Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market by Type of Container Closure Systems (Vials, Syringes and Cartridges), Type of Container Materials Tested (Glass and Plastic), and Key Geographical Regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, MENA, Latin America and Rest of the World): Industry Trends and Global Forecasts, 2022-2035

  • Lowest Price Guaranteed From USD 5,899

  • Published
    January 2022

  • Pages
    212

  • View Count
    2314

Example Insights

Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Context Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Testing-Service-Providers Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Year-of-Establishment Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Analytical-Facilities
Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Competitiveness-Analysis Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Testing-Equipment Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Peer-Group Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Web-Analysis
Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Demand-Analysis Container-Closure-Integrity-Testing-Services-Market-Container-Closure    

 

Overview

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?

Contents

Chapter Outlines

Chapter 2 is an executive summary of the key insights captured in our research. It offers a high-level view on the current state of the container closure integrity testing services market and its likely evolution in the short to mid-term and long term.

Chapter 3 provides a general introduction to container closure integrity testing, covering details related to the current trends in the domain. The chapter also highlights the primary packaging, type of container closure systems, problems related to these systems, type of contaminations, defects in container closure systems, type of methods used for testing integrity. In addition, it discusses the advantages of container closure integrity over sterility testing, role of service providers and future prospects.

Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive review 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 and location of analytical facilities. In addition, the chapter includes details related to container closure integrity testing services, along with information on 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) (helium leak analysis, vacuum / pressure decay analysis, mass extraction analysis, high voltage leak detection, headspace analysis, and others), leak susceptibility (solid, liquid, and gas), type(s) of container(s) tested (vials, syringes, cartridges, pouches, IV bags, ampoules, and others), accreditation(s) (EMA, FDA, USP, ATSM, JP, ICH Q2, ISO, and others). 

Chapter 5 provides 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).

Chapter 6 features tabulated profiles of the key players providing container closure integrity testing services, which are headquartered in North America. Each profile includes an overview of the company, information on the financial performance (if available), service portfolio, location of analytical facilities, type of methods used, types(s) of container(s) tested, recent developments, and an informed future outlook.

Chapter 7 features tabulated profiles of the key players providing container closure integrity testing, which are headquartered in Europe. Each profile includes an overview of the company, information on the financial performance (if available), service portfolio, location of analytical facilities, type of methods used, types(s) of container(s) tested, recent developments, and an informed future outlook.

Chapter 8 provides a detailed case study on list of equipment offered by various manufacturers to test container closure integrity, highlighting the key features, type(s) of method(s) offered, type of container(s) tested, container material(s) of container closure integrity testing technologies.

Chapter 9 provides a detailed competitiveness analysis of container closure integrity testing equipment, taking into consideration several relevant parameters, such as the product strength (scale of operation, and type(s) of method(s) used) and product applicability (type(s) of material(s) used, and type(s) of container(s) tested).

Chapter 10 presents 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.

Chapter 11 presents a detailed analysis of the various container closure integrity testing analytical techniques. It highlights the popularity of analytical techniques across key geographies, based on a number of parameters, such as the number of service providers offering analytical technique for testing purpose, equipment providers developing equipment for particular technique, number of equipment, number of container closure systems tested and offers a benchmark to compare analytical techniques.

Chapter 12 presents a detailed case study on the role of robots in the pharmaceutical manufacturing and fill / finish process, highlighting its benefits and capabilities. It provides a list of the various types of pharmaceutical robots, along with details on their respective manufacturer and applications. Additionally, the chapter features profiles of players that offer robotic equipment for pharmaceutical manufacturing and fill / finish operations, along with information on the key specifications of their respective machinery.  

Chapter 13 features an 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.

Chapter 14 features a comprehensive market forecast analysis, highlighting the future potential of the market till 2035, based on multiple parameters, such as current demand for respective container closure systems, percentage of container closure systems tested. It includes future sales projections of various container closure systems. We have segregated the current and future opportunity have further been segmented on the basis of [A] type(s) of container(s) (vials, syringes, and cartridges), [B] type(s) of container material(s) tested (glass and plastic), and [C] key geographical regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, MENA and Rest of the World). It is worth mentioning that we adopted a top-down approach for this analysis, backing our claims with relevant datapoints and credible inputs from primary research.

Chapter 15 provides a detailed analysis capturing the key parameters and trends that are likely to influence the future of the container closure integrity testing market within the biopharmaceutical industry, under a comprehensive SWOT framework.

Chapter 16 summarizes the overall report. In this chapter, we have provided a list of key takeaways from the report, and expressed our independent opinion related to the research and analysis described in the previous chapters.

Chapter 17 is a collection of interview transcripts of discussions held with various key stakeholders in this market. 

Chapter 18 is an appendix, which provides tabulated data and numbers for all the figures provided in the report.

Chapter 19 is an appendix, which contains the list of companies and organizations mentioned in the report.

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 INSIGHTS

18. APPENDIX 1: TABULATED DATA

19. APPENDIX 2: LIST OF COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

List Of Figures

Figure 3.1. Overview
Figure 3.2. Type of Container Closure System
Figure 3.3. Types of Contaminations
Figure 3.4. Defects related to Container Closure Systems
Figure 3.5. History of Container Closure Integrity Testing
Figure 3.6. Method of Container Closure Integrity Testing (CCI Testing)
Figure 3.7. Advantages of Container Closure Integrity Testing Over Sterility Testing
Figure 3.8. Need for CCIT Service Providers
Figure 3.9. Conclusion
Figure 4.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Distribution by Type(s) of Analytical Testing Method(s)
Figure 4.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Distribution by Type of Container Material
Figure 4.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Distribution by Leakage Susceptibility
Figure 4.4. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Distribution by Type of Container(s) Tested
Figure 4.5. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Distribution by Accreditations
Figure 4.6. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Distribution by Year of Establishment
Figure 4.7. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Geographical Distribution by Company Size
Figure 4.8. Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Provider: Geographical Distribution by Location of Analytical Facilities
Figure 5.1. Company Competitiveness Analysis: Service Providers based in North America
Figure 5.2. Company Competitiveness Analysis: Service Providers based in Europe
Figure 5.3. Company Competitiveness Analysis: Service Providers with One Analytical Facility
Figure 5.4. Company Competitiveness Analysis: Service Providers with More than One Analytical Facility
Figure 6.1. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Company Overview
Figure 6.2. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Key Executives
Figure 6.3. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Financial Information
Figure 6.4. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Location of Facilities
Figure 6.5. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Accreditations
Figure 6.6. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Service Portfolio
Figure 6.7. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Testing Methods Offered
Figure 6.8. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 6.9. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 6.10. Curia: Company Overview
Figure 6.11. Curia: Key Executives
Figure 6.12. Curia: Location of Facilities
Figure 6.13. Curia: Service Portfolio
Figure 6.14. Curia: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 6.15. Curia: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 6.16. Curia: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 6.17. DDL: Company Overview
Figure 6.18. DDL: Key Executives
Figure 6.19. DDL: Location of Facilities
Figure 6.20. DDL: Service Portfolio
Figure 6.21. DDL: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 6.22. DDL: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 6.23. DDL: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 6.23. Nelson Labs: Company Overview
Figure 6.24. Nelson Labs: Key Executives
Figure 6.25. Nelson Labs: Financial Information
Figure 6.26. Nelson Labs: Location of Facilities
Figure 6.27. Nelson Labs: Type of Accreditations Received
Figure 6.28. Nelson Labs: Service Portfolio
Figure 6.29. Nelson Labs: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 6.30. Nelson Labs: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 6.31. Nelson Labs: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 7.1. Confarma: Company Overview
Figure 7.2. Confarma: Key Executives
Figure 7.3. Confarma: Location of Facilities
Figure 7.4. Confarma: Type of Accreditations Received
Figure 7.5. Confarma: Service Portfolio
Figure 7.6. Confarma: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 7.7. Confarma: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 7.8. Eurofins: Company Overview
Figure 7.9. Eurofins: Key Executives
Figure 7.10. Eurofins: Financial Information
Figure 7.11. Eurofins: Location of Facilities
Figure 7.12. Eurofins: Type of Accreditations Received
Figure 7.13. Eurofins: Service Portfolio
Figure 7.14. Eurofins: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 7.15. Eurofins: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 7.16. Eurofins: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 7.17. SGS: Company Overview
Figure 7.18. SGS: Key Executives
Figure 7.19. SGS: Financial Information
Figure 7.20. SGS: Location of Facilities
Figure 7.21. SGS: Type of Accreditations Received
Figure 7.22. SGS: Service Portfolio
Figure 7.23. SGS: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 7.24. SGS: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 7.25. SGS: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 7.26. Stevanato: Company Overview
Figure 7.27. Stevanato: Key Executives
Figure 7.28. Stevanato: Financial Information
Figure 7.29. Stevanato: Location of Facilities
Figure 7.30. Stevanato: Service Portfolio
Figure 7.31. Stevanato: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 7.32. Stevanato: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 7.33. Stevanato: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 7.34. Wilco: Company Overview
Figure 7.35. Wilco: Key Executives
Figure 7.36. Wilco: Location of Facilities
Figure 7.37. Wilco: Service Portfolio
Figure 7.38. Wilco: Type of Testing Methods Offered
Figure 7.39. Wilco: Types of Containers Tested
Figure 7.40. Wilco: Recent Developments and Future Outlook
Figure 8.1. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Landscape: Distribution by Scale of Operation
Figure 8.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Landscape: Distribution by Key Features
Figure 8.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Landscape: Type(s) of Analytical Method(s)
Figure 8.4. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Landscape: Distribution by Container Material
Figure 8.5. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Landscape: Distribution by Type(s) of Container(s)
Figure 8.6. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Providers: Distribution by Year of Establishment
Figure 8.7. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Providers: Distribution by Company Size
Figure 8.8. Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment Providers: Distribution by Geographical Region
Figure 9.1. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Equipment Offered by Small Players
Figure 9.2. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Equipment Offered by Mid-Sized Players
Figure 9.3. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Equipment Offered by Large Players
Figure 9.4. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Equipment Offered by Players Headquartered in North America
Figure 9.5. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Equipment Offered by Players Headquartered in Europe
Figure 9.6. Product Competitiveness Analysis: Equipment Offered by Players Headquartered in Asia-Pacific
Figure 10.1. Regional Capability Analysis: Distribution by Number of CCIT Service Providers
Figure 10.2. Regional Capability Analysis: Distribution by Number of Analytical Services
Figure 10.3. Regional Capability Analysis: Distribution by Number of CCIT Technology Providers
Figure 10.4. Regional Capability Analysis: Distribution by Number of CCIT Technologies
Figure 10.5. Regional Capability Analysis: Distribution by Number of Patents
Figure 10.6. Regional Capability Analysis: Distribution by Demand of CCIT
Figure 11.1. Benchmarking Analysis: Benchmarking of CCIT Techniques
Figure 11.2. Benchmarking Analysis: Distribution by Type(s) of Container(s) Tested
Figure 11.3. Benchmarking Analysis: Distribution by Container Material Tested
Figure 11.4. Benchmarking Analysis: Distribution by Geographical Region
Figure 12.1. Aseptic Technologies: Company Overview
Figure 12.2. Aseptic Technologies: Crystal L1 Robot Line
Figure 12.3. Aseptic Technologies: Crystal SL1 Robot Line
Figure 12.4. AST: Company Overview
Figure 12.5. AST: ASEPTiCell
Figure 12.6. AST: GENiSYS R
Figure 12.7. AST: GENiSYS C
Figure 12.8. AST: GENiSYS Lab
Figure 12.9. Bosch: Company Overview
Figure 12.10. Bosch: ATO
Figure 12.11. Dara Pharma: Company Overview
Figure 12.13. Dara Pharma: SYX-E Cartridge + RABS
Figure 12.14. Fedegari: Company Overview
Figure 12.15. Fedegari: Fedegari Isolator
Figure 12.16. IMA: Company Overview
Figure 12.17. IMA: INJECTA
Figure 12.18. IMA: STERI LIF3
Figure 12.19. Varnx: Company Overview
Figure 12.20. Varnx: Microcell Vial Filler
Figure 12.21. Varnx: SA25 Aseptic Filling Workcell
Figure 13.1. Demand Analysis: Distribution by Type(s) of Container(s) Tested
Figure 13.2. Demand Analysis: Distribution by Type(s) of Container(s) Material
Figure 13.3. Demand Analysis: Distribution by Geographical Region
Figure 13.4. Demand Analysis: Geographical Distribution of Type(s) of Container(s) Tested
Figure 14.1. Overall Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market, 2022-2035 (USD Million)
Figure 14.2. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Distribution by Type of Container Closure Systems, 2022-2035 (USD Million)
Figure 14.3. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Distribution by Type of Container Material, 2022 and 2035 (USD Million)
Figure 14.4. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Distribution by Geographical Region, 2028 and 2035 (USD Million)
Figure 14.5. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Distribution by Key Geographical Regions, 2035 (USD Million)
Figure 14.6. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Market in North America (USD Million)
Figure 14.7. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Market in Europe (USD Million)
Figure 14.8. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Market in Asia-Pacific (USD Million)
Figure 14.9. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Market in Middle East North Africa (USD Million)
Figure 14.10. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Market in Latin America (USD Million)
Figure 14.11. Container Closure Integrity Testing Services Market: Market in Rest of the World (USD Million)
Figure 15.1. SWOT Analysis: Harvey Ball Analysis
Figure 15.2. SWOT Analysis: Strengths and Weakness
Figure 15.3. SWOT Analysis: Opportunities and Threats

List Of Tables

Table 4.1. List of Container Closure Integrity Testing Service Providers
Table 8.1. List of Container Closure Integrity Testing Equipment
Table 13.1. Company Providing Robots for Use in Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 13.2. Crystal L1 Robot Line: Key Features
Table 13.3. Crystal SL1 Robot Line: Key Features
Table 13.4. ASEPTiCell: Key Features
Table 13.5. GENiSYS R: Key Features
Table 13.6. GENiSYS C: Key Features
Table 13.7. GENiSYS Lab: Key Features
Table 13.8. ATO: Key Features
Table 13.9. Fedegari Isolator: Key Features
Table 13.10. INJECTA: Key Features
Table 13.11. STERI LIF3: Key Features
Table 13.12. Microcell Vial Filler: Key Features
Table 13.13. SA25 Aseptic Filling Workcell: Key Features

List Of Companies

The following companies / institutes / government bodies and organizations have been mentioned in this report.

  1. Alcami 
  2. Alfa Chemistry
  3. ALPS Inspection
  4. AptarGroup
  5. ARL Bio Pharma
  6. Aseptic Technologies
  7. AST
  8. Astellas Pharma
  9. Advanced Test Concepts (Acquired by Pfeiffer Vacuum)
  10. Berkshire Sterile Manufacturing (BSM)
  11. Bonfiglioli Engineering
  12. Bosch Packaging Technology (now Syntegon)
  13. Confarma (a subsidiary of Solvias)
  14. Coriolis Pharma
  15. Corning
  16. CS Analytical 
  17. Curia (Formerly known as AMRI)
  18. Dara Pharmaceutical Packaging
  19. Datwyler
  20. DDL Diagnostic Laboratory
  21. Eagle Analytical
  22. Eurofins Scientific
  23. Fedegari 
  24. Fresenius Kabi
  25. Gateway Analytical
  26. Gerresheimer
  27. Gibraltar Laboratories
  28. Groupe IDEA TESTS (Acquired by SGS)
  29. IMA
  30. Infinity Laboratories
  31. Integrity Bio (Acquired by Curia)
  32. Jubilant HollisterStier
  33. Labor LS
  34. Labthink
  35. LakePharma (Acquired by Curia)
  36. LexaMed
  37. Lighthouse Instruments
  38. Lonza
  39. Medical Engineering Technologies
  40. Metair Health & Hygiene Testing Lab (Acquired by SGS)
  41. Mithra CDMO
  42. Nelson Labs
  43. NEUMA
  44. Nikka Densok
  45. Nitto Avecia Pharma Services (Formerly known as Irvine Pharmaceutical Services and Avrio Biopharmaceuticals)
  46. NUVISAN 
  47. OFI
  48. Pace Analytical Life Sciences
  49. Pacific Biolabs
  50. Pfeiffer Vacuum 
  51. PPD
  52. Packaging Technologies & Inspection (PTI)
  53. Sepha
  54. SGS
  55. Signify
  56. Smithers
  57. STEMart
  58. Steriline
  59. Stevanato Group
  60. Syntegon
  61. Tepnel Pharma Services
  62. Vanrx Pharmasystems (Acquired by Cytiva)
  63. VITAS AS
  64. West Pharmaceutical Services
  65. Wickham Laboratories
  66. WILCO
  67. WuXi Advanced Therapies
  68. ZebraSci

PRICING DETAILS

USD 5,899

This license grants the right of use of the purchased report to a single recipient only (normally the person who buys the report). You may access the material on your computer, as and when required, for your own personal use. You may also print read more

This license grants the right of use of the purchased report by the employees of a business unit at a particular site/office location. The report may be accessed on the computer of any employee within the business unit. You may also print multiple read more

This license entitles the buyer of the report to share, distribute the report (either full or in part) with other employees of the same firm/enterprise. The report may be accessed by any employee of the enterprise and there is no limit on the read more

Discounts available for multiple report purchases
sales@rootsanalysis.com