Green Solvents in the Pharmaceutical Industry

In recent discussions of green chemistry, a controversial issue has been whether the cost of following green chemistry principles in pharmaceutical laboratories is worth the benefit of reducing carbon emissions and toxic waste. On the one hand, pharmaceutical corporations argue that the process required to implement such principles into their drug-creating procedures is too complicated and costly. From this perspective, pharmaceutical companies find it financially problematic to undergo extensive regulatory checks to produce a drug with the same effect as one created without green chemistry methods. On the other hand, environmental scientists argue that there is a long-term environmental value to limiting wasteful practices in the lab. In the words of Dr. Rafael Luque, Associate Professor of Organic Chemistry at the University of Cordoba, and Dr. Sherine Obare, Dean of Nanoscience at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, “Green Chemical methods and sustainable processes can offer remarkable possibilities for academia and the chemical industry in our aim to improve the environmental footprint of materials, chemicals and fuels processing and manufacturing” (Luque and Obare 1632). According to this view, implementing green chemistry principles can evolve sustainability practices for the prevention of climate change. In sum, the issue is whether or not the cost of sustainability is worth the benefit.

My view is that utilizing green chemistry can ensure more profits for pharmaceutical companies. Though I concede that drug manufacturers producing the same product in a longer and more costly way is slightly redundant, I still maintain that the outcome is worth the extensive regulations. For example, toxic waste from products that don’t follow the principles of green chemistry can contaminate the areas’ air and water, resulting in environmental and health consequences. These effects could impact the reputation of the company causing the pollution, resulting in more time and expenses wasted on improving the company's public relations. Although some might object that not every chemical process can fulfill every principle of green chemistry, I would reply that any fulfillment is a step forward towards sustainability. The issue is important because data supports that the regulation of large corporations producing waste decreases carbon emissions across the globe, and green chemistry is one way to regulate these companies.

Green chemistry solvents can increase the efficiency of a drug-creating reaction, resulting in less waste production than reactions that use traditional solvents. Traditional solvents often don’t react completely with the starting reactants in an experiment, resulting in the production of waste that requires disposal. Typically, these unreacted solvents undergo wastewater treatment and are disposed of in local waterways, as highlighted by a 2002 study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study found pharmaceutical contaminants in “80% of 139 streams sampled in 30 states” (Veleva and Cue 605-606). Pharmaceutical waste such as these unreacted solvents is a major contributor to harmful environmental impacts. Among this waste, the most common solvents are “often VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and, therefore, are a major environmental concern as they are able to form low-level ozone and smog through free radical air oxidation processes” (Kerton and Marriott 1). Replacement inorganic solvents, such as water, are significantly less harmful to the environment as they do not release into the atmosphere and destroy the ozone layer. Due to the inability of some substances to dissolve in water, “another alternative to organic solvents is the use of supercritical [carbon dioxide], which is non-toxic and does not contribute to climate change, since it is a byproduct of other processes” (Marco et al. 4). Carbon dioxide is sourced from the atmosphere originally, so if it is released during a reaction there is no overall net gain or loss as it goes back to the surrounding environment. The main goal of alternative solvents is to have the lowest net gain possible in a reaction in order to limit the increase in greenhouse gases that deplete the ozone layer.

Chemists who favor keeping traditional solvents in the laboratory argue that no solvent can perform a completely green reaction. Some solvents that fulfill one principle of green chemistry may not fulfill the others, and could comparatively be more toxic than a traditional solvent. In order to solve the problem of determining the least-harmful solvent, a study was conducted with a computer-based program generated to compute the overall greenness of a solvent, where “the solvents are selected using a rules-based procedure where the estimated reaction-solvent properties and the solvent-environmental properties are used to guide the decision-making process for organic reactions occurring in the liquid phase” (Kerton and Marriott 3). The most efficient green solvent is determined by a program that can weigh the toxicity and benefits of using a certain solvent against one another. If a solvent is greener than what is typically used and is still able to perform the reaction, then it is the chemist's responsibility to integrate it into the drug production process.

Before chemical waste is disposed of, it has to be handled by pharmaceutical scientists in the lab. Some chemicals are extremely corrosive and can irritate the skin and eyes if contact is made. A severe instance would involve a chemical such as “Dichloromethane or methylene chloride [which] is a suspected human carcinogen but is widely used in research laboratories for syntheses and extractions” (Kerton and Marriott 2). When pharmaceutical companies ignore the need for greener solvents, they put their chemists in risky situations. This lack of regard for an individual’s health can put the companies at risk of having a poor reputation, because a pharmaceutical company that disregards an individual’s health cannot be trusted to have the best intentions for the general public’s health. The general public is the ultimate judge of a pharmaceutical company’s ability to implement sustainable practices. Consumers determine the reputation of a company based on its ability to satisfy their needs. If significant changes were made and environmental practices were put in place, “researchers found that a one-point increase in the reputation of a pharmaceutical company would lead to a) additional 28,000 patients asking their doctors about the company’s drugs; b) 3.33% increase in the company sales; c) 0.23% increase in the company’s market capitalization; d) 0.5% increase in policymakers supporting favorable industry policies, and e) more than 5.7 million people likely to support and defend the industry in a crisis” (Veleva and Cue 605). Pharmaceutical companies with effective green chemistry implementations are more likely to have more support from consumers.

In recent years, pharmaceutical industry investors have also shown increased interest in environmental policy implementation. This interest is called “sustainable, responsible, and impact” (SRI) investing, and it involves an investors’ incentive to invest in ethical, “green” solutions. More recently, it’s been shown that “In the United States, assets under SRI management increased from $3.74 trillion to $6.57 trillion between 2012 and 2014, representing 1 in every 6 dollars under management” (Veleva and Cue 607). The increase suggests there is money to be made by pharmaceutical companies if they show investors that they are environmentally-conscious. There is pressure on investors to invest in companies that represent current social concerns. With increased public awareness of the environmental impacts surrounding pharmaceutical companies, investors are obligated to support the most sustainable options.

By changing traditional solvents to green solvents at the drug-production level, pharmaceutical companies can have less of an overall environmental impact whilst accumulating a net profit. Large industrial pharmaceutical companies contribute to immense amounts of waste every year, contaminating local waterways and the atmosphere. This pollution can be easily avoided when intervention occurs early in the drug-creating process. Using green solvents, which are less toxic and more environmentally friendly than traditional solvents, chemists can produce a more efficient reaction and less overall waste. This small change at the initial step of the entire pharmaceutical process results in a cascade of profits, including higher employee involvement, increased interest from potential investors, and improved reputation. Green chemistry can be utilized in a variety of different industries, but it is important to integrate it into the pharmaceutical industry because of the impact pharmaceutical waste has on the environment.  Thus, combating wasteful practices in the pharmaceutical industry is all the more important to sustain a viable environment for the future.

Author

Riley Potter

Riley Potter is a class of 2025 Biology major from South Bend, Indiana. Riley has a love for New Wave music and practical effects. She was inspired to write about Green Chemistry after learning about it in her Orgo I lab, and her interest in environmental sustainability spurred her on to learn more about the benefits of utilizing Green Chemistry in one of the biggest chemical waste producers, the pharmaceutical industry. Riley plans on pursuing graduate school and conducting research regarding diabetes, a cause she holds close to her heart due to her twin’s affliction with it. Riley would like to thank her Writing and Rhetoric professor, Michelle Marvin, for her guidance and support throughout composing and submitting this essay for publication.