What
are the alternatives?
Are
there any alternatives?
Are the alternatives feasible (economically and experimentally)?
Are the alternatives environmentally friendly?
How can we implement the alternatives?
These
issues are concerned with the most basic elements of what we are
trying to find out involving laboratory management. The next logical
step would then be to gain a preliminary idea of whats going on
around campus before we dive into an in depth study. This can be
accomplished by speaking with preliminary contacts such as laboratory
technicians around campus and waste management officials. This should
provide us with a general stepping stone before designing and implementing
an actual waste minimization plan.
INITIAL
CONTACTS
Speaking
with a number of laboratory technicians (as listed in the preliminary
contacts page) it seems that the methodology of glassware management
practices is generally research specific. The cleansing processes
are designed to guard against any contamination from outside sources
that will affect experimental results. Soil testing labs, which
use only tap and distilled water, cannot use detergents and chemicals
to clean their glassware because any trace elements left behind
will contaminate the soil sample and yield imprecise results. Phosphorous,
a prevalent ingredient in soaps and detergents, is a variable that
is measured in certain forestry experiments. Therefore, acid washes
are used to eat away all traces of phosphorous and other contaminants.
A general constant among all laboratories is the disposal of biohazardous
material via autoclaving.
Laboratories also utilize manufactured
laboratory glassware washers. These machines are synonymous with
dishwashers except that they are designed for the specific needs
of scientific laboratories. Some laboratories pre-wash their glassware
before they put them in the dishwasher. They run using detergent
that is usually purchased from the same company that manufactures
the glassware washing machine and are piped into the regular water
plumbing systems. Some companies that manufacture these washers
are LABCONCO and AMSCO.
Many of the laboratory glassware
management practices revolve around what has been done in the past.
If a certain practice is established, is cheap, and it works to
the advantage of the experiment, then it will probably be utilized
until a new experiment calls for a different process or a better
method is introduced. These established methods may create significant
amounts of waste by-products that slip by the laboratory technician.
Historically, reducing sources of waste from laboratory practices
has been a significant issue among waste management officials. Therefore,
their must be communication between the lab technicians and the
waste management officials to produce a synergistic effort reducing
wastestreams while satisfying experimental requisites, in this case,
concerning cleaning glassware.
Informational
Survey
From
the general information gathered through these preliminary contacts,
a survey was designed to assess on-campus laboratories and their
glassware washing methods in a more definitive matter. This survey
includes a number of the questions from above as well as other areas
of concern. Surveys will be sent by mail to lab technicians around
campus as well as taken by personal interview. By personally surveying
a number of varying laboratories in each scientific building around
UVM and expecting a significant return from mail-out surveys, a
more accurate report may be made in the near future.
Survey
Responses 155 surveys
were distributed to lab technicians around UVM campus toward the
end of March. Surveys included a flexible April 16 deadline. By
April 30, sixty-five surveys were returned representing a 42% return.
Personal interviews have yet to be conducted due to certain restraints.
The next step is to analyze these returns for any anomalies or recurring
patterns that will give us relevant information to report concerning
glassware washing practices around campus.
All returned
surveys were collected and answers to all fields in were entered
into a simple database. Using the database, it was possible to analyze
and group the various responses for each field. The answers to survey
questions are comprised of "Yes/No", multiple choice and
short answer replies. A document was then created to display the
responses for each question.
Out of
the 65 returns, 32 were from Given medical building. This represents
a significant return from one source as it comprises a major portion
of the sample. Other scientific buildings that are known to have
numerous amounts of laboratories are misrepresented by the survey
results. For example Cook, Marsh, Aiken, Terrill, and Rowell are
represented by only one response each. Perhaps later in the summer
it will be possible to conduct personal interviews with laboratory
technicians in these buildings to achieve a more accurate sample.
58 of
the 65 returns exclaimed that there labs were used for research
purposes. A significant amount of laboratories also exclaimed that
they use and reuse glassware (63) and are responsible for cleaning
it themselves (53). The sample shows that most laboratories only
use about 25 or less pieces of glassware daily. Glassware is washed
daily or as needed and is mostly washed by hand. When asked if glassware
management practices were specifically designed for research being
done, 44/65 said "No". And when asked if the laboratory
would be willing to change to a environmentally friendly economically
feasible alternative, 46/65 said "Yes".
In an
attempt to discover sources of waste from laboratory by-products,
a number of questions were designed. When asked, "What is/are
the most prevalent waste, residue, contaminant, or other experimental
by-product generated by your laboratory that is being cleaned from
glassware?" an array of responses followed. Answers ranged
from general experimental materials such as buffers, media, and
other lab chemicals to other research specific items such as diluted
animal blood, fly food, oxidized zinc, etc. When asked, "Are
any of these residues or by-products rinsed away into the sink,
what are they?" similair responses were given. A follow up
question, "What other materials produced by your laboratory
are routinely poured down the sink? was also asked. The responses
to these questions were significantly numerous and variable as well.
This leads me to the conclusion that it may be quite cumbersome
to attempt a waste reduction project encompassing all UVM laboratories
concerning glassware washing by-products and residues. It would
be advantageous to find a more tangible aspect of glassware washing
that may also be potentially hazardous to the environment and the
laboratory worker and reduce it.
Document
Information: Version .07 by Nicholas Shih, Last Update: April 30,
1999