Best Lab Practices

1

F10

Best Laboratory Practices: an approach to sustainable labs at the University of Michigan

Suzanne Jacobs, Joseph Gelber, Elliot Jackson & Emily Basham Environment 391, Fall 2010

Best Lab Practices

2

F10

Table of Contents: Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Project Outline 5-6

Resources 6-8

Research Laboratories 8-12

Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 12-17

Conclusions 17

Recommendations 17-19

Bibliography 20

Appendix 21-22

Best Lab Practices

3

F10

Executive Summary:

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), research laboratories consume 5-10 times more energy per square foot than an office building. The University of Michigan’s research endowment totals $1.14 billion and is one of the largest in the nation, which puts a large responsibility on U of M to set the standards not only in innovative research but also in sustainably built and operated laboratories.

As of right now, there is little knowledge on the energy consumption and waste production of individual laboratories around U of M’s campus. This semester, as a part of Environment 391: Sustainability and the Campus, our group, Best Lab Practices, pioneered a movement to begin implementing sustainable practices in research laboratories on campus. As a pilot case study, we partnered with the Lurie Nanofabrication Facility (LNF) in the Electrical Engineering Computer Science (EECS) building on North Campus.

The LNF is a brand-new, state of the art research laboratory that contains the most efficient equipment and requires strict health and sanitation codes. Furthermore, the lab runs by a computer operating system which maximizes labs efficiency. We collected only preliminary and mostly observational data in this lab because we could not access it until November. Moreover, we focused on laboratory behavior due to the lab infrastructure and codes mentioned above.

We created two sets of recommendations: the first set is directed towards the LNF and the second for future student teams who adopt this project. For the LNF, the computer operating system that runs the lab should be taken a step further and it be used for heating, cooling and lighting within the lab. This would ensure minimal energy consumption when the lab is not in use. There should be a sustainability research coordinator for the LNF that works to foster sustainable research practices with lab users and the lab manager daily. The last recommendation for our lab is to embed sustainable lab practices in the safety tests and manuals that lab users must pass and read to gain access to the lab. If possible, future teams should be given access to two laboratories. These labs ideally would be very different from each other, easily accessible and are typical labs that U of M students or researchers use. For example, a standard chemistry lab and physics lab located on central campus would be two excellent options. Once the labs are given to the group, which should be early in the semester, they should conduct monthly analysis on the lab’s waste, equipment usage and lab usage. Surveys for lab users should be given to better understand the lab culture, and at the end of the semester, the team should do an open house for their labs much like Planet Blue does for the buildings they assess.

Our project connected and built an underlying base of knowledge for projects dealing with sustainable research labs at U of M. We provided the eye opener for the University of Michigan to the economic and environmental costs of research labs, and opened the doors to the idea of sustainably built, operated and maintained research labs

Best Lab Practices

4

F10

Introduction: As universities and colleges around the nation work to build a sustainable campus, research laboratories must be placed as a top priority to attain such a goal. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), research laboratories consume 5-10 times more energy per square foot than an office building making them extremely costly. Large universities such as the University of Michigan generally have multiple research buildings in addition to several campus buildings that contain laboratories. Currently, The University of Michigan’s research endowment totals to $1.14 billion dollars. It is one of the largest research endowments of any university in the nation. Therefore, U of M should not only set the standard through innovative research but also through sustainable research laboratories.

U of M is continuing to expand its research operations yearly. University research expenditures increased 12% over the previous fiscal year and just recently, U of M purchased a former pharmaceutical research faculty, now called the North Campus Research Complex that spreads over 174 acres of land, comprised of 30 buildings spanning 2 million square feet. The environmental and economic expenses of increasing research operations is a costly burden that can only be lifted by sustainably built, operated and maintained research laboratories. U of M needs to seriously consider the implications of their research operations in the idea of creating a sustainable campus.

This semester our team along with the help of our project sponsor Jack Edelstein, the Energy Conservation Liaison for Planet Blue, began a project researching sustainable lab practices on and off U of M’s campus. The Lurie Nanofabrication Facility (LNF) was selected as our pilot lab for the project. The LNF is located in the Electrical Engineering Computer Science, EECS, building on North Campus. The facility contains equipment and technology to support highly specialized research for government, universities, and industry users. The research in the LNF works on the development of microwave devices and circuits, organic and molecular electronics, nanofabrication and nanotechnology projects.

Through our research we found three fundamental areas for creating sustainable laboratories: design, technology and behavior. This paper will briefly explore design and technology adjustments to create a sustainable lab; however, because our pilot lab is already built and equipped with state-of-the-art technology, we focused much of our attention on the culture of the lab. The majority of this report will focus on behavioral modifications in a laboratory setting. The phrase reduce, reuse, recycle is a phrase that lab users need to have engraved into their mind.

The goal of our project was the icebreaker in an area that the University of Michigan has just started to consider. The idea was for our team’s observations and data collected to be used in furthering the movement of sustainable laboratories on university campuses and specifically the University of Michigan.

Best Lab Practices

5

F10

Overview of Project: 1. Literature Review/ Various University Efforts/ Background Knowledge a. Gain understanding of the importance of sustainable research lab - Research laboratories consume 5-10 times more energy per square foot than an office building. I. Extremely costly, massive energy consumers, large carbon footprint - U of M research endowment $1.14 billion I. One of the largest research endowments in the nation b. Efforts at University of Colorado at Boulder, Notre Dame, Harvard, MIT c. Planet Blue d. Labs 21 c. Various research papers - Behavioral modification: McKenzie-Mohr (Fostering Sustainable Behavior) - Green technology equipment in a research laboratory 2. Laboratory a. Sponsor/ Laboratory Research Coordinator - Planet Blue: Jack Edelstein, Kevin Perkins - Dr. Pilar Herrera-Fierro: Laboratory Research Coordinator b. Laboratory - Lurie Nanofabrication Facility in the Electrical Engineering Computer Science Building I. Two years old and worth about $60 million II. 20 staff members in the lab and about 200 lab users III. Hope to double the number of lab users IV. Three levels of clean rooms in laboratory (1000/100/10) 3. Wet Chemistry Lab a. Direct focus on this laboratory - Most applicable to other labs across campus b. Take test, fill paperwork, interview process to enter laboratory c. Lab time - Record lab equipment - Record chemicals used - Take measurements I. Use kilowatt measures to record electrical consumption on equipment II. Record solid and liquid waste - Observe lab users I. Administer survey created for lab users - Observe how the lab is maintained and operated 4. Analyze Data a. Behavior - Barriers of behavioral change b. Equipment breakdown - Electricity usage of equipment in one week - Operation times of one week c. Waste production in lab

Best Lab Practices

6

F10

5. Application of Data a. Select which behaviors to promote - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle I. Chemical reuse, product substitution II. Turn of any un-operated equipment if possible II. Share laboratory equipment IV. Greater awareness of recyclable/reusable materials/items b. Computer system revamp - Research the possibility of hooking lighting, heating and cooling to computer system usage in lab 6. Recommendations a. LNF - Create stickers or magnets to place on laboratory equipment - Eco Representative/research sustainability coordinator for sustainable laboratories - Embed sustainability education through safety tests, lab manual b. Future team members - Work on two different labs => lab should be easily accessible and more universal. Used mostly by U of M students ideally - Collect monthly long assessments throughout semester - Create survey for lab users - Planet Blue open house for laboratory

Resources: Before we entered the LNF, we needed to have an understanding of how to create a sustainable lab. We looked at other universities as well as various research institutions for guidance. Planet Blue, Labs21 and various universities such as the University of Colorado at Boulder, Harvard, and Notre Dame, were extremely helpful tools that offered insight to green research laboratories. We hope that the UM will join these universities and others in spearheading the movement toward lab sustainability. In our research, we found that design, technology and equipment and behavior are the three main categories that make up sustainability in a laboratory.

Planet Blue:

Planet Blue is a campus-wide educational and outreach campaign with a mission to: Actively engage the University of Michigan community to conserve utilities and increase recycling thereby saving money and benefiting the environment. Planet Blue Operations Team is part of the Environmental and Energy Initiative (EEI), an outcome of the President’s Environmental Task Force. The EEI is a six-point initiative that seeks to make the campus more sustainable in the wake of rising energy costs, climate change concerns, and depleting resources. The six elements of the EEI are:

Best Lab Practices

7

F10

• Annual Environmental Report • Alternative energy • Alternative transportation • Green purchasing • Sustainable new construction/renovation • Planet Blue Operations Team

CU-Boulder:

CU-Boulder places particular emphasis on labs to achieve the campus-wide near term goal of 20% energy conservation by 2012 and long-term goal of carbon neutrality. The school’s Laboratory Water & Energy Efficiency Program is charged with promoting efficiency in their 400 campus laboratories. Individual lab assessments track electricity, water, and steam usage along with identifying areas of unnecessary consumption and the possible solutions. In addition to lab assessments, the program strives to update inefficient equipment, rid unnecessary equipment, and work with lab users to establish options for reducing lab consumption and, ultimately, achieving their sustainability goals (LWEEP for Labs).

Harvard: Harvard’s Office of Sustainability is making major headway in lab sustainability. Since 2008, five labs have earned LEED certification for Commercial Interiors (Harvard Green Building Resource). Earlier this year, the 1,900 square foot DePace Lab became the campus’ first wet lab renovation to earn LEED certification at the Gold level by using 100% Energy Star rated equipment and appliances, reusing or refurbishing a third of the furniture, lighting sensors, and ventilation setbacks (Trimble 2010). Renovations incorporated a number of sustainability measures: low or zero-VOC materials in construction, Energy Star equipment, sensory lighting systems, and the majority of regularly occupied areas utilize daylighting, all while diverting the bulk of construction waste from the landfill. The Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) Green Labs program hired five student Lab Sustainability Representatives to conduct extensive lab assessments on seven labs initially, but several more on the agenda. With many more labs to green, Harvard is well on its way to reaching the University’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30% below the 2006 level by 2016 (Presidents and Fellows 2009).

Notre Dame: Notre Dame’s Office of Sustainability launched the greeNDiscovery program to focus on labs in reducing the school’s carbon footprint (“greeNDiscovery”). Through the program’s 4-step assessment process, the 20 participating labs are expecting to prevent hundreds of CO2 from the atmosphere. In general, campus buildings are expected to increase efficiencies by 10-20% per building through the multi-year Energy Conservation Measures program, which has already

Best Lab Practices

8

F10

reduced “electricity use by over 5.2 million kWh, and steam and chilled water by over 30,000 MMBTU in 25 buildings” (“Energy”).

Approaching sustainability in campus laboratories is a fairly new task universities across the nation are taking on. Because labs are so resource demanding, they have become the target of the sustainability movement. Those that are focusing on labs have gotten so far as to develop a method for evaluating individual labs, considering obstacles specific to their campus. This is not to say that inefficiencies are not similar in labs universally, which is addressed below, but that labs are unique to their campus and many factors contribute to instigating change on a campus in general.

Regardless, methods are refined from project to project and become a model process worth repeating. Eventually, a comprehensive assessment process can be produced for dealing with future labs, as exemplified by Notre Dame’s 4-step lab assessments, which accounts for obstacles and solutions seen on their campus. Depending on resources and funds, some universities are able to completely retrofit labs, redesigning and retrofitting, and others finding immense resource reduction in behavioral changes. Harvard’s retrofits were able to impact lab sustainability in the design and construction phases. On the other hand, CU- Boulder organized “shut the sash” and “OK to turn me off” magnet campaigns to influence lab user behavior. Overall, these universities’ assessment processes are developed to affect obstacles seen on their campus specifically. This project draws on the processes other universities and Labs21 undertook to apply on our on pilot lab and ultimately develop a process for approaching sustainability in U of M laboratories.

Labs21:

All three of these universities, as well as many more across the nation, develop and further lab sustainability in consultation with Labs for the 21st Century. Labs21 is a research powerhouse, providing partnerships, training and education, and toolkits for universities, companies, and government- run laboratories across the nation. Their research pinpoints major areas of resource consumption. For example, air movement, lighting, dominates annual electricity use and equipment plug loads (Bell pg.1).

Research Laboratories: Through our research we found three fundamental areas for creating sustainable laboratories: design, technology and behavior.

Design: If American laboratories reduced their energy consumption by 30%, the nation could reduce its annual energy use by an estimated 84 trillion Btu. “An improvement of this magnitude

Best Lab Practices

9

F10

would save $1.25 billion annually and decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 19 million tons” (Intro to Low-Energy Design pg.1). The biggest challenge to reaching or exceeding this reduction is conditioning high volumes of ventilation air and unusually high electricity demands from equipment plug loads. “Laboratories can have plug loads that can range from 2 to 20 watts per square foot” (Intro to Low-Energy Design pg.2) as opposed to 0.5 to 1 watt for office buildings. Fortunately, laboratory equipment typically operates intermittently and a number of design measures can be taken to reduce air ventilation demands.

Design teams should look at the project in a whole-building approach, recognizing that all building systems are interdependent. This may require gathering the other players involved with the lab: the architects, engineers, stakeholders, and lab users, for example. With the high-energy demand of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, strategizing its placement near or adjacent to other ventilation systems in a laboratory can be beneficial. For example, labs with delicate operations are positively pressurized can use the relatively clean air exhaust to supply are to labs that are negatively pressurized for handling toxic or dirty air. In general, designing the close proximity of supply and exhaust air can save energy by recovering air from one system to supply another (Intro to Low-Energy Design pg 6).

Technology and Equipment: Research laboratories often have huge energy consuming machines. Fume hoods are a typical piece of equipment in labs that use the majority of the energy consumed in the lab. In the process of creating a sustainable laboratory, technology and equipment need to be assessed by energy efficiency. Energy Efficiency:

Energy efficiency is a technology driven conversation. Depending on the research, laboratories may have compressed gases, radioactive materials, safety materials, fume hoods, centrifuges, autoclaves, vacuum systems, lasers and any other numerous research equipments. Because the EECS building is only 2 years old, the technology retrofitted in the laboratories are practically state of the art and there is very little amount of improvement or recommendations to be made. Furthermore, The University of Michigan has recently purchased a former pharmaceutical research faculty, now called the North Campus Research Complex that spreads over 174 acres of land with 30 buildings comprising 2 million square feet. The university plans to renovate it for university research. These research buildings will contain the most state of the art equipment that ensures maximum energy efficiency. Aside from purchasing energy efficient equipment, commonly indicated by Energy Star or LEED endorsement, other factors such as sizing, number, and amount of usage are important in reducing energy consumption in general. After establishing accurate ventilation demands from a

Best Lab Practices

10

F10

project-specific codes and standards review, the appropriate size equipment can be purchased to avoid overconsumption. Conventional practice is to oversize central mechanical heating and cooling systems to provide flexibility, or a margin of error, in planning. “Right- sizing” equipment acknowledges the individual needs for a particular lab and is a better strategy for reducing energy consumption. “In large laboratories with many fume hoods, about 30% to 70% of the hoods are either closed or only partially in use at any one time” (Intro to Low-Energy 6), meaning fume hood requirements significantly vary between labs. Another way to mitigate overuse of energy is to “right- size” the number of equipment or adjust settings on equipment to part-load operation, which can improve system reliability and yield higher efficiency when not running on peak output (Intro to Low-Energy 7-8).

Behavior: Energy Conservation:

Energy conservation efforts begin by assessing current behaviors, equipment usages, and analysis of major energy consumers for a building through surveys, monitoring, and retrofits. Energy use in a lab can fluctuate when considering pre-construction design versus post-construction renovation options. Although energy saving methods are applicable in both approaches, there may be cost savings in implementing them in the design stages rather than in retrofits. Monitoring past and current levels of energy consumption shows how the energy is being consumed in a building and also provides the baseline numbers to measure the success of any changes. To achieve goals in energy conservation, it is absolutely necessary to observe behavioral operations in the laboratory. Despite the growing momentum behind the sustainability movement, it is still difficult to promote sustainable behavior in today’s world. It requires individuals to break old habits and adopt new, often inconvenient ones for the sake of future generations. While it is difficult to implement sustainable behavior in any environment, it is especially difficult in research laboratories at universities, where energy and resource usage far exceeds that of other environments on campus. Research scientists in a variety of fields, such as biology, chemistry, physics and engineering, direct most of their focus on ensuring that conditions in their labs are perfect and their experiments run smoothly, so it is understandable that sustainable practices are not one of their top priorities. In addition, practices and behaviors in the lab are set to be in compliance with health and safety measures and often make people unreceptive to deviating practices that have become second nature. Labs are also a unique case study because the people who work in labs are a varied bunch, including principal investigators, graduate students and undergraduate students, who flow in and out of the labs at odd times of the day, making for an inconsistent routine. Making behavioral changes is not a new strategy in energy conservation, but often take an effort and mindset that goes beyond ‘normal’ routine. The phrase “reduce, reuse, recycle” defines the mindset that laboratories need to adopt. Things like sharing refrigeration storage,

Best Lab Practices

11

F10

turning off the lights during unoccupied lab hours, unplugging unneeded appliances, using natural light whenever possible, making sure windows and doors are closed during heating and cooling and closing fume hoods when unused are small responsibilities but take a routine effort to make a difference in the sense of energy conservation. Before implementing behavioral change in a lab setting, it is necessary to understand the possible motives behind sustainable behavior in research scientists. Health codes and standards of the lab must be known before recommendations are given and a good sense of the research that happens in the lab. These two factors determine how the lab should be assessed. Health codes vary by lab and are a large factor that determines the recommendations that can be offered. In our research, we found a process that McKenzie-Mohr author of Fostering Sustainable Behavior used to increase sustainable behavior that we adopted for our project. The strategy he promotes has four steps: uncovering barriers to behavioral change, such as lacking the knowledge, skills or resources necessary to adopt a particular behavior, selecting which behaviors to promote, designing a program to overcome the barriers to the selected behaviors and finally implementing the program. When choosing which behaviors to focus on, McKenzie-Mohr said, one must first consider the potential impact of the behavior, then identify the barriers to that specific behavior and finally determine whether the resources to overcome that barrier are available (McKenzie Mohr, Promoting Sustainable Behavior, 547). This approach to encouraging behavioral change is broad enough that it can easily be implemented in any setting. We used these four steps with an intention of developing a greater sense of sustainable behavior with all lab users of the Lurie Nanofabrication Facility.

Waste

Liquid waste, solid waste and energy waste are the three areas that need to be assessed in research laboratories. Certain labs such as a chemistry lab use many different chemicals that are assumed to be a onetime use. However, there is opportunity to reduce hazardous waste in laboratories through a small campus initiative like Green Chemistry, which works to recycle or reuse chemical solvents left over in labs. Opportunities for chemical waste include source reduction, product substitution and re-use/recycle in any possible circumstance. Solid waste is very unpredictable as to what can be and cannot be recycled. Certain labs like the one we worked on does not allow anything to be brought in the lab because of contamination problems so lab users need to be aware as to what is recyclable within the lab. Items such as batteries, light bulbs, goggles, booties, hairnets and gloves are just a handful of things that can be recycled or reused and often they are not. The Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Building had a 19.3% recycling rate in FY 2008, which climbed to 20.7% and 24.2% in 2009 and 2010. This rate is slightly lower than the campus average recycling rate, which shows a lack in education and recycling options. Granted this rate accounts for the entire building, which is four floors of dozens of offices and classrooms, the resource-demanding lab facility would undoubtedly increase this rate

Best Lab Practices

12

F10

significantly with better recycling practices and resources. In general, the following should be applied: - Don't buy it unless you really need it, share equipment between labs. - Don't use disposables (plastic conicals, etc.), use reusables (glass beakers, etc.) will work. - When possible, reuse disposables (i.e.; gloves can often be used more than one time). - Recycle. - Purchase from companies that manufacture from recycled materials and design products for recycling and biodegradation. Often the term waste is affiliated with items that are thrown away, but energy waste is equally significant. Energy waste is an unnecessary usage of heating, cooling or electricity in the laboratory. This type of waste can be costly and is very important to address. Behavioral changes like shutting off the lights or turning of unused equipment when the lab is not in use are two examples are two examples that can make significant changes.

Barriers/ Obstacles: The biggest obstacle in our project was our lab. To gain access into the lab our team had to complete a series of safety tests, write a paper that described our planned usage of the lab and go through an interview process. The effort and time to gain access to the LNF took a lengthy amount of time that ultimately shortened amount the data we could collect. Besides limited laboratory usage, the lab and the equipment in the lab narrow the amount of recommendations we could offer. The highly specific equipment gave us little wiggle room in the extent of observations to be made, and the procedures, health/ sanitation codes and practice standards of the lab can be altered to a very small extent because without these, the research in the lab could be jeopardized.

Lurie Nanofabrication Facility: Background Information:

The Lurie Nanofabrication Facility, first opened in 1986, is located in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Building on North Campus. It is an impressive 6,000 square foot facility that consists of three types of clean rooms: class 1000, class 100 and class 10. The numbers correspond to particles per cubic foot. The particle count needs to be strictly maintained because the type of research and manufacturing conducted at the facility (silicon lithography/diffusion, silicon LPCVD, compound semiconductor devices, thin-film deposition and dry etching) is on the micro- and nanometer scale. There is one lab manager and 12 technicians and engineers at the lab who make sure the equipment is maintained as well as four staff members who train new lab users. Graduate students working on doctoral thesis constitute

Best Lab Practices

13

F10

the largest population of lab users, but the lab is available to anyone, including individuals from local firms and other universities, on a fee basis.

In order to narrow our focus, we decided to focus on only one room in the LNF — the Wet Chemistry Lab. The Wet Chemistry Lab is a class 1000 clean room. Below is a list of the chemicals most frequently used in the lab.

Chemicals:

o Buffer Hydrofluoric Acid o Gold Etch o Hydrofluoric Acid 48-52% o Sulfuric Acid 96-97% o AZ 300 MIF Developer o AZ 400K o MF-319 Developer o Ammonium Hydroxide 30% o Hydrogen Peroxide 30% o Acetone o 2-Propanol o PRS-2000 o SU-8 Developer o AZ 9260 Photoresist o Hexamethyldisilane (HMDS) o Nanu Su-8 5 o SPR 220-3.0 Photoresist o SU-8 10O

Observations:

One very unique aspect of the LNF is its impressive computer operating system that keeps a record of who is in the lab and what tools are being used at all times. Every time users enter the lab, they must swipe their identification cards, and every swipe is recorded in the computer system. The LNF website has months worth of detailed chronological lab access records. If lab users want to use a specific tool, they must reserve it on the website, so there are also extensive records on the frequency of tool use. Many of the tools in the lab are hooked up to their own computers, and these computers stay on at all times. Since the lab is open 24/7, this information is very useful for detecting trends when the lab is most populated and which tools are used most often. During off hours, the lights are left on and the heat/ air conditions is not turned down when no the lab is not in use. This is one area we will further discuss later onin the report.

In an effort to pinpoint the times users are most often in the lab, we looked at the lab access records from October 20, 2010 to November 18, 2010. At no point during that time were there more than eight people in the lab at one time. We found that people tended to use the lab in

Best Lab Practices

14

F10

waves of two to six individuals. Otherwise, there was usually either one to two or no people in the lab at any given time. The waves came at all times during the regular work day, but during the three-month period we focused on, we noticed a clear tendency for these waves to come in the early- to mid-afternoon. Below is the record for attendance in the Wet Chemistry Lab on October 22. To the right of each time is a record of how many people were in the lab at that time. The portion highlighted in red represents a typical wave. We chose to display this day in particular because although not every record looks like this, October 22 exhibits the most common pattern of daily lab access

7:54:00 AM 1 2:07:00 PM 5 5:04:00 PM 5

8:39:00 AM 2 2:10:00 PM 6 5:06:00 PM 4

8:41:00 AM 1 2:34:00 PM 5 5:06:00 PM 3

8:42:00 AM 1 2:34:00 PM 4 5:13:00 PM 2

11:02:00 AM 1 2:37:00 PM 5 5:15:00 PM 1

11:03:00 AM 2 2:43:00 PM 6 6:38:00 PM 1

11:06:00 AM 1 2:43:00 PM 7 6:39:00 PM 2

11:17:00 AM 1 2:46:00 PM 8 6:44:00 PM 1

1:26:00 PM 1 2:47:00 PM 7 9:11:00 PM 1

1:43:00 PM 2 3:26:00 PM 8 9:19:00 PM 2

1:44:00 PM 3 3:38:00 PM 7 10:29:00 PM 1

1:44:00 PM 4 3:40:00 PM 6 10:33:00 PM 1

1:54:00 PM 3 3:41:00 PM 5 10:56:00 PM 2

Best Lab Practices

15

F10

1:55:00 PM 2 3:53:00 PM 4 11:06:00 PM 1

1:55:00 PM 1 3:56:00 PM 5 11:06:00 PM 2

1:57:00 PM 2 4:10:00 PM 6 11:08:00 PM 1

1:58:00 PM 1 4:24:00 PM 5 11:10:00 PM 1

2:06:00 PM 1 4:38:00 PM 4 11:30:00 PM 1

2:06:00 PM 2 4:47:00 PM 3 11:37:00 PM 1

2:06:00 PM 3 4:55:00 PM 4 11:40:00 PM 1

2:06:00 PM 4 5:04:00 PM 5 11:44:00 PM 1

Upon entering the Wet Chemistry Lab, every lab user must put on a lab coat, hair cap, latex gloves, safety glasses and booties. Of these items, only the gloves are routinely disposed of. The coats are reused and washed regularly, and lab users are encouraged to keep their own hair caps and only throw out booties if they are damaged.

All the chemicals used in the Wet Chemistry Lab are ultimately taken away and disposed of by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Chemicals from all parts of the facility funnel down to the basement of the building, where acids and bases are neutralized and solvents collect in large barrels. In the Wet Chemistry Lab, the solvents acetone and 2-propanol are the most frequently used chemicals

We looked at a three-month summary of tool use. The following table lists just some of the tools used in the Wet Chemistry Lab in the far left column. Each row breaks down the percentage of time the corresponding tool was used for each purpose listed across the top. It is clear that the tools are not in use the majority of the time. Of the tools listed below, the acid bench is left on all the time, and the ADT 711 dicing saw, base bench and CMP IPEC-472 are automatically turned off when not in use.

Best Lab Practices

16

F10

Current Sustainability Practices in the Lab: Dr. Pilar Herrera-Fierro, the lead researcher in the Wet Chemistry Lab, is very enthusiastic and conscientious about promoting sustainability in the lab. She personally makes efforts, such as turning off lights when she leaves the lab, to promote sustainability, but in an environment used for many independent projects that requires so much energy and resources, however, one individual can only do so much; cohesive, group efforts are necessary to have a significant impact. The biggest large-scale effort towards sustainability that we observed in the lab was the ability of the computer system to regulate when certain tools shut off. This could potentially save a lot of energy. Although the computers are always on, they revert to the low-

Resource Name Proces-

sing

Practice

Chara

c-teriza

Check-out

Sched. Maint- enance

Remote Proces-

sing

Repa

ir

Idle Time

Acid Bench 179.2 8.2%

3.6 0.2%

2.2 0.1%

1.0 0.0%

1,998.0 91.5%

Acid Bench 4ft Organics

2,184.0 100.0%

Acid Bench 8ft Organics

12.1 0.6%

2,171.9 99.4%

ADT 7100 Dicing Saw

101.8 4.7%

39.1 1.8%

2.6 0.1%

4.6 0.2%

2,035.9 93.2%

Base Bench 167.7 7.7%

12.5 0.6%

1.7 0.1%

3.9 0.2%

1.7 0.1%

1,996.6 91.4%

CMP IPEC-472 127.0 5.8%

18.3 0.8%

19.0 0.9% 1.9

0.1% 3.3

0.2% 32.2 1.5%

23.8 1.1%

1,958.6 89.7%

Convection Oven 932.5 42.7%

8.1 0.4%

1,243.4 56.9%

Best Lab Practices

17

F10

energy sleep mode when not in use. Planet Blue has devices that measure the energy output of machines in terms of cost. Using one of these machines, we were able to make rough estimates of the yearly cost of a computer in sleep mode vs. a computer that is completely on. This data was calculated by finding out how much kilowatts the computer was using in an idle state for a couple of seconds. Then the machine multiplied this number to a yearly rate to find out how much kilowatts would be used per year if the computer stayed in this idle state. Then it was multiplied by 10 cents per kilowatt, about the price the electric company charges, to get the price per year. This was also done when the computer was in sleep mode. The total amounts were about $38.54 per year for when the computer was in sleep mode and $39.42 when the computer was in idle mode. Sleep mode is clearly more energy efficient, but the difference is not substantial. The computers would have to be turned off completely to make a big difference. Another simple way the lab is incorporating sustainable practices is by either recycling empty chemical bottles or reusing them for waste collection. Beyond these efforts, it was not apparent that sustainability played a major role in the culture of the lab

Conclusions:

At the beginning of this semester, our idea for the project was to collect month long data and do monthly assessments of this laboratory. After a detailed analysis of the lab, we would then locate the biggest problems and ultimately propose solutions to repair them. Then use this information to make a report card much like Planet Blue does after buildings assessments. Due to the delay in accessing our laboratory, we had to reassess our ideas, goals and missions for this project many times. In the end, our goal was to explain the economic and environmental costs of research labs, and open the doors to the idea of sustainably built, operated and maintained research labs. We also wanted to create the connections and underlying base of knowledge for projects dealing with sustainable research labs at U of M to use.

Recommendations: After our data collection and observation, we prepared two sets of recommendations. The first is directed towards the lab and lab users. The second is for future team members that take on this project.

Recommendation I: LNF 1. The most unique feature of our laboratory was the computer operating system. This system is already very efficient in terms of reducing electricity usage through the lab; however, we would like to see this system taken a step further. If the heating, cooling and lighting in the lab were

Best Lab Practices

18

F10

hooked up to the computer operating system it would drastically decrease the amount of energy used in these areas. The computers in the lab that are connected to tools should also be set to turn off completely when not in use. 2. To help push the sustainability movement in research laboratories, a research sustainability coordinator/eco-representative needs to appointed for U of Ms laboratories. The person could be responsible for only a couple of labs or for the entire university’s labs. Ideally, Planet Blue will have adopted such a position so that they will be provided and supported by U of M. The research sustainability coordinator’s work will focus on raising sustainability awareness in labs and reducing energy usage in labs. The biggest reason for the need of a position like this is because it is very difficult for existing lab managers/coordinators to emphasize sustainability. Their job is to ensure the lab is operating correctly and being used properly. It is not their job to enforce or even mention sustainability in their labs. That is why a research sustainability coordinator is needed to push the sustainability movement into research laboratories. 3. To gain access into our lab, we had to go through a series of steps to make sure we would use the lab properly and responsibly. In addition to taking several safety tests, we had to submit a paper about our intentions for using the lab and go through an interview process. Our group sees this as a fantastic opportunity to raise sustainability education. Embedding sustainable lab practices into the safety tests and manual is an easy effort that would raise a lot of awareness. 4. Research laboratories around the campus need to collectively take part in programs that organizations cater to research labs. For example, Planet Blue offers a pipette tip box recycling program that collects all pipettes in a laboratory, which are normally not recycled, for no fee. The lab we worked on goes through hundreds of pipettes monthly so participating in programs like this would be useful for creating sustainable labs. Another program which U of M has not created but other universities such as Oregon and MIT use is a chemical reuse program. 5. A small but effective effort would be to invest in signs that remind lab users to use sustainable lab practices. The signs can range anywhere from stickers and magnets that are placed on equipment to small posters that placed around the lab. A visual reminder is useful for lab users and for developing a sustainable practiced lab. Recommendations II: Future project teams 1. The Lurie Nanofabrication Facility itself was the biggest barrier in our project. The amount of work to gain access in the laboratory took a couple of weeks to finish which pushed back our project deadlines. In addition, our laboratory operated very efficiently leaving little room for suggestions. A more universal lab like a lab in the chemistry building would be much

Best Lab Practices

19

F10

easier to work with by reason of location, lab equipment and less restrictive health codes. Future teams should be given an average lab that is used by many students. By picking an average lab, you are education thousands of students that use labs for classes about best sustainable lab practices. If future teams are given a more universal lab that is older, there will most likely be more room for improvement. 2. Due to the inconveniences we dealt with, we were not able to collect monthly long data or even do monthly long analysis on our lab. We highly encourage future teams to do this. We began this project in hopes we would have a final report that looked much like a report by Planet Blue. In this report, it would highlight specific problems in the laboratory, offer the solution and if applicable, show a project cost/energy saving and payback period for our solutions. Future teams should work closer with Planet Blue personnel like Joe Edelstein to utilize the tools an already accomplished organizations has. If future teams received a different laboratory other an the LNF, more data and observations can be made. Data should be focused on energy usage from equipment, time usage of equipment, lighting, lab usage, heating and cooling and waste produced in lab. 3. Create survey for lab users. An important process to understanding the culture of a lab is to understand the lab users. After the first couple assessments of the lab, the project team should make a survey for labs users. This survey should give the team a better insight to existing sustainable research practices already in the lab and equipment usage. This is a critical step for making behavioral modifications in the lab.

4. After all the data is collected, the team should pair up with Planet Blue and do a open house for a research laboratory much like Planet Blue does with the end with their projects. This is a great way to present their work and raise awareness of sustainable research practices. By doing so, they could invite research coordinators around U of M to participate. The amount of awareness they could generate from doing an open house is far greater than the awareness generated from doing an in class presentation. This is an important step to apply the project outside of the classroom walls.

Best Lab Practices

20

F10

Bibliography:

Bell, Geoffrey C. Optimizing Laboratory Ventilation Rates. Rep. Labs for the 21st Century, Sept. 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <http://www.labs21century.gov/pdf/bp_opt_vent_508.pdf>. "Energy." Office of Sustainability // University of Notre Dame. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://green.nd.edu/sustainability-at-nd/energy/>. "GreeNDiscovery." Office of Sustainability // University of Notre Dame. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://green.nd.edu/research/greendiscovery/>. "Harvard Green Building Resource." Sustainability at Harvard. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. <http://green.harvard.edu/theresource/case-studies/>. An Introduction to Low-Energy Design. Rep. Labs for the 21st Century, Aug. 2008. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. <http://www.labs21century.gov/pdf/lowenergy_508.pdf>. McKenzie-Mohr, Doug, and William Smith. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. 1st ed. New Society Publishers, 1999. McKenzie-Mohr, Doug. “Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community- Based Social Marketing.” Journal of Social Issues Vol. 56, No. 3, 2000: 543-554. Labs for the 21st Century. 15 Sept. 2010. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.labs21century.gov/>. Lurie Nanofabrication Facility. 2010. University of Michigan, University of Michigan Engineering. 1 Nov. 2010. <http://www.mnf.umich.edu/MNF> "LWEEP for Labs." University of Colorado at Boulder. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.colorado.edu/facilitiesmanagement/about/conservation/lweep/index.html>. President and Fellows of Harvard College. "Harvard's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Commitment." Sustainability at Harvard. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.green.harvard.edu/greenhousegas>. Woolliams, J., Lloyd, M., Spengler, J.D. (2005). The case for sustainable laboratories: first steps at Harvard Univeristy. International Journal of Sustainability. 6(4) 363- 379 Kurz, Tim. “The Psychology of Environmentally Sustainable Behavior: Fitting Together Pieces Of the Puzzle.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Vol. 2, No. 1, 2002: 257-278. UCSB Sustainability. 2007. The Regents of the University of California. 16 Oct. 2010. < http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/LARS/about.php>. University of Colorado at Boulder 2010. The Regents of the University of Colorado at Boulder. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.colorado.edu/facilitiesmanagement/about/conservation/auditchecklist.htm.> Trimble, Andrea Ruedy. "HMS DePace Lab LEED-CI Gold Certification." Sustainability at Harvard. 26 July 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.green.harvard.edu/node/993>.

Best Lab Practices

21

F10

Appendix: Guide for Laboratory Assessment:

Purpose:

• Identify the large resource consumers in the lab: opportunities for efficiency upgrades in equipment, removal of infrequently-used equipment, temperature setbacks

• Identify opportunities for energy, water, and waste reduction • Discuss options and recommendations with Principle Investigators (PI) and Lab Manager for

reducing consumption: from equipment modification to behavioral changes Main Areas of Resource Consumption to Consider:

• Ventilation (i.e. fume hoods) • Heating/Cooling: opportunities for heat recovery • Lighting • Equipment Electrical Plug Loads/ Usage • Waste: recycle, reuse

1. Informal Meeting for Approval and Walk-Through

• Meet with Lab Manager or (PI) to get approval for lab assessment, collect background information on lab (building and lab history, hours, users, annual energy use/costs), and establish additional contacts or measures for scheduling walk-through

• A walk-through will be necessary to inventory all the equipment and devices. During this time, assessors should take note of lighting controls, methods of waste disposal, cleaning procedures and general user practices to prepare for metering and monitoring

2. Data Collection and Lab User Interviews • Sufficient time should be spent becoming familiar with the lab and its operations through sit-in

observations. Approved equipment and appliances should be metered for a significant amount of time (1-2 weeks) to find most consumptive.

• Acquiring information on lab operations is best done through equipment checklists, lab user surveys/interviews, and energy audits in order to identify inefficiencies in the lab.

3. Identify Specific Areas of Impact and Analysis • From observations, metering, and surveys/interviews, large resource consumers and inefficient

practices can be identified. The major areas of resource consumption mentioned above are general areas of impact.

• Consider both technical and behavioral changes that can be made. Both will require research to find specific solutions. It is helpful to consult Planet Blue, Labs for the 21st Century, and other universities. See Resources page.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations • Conclusions should draw on the analysis, strive to make biggest impact, and consider the factors of

implementation, in order to formulate project recommendations. • Recommendations should include short-term goals to rectify current inefficiencies and long-term

goals to ensure a commitment to sustainability.

Best Lab Practices

22

F10

Guide for Laboratory Assessment Resources: Planet Blue http://www.planetblue.umich.edu/ http://sustainability.umich.edu/ Labs for the 21st Century http://www.labs21century.gov/index.htm Best Practice Guides: http://www.labs21century.gov/toolkit/bp_guide.htm Harvard University- FAS Green Labs Program: http://green.harvard.edu/fas/labs MIT- Green Purchasing for Lab (includes Green Chemical Program link) http://web.mit.edu/workinggreen/buy/lab.html Notre Dame- GREENDISCOVERY Program http://green.nd.edu/research/greendiscovery/ UC Santa Barbara- Best Practices in Energy Conservation http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/LARS/best_practices/energy/ University of Colorado at Boulder http://www.colorado.edu/facilitiesmanagement/about/conservation/lweep/index.html Energy Audit Checklists http://www.colorado.edu/facilitiesmanagement/about/conservation/auditchecklist.html University of Oregon- Greener Education Materials for Chemists http://greenchem.uoregon.edu/Pages/Search.php# Possible Health/Safety Codes for Lab: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/laboratories/index.html American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 2007 versions http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/laboratories/index.html UM-Occupational Safety & Environmental Health http://www.oseh.umich.edu/ National Fire Protection Association- NFPA 45, NFPA 90A http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/list_of_codes_and_standards.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1