Balancing Lab Water Purity with Sustainability

69724_LM_Water Purification_eBook_JL V4

WATER PURIFICATION RESOURCE GUIDE

Lab Water Sustainability

Considerations for reducing the environmental impact of purification processes without impacting quality

CHECKLIST

for sustainable practices

SELECTION GUIDE

for systems & grades

BUILDING A BUSINESS CASE

for sustainability

Table of Contents

3 Balancing Lab Water Purity with Sustainability

4 Sustainable Lab Water Purification Checklist

6 Clarifying Lab Water Standards: How to Choose the Right Quality Grade

10 Reducing the Environmental Impact of Water Purification Systems

14 Simple Steps for More Sustainable Lab Water Purification

2 Lab Manager

17 Making the Business Case for Sustainable Solutions in Your Lab

Introduction

Balancing Lab Water Purity with Sustainability‌

How labs can reduce the environmental impact of water purification processes without compromising research integrity

Labs are water guzzlers, consuming up to five times more potable water than similarly sized commercial buildings on average. This high demand stems from the fundamental role water plays in a wide variety of applications, from basic cleaning to sensitive experimental proce- dures. However, the problem doesn't stop there. The processes used to purify this water for lab use can also take an environmental toll.

Thater purity, typically categorized into types or grades, is directly tied to the sustainabili- ty of the purification process. Ultrapure reagent-grade water (often referred to as Type I or Grade I), essential for tasks like tissue culture or trace analysis, requires more expensive and resource-intensive purification processes, like ion exchange. Meanwhile, laboratory feed- grade water, for example, ASTM's Type III and IV, can be produced through multiple more sustainable methods, like reverse osmosis, for use in rinsing glassware and other standard

processes. It is imperative for water purification grades and applications to be paired properly, as insufficiently purified water can introduce contaminants that compromise results, create difficulties in data interpretation, damage equipment, and delay project timelines, ultimately hindering scientific progress. Lab managers must strike a delicate balance between upholding research integrity and the imperative to minimize costs and their environmental footprint.

This eBook explores these strategies, including assessing water usage, optimizing and maintaining purification systems, and selecting the most suitable purification technology for your lab's needs. By adopting these practices, labs can ensure their operations are efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible.

Fortunately, improving sustainability in water purification is possible. Conducting a water au- dit to assess consumption levels

and identify inefficiencies is a crucial first step in this pursuit. Using the right purity level for each application, recycling and reusing water where appropri- ate, and adopting energy-effi- cient purification technologies can also greatly reduce your environmental impact.

Sustainable Lab Water Purification Checklist‌

by Lab Manager

Labs can greatly reduce their water consumption and enhance sustainability through responsible practices. This checklist outlines key steps to assess water usage, optimize purification systems, and promote water conservation.

Assess water usage

• Conduct a water audit to determine current consump- tion levels across all water-using equipment, systems, and processes

• Check if known water purchases align with ac- tual usage:

  • If balanced, look for opportunities to improve effi- ciency within each major usage category

  • If imbalanced, look for the source (e.g., leaks and misuses)

    Optimize water purification systems

    System design

    

• Avoid oversizing treatment systems and consider point-of-use systems where highly purified water use is minimal

• Invest in energy-efficient systems with high re- covery rates

• Select reverse osmosis or membrane-based treatment systems with higher recovery ratings

• Use mercury-free water purification systems

• Install an automatic shut-off feature, to ensure systems are turned off when not in use

  Operation and maintenance

• Use water at the minimum required quality and use treated water only when necessary

• Reuse reject water when possible

• Operate equipment at the minimum acceptable flow rates

• Backwash filters based on pressure drop and regen- erate carbon, ion, and resin beds when necessary, rather than on a set schedule

  Training and monitoring

• Provide training for lab personnel on the proper use of sustainable technologies and water-reduction methods

• Implement a system for reporting leaks, ensuring there is a designated point of contact, such as facility or maintenance staff

• Maintain and regularly review records of water con- sumption to establish use trends and identify potential leaks or other inefficiencies

References

1. Best Practices Guide - Thater Efficiency in Laboratories: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/ ws-I2SL-Laboratory-Thater-Efficiency-Guide.pdf

2. Thater Efficiency Guide for Laboratories: https://www.nrel. gov/docs/fy05osti/36743.pdf

Clarifying Lab Water Standards: How to Choose the Right Quality Grade‌

How pure is ultrapure? Understanding classifications of reagent-grade water is the first step

by Rachel Brown, MSc

Lab water quality is described in nearly as many terms as there are sources of information. Some may refer to it by standards-based types or grades, purification technique- such as reverse osmosis (RO), deionization (DI), or distilled water-or application, like instrument feed water or molec- ular grade water. This flood of information, which can seem

contradictory at times, can lead to considerable confusion. However, a clear understanding of what your lab's needs are and using the right water grade or type for each applica- tion helps ensure accurate data, protect lab equipment, and minimize waste. This guide clarifies and gives context to guidance from different sources.

Standards organizations

Several organizations publish lab water standards, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ASTM International (ASTM), the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), the American Chemical Society (ACS), and various pharmacopeias and other regulatory bodies worldwide. Thhich standards to reference depend in large part on field and local regulations.

General lab use

ASTM D1193

Biology

ASTM D5196

Chemistry

ISO 3696 (Inorganic chemical analysis)

ACS reagent water

Clinical/Medical

CLSI GP40

Var. pharmacopeias

Standards by application

Published standards provide guidance for labs, establishing minimum expectations for purity levels required for gener- al use. Thhen used as a reagent or in analytical equipment, labs should always complete fitness for use validations. Most standards organizations advise following established appli-

cation-based specifications for highly sensitive analytical purposes in particular.

The guidance provided by the most commonly used stan- dards are organized below by application, in order of highest to lowest purity level.

ASTM D1193-99e1

Applications

ASTM D5196-06(2018)

ISO 3696:1987

CLSI GP40

"Ultrapure"

High-sensitivity analytical

Reagent-grade water

Examples: Trace analyses, next-generation sequencing, GC-MS

"Pure"

Standard analytical

Examples: Assays, buffers, cultures, chromatography, spectrophotometry

Type I

Conductivity: 0.056 µS/cm

Resistivity: 18 M?-cm

TOC: 50 µg/L

Sodium: 1 µg/L

Chlorides: 1 µg/L

Silica: 3 µg/L

Type II

Conductivity: 1 µS/cm

Resistivity: 1 M?-cm

TOC: 50 µg/L

Sodium: 5 µg/L

Chlorides: 5 µg/L

Silica: 3 µg/L

Resistivity: 18 M?-cm

TOC: 20 µg/L

Microbes: 100 CFU/100 ml Endotoxin: 0.01 EU/ml Nucleases & proteases:

application defined

Grade 1

Conductivity: 0.01 mS/m

Absorbance (254 nm): 0.001

Silica: 0.01 mg/L

Particulate: 0.2 µm filter

Grade 2

Conductivity: 0.1 mS/m Oxygen content: 0.08 mg/L Absorbance (254 nm): 0.01 Residue after evaporation:

1. mg/kg

   Silica: 0.02 mg/L

   Grade 3

   Conductivity: 0.5 mS/m

   pH: 5-7.5

   Oxygen content: 0.4 mg/L

   Residue after evaporation:

2. mg/kg

Special reagent water

Parameters application defined

Clinical lab reagent water

Bacteria: 10 CFU/ml

Resistivity: 10 MΩ-cm

TOC: 500 ppb

Particulate: 0.22 µm filter

Instruments,

DI tap, feed water

Instrument/Feed water

Examples: Glass washing, water baths, feed water for ultrapure water polishers, humidifiers

Instruments

Examples: Glass washing, instrument cooling

Type III

Conductivity: 0.25 µS/cm

Resistivity: 4 M?-cm

TOC: 200 µg/L

Sodium: 10 µg/L

Chlorides: 10 µg/L

Silica: 500 µg/L

Type IV

Conductivity: 5 µS/cm

Resistivity: 0.2 M?-cm

pH: 5-8

Sodium: 50 µg/L

Chlorides: 50 µg/L

Instrument feed water

Parameters not specified

Type C

Type B

Type A

ASTM Microbiological grades (added to ASTM D1193 for biological work)

Bacteria 10 CFU/1000 ml 10 CFU/100 ml 100 CFU/10 ml

Endotoxin 0.03 EU/ml 0.25 EU/ml NA

Choosing the right lab water grade

It can be tempting to use a higher grade of water than neces- sary for many applications. Thhile application-specific water requirements are frequently greater than or more defined than the relevant published standards, using a higher grade of water for non-critical applications is more costly, wasteful, and in some cases, may even be detrimental.

For example, ultrapure water has distinct physical proper- ties and thus may affect sensors differently or impart other unexpected behavior when experimental setups and equip- ment are designed for lower-grade water. It is corrosive, potentially leaching ions from surrounding materials, so it can accelerate wear on equipment.

The purification methods required to produce the appropri- ate specifications will depend in part on the quality of supply water and performance metrics for the water purification technology used. In most cases, a combination of methods will be used. Several standards bodies give recommendations for methods that can achieve the grade described. Vendors will also typically specify the expected parameters of feed water for their systems.

Most labs will have multiple, or multi-stage, water purifi- cation systems in place. Tap water is typically purified to instrument or feed water grades, like type III or IV, and run to instrumentation, DI water taps in the lab, and additional water polishers that will produce analytical-grade water at the point of use. The National Institutes of Health published a helpful review of water purification methods, standards, and considerations for further reading.

Thhen deciding on water purification systems in the lab, it's helpful to determine the required specifications for the

most commonly used applications and supply water quality before installing the requisite water purification systems to meet those needs. Once the needs are quantified, vendors can usually assist with system design, monitoring setup, and validation protocols.

Reducing the Environmental Impact of Water Purification Systems‌

The choices made in selecting a water purification system can have an impact on the environmental footprint of an organization or facility

by Joseph Plurad, Estelle Riché, PhD, and Stéphane Mabic, PhD

"Improvements have been made to commercially available technologies to reduce the environmental impact of purifying water."

According to an analysis published in 2012 by an architectur- al and engineering firm that specializes in lab design, a lab- oratory will consume five times more energy and water per square foot than a similarly sized office building.1 Harvard University, for example, has found that while laboratories occupy 20 percent of its physical property, they are consum- ing 44 percent of the total energy used.2

Thater is a commonly used reagent in the laboratory, and its quality is of the utmost importance, as impurities may compromise experimental results. For this reason, water purification systems, either centralized or localized, are among the most common pieces of equipment found in a laboratory facility.

The choices made in selecting a water purification system can have an impact on the environmental footprint of an or- ganization or facility. However, many solutions exist that can mitigate or minimize this impact. In addition to reducing waste of resources, there is an economic benefit in behaving more sustainably, and absolute costs can be quantified for a lab or a department. Additionally, many organizations have individual and departmental mandates to contribute to the conservation of resources and/or the reduction of their envi- ronmental footprint.

Environmental impact of purification technologies

Thater may be purified by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis, or using water purification systems combining sev- eral purification technologies.

Distillation

Thater distillation is one of the oldest and most commonly used purification techniques. It entails heating the water- usually with electricity-and then condensing the vapors obtained-usually by cooling with tap water.

One three-liter-per-hour distillation consumes almost five-kilowatt hours of electricity; thus, one hour of distil- lation uses as much electricity as using a hair dryer for ten

minutes every day for a month or running a coffee machine for an entire month. In addition, nine liters of water are con- sumed for every liter of purified water produced (11 percent recovery). A laboratory using 20 liters per day of distilled water will consume almost 45,000 liters of water in one year, which is the amount of water needed to fill a regulation-size professional ice hockey rink.

Reverse osmosis

In reverse osmosis (RO), pressure is applied to the water, forcing it through a semipermeable membrane. Pure water passes through the membrane, while water impurities remain on the other side.

Depending on the design, most RO systems will reject up- wards of 50 to 80 percent of feed water, which is sent directly to the drain. In larger RO-based systems that service whole buildings, the amount of water wasted can become quite sub- stantial. Larger 100-L/hour systems can consume 200 to 500 liters of water per hour, whereas smaller 24-L/hour systems can consume 48 to 120 liters of water per hour.

Another environmental consideration is that RO is a tem- perature-dependent process, which means that for every degree Celsius drop in temperature, the flow rate through the RO membrane decreases by three percent. A ten-degree decrease in water temperature between summer and winter, for example, will result in a 30 percent decrease in the effi- cacy of the water system. Many manufacturers will combat this challenge by adding a booster pump to ensure efficient flow. However, these pumps consume more electricity and waste more water. Other manufacturers may oversize the RO system to account for the lowest flow rate that can be expected throughout the year. In warmer months, however, the consumption will increase, and once again more water will be wasted.

Many centralized RO and RO DI (deionized) systems op- erate on a distribution loop, which means that the water is generated in one location, pumped to all the lab locations, and then returned to a central collection tank. This pump is constantly recirculating, resulting in additional electrical consumption. The size of the pump required for effective distribution-and the resulting amount of electricity need- ed-are dependent on the size of the facility.

Ultrafiltration

This purification technique is used to remove both endotox- ins and nucleases. It relies on a membrane functioning as a molecular sieve.

Typically, water purification systems come with optional internal ultrafilters, which work like RO in that these filters employ a tangential flow scheme. Up to 25 percent of the ultrapure water that is flushed through this filter, or 500 mL for every 1.5 L produced, will be sent to the drain as part of this ultrafiltration/purification step.

Magnifying this waste potential is the fact that the water go- ing through the ultrafilter is already ultrapure. Approximate- ly 25 percent of the water that has already been purified is therefore wasted, which drives up the cost of consumables, as more frequent cartridge exchanges are needed. In total, a life science lab using approximately ten liters of water a day from an ultrapure water system that has a built-in ultrafilter could be wasting at least three liters of water every single day.

Additional considerations

There are additional environmental considerations-in- cluding UV lamps, pumps, cartridges, and filters-to keep in mind when purifying lab water. Current UV technology utilizes mercury to generate radiation, so mercury waste handling should be taken into consideration when building a water purification system. Some complete water purification installations have up to four UV lamps in their system. Mer- cury must be disposed of in accordance with the facility's mercury policies or placed in the same containers/waste stream as fluorescent bulbs.

In water purification systems, pumps drive most of the water. Booster pumps, distribution pumps, and polisher recircu- lation pumps vary in their electrical consumption. In many cases, these pumps constantly consume electricity, even when the purification system is not in use because they must continuously recirculate or distribute the water.

Thater purification systems also utilize consumable products, including filters and ultrapure purification cartridges, that can significantly contribute to laboratory waste. Some orga- nizations may generate tons of waste products that end up

in a landfill or an incinerator. Unfortunately, many of these waste products are plastics and resins that take a significant amount of time to ultimately decompose. Additionally, many

of these products are one-time-use materials, virgin plastics, and virgin resins, resulting in a considerable waste stream.

Finally, every purification process has reject streams or condensation streams where water is being sent to the drain. Some water purification systems are designed to flush or purge up to 20 liters of water a day directly from the system to ensure that it is clean of microbial contamination. Thhen all these sources are summed up, the waste may be hundreds of liters a month, and sometimes this waste is ultrapure water that is being sent down the drain.

"Choosing more sustainable water purification technologies and solutions will ensure long- term conservation of resources, a reduction in environmental waste, and long-term cost savings."

Selecting sustainable solutions

Improvements have been made to commercially available technologies to reduce the environmental impact of purify- ing water. Some of these alternatives completely change the purification technologies, whereas others optimize existing techniques. Selecting the most appropriate water purifica- tion system, as well as observing sustainable practices, will have a significant impact on the lab's overall environmental footprint.

Replacing distillation with reverse osmosis and electrodeionization

Choosing a combination of RO and electrodeionization (EDI) over distillation would considerably improve the environ- mental footprint of a laboratory, as it uses significantly less electricity and water than similarly sized stills.

New generation of reverse osmosis

There have been several technical improvements in RO over the past 20 to 30 years that are designed to send less water

down the drain. For example, one technology has complete- ly flipped the waste paradigm in RO systems, moving from 20 percent recovery to 80 percent recovery with tap water sources that are well managed and well maintained before going to the RO step.

Ultrafiltration at the point of use

In ultrafiltration, simply moving from an internal inline ultrafilter, which has a built-in reject flow, to a point-of-use filter that processes 100 percent of the ultrapure water will save about half a liter for every two liters that are processed. These savings can quickly multiply based on the volumes of water that are produced every day.

Recycling and other sustainable practices

As facilities are developed or renovated, a gray water recov- ery system should be considered where feasible. As these systems are typically tap water driven, the quality is very good for typical gray water uses, including flushing toilets or irrigating the grass or plants at a particular site. Additionally, organizations should select manufacturers actively engaged in sustainability practices with policies in place for recycling

systems, packaging, and water purification cartridges, avoid- ing landfill dumping or incineration. For example, in a man- ufacturer's existing U.S. program for spent water purification cartridges, a life cycle assessment showed that collection and recycling of cartridges could reduce their environmental impact by 10 to 15 percent.

Conclusion

Thater is an important resource, not only in the everyday world but also in the laboratory. Thell-designed water purifi- cation systems, using the proper combination of purification technologies, will ensure that the water produced is suitable for the specific applications for which it is needed. Choosing more sustainable water purification technologies and solu- tions will ensure long-term conservation of resources, a re- duction in environmental waste, and long-term cost savings.

References:

1. Sustainable Laboratory Design: https://www.wbdg.org/ resources/sustainablelab.php

2. Sustainable Labs: http://green.harvard.edu/programs/ green-labs

Simple Steps for More Sustainable Lab Water Purification‌

Regularly maintaining purifiers is essential to sustainable water purification

by Tess Van Ee

Achieving the ultrapure water that lab applications require takes energy and resources. As environmental concerns rise worldwide, optimizing the sustainability of purified water use in labs is an increasing priority. Here are some simple steps for stewarding purified water in any lab:

Make the most of each water-grade

Different lab applications require different grades, or types, of purified water. Type I or ultrapure water, goes through

multiple resource-intensive processes in preparation for lab use. For example, it takes three gallons of water to make just one gallon of deionized water, which is only a single step in the purification process.1

Choosing the lowest, least processed water type needed for each task will make the lab more sustainable and cost-effec- tive. Ultrapure water is necessary for most lab applications, such as mass spectrometry, chromatography, and proteomics. Type II or purified water, works well for prepping buffers

and media. Type III water-typically achieved through re- verse osmosis-can feed water to a Type I system, and Type IV or filtered water works well for rinsing glassware and use in autoclave machines.2

Opting for lower grades of water for basic lab operations is not only a greener choice, but also more practical, as ultra- pure water can corrode equipment and labware.

Stewarding equipment and potable water

Regularly maintaining lab water purification systems is more sustainable than buying new ones whenever issues arise. This is because the upstream activities of creating new equipment-from mining resources to manufacturing and shipping parts-produce greenhouse gases.3

Regular maintenance also helps ensure equipment oper- ates at its best and does not leak or waste energy. Installing low-flow aerators on faucets and regularly checking pipes for leaks help reduce a lab's overall water use.

Buying with a (greener) future in mind

Thhen the time comes to buy a new water purification system selecting one that uses minimal energy and doesn't exceed purity requirements, helps a lab align with their sustainabil- ity goals. Energy-efficient systems will cost less in utilities over time in addition to being better for the environment.4

Although buying a system that exceeds a lab's daily water use ensures enough purified water is always available, purifying more water than is necessary is not good for budgets or the planet. Considering a system that works with long-life car- tridges, or buying long-life cartridges for an existing system, is also a sustainable choice. Using fewer cartridges means less will ultimately be buried in landfills. Requesting electronic manuals instead of paper with a new system is another sim- ple step toward a greener lab.

Strong chemicals, necessary for some types of water purifi- cation, can impact the environment if handled and disposed of incorrectly. Verify new systems follow the rules from regulatory agencies, such as the United States Environmen- tal Protection Agency and the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, about the usage, storage, and disposal of strong chemicals.5

Lab water purification is essential but doesn't have to be unsustainable. Carefully planning the use of water grades, maintaining purification equipment, and buying with sus- tainability in mind can make lab water purification practices more environmentally friendly.

References:

1. Thater: https://www.mygreenlab.org/water.html

2. Laboratory Thater: https://orf.od.nih.gov/TechnicalRe- sources/Documents/DTR%20Thhite%20Papers/Labo- ratory%20Thater-Its%20Importance%20and%20Applica- tion-March-2013_508.pdf

3. Top 9 Actions to Take in the Lab to Improve Thater Effi- ciency: https://www.mygreenlab.org/blog-beaker/top-9- actions-to-take-in-the-lab-to-improve-water-efficiency

4. Thater Efficiency Guide for Laboratories: https://www.nrel. gov/docs/fy05osti/36743.pdf

5. How to Select the Right Thater Purification System for Your Lab: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/tech- nical-documents/technical-article/analytical-chemistry/ small-molecule-hplc/selecting-the-right-water-purifica- tion-system

Product Spotlight

Milli-Q® Water Purification Systems: Your Opportunity for

More Sustainable Science

We are making every drop count to better support your lab's sustainability goals. From decreasing water and energy consumption to minimizing plastic and eliminating chemical and mercury

waste, Milli-Q® water purification systems are being actively designed to reduce their (and your!) environmental footprint.

E.R.A.® technology optimizes water recovery from the RO membrane on high-flow systems, reducing water use by up to 50 percent compared to the previous generation of systems. This also helps to reduce plastic waste by prolonging the lifetime of pretreatment cartridges.

Milli-Q® IQ, IX, and EQ systems achieve up to 35 percent energy savings (up to 2000 kWh over the product lifecycle) compared to older generation systems thanks to optimized components and purification processes, improved Lab Close mode, and the Elix® EDI module. Additionally, ech2o® UV lamps eliminate mercury handling and associated regulated disposal management in Milli-Q® IQ and IX systems.

Discover how Greener Alternative Milli-Q® water systems can reduce your lab's environmental footprint.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

Making the Business Case for Sustainable Solutions in Your Lab‌

A guide to building an airtight argument for sustainable investments

by Paula McDaniel, PhD

Sustainability is a key issue in today's world, but what does it actually mean for your lab's operations? Lab-focused sustainability improvements often address changes relating to raw material choices or waste stream reduction, not lab processes. Thhether your team focuses on testing, synthesis, or manufacturing, decisions on improving your operation's sustainability often come down to a cost/benefit analysis.

Peeling back the layers of inputs and outputs for your opera- tion is key to building your case for change.

ROI: The cornerstone of your argument

Building the case for any investment-requiring change starts with a return-on-investment (ROI) calculation. Very simply, ROI is cost savings divided by investment cost. ROI calcula- tions determine the financial benefit of an investment by cal- culating the length of time to recover the cost of the invest- ment. Investments can be capital, lab renovations, or software. Supporting a green solution with smart financial assessment is the way to get buy-in on the proposed investment. The process of digging through the details will help you validate the true cascading benefit of the option under consideration.

In standard investment calculations, such as replacing an aging piece of equipment, the assessment is often straightfor- ward. Investment costs are usually compared to parts avail- ability/repair costs and lost revenue if the instrument fails altogether. Now, let's layer on solutions that will address low- ering the carbon footprint. In identifying greener options, look at the broader inputs and outputs of your operation.

Getting management buy-in will require some homework by the lab manager. To achieve your lower carbon footprint goals, changes might involve capital acquisition, space modi- fications, and workflow changes.

Factors to calculate ROI

In calculating the cost of and return on implementing greener solutions, think broadly about inputs and outputs in the operation. As you gather data, don't shy away from items that are fuzzy in terms of exact dollar figure impact. A list of comparisons to the current state can be added even if precise figures are not known. Outlined below are some basic categories of cost and benefit to evaluate. In addition to more standard items, sustainable considerations are also

proposed. Use these lists to look for factors to include in your ROI calculation and help determine when the time is right to make a change.

Initial costs

In the case of an equipment capital investment, initial costs will include some or all of the following:

• Equipment cost

• Lab renovations

• IT fees (network accessibility, software licensing fees for users)

• Operator training (courses and travel)

• Secondary capital (prep equipment, balances, new gas handling systems)

Also factor in savings that might be realized with trade-in or sale of existing equipment, along with opportunities for operation consolidation.

Operational changes

Surrounding the core physical investment, identify op- erational process changes that can potentially impact the sustainability of your operation. During this phase, collect data that helps paint a more complete picture of your overall operation and evaluate the change's true cost and environ- mental benefit.

Chemical cost: Compare type, purity, hazards, and amount used. Remember that today's process might need to be al- tered following implementation. Ensure you consider modi- fications to things such as flush cycles or replicates needed to ensure operational cleanliness. If less efficient or lower-pu- rity chemicals are used, more waste might be generated to achieve desired operational readiness. In addition, evaluate the cost of maintaining your chemical supply through refrig- eration or freezing.

Disposable supplies (non-reusable): Consider quantity, quality, and reuse options. In addition to ensuring your operational quality is maintained, evaluate if a change in the scale/size of vials, tubes, or pipettes can be made to reduce waste. Some supplies might be greener based on the material of construction and final disposal options (landfill versus incineration). Factor in the human cost of implementing dis- posal or reuse operations. Personnel time and cleaning waste are a true cost that should not be overlooked.

Facility cost: Does the change allow the operation to use less electricity, emit fewer/greener gases, or leave a smaller footprint? Thill a more modern approach allow you to retire several pieces of older equipment, thereby consolidating operations? These options can have a dramatic impact on facility cost and electricity utilization. In addition, evaluate the proposed change in the context of reduced engineering control usage. Ventilation level or type (hoods, point-of-op- eration ventilation snorkels, ventilation enclosures) are a major lab facility cost. In a complex lab operation, your facil- ity team might not be able to pinpoint a unit operation cost for your calculation, but directional guidance is achievable. In addition to electricity savings, air quality monitoring and permitting costs in your locale can be significant drivers for sustainable solutions in a laboratory operation.

Waste: In addition to the comments above, does your pro- posal enable the use of greener waste streams for chemicals and disposables (gloves, vials, pipettes)? Partnering with your environmental, health, and safety (EHS) expert can help you make the best balance of cost and green solution choices.

Miscellaneous: Include paper and ink costs (and dispos- al costs) if transitioning to an electronic output. Do not overlook acceptance hurdles by your team or your custom- ers. Depending on quality system constraints, ensure your

documentation standards support the use of electronic media for key phases of your operation.

Accounting for non-quantifiable changes

As scientists, our tendency is to strive for significant fig- ures, but not every change is going to come with a hard and fast number for their cost or benefit. To incorporate these changes into your argument, create qualitative evaluations, comparing today with the future solution to complement the hard figures. Also, highlight pending changes that will

impact future operations. For example, an instrument will be unsupported by the vendor, a chemical will become unavail- able, or a waste stream option will be obsoleted. Additional evaluations such as these can provide urgency and encourage time sensitivity, which will aid your management deci-

sion-making process.

In evaluating sustainable solutions, don't overlook the "people impact" and broader benefit for your lab team. For example, by implementing a software solution, do you enable more remote work, reducing employee travel time and resources (auto-

mobile depreciation and travel congestion)? Can instrument consolidation reduce travel time or give your operators a less cluttered lab environment? Don't overlook the need for change management to accompany new process or procedure imple- mentation, but recognize that sustainable solutions are often attractive to existing and potential employees alike.

"Surrounding the core physical investment, identify operational process changes that can potentially impact the sustainability of your

operation."

External factors to consider

Additionally, your customers' needs and industry drivers can be utilized to prioritize sustainable solution implemen- tation. Regulatory-driven customer requirements often revolve around residual chemicals that can make their way to water, air, and people. If your lab has a manufacturing focus, addressing greener solutions is an important driver of change. Remember, however, that testing revalidation or

product requalification might be required based on your new process or method. Engage your customers to ensure smooth acceptance of your changes if needed.

Sustainable solutions can be a competitive advantage for your organization and your company. Keep your finger on the pulse of your industry and relevant EHS drivers to

avoid being caught off-guard when change is afoot. Partner with other experts (waste disposal, facilities teams, EHS, and chemical vendors) to gather input on what challenges they have today and what they see for the future. Prioritize your initiatives and ensure you look broadly at inputs and outputs to assess the overall sustainability of a solution. As you travel down a greener operational path, don't overlook

the simple changes your team can make today while building the case for green investments. Close sashes when hoods are not in use, turn off unused equipment and lights, and reduce engineering controls (ventilation snorkels, special treatment hoods) to make a dramatic difference in your lab's carbon footprint today.

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, a leading science and technology company, operates across healthcare, life science, and electronics. The life science business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, which operates as MilliporeSigma in the U.S. and Canada, employs over 63,000 people and has more than 55 manufacturing and testing sites worldwide. With a portfolio of more than 300,000 products, the company focuses on scientific discovery, biomanufacturing, and testing services

www.sigmaaldrich.com

In partnership with