Foiled for Choice: Carbon Impact Assessment of Laboratory Heating Setups and Insulation Strategies

Abstract

Laboratories are major contributors to institutional carbon emissions due to their high energy and material demands. This study presents the first carbon impact assessment of daily laboratory heating practices, specifically evaluating the energy efficiency and lifecycle emissions of common lab heating methods—oil baths, bead baths, and heating blocks—used to heat water to 80 °C. Each method was evaluated over a cradle-to-grave lifecycle, including manufacturing, 2400 use cycles, and end-of-life scenarios (disposal or recycling), with and without foil insulation. Global warming potential (GWP) was calculated using Simapro and Ecoinvent, applying the IPCC 2021 GWP100 V1.03 method. Foil insulation reduced energy use by up to 66%, significantly lowering operational GWP. However, the embodied carbon of foil was substantial when treated as hazardous waste. The carbon impact was significantly reduced when foil was reused at least 4–10 times or recycled at the end of life, highlighting the importance of material reuse and sustainable end-of-life strategies. Among the tested methods, oil baths consistently exhibited the lowest carbon impact in most scenarios. Sensitivity analysis, presented as a calculator tool, showed a dependence on the reaction time, material lifetime, and block weight. These findings underscore the importance of energy-efficient setups, material reuse, and recycling in promoting sustainable labs and responsible consumption, aligning with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

Keywords

Energy efficiency - Carbon impact assessment - SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production - Laboratory practice - Sustainable labs - Material reuse

Significance

Laboratory-based teaching and research are carbon-intensive yet often overlooked in sustainability planning. This study evaluates the environmental impact of routine heating experiments, focusing on energy use, material choices, and end-of-life scenarios. By quantifying both operational and embodied carbon, we provide actionable insights for lab instructors to reduce emissions in lab settings. Our findings offer a replicable framework and a carbon impact calculator to help embed circularity and data-driven carbon awareness into experimental design and education.

Introduction

Society benefits greatly from the outputs and solutions that scientific research and innovation provides; however, the scale and nature of research endeavors has a significant environmental impact. Efforts to reduce the impact of lab activities and research are rightfully garnering increased attention.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Although many lab users are keen to implement better practices, many lack the knowledge and guidance to implement best practice in their labs.[3] The increased engagement in commercial green lab programmes,[6] such as the laboratory efficiency assessment framework,[7] My Green Lab,[8] and Green Impact,[9] indicates the desire of lab users to seek more sustainable methods of conducting lab-based research and development.[10] Within the literature, considerable attention and studies have focused on reducing single-use materials and to considering greener reagents and solvents used in lab activities.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Increasingly, many companies offer “greener” or “sustainable” options for consumables and appliances when purchasing new equipment. However, opportunities and methods to reduce the carbon intensity of current operations with existing equipment are less reported.

Beyond lab materials, labs are particularly energy intensive; lab spaces use 5–10 times the energy of an equal sized office space.[16] Large infrastructure such as ventilation systems and ultralow temperature storage contribute significantly to this statistic.[17] [18] [19] [20] However, there are opportunities that lab users in many different lab spaces can take to engage with sustainable behavior changes and reduce the negative impacts associated with their research. Heating contributes significantly to a lab’s energy use and when conducted on small scales, set-ups and habits are rarely optimized for efficiency, despite available data.[21] At the small chemical lab scale, many options for heating are available, with different benefits—versatility, ease, cleanliness, disposal, and heat transfer efficiency. Oil and water baths have been a standard heating method in many labs for many years. They have good heat transfer and can heat vessels of any shape. The energy consumption of rotary evaporator water baths was shown to be reduced by 56% by covering the water bath with polypropylene balls.[22] Oil baths are, however, very messy, can pose a hazard if spills occur, require oil disposal periodically, and are derived from fossil fuels. Aluminum heating blocks are excellent conductors between the hotplate and the reaction vessel and have few risks associated with their use. Many companies and workshops provide heating blocks to fit a variety of vessels, although they come at an increased cost. Aluminum beads are mostly sold as alternatives for water baths used at lower temperatures over long time, typically in biological settings. Due to their small size, the bead bath can accommodate vessels of any shape, much like an oil bath, although the inter-bead air pockets and lack of stirring ability may reduce the conductivity of heat, leading to slower heating rates.

Different labs are likely to have different heating media options available in their labs available already, so while the present study aimed to investigate the efficiency between different heating media, methods to improve heating efficiency, by use of an inexpensive and reusable aluminum foil covering, was also explored ([Fig. 1]). Furthermore, the operational carbon (OC), that is, the GWP associated with the energy utilized during heating was calculated and combined with a value of embodied carbon (EC) which involves the GWP incurred in the production, transportation, treatment, and disposal. OC and EC of the different heating media provide a whole picture analysis of the material choices made daily by lab users worldwide.

Fig. 1 Testing reaction setup in which an oil bath, aluminum beads, and metal blocks were explored as heating medium both with and without foil as an insulator.

Results and Discussion

To analyze the relative efficiency of the different heating media, a sample reaction of heating 150 mL water to 80 °C for 1 h was conducted using with an oil bath, a bead bath or a heating block. The heating measurements were conducted with and without using a foil covering to prevent heat losses and thus reduce energy requirements. For each set up, the materials used were weighed, the time to reach temperature recorded and the energy consumed during the ramping and maintenance phases were measured.

The heating setup with the greatest energy consumption without foil insulation was observed when using the metal blocks (0.350 kWh ± 0.026). The beads proved to be relatively less energy demanding (0.250 ± 0.006 kWh), while the oil bath appeared to be the most energy efficient heating medium (0.214 ± 0.017 kWh). In all heating scenarios, the addition of foil reduced the energy consumption by an average of 45% ([Fig. 2A]). The greatest overall energy reduction was observed when applying foil to the metal blocks with a reduction of 56% (reduced to 0.154 ± 0.019 kWh). Significant reductions in the total energy were also achieved when using oil bath (reduction of 48% down to 0.112 ± 0.009 kWh) and aluminum beads (reduction of 31% down to 0.173 ± 0.009 kWh).

Fig. 2 (A) The energy consumption in kWh of the different heating mediums, split between ramp phase (raise temperature of water to 80 °C) and the temperature maintenance phase (80 °C for 60 min). (B) The time taken for each reaction to complete the ramp phase and achieve 80 °C. Each reaction was conducted in triplicate. For both graphs, each heating medium was employed with and without foil insulation.

Investigation into the energy consumption during the ramping and heating phases revealed decreases in both phases when foil covering was applied ([Fig. 2A]). Applying foil to insulate the reactions reduced the amount of energy required during the 60-minute steady heating phase by between 50% and 80%. Energy reductions by use of the foil covering during the ramp phase were calculated between 15% and 39%, although the time taken to reach 80 °C was most noticeably reduced for the oil bath. Regardless of the foil covering, the bead bath took the longest to reach the desired temperature of all scenarios. Both the oil and heating block possess good thermal conductivity, whereas the air pockets in the bead bath reduce thermal conductivity through convection, leading to longer ramp time ([Fig. 2B]). The addition of foil placed around the hotplate, heating block, and around the reaction flask causes a blanket of air to form, which slows the loss of heat by addition of convection currents.

As shown in [Fig. 2A], the total energy consumption of the heating block (both with and without foil covering) is greater than that of the oil, reflecting an opposite trend to that reported previously.[1] [23] Such discrepancy might be attributed to the difference of the selected setups, as the previous study considers that one heating block can substitute three silicon baths as the heat source for three small reactions. Furthermore, the use of foil to increase heating efficiency was not considered. In contrast, the present study used a scale not suitable for hotplate sharing and utilized paraffin oil in the oil bath rather than silicon. The location of the heating reactions reported by Freese et al. was not reported. The present study was conducted in a variable airflow volume fume hood, which may have disproportionately affected the ability of the media to retain heat but was deemed representative of reflux and distillation reactions conducted in the chemistry lab setting. To account for the distribution of heat across the medium and the flask, the temperature was measured in the water directly which gave an accurate point between the ramping and heating phases but also resulted in differing degrees of overheating for the different media, particularly the blocks and beads as the oil benefitted from stirring to aid heat transfer. The addition of foil reduces the temperature gradient across the heating media by reducing the losses to extraction and reflecting the heat back to minimize the set point overshoot. However, reduction in the heat losses by use of foil retained the trend with the heating block showing increased energy consumption over the oil bath. The exact reaction scale and heating block employed by Freese et al. is not reported and that employed by Evans was much smaller than the one used for this study, highlighting the potential impact of block size, shape, and thickness on the energy consumption.

The use of foil was shown to reduce the measured energy during the reaction, however, to assess the overall impact of the use of foil, the EC associated with the production, treatment (e.g., milling), transportation, and disposal routes of the foil and the heating media should also be considered. A cradle-to-grave approach was taken to investigate the GWP for the different heating options, with or without foil. The analysis calculated the carbon embodied in the production, transport, and disposal of each of the heating media and the foil. Two end-of-life options were considered for the foil covering; disposal via hazardous waste and recycling. The lifetimes of the materials were taken into consideration; the foil after each use, the oil replaced once per year, and the glass, aluminum beads and heating block after 10 years. The analysis was based on running the heating experiment five times a week, for 48 working weeks of the year, for 10 years; equating to 2400 experiments. The OC was also calculated from the measured energy use multiplied by the same number of experiments using UK energy sources for direct comparison with EC. The assessment of the carbon impact associated with the different heating scenarios shows that without the use of the foil covering, the OC of using the heating media over the 10-year study period dominated the GWP of the experiment, with the EC making up only 17%, 10%, and 18% of the GWP for oil, beads, and blocks, respectively ([Fig. 3]). By extending the lifetimes of the heating material, EC would be further reduced (discussed as part of the sensitivity analyses below). The EC of the heating block is greater than that of the oil despite the oil being fossil-derived and including 10 changes over the 2400 use cases, which is explained by both the larger weight of the block and the large energy required in the extraction, production and treatment of aluminum compared to the oil. The addition of foil use reduces the OC by up to 69%, although for all media the EC increased owing to the production of aluminum foil (Tables S1–S3, Figs. S2–S4). When considering the EC of foil, the disposal was modeled through two different disposal scenarios; through hazardous waste when contaminated and through recycling when used with no risk of contamination. When considering the disposal route via hazardous solid waste, the EC of the foil (476 kg CO₂ eq) increases by up to 29 times. When applying the foil in nonhazardous scenarios where recycling of the foil can safely be considered, the EC is significantly reduced by 84–90% compared to the scenario where foil is disposed of by hazardous waste. The combined reduction in OC and the minimal EC associated when recycling foil after each use results in reductions in GWP of 62%, 64%, and 19% for oil, beads, and blocks, respectively. Reuse of the foil will further reduce the EC of the foil use. In more hazardous use settings where the foil is considered contaminated at the point of disposal, the EC of the foil is greater than the OC saved through the energy savings. For each of the heating media, the reduction in GWP from the use of foil insulation, OC_saved, can be calculated ([Table 1]). Furthermore, the increase in EC for each of the media when employing the use of foil for each disposal route—EC_increase(Haz) and EC_increase(NonHaz)—can be determined. The ratio between the OC_saved and EC_increase can be calculated to determine the number of times the foil requires reuse for OC_saved to exceed the EC_increase, known as the reuse ratio. When using foil to insulate the reaction in a contaminated scenario, the foil needs to be utilized 8, 10, and 4 times, respectively, for the oil bath, beads, and block reaction setups to have a lower GWP than using no foil.

Fig. 3 Comparison of global warming potential indicator scores for different heating scenarios using either oil bath, bead bath or heating blocks, with and without foil, as calculated by cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment. Reuse was modeled as four uses before disposal. The scenarios were mapped over 2400 repeats showing the embodied carbon of the materials and the operation carbon as measured by energy utilization.

Table 1 Difference in total operational carbon (OC) and embodied carbon (EC) contributions for different heating media when using foil covering. OC_saved is the difference in OC between heating with and without foil. EC_increase is the increased EC when using foil compared to the no foil experiment. Reuse ratio is the EC_increase:OC_saving.

	OCsaved/kg CO2 eq	ECincrease (Haz)/kg CO2 eq	ECincrease (Recyc)/kg CO2 eq	Reuse ratio (Recyc)	Reuse ratio (Haz)
Oil bath	64.3	476.2	24.3	0.38	7.4
Beads	48.6	476.2	35.1	0.72	9.8
Block	123.4	476.2	35.2	0.28	3.9

A sensitivity analysis was conducted which considered the EC of each setup and calculated the combined impact with incremental use (Fig. S5). As shown by the y-intercept, among the different scenarios studied, the highest EC was observed for the heating block system, while the lowest was for the oil bath scenario. Across all use cases, the lowest carbon impact is achieved when oil is used with foil sent for recycling after each use (40 CO₂ eq after 100 uses). After 330 use cases for all media, the greatest impacts are observed in those scenarios where foil is used, disposed, and treated as hazardous waste at the end of life (reaching 230–1860 CO₂ eq after 1000 use cases). The lifetime of the oil in an oil bath is highly affected by different factors such as spillages, contamination, and thermal degradation. Thus, sensitivity analysis was carried out on the frequency oil is changed. Considering a case in which oil is changed more frequently (every 200 uses) showed a steeper overall gradient in the carbon impacts and showed that after 406 uses, the lowest carbon impact media was the bead bath with foil sent to recycling at the end of each use (Fig. S6). Increasing the lifetime of the oil bath to 400 use cases resulted in the scenarios in which oil and bead baths are used with foil sent to recycling having the lowest carbon impact over 2400 use cases (127 and 129 CO₂ eq, respectively; Fig. S7). The lifetime of aluminum beads and blocks could realistically be used for greater than 10 years, however, estimates of future energy use and recycling options become less accurately predicted with extended forecasts. To explore the impact of heating choices over longer time frames using current methods for energy and material generation and disposal, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for a single experiment and projected over 20 years assuming replacement of oil every 200 uses (Fig. S8). With extended periods, the use of foil disposed of via hazardous waste becomes increasingly significant, whereas the use of foil disposed of via recycling becomes the heating option with the lowest impacts regardless of heating medium. Discounting the scenarios in which foil was used and disposed of as hazardous waste, the use of the block without foil remained the medium with the highest impact, owing to the increased EC (carbon impact at zero uses) and the increased OC per use (steepest gradient). A similar sensitivity analysis was conducted investigating the overall GWP for reactions conducted over extended times of up to 48 h (Fig. S9). Utilizing foil with hazardous disposal showed the highest GWP at low reaction times. With reaction times exceeding 5–15 h (for block and oil, respectively), the GWP of the no foil reactions became dominant, suggesting that the cumulative OC saved exceeds that of the EC of the foil even if disposed of in hazardous waste.

Heating blocks are available in a variety of shapes and sizes, and some heating block manufacturers claim reduced emissions of up to 72%, associated with the production of the aluminum raw material,[24] both of which will affect the total EC of the block chosen. An investigation into the effect on total EC (carbon associated with production and treatment) with reduced production emissions was conducted (Fig. S10). A total EC reduction of 43% was shown when a 72% reduction in production emissions is achieved. To calculate the impact of variables such as weight and lifetime of materials, length of reactions, and number of heating ramps, the LCA analysis was conducted for one use of each setup and combined into a calculator in which lab users can estimate the EC of different variables for the reaction studied. The results of the analyses highlight the importance of considering both the type of media and the end-of-life fate of the foil when designing a sustainable reaction setup.

GWP is a useful and widely accepted indicator of environmental impact. However, other environmental impacts can be considered, including water consumption, mineral resource scarcity, stratospheric ozone depletion and fossil resource scarcity. In the case of this study, the reliance of aluminum ore, bauxite, might play a significant contribution to water consumption, abiotic depletion and ozone layer depletion.[25] [26] Although inclusion of other impacts would have been insightful, focusing on one key parameter provides simplified guidance.[27] [28] With many higher education institutions centered on carbon emission reduction as their key environmental sustainability measure,[29] [30] [31] [32] this study directly supports their goals. By evaluating a research lab activity and its associated carbon impacts, it provides clear guidance for participants at such institutions to action their commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

Based on the findings presented, it is recommended that lab users and instructors assess the likelihood of foil contamination before conducting an experiment to minimize carbon emissions. In cases where contamination is unlikely, foil can be used to reduce the energy consumption and recycle foil at the end of its useful lifetime. In scenarios where contamination is likely, the use of foil should be avoided unless reuse over 4–10 times is possible. Furthermore, when reactions can be run in close succession, the energy of ramping can be avoided by keeping the heating medium at temperature, particularly when foil can be used to reduce heat losses and reused or recycled after use. The paraffin oil bath is shown to be the most energy and GWP efficient, however, is prone to spillages and contamination, plus items the oil contacts require a greater degree of cleaning. The beads and blocks on the other hand are easy to clean, can be reused and are less messy, although the beads are the least energy efficient and the blocks are associated with the highest GWP. When choosing or purchasing heating media, consideration of the lifetime, contamination, variability of flasks types required are all important factors to consider. Using foil and heating media already available for as long as possible in the most energy-efficient manner will possess a lower carbon impact than the EC of producing new materials. Lab users who engage with similar reaction setups to those presented are encouraged to explore the heating variables within the calculator (see Primary Data section) to assist with these considerations.

Conclusions

The energy consumption and time to heat of different heating media when heating water up to 80 °C for 1 h were measured and compared. Although differences in energy between the choice of conducting material were identified, it was observed that the use of foil as insulation for the heating vessel and hotplate can significantly reduce the energy used by up to 66%, exhibiting the potential that this simple practice has in reducing the carbon impact attributed to laboratory heating setups. The energy contributions and the EC associated with creating the materials were used as inputs for a carbon impact analysis to calculate the overall GWP. Regardless of the heating medium, when foil recycling is applied, the energy savings are greater than the EC of the foil, resulting in a net decrease in GWP of up to 90%. In the scenarios where the foil is disposed of as hazardous waste, the foil requires reusing between 4 and 10 times for energy savings to overcome the EC of the foil and result in reduced GWP. By quantifying the carbon impact, as GWP, of everyday lab activities such as benchtop heating, this evaluation and calculator tool is expected to act as a guidance for lab users for making better, more informed decisions about the sustainable options available to them and ultimately reduce the carbon intensity of lab-based research.

Experimental Section

Distilled water (150 mL) was heated in a two-neck, 250 mL round-bottom flask fitted with a waterless condenser (Fig. S10). For all experiments, a Heidolph MR Hei-Tec hotplate with power rating 825 W was used for heating and stirring, programmed to the precise heating setting. Temperature control of the hot plate was achieved by insertion of the hotplate thermocouple into the water via the 2nd flask neck using a subaseal stopper. The water was stirred using a magnetic stirrer with set point set to 300 rpm. An RS pro PM01 energy meter was used to measure the energy used in kWh. The water was heated to 80 °C during the ramp phase and maintained at 80 °C for 1 h during the heating phase. The heating medium was either a heating block fit for a 250 mL flask, a 900 mL crystallization dish filled with 600 mL paraffin oil and paperclip for stirring, or a 900 mL crystallization dish filled with aluminum beads. In each case, the bottom half of the flask was in contact with the heating medium. All setups were conducted within a closed variable airflow ventilation fume hood at 21 °C with and without a loose-fitted aluminum foil covering. The fume hood sash remained at the lowest position throughout the experiments. Energy (kWh) and time were recorded at the point where the temperature reached 80 °C, known as the ramp phase. At which point, temperature maintenance phase was initiated, and the energy (kWh) was recorded 60 min later. Each variable was repeated in triplicate and an average plotted with standard error. The difference between the ramping and final energy reading gave the energy of the temperature maintenance phase.

Methodology

A cradle-to-grave life cycle carbon assessment was conducted using SimaPro 9.6.0.1 software equipped with Ecoinvent v3.10 database employing the IPCC 2021 GWP100 V1.03 method to determine GWP measured at 100-year time horizon.[33] [34] [35] The indicator score of GWP expresses the relative severity of the carbon impact in kg CO₂ equivalents.[36]

Goal and Scope of the Study

The scope of the analysis was to determine the carbon impact of the different heating media (oil bath, bead bath, or heating block) and whether the use of aluminum foil covering results in a greater or lower GWP. The functional unit was “the use of a heating setup for 2400 heating cycles” and the boundaries of the system followed the cradle-to-grave approach, which included the stages of raw materials, energy use, transport and end-of-life treatment (Fig. S1).

Life Cycle Modeling and Inventory

The quantification of carbon impacts for each of the reaction setups was conducted, with and without the use of foil. Given the ubiquity and reliance of heating plates in lab settings, the analysis considered the use of one reaction setup (1 h + heat ramp), employed 5 days a week, for 48 weeks of a working year for 10 years, which equated to 2400 reaction repeats. The inventory and the Ecoinvent descriptors are described in Tables S4 and S5, respectively. An additional assessment was conducted for a single-use case, which was used for sensitivity analysis of experiment length, number of uses, reduced impact raw materials, and oil replacements.

For the raw materials, paraffin oil, aluminum beads, aluminum heating blocks, glass dish, and the aluminum foil were considered. Primary data for the weights of the materials were acquired by direct measurements of the equipment already in use in our research lab. The weight of the aluminum foil weighed for the covering was 5.4 g. The surface area of the aluminum heating block (2.7 kg) was estimated on a cylinder of primary aluminum with dimensions: diameter × height = 15 × 10 cm. To account for processing losses, the weights of the primary sources were increased; a 30% material weight loss was considered during the milling process of the aluminum block, and a 5% material weight loss was considered during the processing of aluminum into bead form.

The lifetime of the beads and blocks was considered to be both 10 years (2400 use cases), and they were considered suitable for recycling at the end of their lifetime. The timeframe was considered long enough to gather a representative trend between EC and OC, in which the assumptions for future energy and recycling options would still be applicable. The lifetime of the oil was estimated to be 1 year owing to losses, contamination, and spillages, and it was disposed of by incineration with energy recovery. The lifetime of the glass dish used for both the oil and beads media was considered to be 10 years[23] [37]—accounting for breakages, rather than material degradation—and was disposed of via hazardous sharps waste. The disposal of aluminum foil considered two different scenarios; when used in contamination-likely cases, the disposal was modeled via hazardous solid waste, foil(haz); and in the case of uncontaminated use, the foil disposal was modeled through recycling streams, foil(recyc). No weight losses were considered during the use phase, thus the amounts of materials sent for end-of-life processing were assumed to be equal to those measured before use. In the case of recycling the foil, the remelting of aluminum was considered to displace the demand for raw aluminum including a loss rate of 5%. Transport and end-of-life practices were based on current practices and sites available and in use at the University of Manchester. Exact parameters provided in SI. To calculate the reuse ratio of foil the following equation was used: $\text{Reuse ratio}=\frac{{\mathrm{EC}}_{\text{foil}}-{\mathrm{EC}}_{\mathrm{no}\text{foil}}}{{\mathrm{OC}}_{\mathrm{No}\text{foil}}-{\mathrm{OC}}_{\text{foil}}}$. Given the reusability of the heating media studied and the bulk or one-time purchasing, the packaging of materials was considered out of scope for the analyses.

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the relative rates of the carbon impact as a function of the number of use cases for which a scenario is employed for. The EC of each heating setup was calculated, and for each use case, the EC of the foil and the OC of the energy use were multiplied by the number of uses. The effect of the number of use cases between each replacement of oil was varied (from 0 to 200).

The foil and raw aluminum for the heating block were assumed to be produced by Europe’s largest aluminum supplier, based in Italy. Borosilicate glass baths were modeled to be produced in Jena, Germany.[38] Communication with manufacturers confirmed that the beads were manufactured in Oregon, USA and were shipped to the Netherlands. All materials travelling from Europe to the UK and ultimately to the University of Manchester were assumed to be transported via lorry and freight ship. The rest of the processes in this study were assumed to occur within the UK.

Contributorsʼ Statement

Yu Chen: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Jair Azael Esquivel Guzman: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Michael Shaver: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Christina Picken: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Royal Society of Chemistry and the University of Manchester for their financial support.

• References

• 1 Freese T, Elzinga N, Heinemann M, Lerch MM, Feringa BL. RSC Sustainability 2024; 2: 1300-1336
• 2 Kernaghan SM, Coady T, Kinsella M, Lennon CM. RSC Sustainability 2024; 2: 578-607
• 3 Royal Society of Chemistry Sustainable Laboratories Report. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2022
• 4 Estevez-Torres A, Gauffre F, Gouget G, Grazon C, Loubet P. Green Chem 2024; 26: 2613-2622
• 5 Sheeley HJ. Green and Sustainable Whilst Avoiding Risks. The Royal Society of Chemistry; 2020: 368-385
• 6 N. M. PhD, Green Lab Initiatives Take Root Around the World https://www.the-scientist.com/green-lab-initiatives-take-root-around-the-world-70676 (accessed October 29, 2025)
• 7 UCL, LEAF - Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/take-action/staff-action/leaf-laboratory-efficiency-assessment-framework (accessed October 31, 2025)
• 8 Accelerating Sustainability in Scientific Research | My Green Lab https://mygreenlab.org/ (accessed October 31, 2025)
• 9 Green Impact | Students Organising for Sustainability | Green Impact is SOS UK’s sustainability engagement programme for teams https://greenimpact.nus.org.uk/ (accessed October 31, 2025)
• 10 Schell BR, Bruns N. RSC Sustainability 2024; 2: 3383-3396
• 11 Sheldon RA. Green Chem 2005; 7: 267-278
• 12 Alves J, Sargison FA, Stawarz H. et al. Access Microbiol 2021; 3: 000173
• 13 Carrillo-Barragan P. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2024; 100: fiae084
• 14 Alder CM, Hayler JD, Henderson RK. et al. Green Chem 2016; 18: 3879-3890
• 15 Pacheco-Fernández I, Pino V. Curr Opin Green Sustainable Chem 2019; 18: 42-50
• 16 Tennison I, Roschnik S, Ashby B. et al. Lancet Planet Heath 2021; 5: e84-e92
• 17 Gumapas LAM, Simons G. WRSTSD 2013; 10: 129
• 18 Graham M, Samuel G, Farley M. J Transl Med 2024; 22: 747
• 19 Farley M, Nicolet B. PLoS One 2023; 18: e0283697
• 20 Haugen RK. ACS Chem Health Saf 2020; 27: 125-128
• 21 Hafer M. Energ Effic 2017; 10: 1013-1039
• 22 Freese T, Kat R, Lanooij SD. et al. ChemRxiv 2024; preprint, DOI:
• 23 Evans A. Triple Reaction DrySyn Vs. Oil Bath. Bath: Green Light Laboratories Limited; 2019
• 24 Asynt, 2025
• 25 Buxmann K, Koehler A, Thylmann D. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2016; 21: 1605-1615
• 26 Georgitzikis K, Mancini L, d’Elia E, Vidal-Legaz B. Sustainability Aspects of Bauxite and Aluminium: Climate Change, Environmental, Socio Economic and Circular Economy Considerations. Publications Office of the European Union; 2021
• 27 Cherubini F, Fuglestvedt J, Gasser T. et al. Environ Sci Pol 2016; 64: 129-140
• 28 Schmidt H-J. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009; 14: 6-9
• 29 Kiehle J, Kopsakangas-Savolainen M, Hilli M, Pongrácz E. J Environ Manag 2023; 329: 117056
• 30 Sen G, Chau H-W, Tariq MAUR, Muttil N, Ng AWM. Sustainability 2022; 14: 222
• 31 da Silva LA, Dutra AR d A, Soares TC, Birch RS, Guerra JBSO d A. Int J Sustain High Educ 2022; 24: 584-601
• 32 Valls-Val K, Bovea MD. Clean Techn Environ Policy 2021; 23: 2523-2542
• 33 Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF. et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017; 22: 138-147
• 34 Tabone MD, Cregg JJ, Beckman EJ, Landis AE. Environ Sci Technol 2010; 44: 8264-8269
• 35 Gallego-Schmid A, Mendoza JMF, Azapagic A. J Clean Prod 2019; 211: 417-427
• 36 Vergel-Rangel GA, Escamilla-García PE, Camarillo-López RH, Esquivel-Guzmán JA, Pérez-Soto F. Environ Dev Sustainability 2021; 23: 18068-18095
• 37 Evans A. Sustainable Alternative to Oil Baths. Oxford: Green Light Laboratories Limited; 2018
• 38 European Commission, Glass https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/related-industries/non-metallic-products-and-industries/glass_en (accessed April 4, 2025)

Publication History

Received: 15 September 2025

Accepted after revision: 02 December 2025

Article published online:
21 January 2026