Hi Reader, you are probably missing out on significant opportunities...
Institutions that take sustainability seriously can often save more than 60% of plastic waste, 50% of energy, and 20% of chemicals.
Even if you have, for example, set your freezer to -70°C you are still missing out on about 1/3 of potential energy savings.
How is that possible, and how can you change it?
Today's Lesson: Why We Miss So Much Potential
Finding out how we can make big changes happen
Number of the Day
A single laboratory was able to save approximately €600 per year simply through waste reduction measures affecting their plastic and sample disposal. Zero-waste approaches have saved even companies like Toyota over a million dollars. However, to unlock these savings, you need to understand that waste treatment is cost-intensive and what zero-waste approaches actually involve. This knowledge is available, but this is often the challenge:
600
How You're Missing Significant Savings
The untapped savings potential in institutes, companies, and laboratories is much larger than we normally expect.
We underestimate it because sustainability is rarely taught in universities, and few people read educational series such as this one.
How many associations with sustainable practice do you have when looking at this picture? For me, it’s far over 20, but of course, I’ve also been doing this for several years now.
But why do sustainability staff, as well as scientists, struggle with that?
Because it often takes a combination of experience and scientific expertise to drive change safely - and many need guidance to make that happen.
Optimization Is Not Straightforward
Scientists know their protocols and processes - can’t they just improve them?
As scientists, we are trained to make protocols work.
What we don’t learn is how to systematically optimize them. In fact, we rarely even attempt it:
What we normally do is translate protocols from papers into our labs. These protocols function under specific handling conditions and are often copied and pasted across different conditions and samples without further adjustment. The focus is simply on making the method work. However, sustainability is about verifying functionality tailored to the current application, achieved with reduced time, sample use, and overall resource investment.
A working protocol is considered something that should no longer be touched.
This is why optimization is possible almost everywhere but rarely realized:
Chemical volumes are not reduced
Single-use items are overused
Shortening processing time is never considered
> This lack of optimization not only increases environmental impact - it also negatively affects reproducibility.
From personal experience, I see this both in academia and in industrial R&D departments.
Remember, the latter are often led by scientists too, and they didn’t receive training in process optimization.
A manufacturer may develop a new instrument with lower consumption rates. But how does your company hear about it? And do you have someone you trust to know whether innovations are truly sustainable? Furthermore, internal optimization of its settings often stops once minimally sufficient data quality is achieved. It is rarely pushed to the point where the least amount of time or money is used. In large companies especially, time is a critical factor - and there is often no dedicated efficiency officer. Sustainable thinking aims to change exactly that. As you can see, I edited this graphic slightly and added a little sentence. If you are interested in the Attune, here is the brochure for you.
Even in manufacturing or quality control, the focus is frequently on meeting regulatory guidelines to ensure compliance - not on optimizing processes beyond minimum requirements.
Missing a Broader Perspective
Many institutions have motivated individuals or even a sustainability officer. Still, they often lack lab-specific sustainability experience.
A prime example is the so-called “dropping method,” where bacteria are placed onto plates using droplets from a pipette instead of being streaked.
I have previously shared more about drop plating and other approaches if you would like to learn more.
The advantage is not only improved bacterial viability, but also plastic savings of up to 80%.
Additionally, it can save hours of work. Yet despite published studies describing the method, very few scientists are aware of it.
The same applies to optimizing instrument settings or selecting greener chemicals.
However, without knowing the literature, it is unlikely that lab staff know what is possible and what it can yield.
Why Most Don’t Use Their Full Potential
Many of us need someone to motivate them because they have a mental blockade.
But too often, we are held back by previous negative experiences with sustainability claims in politics, hotels, or supermarkets...
It may seem trivial, but too often we confuse sustainability as an approach in the laboratory with political idealism or marketing claims. Sustainability in the lab is, to my mind, optimization aimed at enhancing efficiency. This is how we save resources.
Another critical factor is how we are taught scientific practice.
Many were trained in (sterile) environments by mentors who were extremely cautious.
Either out of fear that someone might make mistakes or because they didn't know why their protocols sometimes work and sometimes not.
Especially when working with cells or in quality-controlled environments, one can easily get the impression that there is only one correct way to work, even though practices vary widely between laboratories. And don’t get me wrong - there are best practices and regulatory guidelines. However, sustainability is often about changing how we handle items, not what we do or the steps in our protocols - something that neither health and safety nor process managers normally consider.
And here we again see why many opportunities are missed without guidance.
Whether it involves optimizing sterile workflows or evaluating new materials such as bioplastics, it often requires additional experience to confidently assess what is safe and feasible.
Driving Change Safely
Another major barrier, even when motivation and leadership support are present, is anxiety.
Yes, in theory, in science we constantly experiment with new ideas. However, we are not accustomed to modifying established protocols or processes.
This is one slide from a presentation I gave on that topic after being invited by Wiley to one of their webinars. I used it to demonstrate how I would assess neuronal morphology, growth, and synaptic plasticity to determine whether my changes to reduce plastic waste had any effects. In research, we are used to testing hypotheses and collecting preliminary data - even when results initially appear unpromising. Sustainable practices follow another logic: test changes before full implementation. Read more about my approach here.
That is why I developed five tactics that have proven effective in my own work and in other laboratories.
I have tested these approaches in practice and observed them being implemented successfully elsewhere.
The key point is that sustainability is about changes that must consistently maintain or improve data quality.
Knowing when to introduce change, and how to do so safely, is a skill rooted in experience with change management.
Driving change without disrupting operations requires a new perspective.
Applying The Knowledge
A lack of sustainability expertise often leads to opportunities being overlooked - sometimes by orders of magnitude.
How can these significant savings we see throughout the literature be unlocked quickly and efficiently?
This is the publication from the example we discussed at the beginning - while they saved more than $600 through waste management alone, guess what else they achieved? The numbers are mind-boggling: a 69% reduction in the consumption of single-use plastics, more than a 95% reduction in non-chemical waste, and approximately a 23% reduction in hazardous chemical waste. In addition, they reduced fume hood and cold storage equipment energy consumption by 30%. Significant savings are possible!
Simply telling people that sustainability matters is not enough.
What truly makes a difference is providing practical materials and guidance that build on existing experience.
Most scientists already have a general sense of what might be possible, so generic advice will not create meaningful change.
Instead inspiration comes through talks given by someone who provides genuinely new insights.
It comes through discussing case studies in a journal club every quarter.
It comes through bringing in a consultant specialized in laboratory sustainability who can give concrete answers.
Such a consultant/advisor signals that sustainability is more than a symbolic commitment.
It demonstrates that time and financial resources are being invested.
Also, external expertise helps identify opportunities or understand resistance - which is often difficult from within.
Therefore, if you want to drive meaningful change: connect with experts.
How We Feel Today
References
Kilcoyne, J., et al., 2022. Reducing environmental impacts of marine biotoxin monitoring: A laboratory report. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, 1(3), e0000001. doi:10.1371/journal.pstr.0000001.
Berthelsen, A. L., et al., 2025. Sustainability in the laboratory: evaluating the reusability of microtitre plates for PCR and fragment detection. R Soc Open Sci., 12(5), 242226. doi:10.1098/rsos.242226.
Penndorf, P., 2024. Reducing plastic waste in scientific protocols by 65% - practical steps for sustainable research. FEBS Lett., 598(11), pp.1331–1334. doi:10.1002/1873-3468.14909.
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 26th : )
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, I’m sure you’ve heard of bioplastics. Previously, we already discussed what they actually are. But are they safe to use in the lab? I would argue generally yes, apart from two specific exceptions: Today's Lesson: The Safety of Bioplastics Investigating the properties of innovative plastics Number Of The Day Life Cycle Assessments indicate that biobased polypropylene can reduce footprints by up to 81%. While the actual numbers in manufacturing...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hi Reader, ever thought about reusing your tips or tubes? To do so, many laboratories autoclave them to ensure they are sterile. However, autoclaving takes time and energy - it’s at least 121 °C for 30 minutes, after all. So, does reusing items actually make sense? Let's answer a question no one else addressed yet: Today's Lesson: Reuse Or Incineration Exploring which option is more sustainable Number Of The Day Approximately 400 000 000 tons of plastic...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hi there, ever thought about reusing your tips or tubes? To do so, many laboratories autoclave them to ensure they are sterile. However, autoclaving takes time and energy - it’s at least 121 °C for 30 minutes, after all. So, does reusing items actually make sense? Let's answer a question no one else addressed yet: Today's Lesson: Reuse Or Incineration Exploring which option is more sustainable Number Of The Day Approximately 400 000 000 tons of plastic...
