Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2026; 03: a27734746
DOI: 10.1055/a-2773-4746
Original Article
Special Issue: Molecular Approaches And Systemic Changes: Green Chemistry Education For A Sustainable Future

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

Authors

  • Yu Chen

    1   Sustainable Materials Innovation Hub, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN5292)
  • Jair A. Esquivel Guzman

    2   Henry Royce Institute, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN5292)
  • Michael Shaver

    1   Sustainable Materials Innovation Hub, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN5292)
  • Christina A. R. Picken

    1   Sustainable Materials Innovation Hub, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN5292)

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


Graphical Abstract

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.



Publication 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

Bibliographical Record
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