Another GAMBICA guest blog is here! This new project will allow members to create content about an industry issue that’s important to them. Whether it’s the skills gap, sustainability in our sectors or the importance of standards – we can’t wait to share more thoughts from our members through this platform.

 

This edition we hear from Lucy Moore, Sustainability Manager at Scientific Laborartory Supplies.

 

Cradle-to-gate emissions – what is their relevance to lab equipment and consumables?

I’ll be the first to admit it; like many a sustainability professional, I love getting into the nitty gritty details of carbon footprints. Granted, to many, this may seem like a rather dull (and somewhat depressing) topic by which to be captivated but when it comes to labs, there’s a fair bit to get stuck into. Have you ever paused mid-experiment or mid-purchase order and wondered just how much carbon went into that pipette tip you’re tossing away or that shiny new centrifuge you’ve finally got the budget to order? Perhaps not, but hopefully I’ve piqued at least a small degree of interest.

Not all lab products are created equal when it comes to their carbon footprint – or more specifically, the weighting of their carbon footprint across their lifecycle. Some leave their mark in production, others during use. And if you’re a lab manager, a buyer, or even the person knee deep in research, this matters – because understanding it can help you make smarter and more sustainable decisions.

What are cradle-to-gate emissions?

I like to think of a product’s lifecycle as a journey. It starts with extracting raw materials from the Earth – plastic, metal, you name it. Then comes the energy and resources to transport, process, and manufacture those materials into something you can use (this can have multiple stages depending on the complexity and size of the product in question). The journey ends when the product leaves the factory – right before it lands in your lab. All the emissions from that journey? That’s cradle-to-gate data. For some lab products, cradle-to-gate emissions are just the beginning. For others, they’re pretty much the whole story.

Lab equipment – think long-term!

Think about your larger lab products such as centrifuges, ULT freezers, incubators - these pieces of equipment are often the backbone of labs, working for years (if not decades). As a result, their carbon footprint story doesn’t stop at cradle-to-gate and will extend throughout its years of use via the amount of energy it consumes. For a piece of equipment which is used daily or constantly over many years, the energy it uses over its lifetime can outweigh its cradle-to gate footprint. But that’s not to say upstream emissions don’t matter; they definitely do.

Not all lab equipment is made equal; some products may not be built to last forever, and not all labs will use products at their full capacity for years. A unit may get replaced sooner than expected - whether due to wear and tear, changing research needs, or short warranties. These are a handful of variables which can shorten the lifespan of a piece of equipment and therefore the amount of energy (and carbon) associated with its use. Essentially, wherever the lifecycle of a product is shorter, or the piece of equipment is used less frequently, cradle-to-gate emissions suddenly carry more weight.

The weighting of a product’s carbon footprint is reliant on how much you use it and for how long.

For lab equipment being used consistently over a long period of time, durability, quality, and (as a consequence) energy efficiency all become major players when it comes to product sustainability. With that comes a risk associated with buying less durable, perhaps cheaper products, despite their laudable energy efficiency ratings. It can mean that the upstream emissions could outweigh the emissions from their potential future use – rendering energy efficiency much less significant in the bigger product sustainability picture. So whether you are on a budget or not, when it comes to purchasing equipment and thinking about sustainability, try to put a focus on durability and then energy efficiency, but also cast a thought further upstream too.

If the piece of lab equipment has limited usage or is only going to be used sparingly, then it becomes paramount to look at its potential impact upstream. Focus on more local manufacturers who also prioritise local or regional sourcing of materials and components (and facilities running on renewable energy). These factors can have a significant impact on upstream emissions.

Consumables – they may be small but can pack a big carbon punch

Now let’s talk about the real carbon curveballs: single-use consumables. Pipette tips, gloves, petri dishes, centrifuge tubes – the small, everyday items we burn through by the thousands (sometimes millions).

Here, cradle-to-gate emissions dominate. Why? Because these items don’t have a meaningful use phase; you use them for minutes (or seconds) and then they’re tossed. Consumables have what’s called a linear lifecycle – we take (most often) fossil fuels, turn them into plastic, use the end product once, and then it’s gone. That can make the carbon cost of making and transporting consumables particularly significant in a product’s lifecycle.

It’s true that incineration, disposal, or recycling could add a bit more to the carbon weight of consumables’ end-of-life emissions – especially if incineration is used without energy recovery - but compared to production? It’s a drop in the carbon bucket.

Let’s put it into perspective and look at the average emissions of production versus end-of-life of a tonne of plastic using UK government emissions factors. To recycle or incinerate a tonne of plastic waste translates to approximately 6.4kgCO2e, with landfill sitting around 9kgCO2e per tonne (1). However, to manufacture a tonne of plastic (included in cradle-to-gate emissions) results in an average of 3.2 tonnes of CO2e emissions – with polypropylene being the least carbon intensive material production and polystyrene being the highest. So, whilst consumables’ end-of-life is still a valid sustainability and waste concern, from an emissions perspective, they are secondary to cradle-to-gate.

However, those figures are just for virgin material production. What about using recycled plastic to reduce cradle-to-gate emissions for lab consumables? Now, that’s a fair bit better in terms of material production, translating to on average about 1.4tCO2e less than producing a tonne of virgin plastic. But – and it’s a big but – getting recycled plastic certified for lab use is incredibly difficult. Safety, purity, and reliability are non-negotiables in labs, and right now, that’s a hurdle we haven’t fully cleared.

Enter biobased plastics. These are plastics made from regenerated feedstocks – plant material rather than fossil fuels. They can offer a renewable alternative for lab consumables and can reduce the emissions tied to virgin fossil fuel extraction. You can find different types of regenerated feedstocks to make plastic: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation. And there are pros and cons to both. 1st generation feedstocks - for example, corn, sugarcane, or soy - have an established infrastructure and are already widely cultivated in agricultural systems and supply chains. However, large-scale production of feedstocks for plastic may lead to land use competition, further deforestation, or displacement of other vital crops - the ‘food versus fuel’ ethical debate. On the other hand, 2nd generation feedstocks use waste products (such as used vegetable oil), contributing to a circular economy by turning what would otherwise be discarded into valuable resources. 3rd generation feedstocks are derived from non-land resources such as algae, which, similar to 2nd generation, reduces the pressure on food supplies and land competition. Unfortunately, products using 2nd and 3rd generation feedstocks can often come at a higher cost due to their less well-established infrastructure and limited available supply. But that’s not to say they don’t have great potential for scalability or aren’t the game changer we are all in need of in the laboratory market. For example, the cradle-to-gate emissions of the raw material required to produce a single 0.1-10µL M pipette tip made with 2nd generation feedstock is just under 1/3 of that of a fossil fuel-based equivalent (2).

So, for consumables, instead of focusing on ‘how to throw it away better’ (or lamenting why waste management companies can’t handle contaminated plastics), look for where the real impact is: production emissions. That’s the carbon-heavy part of the lifecycle you can tackle. Naturally, cutting back on single-use plastics or switching to reusable options (where possible) is one of the quickest ways to reduce your lab’s footprint, but that’s not always feasible. As carbon data isn’t currently readily available across the market, prioritise consumables with sustainability attributes in the cradle-to-gate lifecycle phases. This could be anything from raw material efficiency or renewability, local sourcing, or renewable energy used during manufacture - anything indicative of tangible sustainability efforts upstream.

Where should the focus be?

Cradle-to-gate emissions are the opening chapter of a product’s carbon story, but as we’ve discussed, not every story ends there.

For equipment – think about both cradle-to-gate and use-phase emissions as a few different variables can tip the scales on carbon intensity across the lifecycle. Prioritise equipment which is built to last, look for energy-efficient models, and consider the potential upstream emission impact when comparing options, especially for products you may only use occasionally.

For consumables – the focus has to be on tackling cradle-to-gate emissions. Can you reduce single-use plastics? Can you switch to reusable alternatives, or explore the expanding portfolio of biobased products?

I can understand that the weighting of carbon footprints across product lifecycles might not be the first thing you think of when purchasing lab equipment or consumables, but they’re worth keeping in mind. So whether it’s a centrifuge built to outlast your research project or a pipette tip with a surprisingly hefty backstory, your next purchase can make a difference.

1 - www.gov.uk, UK government conversion factors, 2024

2 - www.eppendorf.com/biobased, Reduce Your Carbon Emissions, Eppendorf epT.I.P.S® BioBased