91AV

I joined the RSC Organic 91AV Community Council, formerly the Organic Division Council, in 2021, and as part of my work for that community I led a small working group of likeminded chemists exploring the theme of sustainable labs – a topic that appeared to be gaining increasing traction among chemical scientists. Many people highlighted that they just didn’t have the data to know which approaches were more sustainable than others, and so we began to explore the possibility of using the networks and visibility of the RSC to offer authenticated advice to scientists.

I contributed to an online panel hosted by the RSC as part of its suite of COP26 events, and I was pleased to be able to offer input into the questionnaire the RSC circulated after COP26, which ultimately led to the recent Sustainable Laboratories report.

Implementing sustainable labs is a team activity

In my experience of implementing sustainable lab practices, I’ve learned that this is a team activity, and you need input from a wide variety of perspectives. The chemists working in the labs themselves are of course key. For example if you suggest replacing a problematic solvent with a "greener" solvent or solvent mixture, then you need feedback as to whether they are going to be as easy to work with. Are there different challenges that need to be addressed up front? You need to involve safety – what testing needs to be done to confirm whether or not lower fume hood flow rates might be acceptable in certain situations, for example? You have lab services, who can advise on how different waste handling processes or different glass washing protocols might affect the running of the lab.

And finally you need senior leaders willing to show that this is an activity they value, and chemists willing to give new approaches an open-minded try, champion the approaches that work, and be honest with feedback on any approaches that don’t work.

A topic worthy of curiosity

91AV is a highly applied field, and we are used to considering our work in a variety of different contexts – be that how a given research topic might be funded, how a research finding might be applied, or how our work might be impacted by the latest techniques or findings in other fields. With all these myriad lenses through which we look at science, there's a chance that we could overlook the actual day to day impact of the way in which we do research. But we shouldn’t.

The details of lab work are arguably mundane at times, but by turning a spotlight on those details we can see the wider impact of our research activities, and look for improvements. In some cases there may be simple "drop-in" improvements that can be made to our ways of working, and in others we may highlight areas where there is a need for improved equipment, conditions and so on.

I'd argue that as scientists we're inherently curious, and it would be strange if we somehow decided, given the overall size of chemistry research in the UK and worldwide, that this topic wasn't worthy of our curiosity.

The best way to start making changes is to consider what aspects of your work have the biggest environmental footprint. I'm a synthetic organic chemist by training, so I inherently gravitate towards considering solvents, but the chemists reading this are the experts in their own work. They are best able to evaluate whether they've already adequately considered their research practices through the lens of sustainability – be that carbon footprint, water impact, toxicity of materials used, source of raw materials, or something else entirely. Critically, it will often come down to a trade-off of several of these factors.

If they can't find the research needed to help them choose one set of reagents, conditions, equipment and so on, then I would wholeheartedly encourage them to get in touch with the RSC Sustainability Working Group. In many cases it might be that more research is needed to find the answers.

A force for public good

I'd like to see the RSC continue using its position as a trusted voice of chemists to amplify this topic. We should continue to remind colleagues and educate the general public that green and sustainable chemistry is a force for public good, and that transitioning to sustainable laboratories through shared best practice is an important step in creating sustainable supply chains. It’s about doing better, productive, chemistry for everyone, and the planet. 

I believe the Subject Communities and the RSC Sustainability Working Group can play an important role in identifying where more research is needed to understand the relative impact of different laboratory procedures, and we need to use the network the communities have to test any new recommendations in order to have confidence that they work. 

The RSC is also really well placed to curate information and ensure lists and recommendations are kept up to date with the latest research and legislation. The Sustainable Laboratories report contains a list of resources, which are a great starting point.

Chemists are doing great work to solve important problems – we need to be sure that efforts to do so sustainably help, rather than hinder, them.