In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with Dept. of Energy (DoE), continues to place an increased emphasis on environmentally friendly laboratory design and operation as evidenced by the creation of the Labs21 sustainability initiative (
www.labs21century.gov). The reason for the “green lab” emphasis is simple: Laboratories use more energy and water per ft² than the typical office building, due to intensive ventilation requirements and other health and safety concerns. But going green is easier said than done for most laboratory managers.
The real challenge for laboratories is to realize a total cost savings while going green and continuing to operate within existing budgetary constraints. Laboratory design consultants and architectural firms offer many options for creating sustainable labs. If every organization were able to start from scratch without budgetary constraints, it would be relatively simple to create state-ofthe- art laboratories that are marvels of efficiency with a minimal environmental footprint. But, the reality is that most lab operators have fixed instrumentation and equipment asset bases set within an existing laboratory design, with limited budget for personnel, equipment and facilities.
Considering the typical operational constraints, cost savings will be realized by managers who look at the total cost of operation (TCO) and seek to reduce that cost while improving performance. TCO includes equipment maintenance, efficiency, reliability, process, procedures, personnel and operating philosophy.
Prospects for government grants and funding will be limited during the next 24 months, making it even more imperative for lab managers to find ways of doing things better than the competition. An analogy for the traditional laboratory vs. the “green lab” is operating a new electric hybrid automobile. Imagine the fuel cost savings from such a vehicle realizing 48 mpg vs. an existing vehicle that may yield 20 mpg. The reality is that, without a grant or a funding mechanism, most people cannot afford to acquire the new vehicle (equipment) that would allow them to double their mpg and realize the full potential of the new technology.
Due to economic constraints, we continue to operate existing assets. But even those who own conventional cars have an option to save some “green” through simple maintenance and attention to detail. Keeping tires correctly inflated, changing air filters, tuning up the vehicle, slowing down and car-pooling are strategies that may result in 10% savings, or more, in fuel consumption. Everybody wins in a scenario like this, both the operator and the environment.
Quality, not just quantity Taking the analogy one step further, the most overlooked area in laboratory operational effectiveness and management is the quality of the energy that is driving all the processes and instrumentation. An improvement in energy effectiveness reduces the environmental impact of producing the electrical power consumed, and the direct cost savings to the laboratory means less expense or greater capital budget reserves.
Improving the environmental footprint of a lab while retaining existing equipment and instrumentation involves some fairly simple principles: 1) maintain the instrumentation, 2) optimize its utilization and 3) provide it with energy that is reliable. The third factor is the least obvious but the most important. Like a vehicle that is not serviced and maintained, or one that uses the incorrect grade of fuel (or in this case, unconditioned electrical power), a lab without reliable power cannot operate effectively or efficiently. An instrument system that receives poor-quality power cannot operate per specifications and will have higher than normal operational problems and failure rates. An instrumentation system that is down in a highly automated laboratory is a very expensive proposition; it impacts throughput, personnel and the operating budget. Without reliable, clean power, a lab is hard-pressed to deliver a lowcost, repeatable result in a timely manner.
Applied to a typical laboratory running research and commercial biological samples, the numbers become clear. The lab’s $300,000 DNA analyzer is highly sensitive to any incoming power perturbation or interruption (even as short as 30 millisec) and can suffer costly damage. At the same time, research samples, biological material or irreplaceable crime scene samples can be lost or test data corrupted. Coupled with downtime, lost income, time to repeat tests (if sufficient material is available), and potential instrument damage, this level of risk is unacceptable to any laboratory manager.
Shortcomings of common strategies Simple power strips may work for computers, but they do not condition the electrical waveforms coming into a laboratory instrument that has a tightly defined set of acceptable operating parameters from the manufacturer. A power strip also cannot provide backup battery time to complete a run and allow lab personnel to follow normal shutdown procedures to safeguard the instrument.
Whole-laboratory backup systems do not instantly kick in during a power outage, leaving a critical time period of lost power that can cause irreparable equipment damage and loss of samples and data. Just as important, whole-lab backup systems are not individually calibrated to the needs of each instrument. For instance, a DNA analyzer from one manufacturer is likely to have a different set of power parameters than that of another manufacturer. Installing a instrumentation- specific category III-3 instrumentation-grade laboratory power protection system (LPS) can make “going green” a profitable decision.
So how can a laboratory, whether operating a new or existing facility, prevent downtime due to electrical energy (power quality) issues? The answer is not complex or costly. If the lab operator considers electricity as a critical utility, similar to water (USP reagent grade), and installs category III-3 instrumentation-grade LPS for critical instrumentation and equipment, the organization will realize a substantial cost savings in overall lab operation while improving the bottom line. Studies have shown that installing a certified LPS typically saves the lab $25,000/yr for each instrument protected.
With maximum instrumentation performance, lowest costs for reportable results, and improved reliability, the lab has become more energy-efficient and greener. Paying attention to the details protects the bottom line and the environment by managing the fundamentals.
Raymond L. Hecker is VP at Franek Technologies Inc. (www.franek.com). Based in Tustin, Calif., the company offers certified uninterruptible battery backup power sources (LPS/UPS) for laboratory and instrumentation applications.Published in Laboratory Design: Vol. 14, No. 2, Feb 2009