Facility Size Drives Antibody Manufacturing Energy Use
A modeling study finds facility infrastructure accounts for most energy demand in antibody production, with continuous processing showing lower energy intensity.
Updated on Nov. 4, 2026 in Energy
A new modeling study published in New Biotechnology found that approximately 85% of energy demand in antibody manufacturing came from facility infrastructure. Continuous processing in a smaller facility footprint showed lower energy intensity than fed-batch processing.
Why it matters
The researchers concluded that at equivalent output, facility footprint is the main determinant of energy intensity rather than process choice alone. This points to infrastructure design as a key lever for reducing the energy burden of biologics production.
The study is a modeling analysis, with continuous manufacturing requiring 13,239 kWh per kilogram of antibody compared with 17,017 kWh/kg for single-use fed-batch and 19,120 kWh/kg for stainless-steel fed-batch. Real-world energy performance has not yet been verified, and the modeled results await lifecycle assessment and test-bed confirmation.
The players
New Biotechnology
An academic journal that published the modeling study comparing energy and resource use across antibody manufacturing approaches.
The details
The researchers compared three manufacturing scenarios producing roughly 120 kg of antibody annually: stainless-steel fed-batch, single-use fed-batch using 2,000-L bioreactors, and end-to-end single-use continuous processing using a 500-L bioreactor. The continuous system's modeled facility occupied 12,387 cubic meters, and its efficiency gains came from a 50% increase in antibody titer, two flow-through polishing steps, fivefold concentrated medium, and reuse of media and buffer bags.
The Big Picture
The study uses BioSolve Process, a modeling platform that quantifies resource and emissions use across biologics facilities, to test how facility footprint shapes energy intensity. Its finding that infrastructure dominates energy demand extends prior assumptions about where efficiency gains in antibody production are most available.
If the modeled efficiency gains hold in practice, lower energy intensity in biologics production could reduce operating costs for facilities making antibody medicines. Confirmation through lifecycle assessment and test-bed data is still needed before these gains can be expected in real facilities.
The takeaway
Facility design, not only manufacturing method, can be a major lever for cutting the energy footprint of biologics production. Organizations evaluating new plants may weigh infrastructure choices as heavily as process choices.
Further reading
For related reporting on how facility design shapes energy use, explore the Energy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.
