+353-1-416-8900REST OF WORLD
+44-20-3973-8888REST OF WORLD
1-917-300-0470EAST COAST U.S
1-800-526-8630U.S. (TOLL FREE)

Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market by Type of Container Closure Systems, Type of Container Materials Tested, and Key Geographical Regions: Industry Trends and Global Forecasts, 2022-2035

  • PDF Icon

    Report

  • 212 Pages
  • January 2022
  • Region: Global
  • Roots Analysis
  • ID: 5557626
Packaging is considered a critical aspect of pharmaceutical manufacturing. It is, therefore, imperative for drug manufacturers to ensure that formulations enclosed in primary containers are safe for consumption / administration. Despite being well established, there are several concerns associated with the drug packaging process, such as the risk of contamination, filling errors (inaccurate dose dispensation), complex packaging systems, integrity related concerns (pores, cracks and scratches) of container closure systems (such as vials, syringes, cartridges, IV bags, ampoules), and labelling-related issues. In fact, experts believe that around 80% of product recalls may be attributed to packaging-related concerns. To ensure the safety of consumers, a lot of effort is put to eliminate contamination, filling errors and maintain integrity of packaged formulations. The industry has come up with several innovative techniques and technologies for the evaluation of both primary and secondary packaging components in order to maintain the sterility and stability of drug product. Moreover, regulatory bodies have enforced stringent guidelines to evaluate the integrity of container closure systems. As a result, container closure integrity testing has become a critical part of the overall manufacturing process. The techniques used for this purpose ensure precision and accuracy in leak detection, rapid results, non-destructive testing, affordable, reliable and easy integration in the manufacturing process. 

Despite the benefits of container closure integrity testing methods, there is no one-size -fits-all solution to evaluate all the types of primary packaging. Additionally, the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies face various challenges in installing container closure integrity testing equipment due to limited expertise and infrastructure. Owing to these challenges, the drug manufacturers rely on container closure integrity testing service providers, which have well-equipped infrastructure and novel technology platforms, along with the required expertise. Moreover, outsourcing of container closure integrity testing assists the innovators to serve the clients in a timely and regulation-compliant manner. With the anticipated rise in the drug product market, the demand for packaging services is likely to increase in the future; this, in turn, will likely result in rise in demand for integrity testing services. Further advancements in testing methods and cost saving potential of such methods (by reducing the product wastage and ensuring the drug and patients safety) are expected to drive steady growth in the overall container closure integrity testing services market in the foreseen future.


Scope of the Report



The “Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market by Type(s) of Container(s) Tested (Vials, Syringes, and Cartridges), Type(s) of Container Material(s) Tested (Glass and Plastic), and Key Geographical Regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, MENA and Rest of the World): Industry Trends and Global Forecasts, 2022-2035” report features an extensive study of the current landscape and the likely future potential of container closure integrity testing service providers, over the next decade. The study also features an in-depth analysis, highlighting the capabilities of various industry stakeholders engaged in this field. 


In addition to other elements, the study includes:


  • A detailed assessment of the current market landscape of container closure integrity testing service providers, featuring information on their respective year of establishment, company size, location of headquarters, location of analytical facilities, type(s) of analytical method(s) offered (probabilistic methods and deterministic methods), type(s) of probabilistic method(s) (microbial ingress analysis, aerosol testing, dye ingress analysis, bubble testing, and tracer gas detection (sniffle mode)), type(s) of deterministic method(s) offered (helium leak analysis, vacuum / pressure decay analysis, mass extraction analysis, high voltage leak detection, headspace analysis, and others), leakage susceptibility (solid, liquid, and gas), type(s) of container(s) tested (vials, syringes, cartridges, pouches, IV bags, ampoules, and others) and accreditations (EMA, FDA, USP, ATSM, JP, ICH Q2, ISO, and others).
  • A competitiveness analysis of container closure integrity testing service providers based on various relevant parameters, such as supplier power (based on the experience / expertise of the service providers and company size), service strength (type(s) of analytical method(s) offered, type(s) of probabilistic method(s), type(s) of deterministic method(s), and type(s) of container(s) tested) and service applicability (type(s) of container material(s) and leakage susceptibility).
  • Tabulated profiles of the key players providing container closure integrity testing, which are headquartered in North America and Europe. Each profile includes an overview of the company, information on the financial performance (if available), service portfolio, location of analytical facilities, type(s) of analytical method(s) used, types(s) of container(s) tested, recent developments, and an informed future outlook.
  • A case study providing the list of equipment used by various manufacturers to test container closure integrity, highlighting their key features, type(s) of analytical method(s) offered, type(s) of container(s) tested, container material(s) of container closure integrity testing technologies.
  • A detailed competitiveness analysis of container closure integrity testing equipment, taking into consideration several relevant parameters, such as the product strength (scale of operation, type(s) of analytical method(s) used) and product applicability (type(s) of material(s) used, and type(s) of container(s) tested).
  • A regional capability assessment framework, which compares the container closure integrity testing capability across key geographies, based on a number of parameters, such as the number of container closure integrity testing service providers, number of analytical testing facilities, number of container closure integrity technology manufacturers in that particular geographical region, number of container closure integrity testing technologies, number of patents and demand of container closure integrity testing service in that particular geographical region.
  • A detailed analysis of the various container closure integrity testing analytical techniques. It highlights the popularity of analytical techniques (in terms of number of service providers offering analytical technique for testing purpose, equipment providers developing equipment for particular technique, number of equipment and number of container closure systems tested) and offers a benchmark to compare analytical techniques.
  • A case study on the use of robotic machinery in pharmaceutical manufacturing and fill / finish operations, highlighting the advantages of using automation / automated technologies in such processes. Further, it presents the profiles of industry players that provide such equipment for aseptic processing of pharmaceuticals.
  • An in-depth analysis to estimate the current and future demand of container closure integrity testing service based on various relevant parameters, such as type of container closure system tested and type of material used, across different regions, for the period 2022-2035.
  • A discussion on affiliated trends, key drivers and challenges, under a comprehensive SWOT framework, which are likely to impact the industry’s evolution, including a Harvey ball analysis, highlighting the relative effect of each SWOT parameter on the overall industry.
One of the key objectives of the report was to understand the primary growth drivers and estimate the future size of container closure integrity testing market. Based on multiple parameters, such as overall container closure systems market, and percentage of container closure system tested, we have provided an informed estimate of the evolution of the market for the period 2022-2035. Our year-wise projections of the current and future opportunity have further been segmented on the basis of [A] type of container (vials, syringes, and cartridges), [B] type of container materials tested (glass and plastic), and [C] key geographical regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, MENA and Rest of the World). In order to account for future uncertainties and to add robustness to our model, we have provided three forecast scenarios, namely conservative, base and optimistic scenarios, representing different tracks of the industry’s growth.

The opinions and insights presented in this study were also influenced by discussions held with senior stakeholders in the industry. The report features detailed transcript(s) of interview(s) held with the industry and non-industry players. 

All actual figures have been sourced and analyzed from publicly available information forums and primary research discussions. Financial figures mentioned in this report are in USD, unless otherwise specified.


Key Questions Answered


  • Who are the leading players offering container closure integrity testing service?
  • What is the relative competitiveness of container closure integrity testing service providers?
  • In which regions are majority of the container closure integrity testing facilities located?
  • Which type of equipment have the competitive edge over the other container closure integrity testing equipment?
  • What is the current and future demand for container closure integrity testing services?
  • How is the current and future opportunity likely to be distributed across key market segments?

Please note: This report can be updated on request. Please contact our Customer Experience team using the Ask a Question widget on our website.

Table of Contents

1. PREFACE
1.1. Overview
1.2. Scope of the Report
1.3. Research Methodology
1.4. Key Questions Answered
1.5. Chapter Outlines
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. INTRODUCTION
3.1. Chapter Overview
3.2. Primary Packaging: Container Closure Systems
3.3. Types of Container Closure Systems
3.4. Problems Related to Container Closure Systems
3.4.1. Types of Contamination
3.4.2. Defects in Container Closure Systems
3.5. Container Closure Integrity testing (CCI Testing)
3.6. Methods of Container Closure Integrity Testing
3.7. Advantages of Container Closure Integrity Testing Over Sterility Testing
3.8. Role of CCIT Service Providers
3.9. Future Perspective
4. MARKET LANDSCAPE
4.1. Chapter Overview
4.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Providers: Market Landscape
4.2.1. Analysis by Year of Establishment
4.2.2. Analysis by Company Size
4.2.3. Analysis by Location of Headquarters
4.2.4. Analysis by Company Size and Location of Headquarters
4.2.5. Analysis by Location of Analytical Facilities
4.2.6. Analysis by Type(s) of Analytical Method(s) Offered
4.2.6.1. Analysis by Type(s) of Probabilistic Method(s) Offered
4.2.6.2. Analysis by Type(s) of Deterministic Method(s) Offered
4.2.7. Analysis by Leakage Susceptibility
4.2.8. Analysis by Type(s) of Container(s) Tested
4.2.9. Analysis by Type(s) of Container Material(s) Tested
4.2.10. Analysis by Accreditation(s) Received
5. COMPANY COMPETITIVENESS ANALYSIS
5.1. Chapter Overview
5.2. Methodology
5.3. Key Parameters
5.4. Competitiveness Analysis: Companies Offering Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in North America
5.5. Competitiveness Analysis: Companies Offering Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in Europe and Asia-Pacific
5.6. Competitiveness Analysis: Companies Offering Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in One Analytical Facility
5.7. Competitiveness Analysis: Companies Offering Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in More than Analytical Facility
6. CONTAINER CLOSURE INTEGRITY TESTING SERVICE PROVIDERS IN NORTH AMERICA: COMPANY PROFILES
6.1. Chapter Overview
6.2. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing
6.2.1. Company Overview
6.2.2. Financial Information
6.2.3. Service Portfolio
6.2.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
6.3. Curia
6.3.1. Company Overview
6.3.2. Financial Information
6.3.3. Service Portfolio
6.3.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
6.4. DDL
6.4.1. Company Overview
6.4.2. Financial Information
6.4.3. Service Portfolio
6.4.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
6.5. Nelson Labs
6.5.1. Company Overview
6.5.2. Financial Information
6.5.3. Service Portfolio
6.5.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
7. CONTAINER CLOSURE INTEGRITY TESTING SERVICE PROVIDERS IN EUROPE: COMPANY PROFILES
7.1. Chapter Overview
7.2. Confarma
7.2.1. Company Overview
7.2.2. Financial Information
7.2.3. Service Portfolio
7.2.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
7.3. Eurofins
7.3.1. Company Overview
7.3.2. Financial Information
7.3.3. Service Portfolio
7.3.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
7.4. SGS
7.4.1. Company Overview
7.4.2. Financial Information
7.4.3. Service Portfolio
7.4.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
7.5. Stevanato
7.5.1. Company Overview
7.5.2. Financial Information
7.5.3. Service Portfolio
7.5.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
7.6. Wilco
7.6.1. Company Overview
7.6.2. Financial Information
7.6.3. Service Portfolio
7.6.4. Recent Developments and Future Outlook
8. CASE STUDY: MARKET LANDSCAPE OF CONTAINER CLOSURE INTEGRITY TESTING EQUIPMENT PROVIDERS
8.1. Chapter Overview
8.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment: Market Landscape
8.2.1. Analysis by Scale of Operation
8.2.2. Analysis by Key Features
8.2.3. Analysis by Type(s) of Analytical Method(s) Offered
8.2.4. Analysis by Type(s) of Container Material(s) Tested
8.2.5. Analysis by Type(s) of Container(s) Tested
8.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Providers: Developer Landscape
8.3.1. Analysis by Year of Establishment
8.3.2. Analysis by Company Size
8.3.3. Analysis by Location of Headquarters
8.3.4. Analysis by Company Size and Location of Headquarters
8.3.5. Leading Developers: Analysis by Number of Products
9. PRODUCT COMPETITIVENESS ANALYSIS
9.1. Chapter Overview
9.2. Methodology
9.3. Assumptions / Key Parameters
9.4. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Offered by Small Players
9.5. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Offered by Mid-Sized Players
9.6. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Offered by Large Players
9.7. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Offered by Players Headquartered in North America
9.8. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Offered by Players Headquartered in Europe
9.9. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Offered by Players Headquartered in Asia-Pacific
10. REGIONAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
10.1. Chapter Overview
10.2. Assumptions and Key Parameters
10.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Capabilities in North America
10.4. Container Closure Integrity Testing Capabilities in Europe and Asia-Pacific
10.5. Concluding Remarks
11. BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS
11.1. Chapter Overview
11.2. Methodology Assumptions and Key Assumption
11.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Deterministic Methods
11.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Probabilistic Methods
11.5. Benchmarking of CCIT Techniques
11.5.1. Distribution by Type(s) of Container(s) Tested
11.5.2. Distribution by Type of Container Material Tested
11.5.3. Distribution by Key Geographical Regions
12. CASE STUDY: ROBOTICS IN PHARMACEUTICAL PACKAGING
12.1. Chapter Overview
12.2. Role of Robots in the Pharmaceutical Industry
12.2.1. Key Considerations for Selecting a Robotic System
12.2.2. Advantages of Robotic Systems
12.2.3. Disadvantages of Robotic Systems
12.3. Companies Providing Robots for Pharmaceutical Industry
12.4. Companies Providing Equipment Integrated with Robotic Systems for Pharmaceutical Packaging
12.4.1. Aseptic Technologies
12.4.1.1. Crystal® L1 Robot Line
12.4.1.2. Crystal® SL1 Robot Line
12.4.2. AST
12.4.2.1. ASEPTiCell® Series
12.4.2.2. ASEPTiCell® VSM-25
12.4.3. Bosch Packaging Technology
12.4.3.1. ATO
12.4.4. Dara Pharmaceutical Packaging
12.4.4.1. SYX-E CARTRIDGE + RABS
12.4.5. Fedegari Group
12.4.5.1. Fedegari Isolator
12.4.6. IMA
12.4.6.1. INJECTA
12.4.6.2. STERI LIF3
12.4.7. Steriline
12.4.7.1. Nest Filling Line RNFM
12.4.8. Vanrx Pharmasystems
12.4.8.1. Microcell Vial Filler
12.4.8.2. SA25 Aseptic Filling Workcell
13. DEMAND ANALYSIS
13.1. Chapter Overview
13.2. Scope and Methodology
13.3. Global Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services, 2022-2035
13.3.1. Analysis by Type of Container
13.3.1.1. Global Demand for Vials, 2022-2035
13.3.1.2. Global Demand for Syringes, 2022-2035
13.3.1.3. Global Demand for Cartridges, 2022-2035
13.3.2. Analysis by Type of Container Material
13.3.2.1. Global Demand for Glass Containers, 2022-2035
13.3.2.1.1. Global Demand for Glass Vials, 2022-2035
13.3.2.1.2. Global Demand for Glass Syringes, 2022-2035
13.3.2.1.3. Global Demand for Glass Cartridges, 2022-2035
13.3.2.2. Global Demand for Plastic Containers, 2022-2035
13.3.2.2.1. Global Demand for Plastic Vials, 2022-2035
13.3.2.2.2. Global Demand for Plastic Syringes, 2022-2035
13.3.2.2.3. Global Demand for Plastic Cartridges, 2022-2035
13.3.3. Analysis by Geography
13.3.3.1. Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in North America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.1.1. Demand for Vials in North America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.1.2. Demand for Syringes in North America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.1.3. Demand for Cartridges in North America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.2. Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in Europe, 2022-2035
13.3.3.2.1. Demand for Vials in Europe, 2022-2035
13.3.2.2. Demand for Syringes in Europe, 2022-2035
13.3.3.2.3. Demand for Cartridges in Europe, 2022-2035
13.3.3.3. Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in Asia Pacific, 2022-2035
13.3.3.3.1. Demand for Vials in Asia Pacific, 2022-2035
13.3.3.3.2. Demand for Syringes in Asia Pacific, 2022-2035
13.3.3.3.3. Demand for Cartridges in Asia Pacific, 2022-2035
13.3.3.4. Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
13.3.3.4.1. Demand for Vials in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
13.3.3.4.2. Demand for Syringes in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
13.3.3.4.3. Demand for Cartridges in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
13.3.3.5. Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in Latin America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.5.1. Demand for Vials in Latin America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.5.2. Demand for Syringes in Latin America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.5.3. Demand for Cartridges in Latin America, 2022-2035
13.3.3.6. Demand for Container Closure Integrity Testing Services in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
13.3.3.6.1. Demand for Vials in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
13.3.3.6.2. Demand for Syringes in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
13.3.3.6.3. Demand for Cartridges in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
13.4. Concluding Remarks
14. MARKET FORECAST AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS
14.1. Chapter Overview
14.2. Forecast Methodology and Key Assumptions
14.3. Global Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market, 2022-2035
14.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market, 2022-2035: Distribution by Type of Container
14.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials, 2022-2035
14.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes, 2022-2035
14.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges, 2022-2035
14.3.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market, 2022-2035: Distribution by Type of Container Material Tested
14.3.2.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Glass Containers, 2022-2035
14.3.2.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Glass Vials, 2022-2035
14.3.2.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Glass Syringes, 2022-2035
14.3.2.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Glass Cartridges, 2022-2035
14.3.2.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Plastic Containers Market, 2022-2035
14.3.2.2.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Plastic Vials, 2022-2035
14.3.2.2.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Plastic Syringes, 2022-2035
14.3.2.2.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Plastic Cartridges, 2022-2035
14.3.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market, 2022-2035: Distribution by Geography
14.3.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market in North America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials in North America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes in North America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges in North America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market in Europe, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials in Europe, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes in Europe, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges in Europe, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market in Asia-Pacific, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials in Asia-Pacific, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes in Asia-Pacific, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges in Asia-Pacific, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges in Middle East and North Africa, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market in Latin America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials in Latin America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes in Latin America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges in Latin America, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Vials in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Syringes in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
14.3.3.1.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market for Cartridges in Rest of the World, 2022-2035
15. SWOT ANALYSIS
15.1. Chapter Overview
15.2. Strengths
15.3. Weaknesses
15.4. Opportunities
15.5. Threats
15.6. Comparison of SWOT Factors
16. CONCLUSION
16.1. Chapter Overview
17. EXECUTIVE INSIGHTS18. APPENDIX 1: TABULATED DATA19. APPENDIX 2: LIST OF COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Companies Mentioned (Partial List)

A selection of companies mentioned in this report includes, but is not limited to:

  • Alcami 
  • Alfa Chemistry
  • ALPS Inspection
  • AptarGroup
  • ARL Bio Pharma
  • Aseptic Technologies
  • AST
  • Astellas Pharma
  • Advanced Test Concepts (Acquired by Pfeiffer Vacuum)
  • Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing (BSM)
  • Bonfiglioli Engineering
  • Bosch Packaging Technology (now Syntegon)
  • Confarma (a subsidiary of Solvias)
  • Coriolis Pharma
  • Corning
  • CS Analytical 
  • Curia (Formerly known as AMRI)
  • Dara Pharmaceutical Packaging
  • Datwyler
  • DDL Diagnostic Laboratory
  • Eagle Analytical
  • Eurofins Scientific
  • Fedegari 
  • Fresenius Kabi
  • Gateway Analytical
  • Gerresheimer
  • Gibraltar Laboratories
  • Groupe IDEA TESTS (Acquired by SGS)
  • IMA
  • Infinity Laboratories
  • Integrity Bio (Acquired by Curia)
  • Jubilant HollisterStier
  • Labor LS
  • Labthink
  • LakePharma (Acquired by Curia)
  • LexaMed
  • Lighthouse Instruments
  • Lonza
  • Medical Engineering Technologies
  • Metair Health & Hygiene Testing Lab (Acquired by SGS)
  • Mithra CDMO
  • Nelson Labs
  • NEUMA
  • Nikka Densok
  • Nitto Avecia Pharma Services (Formerly known as Irvine Pharmaceutical Services and Avrio Biopharmaceuticals)
  • NUVISAN 
  • OFI
  • Pace Analytical Life Sciences
  • Pacific Biolabs
  • Pfeiffer Vacuum 
  • PPD
  • Packaging Technologies & Inspection (PTI)
  • Sepha
  • SGS
  • Signify
  • Smithers
  • STEMart
  • Steriline
  • Stevanato Group
  • Syntegon
  • Tepnel Pharma Services
  • Vanrx Pharmasystems (Acquired by Cytiva)
  • VITAS AS
  • West Pharmaceutical Services
  • Wickham Laboratories
  • WILCO
  • WuXi Advanced Therapies
  • ZebraSci

Methodology

 

 

Loading
LOADING...