The comparison between single-use and reusable systems remains one of the most persistent debates in life science research and biomanufacturing. While single-use technologies are widely recognized for enabling sterility and operational efficiency, reusable systems continue to offer advantages in environmental sustainability. Although no universal solution exists, understanding the trade-offs between single-use vs. reusable culture system approaches is essential in workflow development.
When considering points of improvement in the supply chain behind the consumables used in biomanufacturing and R&D laboratories, four segments are typically highlighted: Raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, and end of life. © Green Elephant Biotech.
Single-use systems (SUS) are designed for one-time application and are typically manufactured from polymeric materials, such as polystyrene or polyethylene. These systems include but are not limited to the following consumables: pipette tips, culture flasks, tubing assemblies, and microplates. Due to their ease of use and reduced cross-contamination risk, SUS have become standard across many laboratories. In clinical manufacturing, adoption is even more pronounced, with over 80% of American biopharmaceutical companies implementing some form of single-use bioreactors (1).
Reusable systems, in contrast, are constructed from durable materials like glass, stainless steel, or autoclavable polymers, enabling repeated use through validated cleaning and sterilization processes. However, these systems require infrastructure such as clean-in-place (CIP) and steam-in-place (SIP), which can account for up to 13% of annual production costs and significantly drive the capital investment upwards (2).
While case studies have demonstrated cost savings of up to GBP 6.4 million when transitioning to single-use manufacturing from stainless steel systems, the environmental implications remain a critical counterpoint. Single-use plastics contribute significantly to global waste streams, with the biopharmaceutical industry alone generating approximately 12 billion pounds of plastic waste annually (3).
This environmental burden challenges the traditional “make, use, dispose” paradigm and encourages exploration of circular economy principles, extending onto reuse strategies and adoption of biodegradable materials. Analytical tools, such as life cycle assessments (LCA), further support informed decision-making by evaluating environmental impact across the full product lifecycle. This article examines single-use and reusable systems across R&D and biomanufacturing settings, considering both operational performance and sustainability.
The “default” behind the single-use bioreactors lies in their convenience rather than scientific need
The widespread adoption of single-use bioprocessing is largely driven by operational advantages rather than inherent scientific superiority. SUS eliminate cleaning requirements, reduce validation burden, and simplify supply chain logistics — particularly in regulated environments of the GMP manufacturing.
In high-risk applications – for instance, cell and gene therapy (CGT) production, these benefits can become decisive. Single-use labware supports traceability and reproducibility, which represent the factors major for patient safety. Environmental assessments suggest that SUS can outperform reusable alternatives up to volumes of around 2,000 L, when considering metrics like water usage, metal depletion, and fossil resource consumption (4).
The ability to accelerate workflows and operate at smaller, modular scales further supports the adoption of single-use manufacturing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, single-use bioreactors enabled rapid vaccine production and flexible capacity expansion. However, scalability beyond certain volumes remains a limitation of disposable systems (5).
Traditional off-site manufacturing of SUS requires the resources to sterilize and afterwards, transport the systems, generating a significant logistics footprint over time. Furthermore, before the opportunity to improve the current methods of plastic waste disposal, as over 60% of biopharmaceutical companies currently utilize incineration and 30% – traditional landfilling, is properly addressed, reusable systems will retain a strong position in sustainability-focused decision-making (6).
Before the adaptation of single-use plastics, the equipment was designed to be continued
Reusable systems require infrastructure, standardized protocols, and trained personnel to ensure safe and effective operation. Questions around reuse cycles, validation criteria, and contamination risk must be clearly defined ahead of workflow validation. As without these controls, reusable systems can potentially introduce variability or compromise sterility.
Historically, laboratory workflows relied heavily on reusable glassware due to its chemical resistance and durability. Although cleaning processes can generate chemically contaminated wastewater, their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) — the unit used to measure the carbon footprint, has been previously found to be lower than that of single-use plastics (7).
Specifically, CO₂e was assessed for petri dishes, conical tubes, conical flasks, and Paster pipettes in common usage scenarios. Independently of the number of tubes used per week, the single-use plastic tubes generated 11.3-fold more CO₂e than the reusable glassware. Similarly, irrespective of the labware type, the reuse of both glass- and plastic-based labware consistently reduced the CO₂e. The reason for this phenomenon lies within an almost exclusively de novo production-related footprint of SUS, comprehensively lower for reusable systems (7).
Despite these findings, single-use technologies remain dominant in modern biomanufacturing. Efforts proposed throughout the industry to mitigate environmental impact include improved product design, integration of LCAs, and collaboration between manufacturers and end users to optimize material selection and usage strategies (8, 9).
Different needs will direct different consumables, but cutting plastic waste is non-negotiable
The choice between single-use and reusable systems ultimately depends on application context. In highly regulated workflows, such as CGT manufacturing and sterile cell culture, single-use continue to remain essential. In contrast, academic research and early-stage drug discovery environments may offer greater flexibility to reintegrate reusable consumables, provided that proper validation and infrastructure are in place.
Validation studies conducted by institutions of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have demonstrated that washed pipette tips can perform equivalently to new ones under controlled conditions, supporting reuse strategies in appropriate contexts (3).
Where single-use remains necessary, alternative materials and improved waste management strategies are gaining importance. Polylactic acid (PLA), a corn-based polymer, has recently emerged as a promising alternative. PLA offers biocompatibility and mechanical performance comparable to traditional plastics, while reducing production-related carbon emissions by 62–74% relative to petroleum-based thermoplastic polymers and foams (10).
Although PLA is not compatible with autoclaving, it can be mechanically and chemically recycled, providing a partial pathway toward circular material use. Experimentation with the end-of-life design continuously advances bio-based materials and their daily application, as illustrated by the emergence of second-generation materials (11). Ultimately, infrastructure capabilities and workflow requirements dictate the optimal balance between single-use and reusable systems, but this balance must be continuously reassessed in light of environmental responsibility.
The comparison between single-use vs. reusable systems is not a binary decision, but a reflection of how laboratories prioritize sterility, efficiency, and environmental impact within specific operational contexts. Single-use manufacturing enables rapid and contamination-controlled workflows, while reusable systems offer meaningful reductions in carbon emissions when supported by appropriate infrastructure.
The continued reliance on single-use bioreactors and consumables underscores their role in enabling modern therapies, but simultaneously highlights the urgency of addressing their environmental footprint — whether generated during the de novo production or disposal. For laboratories aiming to meet both performance and sustainability goals, PLA and similar biodegradable materials could provide a practical middle ground. After all, biopharmaceutical industry no longer treats sustainability as a “nice-to-have”, but rather as a requirement.
How is Green Elephant Biotech involved?
Our team recognizes the significance of planetary health for patient outcomes, which is why we treat material selection for our consumables as an extension of the workflow design process. PLA is consistently used in in the manufacturing of our products, including CellScrew® and 96-well microPLAtes, ensured to maintain sterility and performance in sensitive applications.
Discover how this principle is incorporated into our novel adherent bioreactor, Archimedes® One, on our showcase page today!
References:
- Rise of Single-Use Bioprocessing Technologies: Dominating Most R&D and Clinical Manufacture. (2020). K. John Morrow, Jr., American Pharmaceutical Review. Available https://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/Featured-Articles/561308-Rise-of-Single-Use-Bioprocessing-Technologies-Dominating-Most-R-D-and-Clinical-Manufacture/ (Accessed 13 March 2026).
- Kostenanalyse: Einweg- vs. Wiederverwendbare Bioreaktorsysteme. (2026). David Bell, Cellbase. Available https://cellbase.com/de/blogs/nachrichten/kostenanalyse-einweg-vs-wiederverwendbare-bioreaktorsysteme (Accessed 13 March 2026).
- Cutting Laboratory Plastic Waste: The Power of Reusable Consumables. (2024). My Green Lab. Available https://mygreenlab.org/the-beaker-blog/cutting-laboratory-plastic-waste-the-power-of-reusable-consumables/ (Accessed 13 March 2026).
- Comparing the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Bioreactors vs. Stainless Steel. (2025). Alicat Scientific, Inc. Available https://www.alicat.com/articles/comparing-the-environmental-impacts-of-single-use-and-stainless-steel-bioreactors/ (Accessed 16 March 2026).
- Why are Single Use Bioreactors important for the future of biopharma? (2026). TECNIC. Available https://www.tecnic.eu/why-single-use-bioreactors-the-future-of-biopharma/ (Accessed 16 March 2026).
- Single-Use Technology Waste in Manufacturing. (2024). Cristina Van Loy, Pietro Perrone, Adam Goldstein, Andrew Sinclair, Eric S. Langer, Treasa Rohrer, Katell Mignot-Moraux, Javier Lozano, International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering. Available https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/november-december-2024/single-use-technology-waste-manufacturing (Accessed 17 March 2026).
- Farley, M, Benoit PN, Re-use of laboratory utensils reduces CO2 equivalent footprint and running costs (2023), PLoS One 18: e0283697-705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283697.
- The Carbon Impact of Biotech & Pharma. (2025). My Green Lab and Intercontinental Exchange. Available https://mygreenlab.org/resources/carbon-impact-reports/ (Accessed November 2025).
- Sustainability: Biomanufacturing challenges and potential solutions. (2023). Millie Nelson, BioProcess International. Available https://www.bioprocessintl.com/global-markets/sustainability-biomanufacturing-challenges-and-potential-solutions (Accessed 17 March 2026).
- Chen, G, Li, J, Sun, Y, Wang, Z, Leeke, GA, Moretti, C, Cheng, Z, Wang, Y, Li, N, Mu, L, Li, J, Tao, J, Yan, B, Hou, L, Replacing Traditional Plastics with Biodegradable Plastics: Impact on Carbon Emissions (2024). Engineering 32: pp. 152-162. doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2023.10.002.
- Pramanik, A, Sinha, A, Chaubey, KK, Hariharan, S, Dayal, D, Bachheti, RK, Bachheti, A, Chandel, AK, Second-Generation Bio-Fuels: Strategies for Employing Degraded Land for Climate Change Mitigation Meeting United Nation-Sustainable Development Goals (2023). Sustainability 15: pp. 7578-95. doi: 10.3390/su15097578.
