Many labs are working to reduce waste, control operating costs, and become more resilient to supply chain disruptions. Simultaneously, sustainability efforts are expanding to broader expectations around quality and safety. Reusable consumables can be a solution to some of these challenges; however, they are not guaranteed to be a lower-risk or lower-cost option. They must be implemented with proper validation and align with the realities of the lab’s workflows to avoid introducing variability and compromising quality. Focusing on targeted substitution rather than the complete elimination of single-use consumables can be a more effective strategy.
Putting quality first
Before introducing reusable consumables into workflows, labs should evaluate operational and quality considerations. These include safety and contamination risks (e.g., biological, chemical, radiological, and cross-contamination) as well as compatibility with existing workflows (e.g., does reuse fit manual or automated processes without affecting turnaround time or workload?).
Another consideration is whether the lab can consistently clean, inspect, and validate reusable items with existing infrastructure and expertise. A cost-benefit analysis can account for labor, utilities, and cleaning supplies (detergents, etc.) required to prepare items for reuse.
Reuse strategies should also align with regulatory documentation requirements, including SOPs, audit readiness, and quality systems. If employing reusables increases variability or introduces new risk, it can undermine lab quality and negate any potential benefits.
Accounting for extra work
Reusable consumables offer many benefits, but labs must account for the extra work they introduce. Sterilization and decontamination should be achievable with existing equipment and expertise to avoid significant added costs or complexity. Labs must establish validated cleaning protocols that ensure consistent contaminant removal without degrading materials or compromising performance. Inconsistent cleaning results in inconsistent data, which undermines quality and reproducibility. As such, labs should define clear stop-loss rules that prompt a switch to single-use items when quality, safety, or performance are compromised.
It is also important to ensure consumables are tracked and traceable to avoid exceeding their reuse lifespans or introducing them into incompatible workflows. This often requires updates to SOPs and training materials to maintain audit readiness and alignment with regulatory requirements.
Lab Quality Management Certificate
The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Commonly reused consumables
When deciding on particular product categories for reuse, labs should define the expectations around lifespan, failure, and contamination risks, and know where reuse may be inappropriate. The suitability of each product for reuse depends on several factors, including the exposure to hazardous materials, cleaning and inspection requirements, durability, and impact on downstream workflows. Below are some of the common categories of reusable consumables and factors to consider prior to use:
Category | Lifespan | Risks | Often unsuitable for |
Glassware | Long, if handled and inspected properly | Microfractures, residue, chemical etching, breakage | Trace analysis, hazardous materials |
Racks and holders | Long to moderate, depending on material | Warping, buildup in joints, or hard-to-clean surfaces | High-throughput or automated workflows that need tight dimensional consistency and cleanliness |
Sample transport and storage | Moderate | Biological contamination, inconsistent cleaning | Clinical or regulated labs, cold-chain sensitive workflows |
Filtration and housing | Limited | Clogging, loss of sterility | Regulated applications, applications that are sensitive to particulates and require validated performance |
Durable accessories (e.g., tweezers, forceps, label applicators, covers, guards, clamps, cable guides, etc.) | Long with proper cleaning and low demand | Cross-contamination, surface wear | Mixed-hazard environments |
Piloting
A controlled pilot is often a better approach than full implementation. Ideally, labs should begin with low-risk, non-critical workflows where a potential problem or failure will not have serious consequences. A good way to test these items is to run direct comparisons between reusable and single-use consumables in a workflow. This approach allows users to compare and evaluate performance under real conditions.
When assessing performance, it is useful to define clear metrics in advance. These may include cost savings, waste reduction, error rates, time, and workload. Using a predefined time period for piloting also keeps the process moving forward. When reviewing results, management and bench staff should be included. Individuals who interact with these products daily can have valuable insights into operational and technical issues that can inform decision-making. This type of piloted approach can identify benefits and risks before scaling across workflows.
Interested in lab design?
Is the form not loading? If you use an ad blocker or browser privacy features, try turning them off and refresh the page.
By completing this form, you agree to receive news updates and relevant promotional content from Lab Design News. You may unsubscribe at any time. View our Privacy Policy
Saving more than money
The true value of reusables is not always captured in the purchase price. Reusables carry both costs and benefits, and reduced consumables spending is only one consideration. Costs to consider include the skilled labor and time required for cleaning and inspection, utilities (water and energy) required for these cleaning processes, and equipment wear, maintenance, and depreciation associated with cleaning. Savings and benefits to consider include reduced costs associated with waste disposal and reduced risk in the event of supply chain disruptions, among others.
Considering all costs and benefits reflects a total cost of ownership approach in which decisions are based on the full lifecycle of the item rather than the unit price. In this way, labs can clearly see where reuse delivers key benefits and savings and how it may increase cost or risk.
Managing change
Successfully navigating this change depends on lab staff engagement. Involving the team early in the process of product evaluation can shed light on practical concerns about consumables handling, cleaning, and the impact on workflows. Lab managers should be transparent about tradeoffs (e.g., time, performance) to help build trust and navigate change.
Lab managers can support their staff with proper training and updated SOPs, making it easier to safely and consistently implement reusables. Further, providing opportunities for feedback allows staff to report any issues or risks and suggest improvements. Finally, leaders should remain flexible and emphasize that they will reevaluate decisions if there are negative impacts on quality, safety, or efficiency.
Reusable consumables can offer labs real benefits if their implementation is intentional, validated, and adaptable. Lab leaders must remember that these programs should combine sustainability goals with the realities of the lab’s daily operations.
