Key Takeaways
Single-use biomanufacturing economics increasingly depend on utilization, process productivity, and annual output rather than bioreactor volume alone.
Larger single-use bioreactors and process intensification have expanded the range of commercial manufacturing strategies available beyond traditional scale-up in stainless steel.
High utilization can strengthen the economic case for permanent equipment when recurring single-use consumable costs accumulate across frequent campaigns.
Supply resilience, including safety stocks, warehousing, second-source qualification, supplier management, and component standardization, has become an important component of total single-use manufacturing economics.
Updated carbon accounting, cleaner electricity grids, and growing sustainability expectations are complicating historical comparisons between single-use and stainless-steel manufacturing.
The Economics of Single Use Are Getting Less Simple
Single-use technologies (SUT) changed biomanufacturing economics by altering both the amount and timing of investment required to create manufacturing capacity. Replacing portions of permanent process infrastructure with disposable equipment and assemblies could reduce or defer spending on fixed vessels, cleaning and sterilization systems, and associated utilities. That proposition was especially compelling when product demand was uncertain, production volumes were modest, or facilities needed to accommodate multiple products.1,2
Those advantages remain relevant, but SUT now operate in a different manufacturing environment. Single-use bioreactors have moved into larger commercial configurations, process intensification is changing the relationship between vessel volume and productive capacity, and increasingly productive upstream processes can shift capacity constraints downstream. At the same time, recurring consumables, supply continuity, inventory, and qualification requirements have become more visible components of the operating model. Sustainability calculations are evolving as newer assessments reconsider both the carbon burden of disposable components and the environmental costs associated with operating permanent equipment.3–5
The original appeal of SUT rested partly on shifting costs away from permanent infrastructure and toward equipment consumed as production occurs. That shift can be economically attractive when utilization is low or uncertain because manufacturers avoid committing capital to equipment that may operate below capacity. As utilization increases, permanent infrastructure can be used repeatedly while disposable assemblies must be purchased for every campaign.
Earlier environmental analyses reinforced the economic case. Electricity consumption, water purification, steam generation, cleaning, and sterilization could contribute substantially to the life-cycle impacts of conventional facilities, allowing single-use processes to perform favorably even after accounting for plastic production and disposal.6,7
The calculation is now less amenable to broad rules. Nominal reactor volume, equipment purchase price, or a simple capital expenditure versus operating expenditure comparison cannot capture the economics of a manufacturing system in which scale, productivity, utilization, supply resilience, and environmental conditions all affect the result.
Single Use Has Entered a New Scale Regime
Limited scale was once an explicit constraint on wider adoption of SUT. Earlier reviews identified equipment size alongside standardization and performance limitations as challenges that restricted the range of applications suitable for disposable technologies.8 In 2025, a commercial process performance qualification (PPQ) campaign using three 5,000-L single-use bioreactors demonstrated how far that constraint has moved.3
The significance extends beyond technical feasibility. Larger single-use equipment expands the number of ways manufacturers can create commercial capacity. Higher output can come from larger vessels, multiple parallel trains, more intensive operation, or combinations of these approaches rather than automatically requiring a transition to large stainless-steel reactors.
The economics do not remain constant as output rises. One model comparing single-use continuous, single-use batch, and stainless-steel batch facilities found substantial cost-of-goods (COG) advantages for the single-use continuous configuration at annual demands of 100–500 kg, while the difference narrowed considerably at demands of 1–3 metric tons that required multiple parallel continuous trains.9 Those results reflect the assumptions of a specific model rather than an industry-wide crossover threshold, but they demonstrate why the economic case cannot be extrapolated indefinitely from smaller-scale manufacturing.
As annual output increases, the costs associated with parallel equipment, consumables, downstream capacity, and repeated operations can become more important relative to the fixed infrastructure avoided through disposability. Larger single-use vessels can reduce the number of parallel trains required for a given output, but they do not eliminate those pressures.
Commercial-scale SUT therefore widen the available design space rather than settle the single-use versus stainless-steel question. The more useful comparison is between alternative ways of delivering a required amount of product and the full infrastructure, operating, and supply requirements associated with each.
Capacity Is Increasingly About Output, Not Liters
Changes in process productivity further weaken vessel volume as a proxy for manufacturing capacity. A 2,000-L bioreactor operating an intensified process can generate very different output from a vessel of the same size operating a less productive process. Contemporary economic analysis consequently distinguishes among scale-up, in which equipment becomes larger; scale-out, in which parallel capacity is added; and scale-by-time, in which equipment generates additional output through longer or more intensive productive operation.10
This distinction can preserve some of the historical economic advantages of SUT. If more product can be generated from a given amount of installed equipment, manufacturers may be able to increase capacity without proportionately expanding facility footprint or making the capital commitments associated with larger fixed equipment. Modeling of an integrated continuous monoclonal antibody (mAb) process incorporating SUT found that increasing bioreactor scale and upstream titer reduced operating COG per unit of product.4
Greater upstream productivity can also move the capacity constraint rather than remove it. In the same analysis, higher upstream output caused chromatography operations to become bottlenecks, with the limiting operation depending on utilization throughout the downstream process.4 More productive bioreactors can therefore create greater demands for clarification, buffers, filtration, chromatography, and other downstream resources.
Buffer preparation provides a concrete illustration of how operating strategy affects those demands. A 2024 analysis examined a 6,000-L process operated three times annually and a 2,000-L process operated nine times to generate equivalent annual antibody output. When the model instead assumed three 2,000-L reactors operated three times each, buffer-preparation costs were nearly equivalent to the 6,000-L configuration. The higher costs associated with nine preparations reflected additional chemical losses, single-use bags and other consumables, and quality-control activity.11
The comparison shows why two processes with similar annual output can impose different economic burdens depending on how that output is achieved. Increasing the number of campaigns changes consumable use, labor activity, quality oversight, and material losses even when annual product demand remains constant.
Effective capacity is therefore a property of the complete process and operating schedule. Optimizing the bioreactor alone may produce an efficient upstream operation while creating expensive undercapacity elsewhere.
The Capital Advantage Creates a Recurring-Consumables Economy
The economic importance of SUT lies partly in how they change the structure and timing of manufacturing expenditure.
Permanent tanks, piping, and supporting infrastructure generally require substantial capital before production begins, but that equipment can then be reused across campaigns. Single-use processes replace part of that fixed infrastructure with bags, tubing sets, connectors, filters, mixing assemblies, and other components purchased repeatedly as manufacturing occurs. This can reduce or defer capital investment, but it creates a recurring expenditure that scales with activity.10,12
Utilization determines how those two cost structures interact. A permanent system used infrequently may represent stranded or underused capital. The same equipment used continuously spreads its annualized cost across more product. Disposable equipment follows a different pattern: manufacturers avoid much of the initial fixed commitment, but each additional campaign requires another set of components.
The buffer-preparation study provides a particularly clear example. Its model incorporated raw materials, single-use consumables, labor, warehousing, shipping, quality control, footprint, maintenance, and capital depreciation where new equipment was added.11 When the analysis introduced an automated in-line dilution system, annualized capital and maintenance costs remained comparatively fixed while consumable use increased with preparation frequency. Under the modeled 6,000-L conditions, the investment reached break-even only above approximately 10 preparations annually.11
That threshold applies only to the operation and assumptions evaluated, but the mechanism is broadly instructive. Low or uncertain utilization increases the economic value of avoiding fixed infrastructure. High, predictable utilization strengthens the case for replacing recurring consumable expenditure with equipment whose cost can be distributed across repeated use.
Scale can also change which expenses matter most. In the same buffer analysis, labor and consumables represented a larger proportional opportunity for savings at smaller scale, while chemical raw materials accounted for more of total cost as processing volume increased because labor did not rise proportionately.11 Ready-to-use buffers could therefore offer greater value in smaller processes, where avoiding labor and preparation activities mattered more relative to material cost, while different combinations became more attractive as volume increased.
An economically successful clinical manufacturing strategy therefore cannot simply be carried forward unchanged into commercial production. The process may remain technically suitable while the balance among fixed infrastructure, recurring components, labor, materials, and utilization shifts around it.
Supply Security Has Become Part of the Cost Equation
A manufacturing model built around recurring consumables also depends on recurring access to those consumables. Single-use supply chains can involve customized assemblies, shared raw-material dependencies, qualification requirements, and components that cannot be substituted freely once incorporated into a regulated process. Multiple nominal suppliers may still depend on common upstream polymers or other materials, leaving vulnerabilities that are not apparent from supplier count alone.12
The COVID-19 period demonstrated that these dependencies can become operational constraints. Manufacturers experienced shortages and longer lead times for high-purity polymers and other materials used in single-use systems, prompting greater use of backup suppliers and larger inventories of critical components.13 Those conditions should not be treated as representative of the current market, but they revealed a structural issue: disposable manufacturing transfers some facility dependency from installed equipment to an external supply network.
Building resilience into that network carries costs of its own. Second-source qualification consumes technical and quality resources. Safety stocks require warehouse space and working capital. Customized assemblies can complicate forecasting, while supplier or material changes may require assessment before replacements can be adopted.
The economics of resilience can therefore partially offset the lean infrastructure proposition associated with SUT. A process may avoid a permanent tank yet require additional inventory, warehouse capacity, qualification work, and supplier management to ensure that its disposable alternative is consistently available.
The buffer analysis incorporated warehouse costs and assumed a 10% safety-stock margin for raw materials and consumables. Different supply strategies produced substantially different pallet requirements, particularly as scale increased, shifting cost among materials, logistics, storage, and footprint.11 At the modeled 6,000-L scale, ready-to-use buffers required nearly twice as many pallets as the made-in-house approach, while concentrated buffers could substantially reduce warehouse requirements.
Current implementation guidance continues to incorporate supply chain considerations into the specification and qualification of single-use systems, underscoring that security of supply remains part of SUT planning even after the acute pandemic disruptions have receded.14
Greater standardization may address more than sourcing risk. Harmonizing elements such as connectors, tubing dimensions, films, and assembly designs can improve supply chain efficiency while also simplifying post-use sorting and potentially increasing the feasibility of recycling.15
The relevant economic question is broader than the price of a bag, filter, or assembly. It includes the resources required to ensure that critical components are available, qualified, and usable when production depends on them.
Sustainability Economics Are Changing Because the Baseline Is Changing
The importance of comparing environmental performance is increasing as sustainability reporting and disclosure expectations place greater emphasis on emissions, resource consumption, waste streams, and circularity.15 For single-use manufacturing, those expectations intensify scrutiny of an environmental tradeoff that has never been as simple as the visible volume of discarded plastic might suggest.
Disposable manufacturing creates a recurring stream of plastic waste, while reusable equipment requires water, energy, cleaning agents, steam, and supporting utilities over repeated cycles. Earlier life cycle assessments found that use-phase requirements could dominate the comparison. Electricity consumption, water purification, steam generation, cleaning, sterilization, and equipment operation created substantial environmental burdens, while end-of-life treatment of disposable plastics represented a relatively small portion of total modeled impacts. Under those conditions, single-use process trains could perform favorably despite generating more solid waste.6,7
A 2022 assessment of a 2,000-L single-use process reinforced part of that picture. Plant electricity was the largest contributor to life-cycle environmental impact, while the end-of-life contribution associated with disposable plastics remained comparatively small.16
More recent analysis changes both sides of the comparison. A 2026 bottom-up assessment based on physical analysis of SUT components produced higher carbon estimates for disposable materials than earlier studies had assumed and identified items including filters and bags as important emissions hotspots. At the same time, grid decarbonization reduced the carbon burden associated with electricity-consuming operations used in conventional facilities. Under the conditions examined, some stainless-steel process steps consequently produced lower carbon footprints than corresponding disposable operations.5
The environmental baseline for stainless-steel manufacturing is changing alongside advances in SUT. Part of the historical environmental advantage of disposables depended on avoiding utilities whose electricity and steam carried relatively high carbon burdens. As those utilities become less carbon intensive, avoiding them provides less carbon benefit, while the embodied impact of disposable components remains.
Comparisons among life cycle assessments also require caution because their conclusions depend partly on local and methodological assumptions. Electricity and water supply, logistics, component-manufacturing locations, end-user operations, and waste-treatment pathways can all affect results, while some of the site-specific information used in SUT assessments has not been independently validated or fully disclosed. These limitations can reduce reproducibility and make results from one facility or geography difficult to transfer directly to another.15
Individual sustainability metrics can create similar blind spots. Process mass intensity captures material inputs but does not account for important facility energy requirements, meaning that reductions in material consumption do not necessarily produce proportional reductions in carbon emissions. Evaluating SUT therefore requires both material- and energy-based measures rather than allowing any single indicator to stand in for overall environmental performance.15
End-of-life management presents another systems-level challenge. Mechanical and chemical recycling routes are developing for some materials, but heterogeneous assemblies, fragmented waste streams, regulatory requirements, logistics, and economic viability can constrain broader circularity. Used SUT can also require temporary storage and handling before treatment or recycling, creating additional logistical and facility-space requirements. Improving end-of-life performance may therefore require changes in materials and equipment design alongside investment in collection, sorting, treatment, and recycling infrastructure.15
Economic and environmental objectives may also diverge. Modeling of commercial-scale batch and continuous cultivation using single-use and multi-use equipment found that the configuration with the lowest operating cost differed from the one with the lowest modeled environmental impact.17 A manufacturer optimizing COG cannot therefore assume that the same decision also minimizes carbon, water use, plastic consumption, or other environmental impacts.
Sustainability has become another variable in facility optimization, and its value depends partly on geography and time. Electricity generation, water availability, waste-management infrastructure, and disposal pathways can all change the comparison between two otherwise identical manufacturing configurations.
Optimizing at the Unit-Operation Level
Once costs are evaluated across individual operations rather than only at the facility level, the choice between single use and stainless steel becomes less binary. Different parts of a process experience different combinations of utilization, consumable intensity, cleaning burden, supply exposure, processing time, and capital requirements.
Analysis of antibody capture operations, for example, has shown that disposable and reusable alternatives can produce different preferred solutions depending on whether the objective is COG, processing time, or buffer utilization.18 Related work on process intensification has likewise found that complete end-to-end conversion to continuous manufacturing is not inherently necessary and that continuous technologies can instead be introduced selectively where their advantages justify the additional complexity.19 Continuous processing and SUT are distinct technology choices, but the underlying facility-design principle is similar: optimization can occur operation by operation rather than through wholesale adoption of one platform.
The environmental evidence points in the same direction. An optimized hybrid configuration combining single-use and stainless-steel technologies reduced plastic waste and associated emissions in the 2026 carbon analysis, while sustainability-by-design approaches likewise consider hybrid manufacturing as one route to balancing resource use and process performance.5,15
Hybridization can also occur within individual support operations. Different combinations of made-in-house, concentrated, and ready-to-use buffers produced different balances among material costs, labor, warehouse requirements, and footprint in the 2024 buffer analysis.11 No single strategy minimized every burden simultaneously.
The practical question becomes where disposability earns its recurring cost. Operations characterized by uncertain utilization, frequent product changeovers, substantial cleaning burdens, or a high value placed on flexibility may continue to favor single use. Highly utilized, predictable operations may justify permanent infrastructure when repeated reuse offsets the initial investment and reduces ongoing consumable demand.
What Changes the Economic Answer?
The economic optimum can be understood by grouping the major variables according to the decisions they influence.
Required output, demand certainty, and process productivity determine how much capacity a facility needs. Higher titers or intensified operation may reduce the amount of installed reactor volume required, while uncertain demand increases the risk of committing to fixed capacity too early.9,10
Utilization and campaign frequency determine how that capacity should be supplied. Repeated operation spreads fixed capital across more product but also causes disposable component consumption to accumulate. A configuration that performs well at three campaigns per year may look different at ten or twenty because the balance between annualized investment and recurring expenditure changes.11
Process-train balance determines whether increased productivity actually translates into useful capacity. Upstream intensification can transfer the bottleneck to chromatography, filtration, buffer preparation, or another downstream operation if supporting capacity is not expanded accordingly.4
The remaining variables determine the value attached to flexibility. Multiproduct facilities, uncertain pipelines, frequent changeovers, and evolving demand increase the benefit of avoiding permanent infrastructure. Stable, predictable commercial production reduces some of that premium. Supply resilience, local utility costs, warehouse requirements, electricity carbon intensity, water availability, and waste-management options can then shift the answer further in either direction.5,12,16
Environmental performance is easier to influence before equipment and facility choices are fixed. Incorporating life cycle assessment and quantitative sustainability metrics during process development allows carbon, water, material use, and end-of-life considerations to enter the same technology-selection decisions as capacity, cost, and flexibility.15
No single variable determines whether SUT are economically preferable. Their value emerges from how these conditions interact within a particular manufacturing system.
From Adoption to Optimization
Single-use technologies have progressed well beyond the smaller-scale applications that once defined their role. A commercial PPQ campaign using 5,000-L single-use bioreactors demonstrates that disposability can now participate in manufacturing configurations that earlier generations of SUT could not support.3
At larger scale and higher utilization, the underlying cost structure becomes more exposed. Recurring consumable expenditure grows more consequential. Process intensification changes the relationship between installed volume and output. Supply resilience introduces inventory, qualification, and sourcing costs. Cleaner electricity and more detailed carbon accounting are changing environmental comparisons. Meanwhile, individual operations can reach different economic optima within the same facility.
The next phase of single-use biomanufacturing will increasingly center on deciding where disposability creates sufficient value to justify its recurring burdens. SUT can remain particularly powerful where flexibility, infrastructure avoidance, rapid reconfiguration, or uncertain demand matter most. Permanent equipment can become more attractive where utilization is high, production is predictable, and recurring consumables provide less incremental value.
As single-use manufacturing moves from adoption toward optimization, the central economic question becomes increasingly precise: not how much of a facility can be made disposable, but where single use earns its place.
References
1. Jacquemart, Renaud, et al. “A Single-use Strategy to Enable Manufacturing of Affordable Biologics.” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 14: 309–318 (2016).
2. Yang, Ou, Maen Qadan, and Marianthi Ierapetritou. “Economic Analysis of Batch and Continuous Biopharmaceutical Antibody Production: A Review.” Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation. 14: 1–19 (2019).
3. “WuXi Biologics Completes First Commercial PPQ Campaign at 15,000L Production Line in Hangzhou Site.” WuXi Biologics. 17 Apr. 2025.
4. Ding, Chaoying, et al. “Process Design of a Fully Integrated Continuous Biopharmaceutical Process Using Economic and Ecological Impact Assessment.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 119: 3567–3583 (2022).
5. Reiners, Jan, et al. “Revisiting the Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Technologies in Biomanufacturing: A Bottom-Up Analysis Reveals a Paradigm Shift.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 5 Jul. 2026.
6. Pietrzykowski, Matthew, et al. “An Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Comparison of Single-Use and Conventional Process Technology for the Production of Monoclonal Antibodies.” Journal of Cleaner Production. 41: 150–162 (2013).
7. Flanagan, William, et al. “An Environmental Lifecycle Assessment of Single-Use and Conventional Process Technology: Comprehensive Environmental Impacts.” BioPharm International. 27: 40–46 (2014).
8. Shukla, Abhinav A, and Uwe Gottschalk. “Single-use Disposable Technologies for Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing.” Trends in Biotechnology. 31: 147–154 (2013).
9. Mahal, Hanna, Harvey Branton, and Suzanne S Farid. “End-to-End Continuous Bioprocessing: Impact on Facility Design, Cost of Goods, and Cost of Development for Monoclonal Antibodies.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 118: 3468–3485 (2021).
10. Chen, Chun, et al. “Cost and Supply Considerations for Antibody Therapeutics.” mAbs. 17: 2451789 (2025).
11. Ito, Takao, et al. “Economic Analysis of Buffer Preparation Strategy for Single-Use Bioprocessing of Monoclonal Antibodies.” EFB Bioeconomy Journal. 4: 100065 (2024).
12. Markarian, Jennifer. “Supply Chain Challenges for Single-Use Systems.” BioPharm International. 32: 16–20 (2019).
13. Rader, Ronald A, and Eric S Langer. “Biomanufacturing Capacity and Supplies: COVID’s Impact.” DCAT Value Chain Insights. 8 Dec. 2020.
14. “Updated Single-Use User Requirements (SUUR) Toolkit Published by BioPhorum & BPSA.” Bio-Process Systems Alliance. 1 Apr. 2026.
15. Ottinger, Melanie, et al. “Single-use Technologies and Sustainability by Design in Biopharma Production.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 12 Aug. 2026.
16. Budzinski, Kristi, et al. “Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of Single Use Technologies in Biopharmaceutical Manufacture.” New Biotechnology. 68: 28–36 (2022).
17. Amasawa, Eri, et al. “Cost–Benefit Analysis of Monoclonal Antibody Cultivation Scenarios in Terms of Life Cycle Environmental Impact and Operating Cost.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 9: 14012–14021 (2021).
18. Romero, Juan J, et al. “Computational Framework for the Techno-Economic Analysis of Monoclonal Antibody Capture Chromatography Platforms.” Journal of Chromatography A. 1689: 463755 (2023).
19. Rathore, Anurag S, Subhankar Metya, and Nitika Nitika. “Do We Really Need End-To-End Continuous Processing for Biomanufacturing of Monoclonal Antibodies?” Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 123: 792–800 (2026).
