Environmental impacts associated with botanical extracts used in nutraceutical and substance-based medical device formulations remain insufficiently characterized due to fragmented and non-comparable life cycle inventory (LCI) data. This study develops and applies a harmonized cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to quantify the environmental impacts of selected botanical extracts using primary industrial data collected from Italian, European, and extra-European suppliers, in accordance with ISO 14040/14044 standards. Across the analyzed extracts, climate change impacts range from 2.59 kg CO2-eq per kg to 3.33 kg CO2-eq per kg, with most values clustered within a relatively narrow interval. Energy- and emission-related indicators show moderate variability across extracts, whereas land use and eutrophication impacts, particularly freshwater eutrophication, exhibit higher variability due to crop-specific agricultural characteristics. Contribution analysis reveals a consistent life-cycle structure across all extracts, with process energy consumption representing the dominant contributor to climate change impacts (67%-84%). Auxiliary materials contribute up to 14% of total impacts, while cultivation contributes from < 0.1% to approximately 9%, and transport remains marginal. Sensitivity analysis confirms that modelling assumptions have a limited influence on the results, with all variations remaining below 5% across impact categories. Product-level validation of three pharmaceutical formulations demonstrates that formulation and packaging choices may outweigh extract-level differences under a functionally equivalent dose. Overall, the study provides robust primary-data-based evidence to support eco-design and emissions accounting in nutraceutical supply chains.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Presta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: