir Todorovic & Marinko Maslaric & Sanja Bojic & Maja Jokic & Dejan Mircetic & Svetlana Nikolicic, 2018. "Solutions for More Sustainable Distribution in the Short Food Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    3. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    4. Rubio Rodríguez, M.A. & Ruyck, J. De & Díaz, P. Roque & Verma, V.K. & Bram, S., 2011. "An LCA based indicator for evaluation of alternative energy routes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 630-635, March.
    5. Cho, Young Sang & Kim, Jeom Han & Hong, Seong Uk & Kim, Yuri, 2012. "LCA application in the optimum design of high rise steel structures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3146-3153.
    6. Sara Al-Haidous & Tareq Al-Ansari, 2019. "Sustainable Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Chain Management: A Review of Quantitative Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Kucukvar, Murat & Haider, Muhammad Ali & Onat, Nuri Cihat, 2017. "Exploring the material footprints of national electricity production scenarios until 2050: The case for Turkey and UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 251-263.
    8. Wei Li & Desheng Xue & Xu Huang, 2018. "The Role of Manufacturing in Sustainable Economic Development: A Case of Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Badday, Ali Sabri & Abdullah, Ahmad Zuhairi & Lee, Keat Teong & Khayoon, Muataz Sh., 2012. "Intensification of biodiesel production via ultrasonic-assisted process: A critical review on fundamentals and recent development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 4574-4587.
    10. Sala, Serenella & Ciuffo, Biagio & Nijkamp, Peter, 2015. "A systemic framework for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 314-325.
    11. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    12. Alexandra Lavers Westin & Yuliya Kalmykova & Leonardo Rosado, 2019. "Method for Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainability Measures: A Systems Approach for Policy Prioritization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, January.
    13. L. Hay & A. H. B. Duffy & R. I. Whitfield, 2017. "The S‐Cycle Performance Matrix: Supporting Comprehensive Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Technical Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 45-70, January.
    14. Yilan, Gülşah & Kadirgan, M.A. Neşet & Çiftçioğlu, Gökçen A., 2020. "Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: The case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 519-529.
    15. Jean-Marc Douguet & Pierre Failler & Gianluca Ferraro, 2022. "Sustainability Assessment of the Societal Costs of Fishing Activities in a Deliberative Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Diana Tuomasjukka & Staffan Berg & Marcus Lindner, 2013. "Managing Sustainability of Fennoscandian Forests and Their Use by Law and/or Agreement: For Whom and Which Purpose?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, December.
    17. Luis Claudio A. Borja & Sandro Fábio César & Rita Dione A. Cunha & Asher Kiperstok, 2019. "Getting Environmental Information from Construction Cost Databases: Applications in Brazilian Courses and Environmental Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-28, January.
    18. Georgiadou, Maria Christina & Hacking, Theophilus & Guthrie, Peter, 2012. "A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 145-155.
    19. Susana Martín-Fernández & Adrián Gómez-Serrano & Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Cristina Pascual, 2018. "Comparison of AHP and a Utility-Based Theory Method for Selected Vertical and Horizontal Forest Structure Indicators in the Sustainability Assessment of Forest Management in the Sierra de Guadarrama N," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Artiom Volkov & Tomas Balezentis & Mangirdas Morkunas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2019. "Who Benefits from CAP? The Way the Direct Payments System Impacts Socioeconomic Sustainability of Small Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01948-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.