Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/a-2773-4746
Foiled for Choice: Carbon Impact Assessment of Laboratory Heating Setups and Insulation Strategies
Authors
This work was supported by Sustainable Lab Grant (L23-6381681601), the Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials, funded through EPSRC grants EP/R00661X/1, EP/S019367/1, EP/P025021/1, EP/P025498/1 and the Sustainable Materials Innovation Hub, funded through the European Regional Development Fund OC15R19P.
Supported by: Royal Society of Chemistry L23-6381681601
Supported by: European Regional Development Fund OC15R19P

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 reusePublication History
Received: 15 September 2025
Accepted after revision: 02 December 2025
Article published online:
21 January 2026
© 2026. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Yu Chen, Jair A. Esquivel Guzman, Michael Shaver, Christina A. R. Picken. Foiled for Choice: Carbon Impact Assessment of Laboratory Heating Setups and Insulation Strategies. Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2026; 03: a27734746.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2773-4746
-
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)