Cited by 55Environmental Impact and SustainabilitySustainability in Higher EducationChemical Safety and Risk Management

Re-use of laboratory utensils reduces CO2 equivalent footprint and running costs

Open access
Farley, Martin, Nicolet, Benoit P.·2023·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Laboratory-based research is resource intensive in terms of financial costs and its carbon footprint. Research laboratories require immense amounts of energy to power equipment, as well as large volumes of materials, particularly of single-use item consumption. In fact, many laboratories have essentially become reliant on single-use plastics. Understanding the full carbon footprint of consumable usage is increasingly important as many research institutes commit to carbon neutrality. To date, no carbon footprint assessment has been conducted to detail the differences between single-use plastics, and reusable glass in a laboratory setting. Here, we analyse the CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) footprint of utilising single-use plastics, and re-use of glass or plastic items within laboratory environments. We focused our assessment on four commonly utilised consumables for mammalian cell and bacterial culture, and found that re-use scenarios resulted in substantial reduction in CO 2 e footprint up to 11-fold. In addition, we estimated the long-term financial costs of re-use and single-use scenarios, and found that re-use had either similar or much lower running costs even when including technical staff wage. We concluded that research facilities must foster re-use in laboratory consumables, while reserving single-use items for select, defined cases. Our study highlights the need to account for indirect CO 2 e footprint in designing a carbon-neutral lab and promotes circular economy principles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0283697

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Routine authentication through STR profiling requires the use of plastics, reagents, and energy, resulting in a carbon footprint.

    “The process of routine authentication through STR profiling, like any other laboratory test, requires the use of plastics, reagents, and energy, resulting in a carbon footprint [149].”

    From Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review (2026) · cites this paper as [149]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says laboratory research uses energy and materials and has a carbon footprint; the Abstract identifies single-use plastics as a major material. The paper assesses consumables used in cell and bacterial culture, not STR profiling, and does not establish the reagent requirements of routine STR authentication. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [2]Nathans J, Sterling P. How scientists can reduce their carbon footprint. Elife. 2016; 5: 4– 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.15928 27029962 PMC4829415 · DOI
  2. [7]Borgermann N, Schmidt A, Dobbelaere J. Preaching water while drinking wine: Why universities must boost climate action now. One Earth. 2022; 5: 18– 21. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.015 · DOI
  3. [10]Velenturf APM, Purnell P. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021; 27: 1437– 1457. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [12]Howes L. Can Laboratories Move Away from Single-Use Plastic? ACS Cent Sci. 2019; 5: 1904– 1906. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.9b01249 31893218 PMC6935888 · DOI
  5. [13]Heidbreder LM, Steinhorst J, Schmitt M. Plastic-Free July: An Experimental Study of Limiting and Promoting Factors in Encouraging a Reduction of Single-Use Plastic Consumption. Sustainability. 2020. doi: 10.3390/su12114698 · DOI
  6. [15]Howes L. Can laboratories move away from single-use plastic? In: Chemical & Engineering News [Internet]. 2019. Available: https://cen.acs.org/environment/sustainability/laboratories-move-away-single-use/97/i43. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.9b01249 31893218 PMC6935888 · DOI
  7. [16]Alves J, Sargison FA, Stawarz H, Fox WB, Huete SG, Hassan A, et al. A case report: insights into reducing plastic waste in a microbiology laboratory. Access Microbiol. 2020; 3: 173. doi: 10.1099/acmi.0.000173 34151149 PMC8209715 · DOI
  8. [17]McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, Story D. The Financial and Environmental Costs of Reusable and Single-Use Plastic Anaesthetic Drug Trays. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010; 38: 538– 544. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1003800320 20514965 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [18]Whitford WG, Petrich MA, Flanagan WP. Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Systems. Single‐Use Technology in Biopharmaceutical Manufacture. Wiley; 2019. pp. 169– 179. doi: 10.1002/9781119477891.ch13 · DOI
  10. [19]Donahue LM, Hilton S, Bell SG, Williams BC, Keoleian GA. A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 223: 225.e1-225.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.007 32067971 · DOI
  11. [20]Sabnis RB, Bhattu A, Mohankumar V. Sterilization of endoscopic instruments. Curr Opin Urol. 2014; 24. Available: https://journals.lww.com/co-urology/Fulltext/2014/03000/Sterilization_of_endoscopic_instruments.13.aspx. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000034 24451088 · DOI
  12. [22]Pauliuk S, Heeren N. Material efficiency and its contribution to climate change mitigation in Germany: A deep decarbonization scenario analysis until 2060. J Ind Ecol. 2021; 25: 479– 493. 10.1111/jiec.13091. · DOI
  13. [23]Cossutta M, Foo DCY, Tan RR. Carbon emission pinch analysis (CEPA) for planning the decarbonization of the UK power sector. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021; 25: 259– 270. 10.1016/j.spc.2020.08.013. · DOI
  14. [24]Golsteijn L, Menkveld R, King H, Schneider C, Schowanek D, Nissen S. A compilation of life cycle studies for six household detergent product categories in Europe: the basis for product-specific A.I.S.E. Charter Advanced Sustainability Profiles. Environ Sci Eur. 2015; 27: 23. doi: 10.1186/s12302-015-0055-4 27752424 PMC5044932 · DOI
  15. [25]Giagnorio M, Amelio A, Grüttner H, Tiraferri A. Environmental impacts of detergents and benefits of their recovery in the laundering industry. J Clean Prod. 2017; 154: 593– 601. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.012 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farley, M., & Nicolet, B. P.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Farley, Martin
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2023-04-12
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
e0283697
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4365135068
Cited by
55
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Education › Sustainability in Higher Education
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Chemical Health and Safety › Chemical Safety and Risk Management
Keywords
laboratory supplies, single-use plastics, carbon footprint, CO2 equivalent, operating costs, carbon neutrality, circular economy, mammalian cell culture, bacterial culture, indirect emissions
MeSH terms
Animals, Carbon Dioxide, Costs and Cost Analysis, Humans, Laboratories, Mammals, Carbon Footprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review