Pharmaceutical Transport: Active Temperature Control More Sustainable than Passive

In order for medications and other sensitive goods to avoid damage during transport and maintain their effectiveness, they must be kept within specific temperature ranges throughout the entire logistics chain. The various temperature control options lead to significant differences in the emission balance. This has now been demonstrated by the express service trans-o-flex in an analysis of different transport methods.

(Weinheim) The climate impact of passive temperature control can be up to four times higher than that of active temperature control. As a specialist in the transport of pharmaceuticals and other sensitive goods, trans-o-flex has established networks with active temperature management at 2 to 8 and 15 to 25 degrees Celsius in Germany and Austria. “The data collected now is based on scientific calculation principles, as we wanted to know exactly how environmentally friendly the various temperature control options really are,” says trans-o-flex CEO Wolfgang P. Albeck.

In passive temperature control, the correct temperature is maintained using cooling packs and special packaging. In active temperature control, the cargo spaces of trucks and the handling areas in logistics centers are kept entirely within the respective temperature range, eliminating the need for special packaging for shipments. For both methods, trans-o-flex calculated the level of climate impact (measured in CO2e) in two variants: with single-use and with reusable packaging. “It was expected that the reusable systems would have lower emissions in both cases than the single-use systems,” says Albeck. “But we were surprised that active temperature control is so much more environmentally friendly than passive.” The climate impacts resulting from passive temperature control are at least twice as high compared to active temperature control. Specifically, the following four key results emerged: the climate impact of active temperature control with reusable boxes is 2.63 times lower than that of passive temperature control with reusable boxes and 3.93 times lower than that of passive temperature control with single-use cartons; the climate impact of active temperature control with single-use cartons is two times (2.0) lower than passive temperature control and 2.99 times lower than passive temperature control with single-use cartons.

The analysis was conducted in three steps. First, using the example of truck transports between Munich and Berlin, the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of an untempered transport were calculated. For this – as well as for the subsequent calculation steps – all direct and indirect GHG emissions from the provision of a resource to its conversion into motion energy were calculated using a well-to-wheel approach. The benchmark for these emissions is CO2 equivalents (CO2e), which means that, in addition to carbon dioxide (CO2), other greenhouse gas emissions are also taken into account. In the second step, it was determined how many additional CO2e are generated when shipments are transported with active temperature control. In the third step, it was determined what additional CO2e (compared to untempered transport) are generated when shipments are passively temperature controlled.

The scientific basis for the calculations was, on the one hand, the GLEC framework (Module 5), a globally recognized method for emissions reporting that covers all modes of transport and handling points in global logistics chains. On the other hand, the results of the distance-based calculations according to the GLEC standard were checked for plausibility using the EcoTransIT calculator. “The EcoTransIT calculator, developed in close collaboration with neutral institutions such as ifeu, INFRAS, or Fraunhofer IML, confirmed the GLEC results,” explains Albeck. “For example, in the case of untempered transports, GLEC calculated 47.63 kg CO2e per ton and EcoTransIT calculated 47.33.”

For the calculation of emissions at the package level, trans-o-flex used current average weights of packages transported by trans-o-flex. Accordingly, an 11-kilogram package with active temperature control (in reusable packaging) is responsible for 656 g CO2e between Munich and Berlin. However, if a package is transported on the same route with passive packaging (single-use system without Styrofoam box), 2,579 g CO2e are generated per package. Even when a reusable system is used for passive temperature control, 1,723 g CO2e per package are still incurred. “In addition to the 2 to 4 times higher climate impact, passive temperature control also creates additional effort in disposing of temperature loggers, handling cooling packs, and their storage,” says Albeck.

Albeck also considers the varying levels of safety associated with the different transport methods to be equally important. “According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Parenteral Drug Association, nearly one in five health products is damaged during transport due to a disruption of the cold chain.” And this happens especially when the “risk-based approach (= without temperature control) or passive temperature control in pharmaceutical transport” is used. “The risks of these transport methods have always existed, but they have become unpredictable, especially in light of increasing weather volatility and more frequent transport delays due to traffic jams.”

Photo: © trans-o-flex