1
Sep
Eco-Friendly Sterilisation: Autoclaving vs Chemical Disinfection in Green Labs
Sterilisation is essential in laboratories, ensuring that equipment, media, and consumables remain free of microorganisms. But how labs sterilise can have a major impact on sustainability. Traditional methods such as autoclaving and chemical disinfection both achieve sterility, yet they differ in energy use, safety, and environmental impact. For Australian schools, universities, and industry labs, choosing the right method supports both compliance and green lab goals.
Why Sterilisation Matters in Sustainable Labs
Laboratories generate significant waste and consume large amounts of energy. Autoclaves alone can account for up to 15% of a lab’s total energy use, while chemical disinfectants may introduce toxic residues into wastewater. Balancing sterility with sustainability requires understanding the trade-offs between methods and adopting best practices to reduce energy and chemical waste.
Autoclaving vs Chemical Disinfection: A Sustainability Comparison
| Feature | Autoclaving (Steam Sterilisation) | Chemical Disinfection |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Use | High (steam at 121–134 °C) | Low to moderate (depends on chemical volume) |
| Environmental Impact | Energy-intensive, but no toxic residues | Generates chemical waste, potential toxicity in disposal |
| Safety | Safe when operated correctly | Requires PPE, fumes can be harmful |
| Effectiveness | Kills all microbes including spores | Effective for bacteria/viruses, less reliable for spores |
| Reusability | Ideal for reusable glassware and media | Often used for disposable items |
| Cost Efficiency | High upfront cost, low per-cycle cost | Lower setup cost, higher recurring chemical expense |
Case Study: Reducing Environmental Impact
A Sydney biomedical lab compared its energy consumption across three autoclaves. By switching to high-efficiency steam cycles and reducing unnecessary loads, the lab cut its energy use by 30% annually. In contrast, a Queensland teaching facility phased out chlorine-based disinfectants in favour of ethanol and autoclaving, preventing harmful chemical residues from entering wastewater systems.
LabChoice Advantage
LabChoice Australia supplies BORO 3.3 borosilicate glassware specifically designed to withstand repeated autoclaving cycles without cracking or degrading. This makes glassware a long-term, eco-friendly alternative to disposable plastics sterilised with chemicals. By integrating durable glassware with autoclaving best practices, laboratories can achieve sterility while reducing waste and supporting sustainability.
FAQs
Is autoclaving always more sustainable than chemical disinfection?
Not always. Autoclaving uses more energy, but it avoids chemical waste, making it preferable for reusable glassware.
Can chemical disinfectants be eco-friendly?
Yes, ethanol and hydrogen peroxide are greener choices compared to chlorine or glutaraldehyde.
Do autoclaves damage glassware over time?
High-quality BORO 3.3 glassware withstands hundreds of autoclave cycles without structural failure.
Can schools use autoclaves safely?
Yes, many Australian schools use benchtop autoclaves for teaching labs with proper training and safety procedures.
📚 References
Standards & Specifications
- ISO 17665-1:2006 – Sterilisation of health care products — Moist heat — Requirements for the development, validation and routine control. International Organization for Standardization.
https://www.iso.org/standard/31417.html - ASTM E1837-96(2014) – Standard Test Method to Determine Efficacy of Disinfection Processes for Reusable Medical Devices. ASTM International.
https://www.astm.org/e1837-96r14.html
Academic & Safety Guides
- American Chemical Society (ACS) – Green Chemistry Principle 12: Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention.
https://www.acs.org/greenchemistry - CSIRO – Laboratory Sustainability Guide – Reducing Energy and Chemical Waste in Australian Labs. CSIRO, Australia.
https://www.csiro.au - University of Melbourne – Environmental Sustainability Report (2022) – Laboratory Initiatives for Autoclave Efficiency.
