Hi Reader, do sustainability and better science really go hand in hand?
You hear me say this again and again. That is because I have seen it myself, and there are plenty of examples out there, too.
So, today I want to share a very interesting example.
It's essentially a case study showing how you can optimize your workflows – in terms of time, yield, and plastic waste.
Today's Lesson: A Case Study on Choosing Kits
Greener practices that are often overlooked
Number of the Day
Torkamaneh et al. were able to reduce plastic waste in sequencing workflows by 89% by downscaling their approach. In their 96-plex approach, they reduced the total sample volume from 50 to 5 µL. The results showed comparable data quality, but with less plastic waste and greater consistency among replicates. However, downscaling and robotics are not feasible in all settings. Let’s therefore explore a much simpler and more widely accessible option to make your workflows greener.
89
Less Plastic by Choice
We all use kits for routine tasks such as DNA isolation. But which kits should we choose?
Normally, most labs consider yield and price.
Yet, processing time, sample/data quality, and, of course, the amount of plastic and reagents you use are other relevant factors.
Guillardín and MacKay provide a very instructive example of how these choices can make a difference.
They compared two DNA isolation methods for three conifer species and found substantial differences.
These conifer samples are not necessarily easy to work with.
Breaking down plant cell walls and removing compounds that interfere with subsequent analyses can make DNA extraction challenging.
So, could a method that uses less plastic still deliver suitable DNA?
Comparing the Methods
The authors compared a spin-column kit from QIAGEN with an enzyme-based method from MicroGEM, followed by a magnetic-bead clean-up.
They had already optimized the protocols for better yields, adding proteinase K to the QIAGEN protocol and extending the incubation time and adding extra processing steps for MicroGEM.
Generally, both approaches worked well and delivered high-quality DNA.
But there are some nuances that we should highlight:
QIAGEN recovered more DNA from two of the three species but also used twice as much starting tissue: 20 mg compared with 10 mg for MicroGEM.
Both methods yielded enough DNA for the PCR assays tested, with the expected major bands in all samples.
ntc: non-template control, m: 100 bp molecular size marker
However, they tested two markers. One showed more additional bands with MicroGEM, and some sequencing results were unreliable with either method. The other marker gave correct species identification for every sequenced sample.
And now let’s take a look at the other metrics.
Faster Kits, Greener Kits
For their workflows, the authors reported the following impressive numbers:
Plastic consumption fell from 12.51 g to 5.92 g per sample with MicroGEM, a reduction of approximately 53%.
The hatched portions of the bars result from the clean-up step that the authors themselves introduced as part of their optimization.
Second, hands-on time: Manual work fell from 5.4 to 3.5 minutes per sample, about 35% less.
Moreover, their reported overall processing time (including incubation time) decreased by approximately 52%.
A few minutes per sample may not sound like much, but consider what this would mean for a larger project involving 1225 extractions.
They estimated that using MicroGEM instead of QIAGEN could have reduced the workload by roughly 90 hours – alongside a reduction of 8.1 kg in plastic waste.
Applying the Knowledge
Even when it comes to choosing kits, you might be able to save much more sample, plastic, and time than you might think.
A long time ago, QIAGEN offered kits without collection tubes because they knew you could reuse them. They kept that flexibility:
QIAGEN allows you to order the buffer set or columns separately, so if you use up the reagents or plastic consumables at different rates, you don't always have to purchase an entirely new kit.
But you can also make improvements on your own. Reusing items and tips when appropriate, changing incubation times or temperatures?
You will see a few more examples like this on the 28th and 29th of October.
Even if you use more resources initially, if you are able to use less sample material or get higher yields that allow you to conduct fewer experiments, you might still end up with a smaller footprint.
Of course, the case study we discussed above is no exhaustive LCA - we don't know the footprint of each reagent used.
But the takeaway remains the same: Test your processes because people do not always look beyond the “it works” benchmark.
How We Feel Today
References
Torkamaneh, D. et al., 2020. NanoGBS: A Miniaturized Procedure for GBS Library Preparation. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 67. doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.00067.
Guillardín, L. et al., 2023. Comparing DNA isolation methods for forest trees: quality, plastic footprint, and time-efficiency. Plant Methods, 19, 111. doi:10.1186/s13007-023-01086-y.
If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email. Otherwise, wish you a beautiful week! See you again on the 22nd : )
Edited by Patrick Penndorf Connection@ReAdvance.com Lutherstraße 159, 07743, Jena, Thuringia, Germany Data Protection & Impressum If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe
Personal Note from Patrick, the Editor Hi Reader, want to discover unique ways to make your lab greener? As I’m organizing our online event, I’ve been thinking a lot about innovations lately. And yes, last week, we talked about freezers - something everybody already associates with sustainability. So this week, I want to bring you something new, something few people know about, but that can make a real difference: Today's Lesson: New Ways to Greener Labs What innovations you should look out...
Personal Note from Patrick, the Editor Hi Reader, is it safe to set your freezer to -70°C? As I outlined in one of my latest posts, driving change can be simple, especially as more and more companies support the movement. And one of the first things that comes to mind when we think about sustainability is freezers. However, many myths exist - among opponents and proponents of the temperature change. So, let’s dive in and look at the actual data. Today's Lesson: Discussing Change to Our...
Personal Note from Patrick, the Editor Hi Reader, last week I was invited to Cologne to give a talk at the Max Planck Institute. Part of my talk was about the significant savings that are possible simply by choosing the right items and instruments. However, I also included some hints about companies that might be overselling and greenwashing in our industry. And the question I asked myself again and again was: how can people know whom they can trust? Today's Lesson: A Tip to Assess Integrity...
