Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency
of Low-Medium Value STEM Equipment in
Universities and Research Institutes
An S-Lab White Paper
Peter James
Version 1.1 August 2015
©S-Lab
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Equipment Utilisation .......................................................................................................................... 3
Equipment Performance ...................................................................................................................... 3
An Equipment Improvement Methodology......................................................................................... 5
Next Steps for Low-Medium Value Equipment Effectiveness and Efficiency...................................... 6
Appendix 1 – A STEM Equipment Improvement Process .................................................................... 7
Appendix 2 – Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Ultra-cold Freezers ............................... 8
Appendix 3 – Improving Autoclave Effectiveness and Efficiency ...................................................... 12
www.effectivelab.org.uk
Introduction
The Wakeham Review highlighted the need for, and opportunities to, reduce the indirect costs
associated with research.1 One particular emphasis was encouraging the sharing of research
equipment and facilities in order to increase the intensity of utilisation of assets. Subsequent
follow on actions by RCUK and others have introduced a number of measures to support this,
especially:



Restricting funding for new equipment purchases.
Putting more general pressure to minimise equipment purchasing and operational costs by
linking permitted indirect cost recovery to a research efficiency rating.
Encouraging the formation of equipment inventories – as a prelude to sharing – by
recipients of funding.
As the recent UUK report noted, these measures have had a considerable success in increasing
sharing and utilisation rates and minimising indirect research costs.2 However, S-Lab conferences
and workshops (which have had around 4,000 delegates, mainly from HE, over the last five years),
research and funded positions3 suggests that there is considerable scope for further action. For
example, each annual S-Lab Conference delegate survey has asked if “you feel that there is scope
to significantly increase the efficiency and effectiveness of HE laboratories, without compromising
their quality of work and safety?” The results for 2014 mirrored previous years with 40% of
respondents saying that there is great scope – and 50% that there is some scope – for
improvement. The areas identified include:

Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of low-medium value (below £10-20,000
purchase cost) equipment such as autoclaves, cabinets, dryers, freezers, and microscopes.

Improvements to laboratory building services, including regular recommissioning.

Improved management of chemicals, samples and other materials within laboratories.

Alignment of financial and non-financial incentives for efficiency and effectiveness with
day-to-day laboratory practices and responsibility structures.
This document focuses on the first of these topics. (Further ones are planned on the other three
topics). Many low-medium purchase costs equipment items are present in large numbers and so
can have very significant aggregate costs, comparable to those of high-value equipment. Actions
to address this kind of equipment can be valuable not only to create more resources for STEM
research, but also to help the sector to meet its carbon emission targets by reducing energy
consumption and other means.
1
Financial Sustainability and Efficiency in Full Economic Costing of Research in UK Higher Education Institutions:
Report of RCUK/UUK Task Group, 2010 – see:
www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/reviews/fec/fECReviewReport.pdf.
2
Universities UK, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Value for Money, 2015 – see:
www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/EfficiencyEffectivenessValueForMoney.aspx#.VdIF-PlViko.
3
S-Lab has used HEFCE and SFC funding to co-fund laboratory improvement posts at King’s College, the University of
Bristol, and the University of Edinburgh, and has also stimulated similar roles in several other univeristies.
2
The following pages argue that the key to achieving more progress in this area is a holistic
approach which considers all factors which are relevant to equipment utilisation and performance,
and fosters a variety of methods to create improvement. Experience also suggests that, whilst the
initial driver and emphasis of such initiatives may be efficiency, they can lead to new awareness
and collaborative connections – both within HE and beyond - that create much greater benefits
than first envisaged.
Equipment Utilisation
With regard to utilisation of equipment, most activity to date has focused on increasing access and
reducing duplication of medium-high value equipment through better information, and creating
incentives through no or reduced funding for certain equipment categories. These have had some
success, but anecdotal evidence from S-Lab events, discussions with the sharing consortia, and
other sources suggests that there remain many barriers to sharing between, and within,
institutions. Hence, further voluntary progress along established routes may be difficult.
Fortunately, there are other means of increasing utilisation at all equipment scales which can be
encouraged. These include:



Assurance – much scientific equipment is very delicate, and requires careful calibration and
use. Researchers are often reluctant to use it because they fear that it may not be
sufficiently accurate or reliable, which is in turn a function of factors such as their own and
other operator training, management protocols, and equipment siting and housing (e.g.
vis-à-vis humidity, temperature and vibration).
Availability – a variety of factors such as regular and effective maintenance, operator
training and scheduling, equipment siting and housing, can make a difference to the
amount of down time.
Convenience – factors such as ease of booking equipment use, accessing special
information or training that may be required, and availability of data in easily imported
form can all influence the propensity for researchers to use equipment.
It is also the case that much informal sharing of all kinds of equipment already exists within
departments and faculties but is achieved through local mechanisms and software, rather than
use of multi-university equipment sharing databases. This is always likely to be the case and so it is
important that the existence of different systems at different scales is accepted, and that attention
is focused on the ability to exchange data between them rather than creating ‘one size fits all’
platforms and solutions.
Equipment Performance
Whatever the level of utilisation, S-Lab workshops and research suggest that there is considerable
opportunity to improve the performance and minimise the whole life costs of many types of
scientific equipment.
The scope for action can be illustrated by considering storage of samples in ultra-cold (below 70°C) and other freezers, liquid nitrogen and fridges. A large Russell Group university may well
have £5-10 million or more of cold storage equipment (at purchase cost), and have operating and
3
space costs of over £1 million a year in housing, running, managing and maintaining it. The
electricity consumption which is the main element of running costs is also a major contributor to
the institution’s carbon footprint. S-Lab workshops and interviews suggest that this consumption
and cost is often higher than it need be, and that there is potential for determined campaigns to
reduce costs by 10% or more on reasonable paybacks, and also create additional benefits for
science and the environment. For the UK as a whole this could provide an annual boost to the
science budget of £5 million a year or more. This could be increased by savings from other
equipment items, such as autoclaves, biosafety cabinets, dryers and ovens.
This opportunity exists for cold storage for a variety of reasons that include:




Samples being stored at lower temperatures than necessary.
Storage devices not being used well, e.g. poor internal organisation reducing available
space so that more devices are needed in total, and meaning that doors are open for
longer whilst samples are located, potentially jeopardising their integrity as well as using
more energy.
Storage devices that are intrinsically inefficient and/or poorly maintained and therefore
use more energy to maintain a given temperature.
Additional energy ‘overhead’ because of an increased cooling requirement created by
device heat generation.
There are many reasons for this but some important factors are:




Limited evidence on sample integrity at different temperatures e.g. – 80°C versus -70°C.
Lack of confidence/knowledge amongst laboratory users about optimal storage
temperatures and practices.
Disconnects between budgets which can make it difficult to invest in, for example,
effective racking or sample management software even when there are clear financial and
performance benefits.
Absence of any effective pressure to improve performance from managers or others.
Fortunately, as Appendix 3 shows, there are a growing number of examples of institutions,
faculties and departments taking action to deal with these issues by:






Ensuring that only wanted samples are stored;
Storing samples at the highest feasible temperature;
Using internal space as efficiently as possible (which may involve sharing devices between
research groups);
Ensuring that devices run efficiently by regular defrosting and appropriate maintenance;
Only purchasing very energy efficient devices; and
Optimal location of devices to reduce cooling loads.
Often, the measures to achieve this can be beneficial to science, e.g. reducing risk of sample
defrosting because they are easier to access within freezers or dewars; easier compliance with
regulations because all samples are tracked; and freeing lab space for other uses or to create
better working conditions.
A similar situation exists with regard to a number of other items of equipment.
4
An Equipment Improvement Methodology
S-Lab has distilled its considerable experience of working to improve the performance and
utilisation of cold storage and other types of equipment into a ‘STEM-Equipment’ improvement
process that addresses four key parameters of equipment procurement and use:




Satisfy (genuine) needs – science and technology teaching and research must always have
what they genuinely require but specifiers sometimes don’t have all relevant information
e.g. on equipment alternatives, patterns of use, resilience and risks, and/or have no
significant incentives to reconsider what they really need. Sympathetic challenge can often
result in more optimal solutions.
Track activities – there is often limited knowledge about the nature and scale of laboratory
activities, even though better knowledge can be beneficial in many ways. For example,
inventory management allows samples to be easily located and unwanted ones to be
identified and discarded, and also makes it easier to achieve and demonstrate regulatory
compliance. And freezer inventories allow energy and other operating costs to be
calculated as a basis for replacement or improvement initiatives.
Eliminate waste – Waste should be considered in the ‘lean production’ sense of all
activities which are unnecessary or sub-optimal. Potentially useful things being thrown
away is the most obvious example, but energy, water and consumables usage is often
higher than needed to meet functional requirements and so can reduced or even avoided
by appropriate action. Many items of laboratory equipment are also used for much less
than their potential, and there can be considerable scope to improve availability, utilisation
and other attributes.
Manage effectively – it is difficult to implement any of the preceding measures without
good management, which includes a holistic approach to the issues, clear objectives and
responsibilities, and standard operating procedures.
The process involves bringing together all key stakeholders (e.g. users, vendors, procurement,
facilities) in an iterative cycle to identify improvement agendas, stimulate action, and review and
consolidate learning (see Appendix 1). This holistic approach captures insights from many different
sources, and has been successful not only in highlighting the scale and nature of opportunities, but
also in identifying existing good practice and the potential for both financial and non-financial
benefits, e.g. scientific reliability, environment and health and safety.
One reason why a multi-stakeholder approach is essential is that opportunities often require
cross-functional interaction to identify and tackle. For example, equipment energy usage is not
just a function of rated energy efficiency (even if that information is accurate, which it often isn’t)
but is also influenced by multiple factors such as availability and time spent in standby and power
down states; loadings; operating practices and maintenance. Hence, significant reductions in
consumption are unlikely to be achieved simply by purchasing what is thought to be more energy
efficient equipment: a more holistic approach is necessary.
A related point is that a good business case for improvement can often be difficult to develop from
a single perspective. It is only when multiple benefits accruing to a variety of groups are taken into
account that the case becomes convincing. For example, equipment maintenance contracts can
seem a luxury to a resource-short manager, but often well maintained equipment will last longer,
to create science benefits (e.g. more reliable results, more optimal storage) and to be more energy
efficient.
5
The appendices describe how this ‘STEM’ approach has been applied to ultra-cold freezers and
freezers.
Next Steps for Low-Medium Value Equipment Effectiveness and
Efficiency
It is suggested that:

The focus of RCUK and other bodies interested in research efficiency expands to cover all
aspects of equipment purchasing and use, rather than simply sharing, and greater
attention to low-medium value laboratory equipment.

A systematic programme is set up to collate existing and generate new information on all
key types of laboratory equipment and to distil the results into good practice
recommendations that are validated and endorsed by the research funding bodies.

Once validated guidance is available the research funding bodies should require funding
recipients to follow the good practice recommendations, and should work to create audit
mechanisms to ensure that this is achieved in practice.4

Standard equipment performance measures, e.g. energy consumption and operating cost
per litre of capacity for autoclaves and freezers, should be identified and documented to
aid procurement and benchmarking of existing performance through greater
comparability.

The existence of multiple equipment sharing and management platforms at all levels (i.e.
not just the current equipment consortia) should be acknowledged and supported by
developing common standards and definitions to allow exchange of data between them.

Individual institutions should broaden existing equipment-related roles (such as managing
asset inventories) into ones that are concerned with all aspects of equipment performance
and utilisation.
This latter development would align for an emerging trend for Estates departments to become
more engaged with laboratories and research infrastructure, in effect becoming service partners
rather than simply landlords.5
These issues will be discussed during the forthcoming S-Lab Conference, which will have a private
working lunch on ‘Research Effectiveness and Efficiency - Next Steps for Equipment and Space'.6
4
The S-Lab Environmental Assessment Framework which has been used – in conjunction with the NUS Green Impact
scheme – to audit hundreds of laboratories in UK universities re their environmental performance provides a model of
how this could be done. See www.goodcampus.org/files/files/104-S-Lab_Envtl_Framework_201314_Implementation_Guide_Final.doc.
5
See http://www.efficiencyexchange.ac.uk/7504/do-you-speak-laboratory/.
6
The Conference is being held on September 16-17 2015 at the University of Leeds, and one of its 9 parallel streams is
devoted to Diamond/Wakeham modernisation issues. The lunch is on September 17. See www.effectivelab.org.uk for
more details.
6
Appendix 1 – A STEM Equipment Improvement Process
The process has been evolved over a period of years by S-Lab, initially with regard to cold storage
and ultra-cold freezers and subsequently other equipment. It has six stages:
1. Initial Scoping – Providing space to bring relevant people together and begin discussion about
opportunities and barriers that is marketed as interactive and exploratory rather than providing
‘answers’ to a problem. For cold storage this was discussion and partial coverage in presentations
at a series of ‘Good Laboratory Housekeeping’ workshops in 2010-11. Producing small scale
outputs from these activities as appropriate e.g. a case study of cold storage, and elimination of
unwanted samples, at the Blizzard Institute identified through a Q&A session at one of these
workshops.
2. Detailed Scoping – More focused workshops to open up the topic, typically with a mix of good
practice presentations and exploratory discussion. For cold storage this was a workshop on
Equipment Energy held with the London Universities Purchasing Consortium in March 2011, and a
dedicated workshop on Cold Storage at the University of Manchester in August 2011. These were
invaluable in forming links with the procurement community and with suppliers who were
focusing on performance improvement, e.g. with regard to energy use.
3. Initial Outputs – Producing simple case studies and other materials (e.g. the cold storage section
of the S-Lab/Green Impact Laboratory Environmental Assessment Framework) that demonstrate
what can be done, broaden the community of interest and also create the sense that change is
possible.
4. Good Practice Dissemination – Using the initial outputs and other information acquired to more
strongly push the potential for improvement opportunities, e.g. workshops at the 2012, 2013 and
2014 S-Lab National Conferences and the 2014 S-Lab Scotland Conferences, focused Cold Storage
workshops at the University of Edinburgh in April 2013 and King’s College on May 2014. This can
then also build partnerships and identify and take advantage of funding opportunities to provide
resource for further action.
5. Substantive Outputs – A number of institutional initiatives developed partly or wholly in
response to the prior activities and further strengthen the evidence base about improvement
opportunities, and develops the critical mass of engaged people that starts to put peer pressure
on other institutions to follow. The connections formed also create new opportunities. For
example, S-Lab was able to significantly assist a £75,000+ experiment at Edinburgh using donated
freezers from Eppendorf and VWR to verify that environmental actions (operating at -70oC rather
than -80 oC, effective racking, minimising door opening etc.) deliver energy benefit without
compromising sample integrity. These outputs have then been disseminated through a renewed
cycle of workshops, Conference sessions etc.
6. Prescriptive action – this is still work in progress but the aim is to influence Research Councils
and others to take action, e.g. mandatory use of a cold storage assessment scheme for relevant
grants, benchmarks for freezer energy use.
7
Appendix 2 – Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Ultracold Freezers
The following text is based on presentations and discussions at multiple S-Lab workshops and
conference sessions (see Appendix 1), and meetings with users, suppliers and others.7
Satisfy Needs
Researchers want reliable and convenient cold storage and often believe that this is best achieved
by owning and having exclusive use of their own freezer. However, they may be taking a greater
risk than they imagine with regard to failure. This is always a possibility but the risks can be
mitigated through a variety of means such as splitting samples between several locations, an
effective alarming system and capacity to deal with failures both in terms of human response and
additional storage capacity. Whilst there is no reason why this cannot be done at laboratory level,
it is often easier to deal with these issues at an aggregate level. For example, when the University
of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute planned a new building it decided to centralise freezer management
and siting, and to allocate shelves rather than complete units to researchers. A major factor in this
was a previous incident of losing samples within a more decentralised freezer regime. Although
not all institutions will want to go down this route, Roslin reports that the system has worked well,
and that almost all researchers have adapted without issues.
The likelihood of outages is also increased by factors such as overloading and poor maintenance.
This can result in over-burdened compressors that are more vulnerable to failure, as well as
working inefficiently and wearing out more quickly.
Poor management of freezers that results in a higher level of door opening – for example, because
researchers do not know where samples are and so have to search through shelves – also
increases the risk of sample degradation, especially for those that are on the edge or surface of
racks.
A researcher’s need for reliable storage can often be achieved with higher storage temperatures
than they might expect (and hence less energy consumption). S-Lab has much anecdotal evidence
of samples being stored in ultra-cold freezers that would be fine in conventional freezers or
fridges. Technology is also available to store DNA at ambient temperature (although workshop
discussions have highlighted that this can be expensive, and not suitable for all samples and uses).
Several universities have also persuaded some researchers to turn up freezer temperatures e.g. to
-70oC as small temperature differences at these levels can create significant reductions in energy
consumption and compressor loads. One persuasive argument has been that many samples
started off being stored at these temperatures anyway as this was the lowest feasible
temperature when they were first collected.
It is also the case that all samples are not equal in terms of when and how quickly they will be
required. It is sensible to differentiate between everyday and archive storage, and to ensure that
the latter does not tie up valuable core laboratory floor space and/or require additional cooling to
remove the heat that it generates.
7
I am especially grateful to Alan Doyle of the University of California, Davis; Martin Farley of King’s College; and Allison
Hunter of Imperial College for information and guidance on this topic.
8
One obvious solution to these issues is more centralised freezer provision and management, often
involving the creation of designated internal areas or external ‘freezer farms’ that can run at
cooler temperatures than core laboratory space and can be alarmed and controlled more
effectively. However, whilst this can be the neatest solution, others can achieve the same
objectives in a ‘good enough’ way if there is a high level of resistance from researchers.
Track Activities
One reason that cold storage improvement opportunities have been difficult to address is limited
knowledge about their nature and scale. Many institutions do not know how many devices they
have, or what they cost. Many people were surprised, for example, when a cold storage audit in
two King’s College buildings identified 800 devices, with an annual energy cost of £80,247. This
and other exercises elsewhere have also highlighted a great variation in energy consumption
between different makes, sizes, and types of freezer. New energy-efficient models can cost £250
or less whilst very ones can be over £1,000 a year. Developing information of this kind can raise
awareness of the issue, build support for improvement actions, and identify and help to prioritise
opportunities. At King’s these have included installation of voltage optimisation devices, improved
housekeeping, persuading some users to raise freezer operating temperatures to -70oC and other
measures.8
There is a similar story with regard to their contents. Only when samples are identified and
monitored does it become clear whether they are still needed. When the Blizzard Institute did this
in conjunction with consolidating research units into a new building it found that 50% of all the
samples that were being stored were unwanted.9 Sample management systems also create
additional benefits, including demonstrating regulatory compliance, and saving time and energy
losses from door opening because samples can be easily located.
Eliminate Waste
With fridges and freezers the greatest waste of resources is storage of samples that are no longer
required, which can be dealt with as per the previous section.
Another source of waste is poor utilisation of internal freezer space. This can occur for a variety of
reasons, including no/badly fitting internal racking or containers and ownership of freezers by
individual PIs so that some have empty shelves whilst others are over-full, and storage of private
materials. The first of these is relatively easy to change, but the second is more problematic
without some kind of centralised management system.
Freezers also occupy floor space, which is very expensive in laboratories (often £500-800 per m2).
Reducing freezer numbers and/or relocating freezers to areas that are not so highly serviced can
therefore create considerable savings in space use and – depending on internal charging regimes costs.
Energy consumption can also be unnecessarily high because of clogged filters, icing, poor internal
utilisation creating air voids, frequent opening of doors, poor positioning so that heat from
8
See presentation by Allison Hunter, then of King’s College, to a 2014 S-Lab workshop at:
www.goodcampus.org/events/info.php?siteID=&refnum=119&startnum=0.
9
S-Lab Case Study 4, Improved Sample Tracking, 2011. See www.goodcampus.org/uploads/DOCS/106-case_4___Blizard_Institute_sample_tracking.pdf.
9
compressors is not easily dissipated, and other controllable factors. One good practice to deal with
this in a number of institutions is an annual maintenance and content checking regime. For
example, the Conway Institute of Bio-molecular and Biomedical Research at University College
Dublin (UCD) has reduced the number of samples significantly by systematically defrosting its
freezers, and using a ‘floating’ freezer to decant samples so that they can be checked. This
resulted in 15% more storage capacity.10
Another means of addressing these issues has been to use internal funds within estates or
elsewhere to replace very inefficient models, or to top up available funds so that any additional
expense for researchers caused by choosing very energy efficient models is covered. These
schemes often have paybacks of only a few years. One university has a variation on this theme by
having a requirement that researchers purchase very efficient models, or face an increased estate
cost if not.
Manage Effectively
It is difficult to implement any of the preceding measures without good management, which
includes a holistic approach to the issues, clear responsibilities, and standard operating
procedures.
One important aspect of management is ensuring that users understand laboratory policies on
cold storage – and the reasons for them – and implement them in practice. One important means
of achieving this is formal procedures for induction and exit – which should include explicit
attention to what will happen to stored samples.
Incentives are also important, in the form of both ‘carrots’ (e.g. recognition of good practice,
financial returns from Estates to labs if energy savings are achieved) and ‘sticks’ (e.g. unwanted
recognition of poor practice). An important element in both these is a regular assessment
mechanism. In the UK, this is partly achieved through relevant sections of the S-lab Environmental
Assessment Framework. A more detailed template has been developed by several US universities
who have set up a ‘Freezer Challenge’ scheme which laboratories can enter.
Guidelines for Ultra-cold Freezer Procurement and Use
S-Lab has distilled the experience of several workshops, and research, into the following
provisional guidelines.
Procurement




Is a new freezer really necessary? Can it be avoided by taking action in response to some of
the following points, e.g. making better use of existing ones through improved utilisation,
sharing or other means?
Have users been consulted, and standard operating and maintenance procedures been
considered (or developed), during preparation of specifications and tenders?
Will capacity be maximised by also purchasing effective racking and ensuring that only
wanted samples are stored?
Has the housing of new freezers been considered? In particular, could there be any need
for additional cooling, power supply or ventilation?
10
S-Lab Briefing 4: Effective and Energy Efficient Cold Storage, 2011. See www.goodcampus.org/uploads/DOCS/147-SLab_Briefing_Paper_4_-_cold_storage_final_v2.pdf.
10




Have the whole life costs of different alternatives been properly calculated? E.g. by
considering energy consumption, any additional support requirements, maintenance costs.
Are different options being compared properly, e.g. by reference to costs per litre stored
and other parameters?
Is there scope to consider the purchased within a broader context, e.g. opportunities for
bulk orders, use of dedicated freezer areas?
Are the outputs of considering previous points fully reflected in tender documents and
criteria?
Use









Are there standard operating procedures for use and maintenance in place?
How is conformance with these procedures monitored and is it adequate to provide full
assurance that it happens?
Is there a good tracking system to ensure that only wanted samples are stored, and that
they can be easily located within freezers?
Is there effective monitoring of freezer status and effective alarms and response
arrangements in the event of failure?
Are samples being stored at the highest temperature that meets functional requirements?
Do laboratory users know what these are?
Is there good knowledge of the energy consumption of different units, and schemes to
support replacement of older units if payback thresholds can be met?
Is there a good awareness amongst users of the importance of previous points and how is
this achieved?
Is there a clear responsibility structure to ensure that the previous points are achieved in
practice?
Is there an audit process to ensure that the previous points are achieved in practice?
11
Appendix 3 – Improving Autoclave Effectiveness and Efficiency
The S-Lab work on autoclaves began in 2014 and is therefore at an earlier stage than for the ultracold freezers which are the focus of Appendix 2. The following text is based on presentations and
discussions at a focused 2014 workshop at the University of Warwick 11, subsequent sessions at
several S-Lab events, and interviews with and feedback from users and suppliers.12
Satisfy Needs
It is important to involve users when preparing specifications and tenders. It can also be helpful to
talk to vendors in the pre-tender period because they have considerable knowledge of autoclave
use.
One way of satisfying needs is to match the type and size of autoclave equipment to the tasks to
be accomplished. ‘Baseload’ autoclaves are those which use electricity or gas (which can be
cheaper and more energy efficient) to heat a boiler to generate constant steam at high pressure.
They have high installation and maintenance costs, and require considerable energy to reheat
when turned off overnight. Hence, their use is only sensible (from a cost and energy point of view)
when they can be run most of the time and are appropriately sized for autoclave loads.
Low pressure steam autoclaves use electricity to create steam from cold water. Hence, they only
use significant energy during the heating phase of the run, but they can be slow to reach
temperature. Hence, they have been best suited to intermediate use. However, technical
innovation is improving their thermal efficiency.
‘Right sizing’ autoclaves is important too. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute has rationalised 19
autoclaves that ranged in size from 6000 to 10 litres into 5 600 litre and 2 250 litre units. Their
medium size makes batching much easier so that they can always be operated near full capacity,
and also increases resilience compared to a few large machines.
However, a deep analysis of needs does not always result in reduced usage or resource
consumption. One point which emerged from the Warwick workshop was that sometimes people
may not be achieving effective sterilisation because of lack of knowledge as to appropriate
temperatures, or poorly performing equipment. In some cases, solving this may require additional
energy and resource use, e.g. two-stage autoclaving for some dangerous substances, as happens
at Sanger.
Location is important too. Autoclaves produce radiated as well as convected heat and a single
machine can take ambient temp up to 30-35oC, creating uncomfortable working conditions and/or
requiring air conditioning. Cooling the chamber with water rather than air can help but it is
important that the water is recirculated for cost and environmental reasons.
Other relevant issues for autoclaving are effective waste separation so that only essential material
is autoclaved, and the potential for sharing so that the total number of units can be rationalised.
11
S-Lab, Effective and Efficient Autoclaving in Higher Education, 2014 – see www.eventlink.org.uk/.../128Autoclave_Workshop_Notes_v3.docx.
12
I am especially grateful to Jonathan Lovell of the Sanger Institute for information and guidance on this topic.
12
Track Activities
As autoclaves deal with hazardous materials it is very important that there are good records of
wastes processed, operating conditions etc. S-Lab activities have not indicated that there is cause
for concern about this.
Eliminate Waste
For autoclaves this includes waste of capacity and energy when autoclaves are only part-used
(which can be prevented by batching), and waste of energy when they generate steam even when
not required.
Faster cycle times can be helpful as this reduces energy consumption and creates additional
capacity if autoclaves are fully utilised. Sanger has achieved a 10-15% improvement through
replacing plastic trays with aluminium (a better heat conductor enabling temperature is reached
more quickly). It also thinks that aluminium containers are more secure to transport. However,
there are disadvantages including higher initial purchase cost, seal maintenance and increased
weight (creating potential health and safety issues re manual handling). Sanger has avoided the
latter by lightweight designs but these are more fragile and so need to be replaced more
frequently. Nonetheless, they feel that the trade-off has been worthwhile.
Another issue is whether to mix different kinds of waste In autoclaves. This is potentially
advantageous because it can make it easier to batch and run at full loads. Some attendees at the
Warwick workshop thought that it is bad practice to use the same autoclave for media preparation
and to treat waste. However, Sanger do mix these, and believe that good operating procedures
mean that autoclaves always remain sterile.
Manage Effectively
One aspect of good management is responsibility. The NHS has a recognised role of Authorising
Engineer (Decontamination), abbreviated to AE(D). This is intended to provide impartial auditing
and advice on all aspects of decontamination – including cleaning, disinfection, and sterilising – of
medical devices, including autoclaves. The role encompasses design of decontamination facilities,
specification and procurement of equipment, validation and testing and auditing. AE(D)
registration is conferred by a panel, which is administered by IHEEM (Institute of Healthcare
Engineering and Estates Management), and requires attendance at the Institute’s Advanced
Course in Sterilisation Technology (ACIST). This covers standards and guidance; microbiology;
validation; steam sterilization; washer disinfectors; other sterilization and decontamination
techniques, and the role of the Role of AE(D).
The Warwick workshop discussed whether universities should have an AE(D) type role, either
informally, or by having an IHEEM registered individual? Several people commented that the NHS
system can be rather bureaucratic and/or just be a tick box exercise and therefore did not present
an ideal model for universities. However, there was a feeling that the importance of autoclaving is
not always recognised, and that in larger departments or facilities someone should have
responsibility both for safety, and tracking overall autoclave use. There was also considerable
agreement that, whilst the full course may be too much for HE, a simpler basic autoclave
principles; key maintenance tasks (daily, weekly and monthly); and management responsibility
could be useful.
13
It is also important to compare the whole life costs of different autoclave options. This is
important because some manufacturers sell at low margins and compensate by relatively high
charges for maintenance and spares. One solution is to use third part maintenance companies.
Equipment developed for medical use (which is very regulated) is usually more expensive so
important to get the specifications right.
Guidelines for Autoclave Procurement and Use
S-Lab has distilled the experience of several workshops, and research, into the following
provisional guidelines.
Procurement








Is a new autoclave really necessary? Can it be avoided by e.g. better use of existing
equipment through sharing or other means, managing waste streams so that nonhazardous waste is not autoclaved?
Have users been consulted, and standard operating and maintenance procedures been
considered (or developed), during preparation of specifications and tenders?
Are the autoclaves right sized for needs so that they always operate at full capacity? In
particular, have the potential benefits of ordering two medium sized ones rather than a
single large one been explored?
Has the housing of the equipment been considered? In particular, could there be any need
for additional cooling, power supply or ventilation?
Have the whole life costs of different alternatives been properly calculated? E.g. by
considering energy consumption, any additional support requirements, maintenance costs.
Are different options being compared properly, e.g. by reference to type and volumes of
waste generated, likely usage patterns, standardised metrics (e.g. cost per kilo processed).
Has use of metal containers been considered and, if chosen, been risk assessed especially
re manual handling?
Are the outputs of considering previous points fully reflected in tender documents and
criteria?
Use







Are there standard operating procedures for use and maintenance in place?
How is conformance with these procedures monitored and is it adequate to provide full
assurance that it happens?
Is there a clear responsibility structure for autoclaving?
Is there effective waste separation so that only genuinely hazardous or unpleasant waste is
autoclaved?
Are loads batched so that units are always run near to full capacity?
Is equipment turned off or down whenever possible?
Is there an audit process to ensure that autoclaving is functioning properly?
14