How To Drive Change Safely
First, we must understand that in our planning we want to leave the underlying scientific process of our experiments untouched. In other words, the goal is to drive change where it doesn’t affect our science. This is why sustainability-related change doesn’t mean significant investments of additional time, effort, or risk. The biggest reason we are afraid of change is that we prefer to keep things steady because we are already busy with everything else. Understanding Perceived Risk We rarely learn how to optimize, how to drive change, and sometimes we don’t even know why our protocols work. This makes change feel overwhelming. It makes our mind rationalize irrational concerns. Generally, it is often possible to find a technical solution – the difficult part is clearly expressing the kind of anxiety that holds us back. To allow us to think accurately, we need to identify and label the anxiety that we are often not aware of. > Otherwise, we see dangers everywhere or nowhere. But we want to see the actual risks and address them. Let us therefore look at some examples. The True Danger This means most dangers introduced to scientific processes are linked to human failure, not the riskiness of optimization. In other words, we (rightfully) perceive excessive and therefore blinding eagerness to save resources as the danger. However, this eagerness fades once we understand it’s not about reaching a zero footprint. Many scientists fear that sustainability will fundamentally change their science because they assume we must radically cut resources. This is not the case. The goal is optimization. This is also why radical changes are often not the most sustainable – for example, switching all plasticware to glass is not necessarily efficient, because glass has a large footprint itself, sometimes greater than reused plastics. My goal is to make you see sustainability-driven changes as a synonym for optimization. We essentially optimize; we don’t change. And that also means it’s not primarily about the environment – it is about optimizing workflows. The point is that saving time, chemicals, or plastics naturally translates into sustainability. The Levels We Operate On This means most dangers introduced to scientific processes are linked to human failure, not the riskiness of optimization. Unless we choose to use innovative technology (e.g., switching from conventional assays to SPR), the underlying methodology always stays the same. That means we might, for example, change the items that we use—this is a change in procurement. We might purchase bio-based materials that are of the same quality. We may change how we handle our items. For instance, instead of using a 50 mL tube, we use a 15 mL tube. We may also change how we handle our instruments—for example, turning them off during the weekend or optimizing their settings, such as when we use a microscope. Finally, we can choose to optimize our experimental design—such as when working with mice—so that in the end we have a different setup, for example by changing sample numbers or investigation schedules. However, none of these require us to change fundamentals of our protocols or rely on assumptions about biological or chemical processes we cannot be certain about. In fact, protocol optimization, when done as a team, doesn’t require senior expertise from every member. A bachelor’s student can make a suggestion that is valued by a postdoc, as I have experienced myself. In other words, experience should validate proposed changes, but optimization simply requires a thorough understanding of the underlying science. How It Benefits Science In essence, we can reframe the question of sustainability and safety. Sustainability efforts should remove unnecessary steps—steps that are often inherited from outdated purposes because protocols were not optimized or were reused for something else. This can have significant effects because, in many cases, we have not tapped into the potential for optimization at all. In many academic settings, protocols were never optimized, and thus adjustments can make huge differences: reductions of 30–50% in solvent use, 60–80% in plastic waste, and sometimes cutting analysis time in half. Even in industry, where protocols tend to be more optimized, these optimizations usually focus on the scientific aspects, not the handling of items – an area that represents a major opportunity for cost savings. My goal is to make you see sustainability-driven changes as a synonym for optimization. We essentially optimize; we don’t change. And that also means it’s not primarily about the environment—it is about optimizing workflows. Saving time, chemicals, or plastics naturally translates into sustainability. Once we adopt this perspective, we also see the scientific advantages. We often assume that our experiments measure our target processes without noticing how unnecessary manipulations alter the system. Sustainability removes unnecessary steps—such as diluting solutions in intermediate tubes—thereby reducing opportunities for contamination or error. In other words, reducing unnecessary steps improves scientific quality. How To Do It To implement change safely, following five core principles might help: Applying The Knowledge The key is not to change a running system in the middle of an experiment. Instead, change should be implemented after an experimental series is completed or when a new project is started. Most often, optimization is missing due to psychological barriers. One such barrier is insufficient trust in oneself. A very different one is the reluctance to accept that improvements already exist, as this would mean admitting that one could have been more efficient for a long time or that someone else might find a solution one did not. When leaders raise doubts, resistance might stems from distrust in a person, not distrust in the change itself (although expressed as such). However, if you as a supervisor doubt a person’s ability to optimize, you might ask yourself whether you truly trust that person to conduct experiments properly – and if not, why. Then, of course, it is your responsibility to grow them or remove them. Otherwise, what does this imply for the future of the project or the group Nevertheless, if doubts remain after meticulous planning, change should be aborted. This
Unraveling Sustainability Marketing Claims
From the very beginning, I was one of the few who openly talked about misconduct. Ever since the start of my career in sustainability, I have worked with different companies. This is how I fund our activities, and of course, this is also how I gain access to information that nobody outside would normally see – information that I am then able to share with you. But we also know this is why many people deviate from their original path of boldly addressing shortcomings. Why? Because at some point, money becomes too important. Since this has not happened to me, and as I am one of the few people in the field with the necessary technical expertise, I want to talk about something I often address in my advisory practice. I want to give you some examples because I want to help you avoid falling prey to this kind of misguidance. Pitfall #1: Negative Carbon & “Certifications” A major trend at the moment is materials made from biogenic sources – for example, plant waste streams. But one of the biggest problems I see is the claim of a negative carbon footprints. How is that possible? I would argue it isn’t. It’s just a mathematical trick. Yet, combined with clever marketing it becomes misleading as we see only the final number, not how it was calculated. Here’s how it works: biogenic carbon refers to carbon that plants absorb from the atmosphere and store in their biomass. I.e., if we make materials from plants, we’re storing atmospheric carbon and therefore ending up with a negative footprint. However, this thinking only applies when materials are used for a long time (like in construction for 50-150 years). But there is the workaround: companies are allowed to conduct only cradle-to-gate life cycle analyses, i.e., from material sourcing to the point the product leaves the factory. That allows them to claim biogenic carbon storage without accounting for what happens after use – even if the item is incinerated just two days later. Even worse though is that companies can certify these numbers. For instance, ISCC certification is available for such claims. When we hear “certification,” we assume reliability. In my view, what ISCC is doing here is either naïve or negligent. > They allow companies to certify cradle-to-gate analyses, enabling misleading marketing claims. And to make matters worse, companies can back these claims with ISO certifications few consumers are educated about. The issue is twofold: many ISO standards merely tell companies what to do, not how to do it. They outline for example that “Cradle to …” boundaries have to be defined but not which ones. On top of that, not all ISO standards are certifiable. Some are just frameworks, especially those related to life cycle assessments. That means: in practice, companies can design their assessments to get the most favorable results, calculate within that limited setup, and still get certified. Especially in this case, certification only verifies their bookkeeping, not the applicability of their sustainability claims. Fittingly, ISCC has already faced scrutiny: And even if we conduct a full life cycle assessment: We can refer to the “neutrality assumption” (meaning the carbon fixed by plants equals the carbon released, setting emissions from those to 0). And still, we have emissions from manufacturing, transport, and end-of-life treatment. Every product has a footprint. A “negative” footprint implies that the more you buy, the better for the planet which is simply not true. PS: Apart maybe from a few selected waste streams that end up in the construction sector. Pitfall #2: False Sense of Transparency and Information I generally support take-back programs. This is also why I’ve promoted them previously. However, a line is crossed when marketing goes too far, because none have convincingly proven their sustainability officially. While a fraction of companies at least share where their recycling plants are located, they rarely disclose transport details. If small batches travel long distances, the transport footprint can outweigh the recycling benefit. For the larger fraction that doesn’t disclose their recycling sites, it’s even worse. Since waste management chains are often opaque, there’s always the risk that your waste is incinerated or landfilled instead of recycled. I suspect that most companies lack data to verify where their collected waste actually ends up. In short, we’re working with a black box – nobody really knows the true footprint of these programs. As if that weren’t enough, some of these programs claim “closed-loop” recycling. In reality, they use a fancy term and show you a facility – but not its limitations. On average, recyclable plastics can only be recycled about five to eight times before their quality degrades too much. Chemical recycling could, in theory, extend this – but it’s still not scalable and has a much higher footprint. So “closed-loop” usually means a single loop before virgin materials have to be added – not an infinite one. Pitfall #3: Best-Case Assumptions Companies with great innovations often make sustainability claims that are theoretically correct but practically unrealistic. They assume the best-case scenario for their product, often based on very local or purely theoretical circumstances. Moreover, there’s no regulation forcing them to compare against a defined baseline. That means they can select any reference point that makes their results look good – claiming large “savings” that may not hold up in reality. For example, when a product is labeled “biodegradable,” we rarely know what that means in practice. Definitions vary, composting facilities are scarce, and contaminated lab waste can’t be composted anyway. Manufacturers assume ideal conditions, but in real life, these products are often incinerated or landfilled. If they assume landfilling, they’re allowed to compare against a product that is incinerated and whether they consider “waste-to-energy” or simple burning is up to them. The same applies to manufacturing claims about greener plastics. PLA and other new materials come with additional environmental burdens but whether and how these are considered is up to the company. Applying The Knowledge Sometimes, working with a
The Complete Freezer Guide
This guide will explain to you the impact of freezers, how you can make them greener and how to maintain them properly. Concise, applied and easy to understand. Let’s start with the fundamentals: the impact of fridges and freezers: To this day, there is not a single comprehensive life cycle analysis available for a -80°C ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezer. The same goes for lab fridges. Therefore, I went through the available data and, where necessary, translated findings from commercial fridges to our situation. Although tedious, the data was surprising: Manufacturing Impact A typical household fridge weighs 60–150 kg and is made from a wide range of materials, including stainless steel, aluminum, copper, polystyrene, tempered glass, acrylics, and polyurethane foam. The carbon footprint of manufacturing such a fridge is around 200–800 kg CO₂e. Walk-in refrigeration units or those used in supermarkets have accordingly higher impacts. Lab freezers, are somewhat heavier: a 500 L -80°C freezer weighs 240–340 kg, meaning its estimated manufacturing footprint is 600–900 kg CO₂e. Interestingly, larger 700+ L models weigh roughly the same (260–315 kg), resulting in a similar manufacturing footprint. Energy Consumption – The Biggest Factor Most of a freezer’s footprint comes not from its production but from its electricity use. The ongoing impact is as follows: Household fridge: -80°C freezers (500+L, assuming 341 g CO₂/kWh in Germany): Of note, these are compressor-based fridges—i.e., they use a compressor for cooling. For -70/-80°C, these are the most common models. However, some units use liquid nitrogen (especially for -130°C) for cooling, resulting in a very different life cycle composition. Refrigerants In short, a refrigerant is a substance used in cooling systems to absorb and release heat, enabling refrigeration and air conditioning. It cycles through phase changes (liquid ↔ gas) to transfer heat efficiently. Why does this matter? Because refrigerants have an enormous climate impact when leaked. For instance, assuming a 50% refrigerant recovery during disposal: Due to a 2–15% leakage rate per year, full recovery is impossible, and occasional refilling is required. On top of that, illegal disposal and improper handling remain widespread. End-of-Life The end-of-life impact, including disposal, plays a smaller role in the overall footprint.Estimates range between 0.25–15 kg CO₂e.(Deeper discussion about potential false assumptions in our Slack) Transportation to the landfill is likely a significant contributor. Additionally, we need to account for the energy consumption of hulk shredding (approx. 144 J/kg) and material separation. Typical recycling rates look something like steel, aluminum, and copper: Recycled at 37%, 32%, and 22% by weight, respectively. Plastics and residue: 20% incinerated, 80% landfilled. When Should You Exchange Your Freezer? A fridge has a total footprint of about 2000-8000 kg CO₂e over a 10-year lifespan. For a -80°C freezer, that number is closer to 20 000–50 000 kg CO₂e. (More in our free Slack). Let’s summarize: Compared to a 500+L model, the 700+ L energy consumption increases by roughly 30%, meaning faster amortization in environmental terms. Bottom line: Making Freezers More Sustainable Quick Aside: The global freezer market in 2022 was estimated at a staggering $4.7 billion. However, by 2030, estimates predict it will grow to between $7.4 billion and $12.7 billion. While the EU and US markets are the largest, Asian markets are expanding rapidly. Nevertheless, it is notable that Africa and South America—despite having significantly hotter climates—accounted for less than 5% of the market in 2024 As we discussed, the biggest environmental impact of ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezers comes from their use phase. But how big is their energy consumption compared to other lab equipment? The average energy consumption of a freezer per year ranges between 2.5 – 9.1 million Wh. An average American household consumes between 9 and 11 million Wh per year. Thus, only the older models consume more energy than an entire home! Now that we have a sense of scale, let’s explore how to minimize freezer energy consumption as much as possible. Purchasing At first, choosing a freezer with lower energy consumption will be environmentally beneficial. Modern ULT freezers have become significantly more energy efficient over the past few decades. A 500+ L model from before 2000 can be expected to use up to 36 kWh/day, whereas models from the 2000s–2005s typically consume around 19 kWh/day. More recent models have further improved efficiency, consuming between 7–12 kWh/day, with the most efficient freezer currently available (PHCBI) using just 4.99 kWh/day. These efficiency gains are the result of multiple technological advances: However, even the best freezers age. Every year, energy consumption increases by approximately 1-3%, which can easily translate to an additional 8.75 kg of CO₂e per month. Adjusting Set Temperatures The single most impactful change a lab can make is adjusting freezer temperatures from -80°C to -70°C or lower. Based on studies from the University of Copenhagen, together with an investigation by Farley et al., and manufacturer data, we can confidently say that raising the temperature from -80°C to -70°C reduces energy consumption by 22–29%! In fact, -70°C was the standard for decades before improvements in cooling technology made -80°C the norm—not for scientific reasons, but because it became a marketing advantage. Published studies further confirm that sample stability is not affected: Even manufacturers acknowledge this—QIAGEN officially recommends storing RNA at -70°C. And it’s not just ULT freezers—adjusting standard freezers from -25°C to -20°C has been shown to reduce energy consumption by 20%, as reported by EPFL in Switzerland. The Role of Proper Setup and Maintenance Aside from temperature adjustments, proper installation and maintenance can significantly reduce a freezer’s energy consumption. A study by Gumapas et al. analyzed four freezers (20–25 kWh/day) under different conditions and found several key factors: Controlling Ambient Temperature Avoiding Dust Accumulation Ensuring Ventilation Removing Ice Some Important Questions: Should You Purchase Larger Freezers? Older studies suggest that larger freezers were more about 13% for efficient. However, this depends on the manufacturer. While such a difference is still exists for PHCBI models, they do not in Eppendorf ULTs. Of note, upright freezers tend to consume less electricity than chest freezers. How to
What Is The Career Path For You?
Some clear-eyed orientations to choosing your next step after your degree. Academia can feel like the natural next step after your degree. It’s familiar, intellectually stimulating, and it’s what you’ve been trained for, right? But before you commit to a PhD, another postdoc, or start chasing the elusive tenure-track dream, here’s something worth considering: Staying in academia just because it’s convenient is not a good reason to stay. If you’re considering a long-term academic career, ask yourself honestly if you’re prepared for these realities: 1. It’s more about grit than genius Academia rewards persistence, not just brilliance. Long hours, weekend work, and chasing funding often matter more than how smart you are. If you don’t want your life to revolve around work, you might feel out of sync with the culture. 2. Publishing takes priority over purpose When it comes to securing a professorship, your success depends more on where and how often you publish than on the long-term impact of your research. If your drive comes from solving practical problems or seeing real-world results, this might wear you down over time. 3. The path is uncertain and geographically challenging Although this depends on where you live, academic positions are generally scarce and competitive. You might need to take a junior position at a small university in a town you’ve never heard of before you can move somewhere you actually want to live.And even if you land a professorship, only ~20% of your time might be spent on research—the rest is often spent writing grants, teaching, and handling admin work. This should not discourage you if you’re certain an academic career is for you—tenure tracks do still exist. But a professorship is not quite the dream we imagined when we first started studying. This realization is important, even if it’s inconvenient. Assuming academia isn’t the right path for you, what then? Which Career Path Outside of Academia Is Right for You? If you’re a science student or early-career researcher considering a career beyond academia, you’re not alone—and you’re not without options. To help you narrow things down, we’ve organized five core career paths where science-trained minds thrive—and broken them down into concrete roles. Each section ends with a question to help you reflect on whether it’s a good fit for your interests and strengths. Disclaimer: This is not an exhaustive list—some people land jobs as Sci-Fi Advisors. Just because a role isn’t listed here doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. These five paths simply offer a general orientation: 1. Information and Analysis This path is perfect if you love gathering, analyzing, and structuring knowledge. If you’ve ever enjoyed digging through papers for a literature review, translating complex topics into digestible formats, or helping others understand new innovations—this might be your sweet spot. There are three distinct sub-paths here: ➤ Science Writing and EditingTurn technical information into clear and compelling content. You might write manuals, simplify academic findings, or edit research communications.Sample jobs: Technical Writer, Scientific Editor, Communications Specialist ➤ Intellectual PropertyWork on protecting scientific innovations so they can be commercialized. You’ll help register patents, evaluate the novelty of inventions, and bridge science with legal systems.Sample jobs: Patent Examiner, Intellectual Property Analyst, Technology Transfer Officer ➤ Information and Data ManagementUse your analytical skills to extract insights from data. This can range from structuring internal company databases to complex data science tasks.Sample jobs: Data Scientist, Research Analyst, Business Intelligence Specialist 👉 Ask yourself: Do I enjoy digging into information, organizing complex ideas, and making sense of data or documents for others—without getting overwhelmed? 2. Sales and Marketing If you’re energized by interacting with others, explaining technical products, and guiding decisions—this track might be for you. In these roles, you’ll work with existing products and help communicate their value to clients, customers, or internal stakeholders. You’ll need strong communication skills and the ability to translate science into business benefits.Sample jobs: Application Scientist, Technical Sales Specialist, Product Manager, Marketing Associate 👉 Ask yourself: Do I enjoy presenting, networking, or helping others understand the value of a product or idea? 3. Research and Development (R&D) Still excited by experimentation, hypothesis-testing, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge? R&D allows you to stay close to the bench—just in a more commercial or applied setting. Here, you’ll develop new products, technologies, or therapies that don’t yet exist. If you enjoy designing experiments and seeing tangible results, this is worth exploring.Sample jobs: R&D Scientist, Project Manager, User Experience (UX) Researcher, Product Development Scientist 👉 Ask yourself: Do I like the idea of creating something new that solves real-world problems—even if I have to give up some of the freedom of academic experimentation? 4. Clinical and Medical Affairs This is a strong option if you’re interested in translating science into medicine—especially if you enjoy cross-functional communication with healthcare professionals. You might support clinical trials, explain product benefits to medical stakeholders, or ensure that new drugs meet regulatory requirements.Sample jobs: Clinical Trial Manager, Medical Science Liaison (MSL), Clinical Research Associate (CRA), Regulatory Affairs Specialist 👉 Ask yourself: Am I interested in bridging science and medicine, and do I enjoy collaborating with clinicians or navigating regulations? 5. Business, Finance, and Policy If you’re interested in solving large-scale problems, shaping policy, or applying your analytical mind to finance or strategy, this route offers immense impact. It’s especially good for scientists who want to step back from the lab and work on the structural systems that support innovation, business, and research funding. Also, the pay is typically higher than in other roles—especially in the financial sector. ➤ Financial ServicesUse quantitative skills to model financial trends, assess investments, or manage risks.Sample jobs: Quantitative Analyst, Equity Research Analyst, Risk Analyst ➤ Business and StrategyHelp companies grow, restructure, or solve major organizational problems.Sample jobs: Management Consultant, Business Development Manager, Strategy Analyst ➤ Policy and FundingInfluence science policy, funding priorities, and public research strategies.Sample jobs: Science Policy Advisor, Grant Facilitator, Government Research Analyst 👉 Ask yourself: Am I drawn to broader, strategic thinking? Do I want to shape
Resource Overview
Below, you will find all resources mentioned in the talk including some additional information: Talk Related Resources Talk Recordinghttps://youtu.be/1OkfaGaSRMs Talk Slideshttp://re-advance.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Integrating-Sustainability-in-Science-Safely-and-Efficiently-at-the-Leibniz-HKI.pdf Publications Reducing environmental impacts of marine biotoxin monitoring: A laboratory reporthttps://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/article?id=10.1371/journal.pstr.0000001 A case report: insights into reducing plastic waste in a microbiology laboratoryhttps://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000173 Reducing plastic waste in scientific protocols by 65% — practical steps for sustainable researchhttps://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/1873-3468.14909 Fume Hood Savings Havardhttps://sustainable.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FumeHoodWhitePaper-1.pdf University of California / UC Davis and UC Santa Barbarahttps://www.energy.gov/femp/articles/fume-hood-sash-stickers-increases-laboratory-safety-and-efficiency-minimal-cost Additional Resources Sustainability for Science & Data Quality A New Approach to Making Scientific Research More Efficient – Rethinking Sustainabilityhttps://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/1873-3468.14736 Sustainability Guide Co-Authored by Merle Hammer Original Versionhttps://tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/nachhaltigkeit/ressourcen/dateien/campus-und-betrieb/green-lab/GoGreenGuide.pdf?lang=de TU 2025 Verionhttps://tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/nachhaltigkeit/ressourcen/dateien/campus-und-betrieb/green-lab/Green-Lab-Guide-06_2025_ENG-1.pdf?lang=de More helpful resources are assembled here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/patrick-penndorf_making-labs-greener-sharing-the-best-resources-activity-7281991446528745472-Wqkj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADaG7eUBhRzKIP0RezdUPINYaEVNC7gquhc
Making HPLC More Sustainable
There is a lot we can do to optimize our methods. Often, we are only aware of a fraction of the possibilities, as technical options are usually available only to those who have worked for several years with a specific instrument. However, there are several actions we can take that are simple in nature and will greatly benefit not only the environmental impact but also the time, money, and sample required. I want to give you an (almost) exhaustive list of opportunities I am aware of for optimizing your HPLC workflows. I created this list because there are plenty of opportunities, but you should be able to review it quickly to identify where you might find unused potential in your lab: I compiled the following: I’ll start with Technical Components & Set-up, because I think these are low-hanging fruit: the practices are straightforward, and add-ons can be quickly purchased and installed—even by non-experts. Before we start, big shout out to Michael Meyer who significantly helped with collecting these ideas! Technical Components & Setup for a More Sustainable HPLC Let us start with some technical tips and gadgets that will greatly benefit your work, health and the environment: SCAT filter units for eluent and waste bottles are an effective way to improve both safety and sustainability in the lab. Why it matters: Reduced solvent evaporation lowers VOC emissions and solvent waste, and using the right size filter minimizes unnecessary material use. Protecting the Column and Reducing Waste Inline filter frits for the eluent system protect the column from particles and contamination, extending its lifetime and reducing the need for costly replacements. Why it matters: Column replacements are expensive and resource-intensive to manufacture. Protecting them saves money and reduces environmental impact. Minimizing Dead Volume with Smart Capillaries Dead-volume-free capillary connections (e.g., Thermo Viper / nanoViper) significantly improve efficiency and sustainability. Why it matters: Lower dead volume and reproducible fittings improve separation quality, save solvent, and reduce the number of re-runs caused by leaks or poor connections. Preparing the System Before Runs Proper preparation reduces errors, prevents re-runs, and extends the lifetime of expensive components — saving time, money, energy, and solvents. System Care After Sequences Post-run maintenance protects both the column and the instrument, reducing the frequency of repairs and replacements. Adapting Methods to Your Column Dimensions When using a column with different dimensions from the one specified in a method (e.g., from a paper), adjustments are essential to maintain performance. Modern Column Selection and Method Adaptation Why Column Choice Matters for Sustainability Liquid chromatography consumes significant amounts of solvents, particularly methanol and acetonitrile — globally estimated at over 150,000 tons per year. Producing and disposing of these solvents has a considerable carbon footprint. Even small efficiency improvements can significantly reduce waste when multiplied across thousands of runs. One of the most direct ways to reduce HPLC’s environmental impact is by reducing column internal diameter (i.d.) and optimizing method parameters accordingly. This cuts mobile phase use, lowers waste, and can even improve sensitivity. Narrow-Bore Columns: Small Changes, Big Savings Advantages: Considerations: Translating Methods to Smaller Columns When switching to a smaller i.d., you must scale flow rates and injection volumes to maintain performance: Practical tip: Use free online method translation tools (e.g., Agilent Method Translator, Restek Pro EZLC) to calculate correct flow rates, gradient times, and injection volumes for your new column size. Reducing column length (L) while maintaining particle size lowers analyte retention time and shortens the run. Halving the column length can cut mobile phase consumption by ~50%. If the particle size (dP) is also halved (keeping L/dP constant), the same separation efficiency can be maintained — meaning you save time and solvent without losing performance. Benefits include: Translating Legacy Methods to Modern Formats Many older methods still use 250–150 mm, 4.6 mm i.d. columns packed with >5 μm particles. These can often be translated to shorter columns with smaller particles while keeping the same stationary phase chemistry to preserve selectivity and peak spacing. Example solvent savings: Energy savings: Very Short Format Columns For some applications, excess separation efficiency can be traded for speed and solvent savings. Example: Translating a 150 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm C18 method to a 30 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm C18-PFP column gave better resolution than the original method while greatly reducing solvent use. Ultra-Short Cartridges for Targeted Analysis With LC–MS, full separation isn’t always needed — as long as analytes are retained long enough to separate from interferences. Practical Tips for Implementing Shorter Columns Choosing the Right Column for the Job The right column choice can dramatically improve both efficiency and sustainability. Still: Tip: Always know the minimum column specifications required for your analytes. Consult: Some suppliers provide online column search tools based on analytes; in the past, mobile app solutions were discussed, though availability should be verified before relying on them. Solid Core Particles Solid core (superficially porous) particles improve kinetic performance compared to fully porous silica. Key benefits: Practical tip: The extra efficiency can be traded for sustainability by using shorter solid core columns (50–75 mm), further reducing run time, solvent use, and energy consumption without sacrificing resolution. UHPLC and Particle Size Advantages Modern UHPLC systems (>1,500 bar) support smaller sub-2 μm fully porous particles or superficially porous particles in narrow-bore columns. These allow: Note: While UHPLC hardware is optimized for low dispersion, the principles of narrow-bore column scaling also apply to conventional HPLC. Shorter and Smarter Gradients Most HPLC users stick with the gradient they first developed — or copied from a paper — without questioning if it’s the most efficient. But gradients are one of the biggest levers for sustainability: shorten them, optimize them, and you save solvent, energy, and time every single run. Why gradients matter A gradient isn’t just a ramp of mobile phase composition. It determines: Unoptimized gradients often mean unnecessary “flat” baseline time, overlong separation windows, or excessive re-equilibration — all of which waste solvents and hours. What shorter gradients can achieve Scientific studies
Cell Culture Opportunities For Sustainable Practice
Cell culture and S2 work is always a hot topic. Since it involves culturing cells and infecting them, the question naturally arises: what can and cannot be done sustainably in these environments? The answer is – a lot. Even in S2 labs, significant amounts of plastic waste can be saved. I described one of my own workflows in detail in this publication (“Reducing plastic waste in scientific protocols by65% — practical steps for sustainable research”), but here are some key principles for routine work and those I have worked out with Jakob. First, many doubt whether waste separation is even allowed. Legally, it is. The German regulation for genetically modified organisms explicitly states that waste can be discarded normally — and therefore recycled — if it has not been contaminated. The simple rule is this: everything that didn’t come into contact with genetically modified or hazardous materials can be separated. That means, for example, the plastic and paper wrapping of serological pipettes can go into recycling rather than the biohazard bag. Beyond disposal, there are small but impactful tweaks in daily handling. If you are splitting one cell line into several flasks, you can reuse the same serological pipette to distribute medium across them. Choosing larger pipettes when working with only one cell type – for example, dispensing PBS or trypsin in one go – also reduces pipette use. For some cell lines, culture flasks can even be reused for routine maintenance, provided you check carefully that the cells remain healthy. And when working with small flasks, adding medium first and then cells means one serological pipette can be used for both steps. Safety, however, is non-negotiable. Jakob, for example, never reuses serological pipettes or shares them between parallel splits when handling two different cell lines. This eliminates any risk of cross-contamination, which would be nearly impossible to detect later if a few stray cells started growing in the wrong culture. As always, you should only go as far as you feel comfortable. Implement controls, pay attention to best practices such as expelling liquids completely, and above all, gain sufficient experience before attempting to adapt. Experience is what allows you to judge whether a practice is safe or not. Even then, the transition should be gradual. Make small changes step by step, so that you can keep your flow without becoming insecure, and so you can trace what works well and what doesn’t. And remember: if you are in a hurry, don’t force sustainability into the workflow — that’s when mistakes happen. Finally, culture matters. How do you communicate what you expect from your lab members? Make sure postdocs and PhDs are aligned and that sustainable practices are included in training. When new colleagues join, take the time to let them shadow for two or three sessions so they learn the lab’s culture of working. Having someone look over a shoulder is often enough to correct habits, catch overlooked opportunities for optimization, and make sustainability part of the lab’s shared standard.
Making Science Sustainable A Case Study #2
Jakob investigates how different Candida albicans strains cross an intestinal epithelial barrier grown in transwell inserts. The aim is to test whether the presence of a wild-type, strongly hyphae-forming strain increases the ability of a clinical isolate to translocate and cause damage. It’s a resource-intensive workflow, involving infection steps, barrier measurements, and potential downstream analyses. And this was the perfect example to show how experimental design can optimize both data acquisition and environmental footprints. In other words, this shows that if we optimize our workflows, we often become more sustainable at the same time. Let’s go through how this looks in practice: The workflow begins with preparing transwell plates seeded with a 70:30 mix of C2BBe1 and HT29 cells. All you need to know: two intestinal cell lines. Of note, these transwell inserts allow one to check for barrier integrity since any damage allows particles or in that case fungi/spores to pass through. Thus, once the epithelial barrier is formed, Candida strains are added alone or in combination. The core of the experiment is to measure barrier integrity. There are four main ways to measure barrier integrity: Here is what Jakob decided to do: Instead of relying on FITC-Dextran assays — which are commonly used in other labs as the easy go-to but require specific reagents, extra incubation time, and a plate reader — he chose TEER measurements. TEER can be combined with LDH and CFU plating, is direct, takes only minutes, and doesn’t disturb the cells. By using TEER first, he avoids an additional incubation step, cuts reagent costs (and their environmental impact), and eliminates the plasticware that would have been needed for FITC-Dextran. And because TEER leaves the cells intact, he collects supernatants for LDH assays or other readouts. Why not run FITC and LDH together? For LDH assays, they collect 50 µL of supernatant from each transwell insert – half of what’s available – to avoid disturbing the barrier. This means LDH and FITC-Dextran can’t be run from the same well in the same experiment. Colony-forming unit (CFU) plating requires Zymolyase digestion — a two-hour step. The team avoids combining this with FITC-Dextran, which would extend the experiment by another hour and require extra consumables. Instead, they keep workflows separate unless both readouts are absolutely essential. For us, this seems obvious, but it requires taking a step back and deciding which assays to prioritize. Once again, optimizing data acquisition and quality leads to the same conclusion as sustainability considerations. The critical step is to sit down and search for alternative methods at the level of experimental design. But experimental design stretches beyond methodology. Jakob also looked closely at the design of single-use items and pipetting orders. For example, instead of using 1.5 mL conical-bottom tubes for washes, they work with flat-bottom 2 mL tubes. The flat base allows pouring off washing medium without disturbing the pellet, meaning no pipette tip is needed. The same shape also makes vortexing more effective for resuspension.What looks like a small change eliminates several plastic tips per wash step and saves time at the bench. In LDH assays, they reuse a pipette tip for both technical replicates when handling low-risk reagents like stop solution, cutting tip use in half for that step. Reservoirs for non-hazardous solutions are labeled, rinsed, and reused rather than discarded after one use. At the same time, he is careful to use fresh tips for dilution series, pipetting from higher to lower concentration to avoid cross-contamination — again showing that sustainability never overrides data integrity. Moving to CFU plating, technical replicates are plated in duplicate for the same reason. This doubles the number of plates, but it catches variability early and prevents entire experiments from being repeated. Supernatants are also kept in the fridge for short periods in case re-plating is needed — another safeguard against wasting days of work and materials. Sometimes experimental design cannot optimize sustainability. In his plate layouts, Jakob avoids the outer wells because, due to temperature differences and humidity variation, medium evaporates faster and cells grow more slowly.That also means differentiation takes longer. This would disrupt workflows. If possible, the number of replicates is adapted; otherwise, empty wells are accepted as an unfortunate reality. Finally, a few smart tweaks stand out. For cleaning the electrode during TEER measurements, they keep two 50 mL tubes — one for PBS, one for ethanol — and reuse them for up to a month. Ethanol volume is kept slightly lower so it never contaminates the PBS.
Making Science Sustainable A Case Study #1
I spent two days with Dr. Jana and Dr. Evelyn Molloy in in their lab, where most project evolve around Molecular Biology workflows to prepare samples to extract biomolecules for HPLC analysis. We walked the lab from one end to the other, following the natural flow of experiments – from preparing media to handling waste – looking for where they already save resources and where small tweaks could go further. What I noticed quite quickly was sustainability here wasn’t a “special project.” Many of these practices are embedded in the daily workflow. The trick is recognizing them, optimizing them, and making them part of the lab’s shared culture. Instead of providing a linear walkthrough, I decided to highlight two main aspects that I think will help you most in understanding sustainable practices: teamwork and creativity. How they Create A Culture of Sustainability through Teamwork What stood out most during my walkthrough wasn’t just the practices themselves, but how they reinforce each other to create a lab culture where sustainability is the norm. The team has found a balance: some things are decided collectively so everyone benefits from a common default, while other choices are left to individuals. Nevertheless, with Jana and Evelyn as a driving force, they were able to bring about large-scale change that involves several people. Moreover, once sustainable practice is culturally anchored, new lab members and students will automatically adopt these best practices. It’s like a snowball that grows and gathers momentum rolling down the hill – and it was set in motion by just these two individuals. Alright, let me start where the basics of many of their experiments begin – media preparation. Agar and yeast extract are bought in bulk and portioned into smaller reusable containers when needed. Simple but effective. Once storage space has been defined, it saves money and generally reduces the risk of not having sufficient supplies. And once a lab is set up for bulk, it naturally extends to other areas like supplements and buffers. Especially if a staff member or single postdoc is handling procurement and restocking, such a culture shift can make a big difference. Remaining in the media prep area for a moment, they showed me that Falcon tubes used to prepare vitamins or minerals are washed and reused – before adding them to the media, the contents are sterile-filtered, so reuse doesn’t add risk. Where possible, glass replaces plastic entirely. The fact that washed tubes and glass bottles are available nearby makes the sustainable option the convenient one, and convenience drives uptake. Of course, switching to glassware is often only possible if sufficient team members are on board, since autoclaving and cleaning have to be coordinated – but this is what they pulled off. And once implemented, it is one of the best ways to reduce waste while building a new common standard for the entire lab. Choices made at the system level often help anchor sustainable practices. Jana walked me to the thermocyclers: they are set to idle at 12-14 °C instead of 4 °C. It’s a safe, energy-saving default. Nobody is prevented from changing it, but very few do. Think about organ donation: if you have to opt in, very few do; if you have to opt out, very few do too. Once the baseline is sustainable, cultural change is much quicker. That means small structural changes can ripple across the whole lab without requiring active effort from each individual. Then, a really big surprise for me followed, but one that perfectly demonstrates how teamwork saves waste. In their lab, agarose gels are reused until they’re fully consumed. If lanes remain unused, gels are kept in buffer for up to five days so someone else can finish them. In quick control experiments, gels are even “combed from both sides,” doubling their utility. They know that many have similar conditions to run, so gels (often at 1%) are kept. One person’s frugality becomes a resource for the next, which saves a whole lot of time for each individual. Gel buffers are swapped roughly once a month, and when evaporation occurs, only water is topped up. These are judgment calls made by individuals, but they fit into the broader culture of using what’s needed and no more. Energy-saving practices are handled with the same pragmatism. Incubators at 35 °C and 37 °C stay on to ensure constant availability, but shaking functions are turned off when not in use. This makes sense because the team agrees on what absolutely needs to be running, while individuals are responsible for switching off functions they don’t require. During weekends or holidays, switching those off is often feasible too. Later, I was accompanied by Evelyn. I noticed that she didn’t wear gloves. She told me that no one really did. They knew which processes were being run, and those didn’t need gloves in that area. Where ethidium bromide is used, areas are clearly indicated, and when hazardous substances are handled, gloves are available nearby. Here, we also find an important benefit of open communication and optimization: where EtBr is handled, students are taught right away- one glove for the handling hand, the other left bare to avoid cross-contamination to tubes or items. The point is that only if you trust your colleagues will you work efficiently as well. Finally, as mentioned, they took care to leave everyone a personal choice. Again, psychology influences these habits. Glass serological pipettes are stored right next to the plastic ones after autoclaving. Nobody is forced to use glass, but by making the reusable option equally visible and accessible, more people reach for it. And if plastic is ultimately necessary, everybody knows where to find it. All in all, to my mind, they have shown that establishing a culture around sustainability is extremely powerful – it enables practices that individuals cannot achieve alone, such as a complete switch to glassware, but also nudges better practices like changing PCR holding temperatures. Nevertheless, to my mind, it is
A List of Sustainable Practices
Reducing waste Reducing plastic waste within the laboratory can be achieved by: -> Cool Examples from my consulting: The idea of using a pipette tip to spread colonies was passed down from an Asian scientist to a postdoc, just as it was to me. Pro tip: it works best with a P200 tip – a P1000 is often too large. The same group reused their electroporation cuvettes up to 50 times – basically until the plastic turned yellow and brittle. Their washing procedure: 1× water (to prevent DNA precipitation) → 1× ethanol → 1× water → 2× desalted water → air drying → UV for 20 minutes. Improving experimental conduct and design -> Cool Example from my consulting: One of the scientists decided to use larger 2 mL tubes instead of 1.5 mL tubes. The reason: since the 2 mL ones have a round bottom instead of the conical shape of the 1.5 mL tubes, he could resuspend the pellet by vortexing without needing a pipette. Additionally, he could pour off the supernatant after centrifugation without needing to pipette it out, since the larger surface ensured the pellet adhered to the bottom. In doing so, he saved two tips and quite a bit of time. Changing procurement and purchasing processes -> Cool Examples from my consulting: To prepare their medium, a group originally used a plastic filter top (125 g) and a dedicated plastic bottle (75 g), both of which had to be discarded after a single use. Recently, they found a reusable filter top where only the filter itself needs to be replaced — they simply buy the correct diameter and pore size from Merck and use glass bottles for filtration. They also showed me a very useful 96-well PCR plate with a silicone sealing mat, allowing both pieces to be washed and reused for routine PCR checks. Reducing paper, water and energy use Paper Water Energy Optimizing Equipment Use Optimizing waste treatment