DRAFT: Best Practices for Life Science Laboratory Design and Redesign
Laboratories are built and existing spaces are redesigned for a number of reasons. Perhaps a space has become outdated, no longer serving the needs of the researchers or their organization. Perhaps additional space is required as a result of personnel growth or procedural requirements. Or, perhaps environmental and efficiency initiatives prompt an overhaul of “business as usual” in how a laboratory functions.
While the reasons are varied, one truth remains: As science evolves and new techniques, tools, and opportunities are presented, many lab managers and safety officers will be faced with life science lab design or redesign questions. What’s the best way to navigate what is undoubtedly a complicated, time-consuming process? What is the proper combination of lab layout, equipment, and materials to maximize energy savings, safety, and flexibility? Let’s discuss some best practices.
Considerations for Lab Managers and Safety Officers
Matt Anderson, Biosafety Officer at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has five points for analysis he uses to determine what makes a lab safe: design, engineering controls, procedures, personal protective equipment (PPE), and people.
Design. While designs vary based on procedural requirements, there are several common components of well-designed labs. For example, specialized research—microscopy, work with radioactive materials, research involving pathogens or high hazards, etc.—have their own dedicated spaces separate from low-risk work. Many also include freezer farms, or rooms with augmented cooling to handle equipment like -80° freezers. It’s also important to keep lab spaces separate from eating and office areas. Anderson reports there’s also a push toward open lab spaces to encourage interdisciplinary interactions and collaborative research; this approach is perfectly acceptable, as long as the containment of hazards comes before layout preferences.
Engineering controls. Engineering controls are those processes and pieces of equipment that prevent the release of contaminants into the workplace. To the extent feasible, the work environment and the job itself should be designated to eliminate hazards or reduce personnel exposure to hazards. Examples of engineering controls include fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, glove boxes, safety showers, and more.
Procedures. Examining procedures requires looking through a big-picture lens. Anderson recommends asking the following questions: Are your current procedures as safe as they could be? Are there better processes to achieve the same result? Don’t replicate existing processes and ways of doing things for the sake of history. Is there a better way? A safer way?
PPE. PPE comes back to application, and selecting PPE safely requires asking more design questions. Is specific infrastructure needed to accommodate a particular PPE? If you’re using Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) in a BSL3 lab, for example, there should be a specific place to store them as well as charge the batteries. Don’t keep the status quo for the sake of convenience.
People. For optimal safety, staff must be properly trained. Front line workers should be consulted on lab design and layout, as they’re the ones who will be utilizing the space most often. When it comes to hiring a design team, look for architects with specific laboratory experience. The latter point is especially important, as there are a number of considerations only those familiar with the unique requirements of labs will be able to address. For example, if BSL2 work will be conducted in the new space, there must be negative airflow from the hallway into the lab. The exhaust system, then, must be able to meet that need as well as ensure there are enough air changes in the room to keep occupants safe. In addition, rather than relying on running extension cords and using power strips, lab designers know the importance of ensuring sufficient electrical capacity and outlet options for the different types of equipment the lab will house.
The Importance of Flexibility: Spotlight on Biosafety Cabinets
One of the key considerations for lab managers and safety officers looking into a life science lab design or redesign is flexibility. Building infrastructure that can handle future needs is just as important as satisfying immediate objectives—in fact, it may be even more important if you’re taking the long view on both ROI, efficiency, and utility.
There are a number of different types of equipment that can add flexibility to a laboratory design initiative, including water systems, vacuum lines, glassware washers, and Class II biosafety cabinet usage. The latter is the specialty of Brian Garrett, Product Manager and LEED Green Associate for Labconco Corporation.
In his experience working with both design teams and lab teams, Garrett reports there can often be a gap in communication present that can drastically affect the outcome of a project. Garrett recalled specifically reviewing plans for a project for DNA Genotek in which they “had planned the one thing you cannot do with multiple Type B2 biosafety cabinets, and that is to manifold—or plumb—them together, as the systems will have serious issues.” Instead of making this mistake, the lab adopted Class II, Type C1* biosafety cabinets, maintaining the required chemical protection while using the existing manifolded design. The result? A savings of roughly $75,000 in change orders alone.
Another instance where flexibility saved the day was at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. They commissioned an energy savings committee to look at projects that would realize an ROI of five years or better for energy payback. The team completed a number of initiatives, including adding control valves for chilled water usage and switching to LED lights. Their biggest endeavor, however, was reexamining their usage of their aging B2 biosafety cabinets. Instead of replacing the units with newer B2s which can often exhaust more than a chemical fume hood, they opted for Type C1 technology instead, keeping the infrastructure they already had while adding the flexibility of a unit that can operate in either Type A or Type B mode (see Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Color-schemed airflow diagrams from Axiom lit—(Allison to pull high res)
The result? Creighton realized an ROI of 2.6 years—just over half of the minimum requirement for the project group—and saw an energy savings of over $52,000. Garrett reports those figures are almost double now, as the university added six more Type C1 biosafety cabinets since the case study data was calculated. For a breakdown of savings from a Type C1 compared to Type A and Type B biosafety cabinets, see Figure 3.
15 Year Costs
Type A2
Type A2 w/ canopy
Type B1
Type B2
Type C1 in A mode
Type C1 in B mode
Upfront installation
$300
$400
$5,150
$5,150
$300
$400
Lifetime maintenance
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
Lifetime operation
N/A
$40,500
$40,500
$87,000
N/A
$42,000
Estimated total cost
$4,800
$45,400
$50,150
$96,650
$4,800
$46,900
Upfront installation costs include labor, ductwork, blower (where applicable) and electrical hook up. Lifetime maintenance costs include HEPA filters and annual certification.
Lifetime operation cost is cost of exhausted air of $8/year/CFM for 15 years.
Figure 3
In sum, it’s clear proper communication and a holistic approach to the laboratory design process can lead to safer, more efficient spaces that cost less to both build and operate—a win-win.