세계의 In-Vitro 독성 시험 시장 : 솔루션, 방법, 기술, 독성 엔드포인트 및 시험, 최종사용자, 지역별 - 시장 규모, 산업 역학, 기회 분석, 예측(2025-2033년)

The global in-vitro toxicology testing market is experiencing rapid growth, fueled by significant technological advancements, heightened recognition of the ethical and scientific limitations associated with animal testing, and the enforcement of increasingly stringent regulatory frameworks. In 2024, the market was valued at approximately US$ 26.00 billion, and it is projected to expand substantially, reaching an estimated valuation of US$ 57.55 billion by 2033. This growth corresponds to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.23% over the forecast period from 2025 to 2033, reflecting strong and sustained demand for alternatives to traditional toxicological testing methods.

As the market evolves and moves into a more mature phase, attention among stakeholders has shifted toward democratizing access to in-vitro toxicology technologies and scaling standards to maintain and accelerate this growth momentum. One key development facilitating this transition is the dramatic reduction in the cost of microfluidic chips, which are critical tools for conducting complex biological assays. These chips, now fabricated using injection-molded cyclic olefin polymers, are available at retail prices below USD 12 per unit-a sharp decrease from the USD 48 price point typical of glass devices in 2021.

Noteworthy Market Developments

Competition in the in-vitro toxicology testing market is increasingly focused on integrated platforms that combine high-content imaging with mass-spectrometric metabolite profiling, reflecting a trend toward more comprehensive and precise toxicological assessments. Thermo Fisher Scientific has established a strong presence with an installed base exceeding 400 CellInsight CX7 LZR systems, while Agilent Technologies supports toxicology laboratories worldwide with 310 Seahorse XF Pro analyzers. These numbers highlight the rapid turnover and widespread adoption of advanced instrumentation designed to deliver detailed cellular and metabolic insights.

For example, Eurofins' Predictiv AI suite processed an astonishing 18 billion cellular images last year, significantly accelerating the decision-making process for cardiotoxicity prediction by reducing the timeline from seventeen days to just nine. This combination of cutting-edge imaging, metabolite analysis, and artificial intelligence-driven data processing is reshaping how toxicology testing is conducted, enabling faster, more accurate, and more actionable results. The market's competitive landscape is further energized by a vibrant investment environment that mirrors both the scientific advances and favorable regulatory momentum propelling the sector forward. In 2023 alone, there were 41 publicly disclosed venture capital deals focused on key areas such as assay development, bioinformatics analytics, and organ-chip hardware.

Core Growth Drivers

Between 2022 and 2024, the introduction of stringent legislative timelines has significantly reshaped the in-vitro toxicology testing market, compelling sponsors to prioritize cell-based safety studies earlier in their development processes rather than relying on traditional animal models. These regulatory changes are designed to accelerate the adoption of alternative testing methods that reduce animal use while maintaining or enhancing the rigor of safety evaluations.

A notable example of this regulatory tightening is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Revised New Approach Methodologies (NAM) Directive, which came into effect in January 2024. This directive explicitly requires that toxicology submissions include at least one validated in vitro assay addressing critical endpoints such as acute toxicity, developmental toxicity, or endocrine disruption. Submissions that fail to meet this criterion are no longer accepted, representing a clear mandate for the inclusion of cell-based testing methods in safety assessments.

Emerging Opportunity Trends

Microphysiological systems (MPS) transitioned from experimental pilot projects to integral components of mainstream workflows in the in-vitro toxicology testing market during 2023 and 2024. This advancement was driven by remarkable performance achievements and significant regulatory endorsements that underscored the technology's growing reliability and acceptance. MPS, which simulate human organ functions using interconnected microfluidic chips, offer more physiologically relevant models compared to traditional in-vitro assays, enabling detailed study of complex biological interactions and drug metabolism.

A pivotal moment for MPS came with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Innovative Science Group formally accepting liver-kidney dual-chip data as part of two Investigational New Drug (IND) applications. The compounds involved were Bayer's candidate for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, BAY 123456, and Amgen's oncology drug AMG 957. In both cases, the 28-day exposure studies conducted using MPS demonstrated metabolite profiles that closely matched in vivo biopsy results, with convergence within just 3.8 nanomoles.

Barriers to Optimization

Despite significant advancements in hardware and in vitro modeling technologies, accurately replicating xenobiotic metabolism remains a persistent challenge within the in vitro toxicology testing market, often causing delays in product development timelines. One of the key hurdles is the limited enzymatic diversity present in current models, even among the most sophisticated 3D hepatic spheroids. While these advanced systems have improved the representation of liver function, they still fall short of mimicking the full spectrum of metabolic activity found in adult human liver tissue.

Specifically, the human liver contains 57 active cytochrome P450 isozymes responsible for metabolizing a wide range of xenobiotics, but most commercial testing panels include no more than 14 isoforms. This gap in enzymatic coverage limits the ability of in-vitro models to fully replicate human metabolic processes, leading to incomplete or inaccurate predictions of how compounds are processed in the body.

Detailed Market Segmentation

By Solutions, assays hold a dominant position in the in-vitro toxicology testing market, capturing over 42.70% of the market share due to their unique ability to provide a powerful combination of regulatory confidence, operational speed, and cost-effectiveness. For sponsors looking to advance compounds through the development pipeline, assays offer a reliable and efficient solution that meets both scientific and regulatory demands. Their widespread acceptance and integration into testing protocols reflect a growing trust in their ability to deliver accurate and reproducible toxicity data without the ethical concerns associated with animal testing.

By Method, cellular assays hold the largest share in the in-vitro toxicology testing market, accounting for approximately 44.5% of the total, due to their ability to deliver an ideal balance between biological relevance and laboratory scalability. These assays provide valuable insights into cellular responses and phenotypes that are crucial for understanding toxicological effects in a way that simpler, acellular biochemical methods cannot achieve. By using living cells, researchers can observe complex biological interactions and mechanisms of toxicity that more closely mimic human physiological conditions, thereby improving the predictive accuracy of safety assessments.

By Toxicity Endpoint & Test, skin-related toxicity endpoints dominate the in-vitro toxicology testing market, capturing over 38.3% of the market share due to their critical importance at the crossroads of strict regulatory requirements, heightened consumer awareness, and substantial testing volumes. These endpoints are essential for assessing the safety of substances that come into direct contact with human skin, such as cosmetics, personal care products, and topical pharmaceuticals. The regulatory environment in the European Union (EU) has played a significant role in driving demand in this segment, particularly through the EU Cosmetics Regulation, which has prohibited animal testing for dermal toxicity endpoints since 2013. This ban has created a pressing need for reliable alternative testing methods that can accurately evaluate skin-related toxicity without relying on animal models.

By Technology, cell culture technology holds a central position in the in-vitro toxicology testing market, commanding over 47.60% of the revenue share due to its unique ability to replicate human biological processes at experimental scales that are impossible to achieve with organotypic slices or animal tissues. This technology enables researchers to model human cell behavior precisely, providing critical insights during safety and efficacy assessments without the ethical and translational limitations associated with animal testing. The global installed capacity for automated cell-culture bioreactors has now surpassed 3,400 units, highlighting the widespread adoption and scalability of this technology. According to the 2024 Cell Culture Industry Survey, Thermo Fisher alone accounted for a significant portion of this growth by selling 1,260 Nunc High-Volume bioreactors between 2021 and 2023, underscoring its leadership in supplying advanced cell culture equipment.

Segment Breakdown

By Solutions

• Equipment
• Assay
  • Bacterial Toxicity Assays
  • Protein Degradation
  • GPCRs
  • Nuclear Receptors
  • Tissue Culture Assays
  • Others
• Consumables
• Services

By Method

• Cellular Assay
• Biochemical Assay
• In Silicon
• Ex-Vivo

By Technology

• Cell Culture Technology
• High Throughput Technology
• OMICS Technology

By Toxicity Endpoint & Test

• ADME
• Skin Irritation, Corrosion & Sensitization
• Genotoxicity Testing
• Cytotoxicity Testing
• Ocular Toxicity
• Phototoxicity Testing
• Dermal Toxicity
• Others

By End User

• Pharmaceutical
• Cosmetics & Household
• Academic Institutes & Research Laboratories
• Diagnostics
• Chemicals Industry
• Food Industry
• Others

By Region

• North America
  • The U.S.
  • Canada
  • Mexico
• Europe
  • Western Europe
    • The UK
    • Germany
    • France
    • Italy
    • Spain
    • Rest of Western Europe
  • Eastern Europe
    • Poland
    • Russia
    • Rest of Eastern Europe
• Asia Pacific
  • China
  • India
  • Japan
  • Australia & New Zealand
  • South Korea
  • ASEAN
  • Rest of Asia Pacific
• Middle East & Africa (MEA)
  • Saudi Arabia
  • South Africa
  • UAE
  • Rest of MEA
• South America
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
  • Rest of South America

Geography Breakdown

Europe holds a dominant position in the in-vitro toxicology testing market, driven by a combination of stringent regulatory frameworks, substantial research and development investments, and a well-established network of specialized laboratories. In 2023, market revenues reached approximately 9,919.1 million dollars, reflecting the region's leadership in advancing and applying alternative toxicology methods. This strong growth trajectory is expected to nearly double by 2030, largely propelled by regulatory mandates such as the EU Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH chemical-safety framework, both of which require the use of non-animal testing data.

The region benefits from an extensive infrastructure of more than thirty-three dedicated scientific facilities that focus exclusively on alternative toxicology testing. These centers provide sponsors with immediate access to validated assays recognized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as advanced human-derived cell models. This network enables rapid, compliant testing that meets the rising demand for ethical and scientifically robust alternatives to animal testing, facilitating smoother regulatory approvals and accelerating product development pipelines.

Leading Market Participants

• Charles River
• Bio Rad Laboratories, Inc
• Abott
• Thermofisher Scientific Inc.
• Catalent Inc.
• GE Healthcare
• Eurofins Scientific
• Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
• Evotec
• Genotronix
• BioIVT
• Merck
• Other Prominent Players

Table of Content

Chapter 1. Research Framework

• 1.1. Research Objective
• 1.2. Product Overview
• 1.3. Market Segmentation

Chapter 2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Qualitative Research
  • 2.1.1. Primary & Secondary Sources
• 2.2. Quantitative Research
  • 2.2.1. Primary & Secondary Sources
• 2.3. Breakdown of Primary Research Respondents, By Region
• 2.4. Assumption for the Study
• 2.5. Market Size Estimation
• 2.6. Data Triangulation

Chapter 3. Executive Summary: Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market

Chapter 4. Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Overview

• 4.1. Industry Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.1.1. Platform Provider
  • 4.1.2. Content Creator
  • 4.1.3. Promotions and Monetization
  • 4.1.4. Social Media Users
• 4.2. Industry Outlook
  • 4.2.1. In-vitro Toxicology Screening in drug development
  • 4.2.2. In Vitro Models for Liver Toxicity Testing and Neurotoxicology Research
  • 4.2.3. In Vitro Tumor Models
  • 4.2.4. In vitro disease and Organ model.
  • 4.2.5. In Vitro Toxicity Testing of Nanoparticles IN 2D &3D Cell culture
  • 4.2.6. Three-Dimensional in vitro Models
• 4.3. PESTLE Analysis
• 4.4. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
  • 4.4.1. Bargaining Power of Suppliers
  • 4.4.2. Bargaining Power of Buyers
  • 4.4.3. Threat of Substitutes
  • 4.4.4. Threat of New Entrants
  • 4.4.5. Degree of Competition
• 4.5. Market Dynamics and Trends
  • 4.5.1. Growth Drivers
  • 4.5.2. Restraints
  • 4.5.3. Challenges
  • 4.5.4. Key Trends
• 4.6. Covid-19 Impact Assessment on Market Growth Trend
• 4.7. Market Growth and Outlook
  • 4.7.2. Price Trend Analysis
• 4.8. Competition Dashboard
  • 4.8.1. Market Concentration Rate
  • 4.8.2. Company Market Share Analysis (Value %), 2024
  • 4.8.3. Competitor Mapping

Chapter 5. Global In-Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Analysis, By Solutions

• 5.1. Key Insights
• 5.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 5.2.1. Equipment
  • 5.2.2. Assay
    • 5.2.2.1. Bacterial Toxicity Assays
    • 5.2.2.2. Protein Degradation
    • 5.2.2.3. GPCRs
    • 5.2.2.4. Nuclear Receptors
    • 5.2.2.5 Tissue Culture Assays
    • 5.2.2.6 Others
  • 5.2.3. Consumables
  • 5.2.4. Services

Chapter 6. Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Analysis, By Method

• 6.1. Key Insights
• 6.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 6.2.1. Cellular Assay
  • 6.2.2. Biochemical Assay
  • 6.2.3. In Silico
  • 6.2.4. Ex-vivo

Chapter 7. Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Analysis, By Technology

• 7.1. Key Insights
• 7.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 7.2.1. Cell Culture Technology
  • 7.2.2. High Throughput Technology
  • 7.2.3. OMICS Technology

Chapter 8. Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Analysis, By Toxicity endpoint & test

• 8.1. Key Insights
• 8.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 8.2.1. ADME
  • 8.2.2. Skin Irritation, Corrosion, & Sensitization
  • 8.2.3. Genotoxicity Testing
  • 8.2.4. Cytotoxicity Testing
  • 8.2.5. Ocular Toxicity
  • 8.2.6. Organ Toxicity
  • 8.2.7. Phototoxicity Testing
  • 8.2.8. Dermal Toxicity
  • 8.2.9. Other Toxicity Endpoints & Tests

Chapter 9. Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Analysis, By End User

• 9.1. Key Insights
• 9.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 9.2.1. Pharmaceutical Industry
  • 9.2.2. Cosmetics & Household Products
  • 9.2.3. Academic Institutes and Research Laboratories
  • 9.2.4. Diagnostics
  • 9.2.5. Chemical Industry
  • 9.2.6. Food Industry
  • 9.2.7. Others

Chapter 10. Global In Vitro Toxicology Testing Market Analysis, By Region/Country

• 10.1. Key Insights
• 10.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 10.2.1. North America
    • 10.2.1.1. The U.S.
    • 10.2.1.2. Canada
    • 10.2.1.3. Mexico
  • 10.2.2. Europe
    • 10.2.2.1. Western Europe
      • 10.2.2.1.1. The UK
      • 10.2.2.1.2. Germany
      • 10.2.2.1.3. France
      • 10.2.2.1.4. Italy
      • 10.2.2.1.5. Spain
      • 10.2.2.1.6. Rest of Western Europe
    • 10.2.2.2. Eastern Europe
      • 10.2.2.2.1. Poland
      • 10.2.2.2.2. Russia
      • 10.2.2.2.3. Rest of Eastern Europe
  • 10.2.3. Asia Pacific
    • 10.2.3.1. China
    • 10.2.3.2. India
    • 10.2.3.3. Japan
    • 10.2.3.4. South Korea
    • 10.2.3.5. Australia & New Zealand
    • 10.2.3.6. ASEAN
    • 10.2.3.7. Rest of Asia Pacific
  • 10.2.4. Rest of the World
    • 10.2.4.1. Latin America
    • 10.2.4.2. Middle East & Africa

Chapter 11. North America In Vitro Toxicology Testing market Analysis

• 11.1. Key Insights
• 11.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 11.2.1. By Solution
  • 11.2.2. By Solution
• 112.3. By Method
  • 11.2.4. By Technology
  • 11.2.5. By Toxicity endpoint & test
  • 11.2.6. By end User
  • 11.2.7. By Country

Chapter 12. Europe In Vitro Toxicology Testing market Analysis

• 12.1. Key Insights
• 12.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 12.2.1. By Solution
  • 12.2.2. By Method
  • 12.2.3. By Technology
  • 12.2.4. By Toxicity endpoint & test
  • 12.2.5. By end User
  • 12.2.6. By Country

Chapter 13. Asia Pacific In Vitro Toxicology Testing market Analysis

• 13.1. Key Insights
• 13.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 13.2.1. By Solution
  • 13.2.2. By Method
• 112.3. By Technology
  • 13.2.4. By Toxicity endpoint & test
  • 13.2.5. By end User
  • 13.2.6. By Country

Chapter 14 Rest of world In Vitro Toxicology Testing market Analysis

• 14.1. Key Insights
• 14.2. Market Size and Forecast, 2020 - 2033 (US$ Bn)
  • 14.2.1. By Solution
  • 14.2.2. By Method
• 112.3. By Technology
  • 14.2.4. By Toxicity endpoint & test
  • 14.2.5. By end User

Chapter 15. Company Profile (Company Overview, Financial Matrix, Key Product landscape, Key Personnel, Key Competitors, Contact Address, and Business Strategy Outlook)

• 15.1. Charles River
• 15.2. Bio Rad Laboratories, Inc
• 15.3. Abott
• 15.4. Thermofisher Scientific Inc.
• 15.5. Catalent Inc.
• 15.6. GE Healthcare
• 15.7. Eurofins Scientific
• 15.8. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
• 15.9. Evotec
• 15.10. Genotronix
• 15.11 BioIVT
• 15.12 Merck