Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Acknowledgements
The special thank goes to my supervisors Noga Levit and Anke Sieb who provided me with great support
and supervision. Their trust, guidance and help are indeed much appreciated. I truly enjoyed working
together with them as a team.
My grateful thanks also go to Victor Luk and Randy Deane from the Michael Smith Lab. Their
enthusiasm and contribution are much appreciated.
Special thanks also to the following people who contributed their effort and time to participate in this
project: Wesley Wong and Jamal Kurtu from Pharmaceutical Department, Melanie Betrand from Brain
Research Laboratory, Cristian Sperantia from Laboratory of Periodontal Biology, Pedro Alaise and
Zhaoming Xu from Food, Nutrition and Health Department, Helen Bottriell from Chemistry Department,
Jarnail Mehroke from Botany Laboratory, Louise Creagh from Chemical and Biological Engineering
Department and Valerie Smith from MacGillivray Laboratory.
Contents
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 6
4.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Autoclaves ...................................................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Biosafety Cabinets ..................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Centrifuges .................................................................................................................................. 15
5.4 Freezers ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5.5 Incubators .................................................................................................................................... 27
5.6 Ovens ............................................................................................................................................. 29
5.7 Refrigerators ................................................................................................................................ 31
5.8 Shakers .......................................................................................................................................... 33
6.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 35
1.0 Introduction
This report entitled Carbon Neutral for All? delivers on the University of British Columbias
commitment to maintain a sustainable campus by evaluating laboratory equipment energy
efficiency in a number of major laboratories on campus. The project is a joint initiative of the UBC
Department of Health, Safety and Environment and Campus Sustainability Office in UBC.
Laboratory equipment was selected and analyzed in four buildings and five laboratories from March
to June 2010 as listed below:
Buildings:
-
Pharmaceutical Building
Laboratories:
-
2.0 Purpose
The primary purpose of this research was to evaluate the energy efficiency of commonly used
laboratory equipment on UBC campus. This report also intends to provide recommendations in
purchasing energy efficient equipment and maintenance practices for various departments on
campus.
4.0 Methodology
In the first stage of the study, laboratories from different departments in UBC were identified and
invited to partake in the survey. Lab equipment including autoclaves, biosafety cabinets, centrifuges,
-20C freezers, -80C freezers, incubators, ovens, refrigerators and shakers were studied.
Information such as current (A), voltage (V) and power (W) was collected directly from the
nameplate affixed to the equipment.
Information such as unit capacity and power consumption (W) was not always shown on the name
plates and thus occasionally information was obtained from the online specifications provided by
manufacturers. Information from third parties such as Natural Resources Canada (EnerGuide) was
also used in the context of this report.
In the second stage, 24 pieces of equipment were selected and tested using two wattmeters named
kill-a-watt and WattsupPRO. Data including current (A), voltage (V), power (W) and kilowatt-hour
(kWh) were logged either manually using kill-a-watt or automatically using WattsupPRO for a
duration of up to 200 minutes. The power consumption of certain equipment was relatively steady
and thus the survey duration might be shorter than 200 minutes. For kill-a-watt, measurements
were taken and recorded every 3 minutes and for WattsupPRO every 5 seconds. Due to electrical
requirements of the wattmeters, only lab equipment which requires voltage of 120V or below and
current of 15W or below was tested.
It was found that power consumption of two equipment of the same model could vary. As seen in
Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, two refrigerators having the same model were tested using
WattsupPRO and the average power consumption varied slightly by approximately 10%. Therefore,
it is important to note that power consumption depends very much on how you use the equipment.
The amount of samples and specimen in the fridge, for instance, could have an impact on how much
energy is being consumed. Apart from this, units of the same model but different year of
manufacture might have different level of energy consumption.
Figure 1: Measurement of Power Consumption (W) of a Fridge (FFU2124DW9) at Brain Research Lab
Figure 2: Measurement of Power Consumption (W) of a Fridge (FFU2124DW9) at Michael Smith Lab
After measuring the average power consumption of the selected units, stage 3 proceeded to compare
the energy efficiency of different equipment. Although over 200 pieces of equipment have been looked
into, yet over half of them do not include the power rating on their name plates or in their product
specifications. This limited the quantity of the equipment which could be studied in this survey,
Equipment in each lab might have different usage time and by averaging the operating hours of each
kind of equipment, weekly power consumption can be acquired using the following equation:
For the equipment which was tested, the weekly power consumption (kWh/week) can be obtained
using the same equation. But instead of using the nameplate power rating, the actual measured power
rating was used.
According to the UBC Sustainability Office, the cost per kilowatt-hour changes from year to year. In
2009/10, the cost was $0.0429 per kilowatt-hour, which is used to calculate the weekly cost of operating
the equipment using the following equation. In this context, it is important to note that this rate of cost
is usually less than other residential and commercial rates.
5.0 Results
Except for -80C freezer, two or more units of each kind of equipment were selected and tested. The
actual measured power consumption was always lower than the power rating stated on the
nameplates, except for one of the freezers which will be discussed in section 5.4. Tables showing
name plate power ratings and actual measured power ratings are included at the end of each
section and the measured values are in italic form for easier comparison.
5.1 Autoclaves
Autoclaves in UBC are used for five hours a week in general. They are one of the units which
consume a lot of energy. Most of the autoclaves in the university are hard-wired and the
steam they use is provided by the university. Some labs such as Michael Smith Labs have
their own steam generating station to avoid anti-corrosive chemicals added in the central
steaming system in the university. Most benchtop autoclaves also do not require the steam
provided by the university as the amount of steam they need is fairly small which could be
generated by the autoclaves themselves.
For the hard-wired autoclaves, the nameplates often could not be found and manufacturers
of the selected equipment do not usually present the electrical specifications of the
products. Additionally, most of the energy is in fact used in the steaming process. As a result,
only the steam-generating autoclaves were investigated in this study and results can be
found in table 1. A few models available in the market are also included at the end of the
table. Two benchtop autoclaves (Harvey ST75925 and VWR AS12) were tested to evaluate
their actual power consumption. The start up (steam-generating) period was the most
energy consuming and both units reached the maximum temperature in approximately 30
minutes. Then less power was needed to maintain this temperature and thus power
consumption decreased by around 60%. The entire sterilization process ended with a drying
period, when the door of the autoclave was left opened and specimen and samples were
dried up. For the two units which were tested in this study, it was assumed that they are
always used for a 60 minutes cycle - 30 minutes of steam-generating period, 25 minutes
sterilizing period and 5 minutes drying period. Both units were tested in wrapped heating
mode, which was the common mode of operation.
It was also discovered that the units did consume energy even when they were not running.
Harvey ST75925-33L consumed 13.0W when it was switched on without undergoing any of
the processes mentioned above. VWR AS12 consumed 14.4W in the same situation. So it is
highly recommended to switch off the units when they are not in use.
Figure 3 below illustrates the result of one of the measurements. At 33:00, the temperature
reached 135 C. At 40:00, steaming process was complete and drying period began.
Manufacturers
Model
GETINGE
533LS
Harvey
ST75925
Harvey
ST75925
Market Forge
STM-EL
Sanyo
MLS-3020C
VWR
AS12
VWR
AS12
Other Common Models:
Sanyo
SA-260
SciCan
BRAVO17
Tuttnauer
2540M
Vernitron
2000
272
33
33
85
48
33
33
Nameplate
Power
Rating (W)
30000
1500
828*2
12000
2000
1500
794*3
24
17
23
11
2300
1700
1400
1250
Capacity
(L)
kWh/week
*1
kWh/week/L
*1
150
7.5
4.14
60
10
7.5
3.97
0.55
0.23
0.13
0.71
0.21
0.23
0.12
Cost
($/week)
*1
6.44
0.32
0.18
2.57
0.43
0.32
0.17
11.5
8.5
7
6.25
0.48
0.50
0.29
0.57
0.49
0.37
0.30
0.30
Remarks
Benchtop
Measured by wattmeter
Vertical Top-loading
Benchtop
Measured by wattmeter
Benchtop
Vertical Top-loading
* Assume 30 minutes steam-generating period (1227W), 25 minutes steaming period (421W), and 5 minutes drying process (304W).
3
* Assume 30 minutes steam-generating period (1175W), 25 minutes steaming period (471W), and 5 minutes drying process (106W)
NuAire Biosafety Cabinets (Nu-425-400 and Nu-425-600) are the most commonly used
models on campus. Thermo Forma 1200 and 1284 are also used in a few labs. However,
power rating could not be found on any nameplates or in the specifications obtained in the
manufacturers websites. Therefore measurements were taken for the NuAire models; yet
the power requirements for Thermo Forma models exceeded the electrical capacity of the
wattmeters and therefore measurements were abandoned.
An energy saving technology which is based on a brushless direct current (BLDC) permanent
magnet design improves performance and offers greater efficiencies than the ones with
alternating current (AC) motors. These BLDC motors in theory can save up to 80% of the
energy consumption (Thermo, 2010).
Table 2 shows the power consumption of the tested models. A few more models with
known power ratings are also included at the end of the table for comparative purpose. The
usage time of biosafety cabinets varied from 20 hours a week to 168 hours a week. In this
study, it was assumed that the biosafety cabinets are used 100 hours a week.
Manufacturers
Model
NuAire
Nu-425-400
NuAire
Nu-425-600
Other Common Models:
Thermo Forma
1357
Thermo
Scientific
1440
Thermo
Scientific
1387
Thermo
Scientific
1460
Capacity
(L)
Measured
Average
Power (W)
kWh/week
*1
kWh/week/L
*1
509
773
606*2
876
60.1
87.6
0.119
0.113
Operating
Cost
($/week)
*1
2.58
3.76
695
210*3
21.0
0.030
0.90
695
208*4
20.8
399*4
39.9
247*4
24.7
0.057
1.71
Remarks
Measured by wattmeter
Measured by wattmeter
* Measurements were taken on two identical models. 606W is the average value of the two
5.3 Centrifuges
Centrifuges are divided into three categories Microfuges, High Speed Centrifuges and
Ultracentrifuges. Microfuges are smaller centrifuges and their capacities are usually below
100mL. The speed of ultracentrifuges is at least 90000 rpm and centrifuges with a speed
lower than this are considered as high speed centrifuges. It was found that microcentrifuges
consume the least energy, which is approximately 10 times less than the high speed
centrifuges and ultracentrifuges. Some of the centrifuges have refrigeration, which are more
energy consuming than the non-refrigerated centrifuges.
Centrifuges are usually used for a short period of time, around 5 to 15 minutes per cycle. On
average, they are used for around 5 hours per week.
For the non-refrigerated microfuge that was tested, the energy consumption remained fairly
steady throughout this survey. Refrigerated centrifuges usually require more energy at first
to reach a desirable temperature as illustrated in Figure 4. During one of the lab visits, it was
observed that the Laboratory of Periodontal Biology in JB Macdonld Building optimizes their
energy use by placing a refrigerated microfuge into a reach-in glass door refrigerator (milk
fridge), in which the temperature of the centrifuge is constantly maintained at a desirable
level. This practice not only reduces energy which is used to lower the temperature, it also
allows the centrifuge to be ready for use at anytime. For that particular centrifuge, which
was placed and operated inside a milk fridge, the temperature was always kept at 4C and
thus required no extra energy to bring the temperature down. As seen in Figure 5, the
energy level was quite steady implying that no excess energy is drawn by the centrifuge for
refrigeration.
For the three centrifuges which were tested, all of them consumed energy once the power
was on, even though they were not spinning. For one particular model (IEC MicroMax), 5W
of power was drawn even when the power was off, but the centrifuge remained connected
to the outlet. In other words, 4.3kWh of energy could be saved each year if the centrifuge is
disconnected from the outlet when not in use.
Energy saving can be achieved simply by turning off the power when the centrifuges are not
in use. It is also recommended that refrigerated centrifuges should be positioned away from
all sources of heat such as ovens and direct sunlight.
Tables 3 and 4 are the summary of the power consumption of the microfuges and high
speed centrifuges found in UBC. For the ultracentrifuges that were found on campus, none
of them provided power consumption information on their nameplates, nor could the
information be found in the electrical specifications from the manufacturers; hence, no
ultracentrifuge was included in the table.
Manufacturers
Model
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
HERMLE LaborTechnik
IEC
Desaga Sarstedt Grupp
VWR
5418
5415C
5415D
5415D
5415R
5417C
5417R
Max
Speed
(rpm)
14000
14000
13200
13200
13200
16400
14000
18 x 2ml
18 x 1.5ml
24 x 2ml
24 x 2ml
24 x 2ml
18 x 1.5ml
30 x 0.6ml
Nameplate
Power
Rating (W)
170
250
180
170*2
300
400
600
0.85
1.25
0.9
0.85
1.5
2
3
Cost
($/week)
*1
0.036
0.054
0.039
0.036
0.064
0.086
0.129
Z 233 M-2
15000
44 x 2ml
230
1.15
0.049
MicroMax
15000
24 x 2ml
184*3
0.92
0.039
MC2
13000
24 x 2 ml
150
0.75
0.032
Galaxy 14D
13000
18 x 2ml
228
1.14
0.049
Max
Capacity
kWh/week
*1
Remarks
Measured by wattmeter
Refrigerated
Refrigerated
Measured by wattmeter
* Operated at a speed of 13000rpm. When the equipment was on but not running, power consumption = 4W
3
* Operated at a speed of 13200rpm. When the equipment was off but remained connected to the outlet, power consumption = 5W. Centrifuge is usually
stored and ran inside a milk fridge
Manufacturers
Model
Beckman Coulter
Beckman
Coulter
Beckman Coulter
Allegra 21R
Max
Speed
(rpm)
15300
Allegra 21R
Beckman Coulter
Eppendorf
Eppendorf
Hermle LaborTechnik
Kendro
Sorvall
Thermo Electron
6 x 85ml
Nameplate
Power
Rating (W)
746
15300
6 x 85ml
652*2
3.26
0.140
Avanti J-26XP
Avanti J-E
Centrifuge
5804R
5810R
26000
6 x 1000ml
2000
10
0.429
21000
4L
2000
10
0.429
14000
14000
4 x 100ml
4 x 100ml
1400
1350
7
6.75
0.300
0.290
Z300K
13500
4 x 100ml
2070
10.35
0.444
Heraeus
Multifuge 3 S-R
RC 5B Plus
Sorvall Legend T
QUIKset
15000
4 x 750ml
1900
9.5
0.408
21000
4 x 1000ml
5000
25
1.073
15000
4 x 750ml
900
4.5
0.193
Max
Capacity
3.73
Cost
($/week)
*1
0.160
Refrigerated
Measured by wattmeter
kWh/week
*1
*2 Equipment was running at 4500rpm. When power was on, but equipment was not running, power consumption = 438W
Remarks
Refrigerated
5.4 Freezers
Freezers are available in a variety of styles and sizes, all of which have an impact on energy
consumption. In this study, -20C and -80C freezers were investigated.
By law, the EnerGuide Label must be attached to every new electrical appliance
manufactured or imported to Canada. It is suggested that lab users should consider the
amount of electricity in kilowatt-hours (kWh) shown on the EnerGuide Label while
purchasing freezers.
Table 6 summarizes the power consumption of ten -20C freezers. Some of the freezers
defrost automatically. Yet for those which require manual defrost, frost was found in most
of these freezers as seen in Figure 6. The frost in the freezers actually acts as an insulator
around the evaporator coils. This process would prevent the cold from getting to the inside
and sensors would not shut off the compressors at the set points. In theory, it is suggested
to defrost the ice when it has reached a thickness of 5mm1. Manual defrost refrigerators are
generally more energy efficient than auto-defrost ones as more energy is needed to
maintain low temperature in the frost-free freezer compartments. Extra energy is also
needed to run the fan installed in frost free freezers.
Chest freezers are also more energy efficient than upright units since cold air tends not to
escape upward when the door on a chest model opens. For upright models, cold air flows
down and out easily when the door opens. Moisture also enters the upright freezers more
easily.
Dust covered on the condenser can also hinder the exchange of heat and therefore should
be removed on a regular basis (at least once a year). A clearance of at least 8cm between
the condenser coils at the back of the refrigerator and the wall can allow good ventilation
which could possibly reduce energy use2. Doors should also be sealed properly so cold air
will not leak out which can also help prevent warm air and moisture seeping into the
freezers.
Manufacturers
Model
Capacity
(L)
Danby
Danby
Frigidaire
Kenmore
Woods
Woods
Woods
Woods
Woods
Woods
DCF 1024WE
DUF 1656W
FFU2124DW9
C675-28822-0N
OU47-WC
U440
V163A
V163A
V17WCA
U475
283
479
493
498
474
436
460
460
460
474
Nameplate
Power
Rating
(kWh/year)
282*2
792
1108
635
1008*2
984
1284
1813*2
1136
1032
kWh/year/L*1
1.00
1.65
2.24
1.28
2.13
2.79
2.79
3.94
2.38
2.18
Operating
Cost
($/week)
*1
0.232
0.652
0.912
0.522
0.829
0.810
1.056
1.49
0.94
0.849
Remarks
For Freezer named Wood V163, the measured power consumption was higher than the
nameplate rating (107kWh/week) which is shown in Figure 7. The year of manufacture of this
model is estimated to be in the 1990s; the current performance of this unit might not be as good
as when it was first manufactured. This could also be a result of a shortened survey time. As
seen in Figure 8, the power consumption might continue to drop. If the power consumption
drops below 150W, the weekly energy consumption would be around 107kWh/week as stated
on the nameplate.
For -80C freezers, power consumption could be found in Table 7. Due to limitations of
measuring meters, no representative measurements were taken. Over 60% of the -80C freezers
have no power rating stated on their nameplates or specifications; thus only eight models could
be studied and compared in this report.
Manufacturers
Model
Capacity
(L)
Forma Scientific
Sanyo
Sanyo
Sanyo
Sanyo
Thermo Forma
Thermo Scientific
Thermo Scientific
916
MDF-U6086S
MDF-U71V
MDF-U72V
MDF-U73V
981
993
994
490
580
728
728
728
490
490
490
Nameplate
Power
Rating
(kWh/year)
7665
10862
13666
13666
10862
7665*2
7665*2
6205*2
kWh/year/L*1
15.6
18.7
18.8
18.8
14.9
15.6
15.6
12.7
Operating
Cost
($/week)
*1
6.31
8.94
11.24
11.24
8.94
6.31
6.31
5.11
Remarks
5.5 Incubators
Incubators are used to keep specimen and samples at a desirable temperature usually at
37C, and they are often operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
It was found that some incubators were empty during the time of visits and a number of
them were also less than half empty. Some buildings have common rooms where larger lab
equipment such as incubators and fridges are stored and shared among different labs in the
same building. Sharing incubators among labs could possibly save energy.
Table 8 shows the power consumption values of common incubators found on UBC campus.
Manufacturers
Model
Capacity
(L)
Nameplate
Power
Rating (W)
BLUE M
BOEKEL
Kendro
Labline
Labline
NuAire
100A
133000
HERAcell 150
120
308
NU-5500
28
24
423
28
28
189
120
90
620
100
650
175
20.2
15.1
104.16
16.8
109.2
29.4
0.72
0.63
0.25
0.60
3.90
0.16
Operating
Cost
($/week)
*1
0.87
0.65
4.47
0.72
4.68
1.26
NuAire
NU-S5510
189
173
29.1
0.15
1.25
Precision
4EG
135
200
33.6
0.25
1.44
Precision
4EG
135
79
13.3
0.10
0.57
Precision
Sanyo
MDL 6DG
MIR553
158
406
175
279
29.4
46.9
0.19
0.12
1.26
2.01
Thermo Forma
3110
184
86
14.4
0.08
0.62
Steri-Cult 3310
323
105
17.6
0.05
0.76
109.2
0.67
4.68
Thermo
Scientific
VWR
1545
164
650*
kWh/week
*1
kWh/week/L
*1
*2 Source: http://vwrlabshop.com/vwr-signature-general-purpose-incubators/p/0009369/
Remarks
Measured by
wattmeter
Measured by
wattmeter
Measured by
wattmeter
Measured by
wattmeter
5.6 Ovens
Oven usage time of different labs varies from a few hours a week to 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. The average usage time was found to be 100 hours a week.
Figure 9 shows a cyclic pattern of power consumption of an oven which was tested.
Power consumption of ovens is listed in Table 8 in the following page.
Manufacturers
Model
Capacity
(L)
Fishers
Fishers
Fishers
Precision
500 series
500 series
280
18EG
48
48
10.9
79
Nameplate
Power
Rating (W)
800*2
101
550
1420
Precision
18EG
79
238
23.8
0.03
1.02
79
1200
120
1.51
3.52
45
1000*3
100
2.22
4.29
113
1550*4
155
1.37
6.65
Precision
Precision
VWR
Thelco, catalog#
31478
Vacuum Model
29
1350GM
kWh/week
*1
kWh/week/L
*1
80
10.1
55
142
1.67
0.21
5.04
1.80
Operating
Cost ($/week)
*1
3.43
0.43
2.36
6.09
Remarks
Measured by wattmeter
Measured by wattmeter
Start up power: 631W;
Running power: 238W
* Source:
http://www.fishersci.com/wps/portal/PRODUCTDETAIL?tab=Items&productId=628209&fromSearch=&highlightProductsItemsFlag=null&crossRefPartNo=null&
crossRefData=null&catlogId=-1&catCode=
3
* Sources: http://www.thomassci.com/Equipment/Ovens/Vacuum/_/PRECISION-MODEL-29-VACUUM-OVEN/
4
* Source: https://www.vwrsp.com/catalog/product/index.cgi?object_id=0011191&class_id=5002818
5.7 Refrigerators
Energy saving tips for refrigerators and freezers are similar. EnerGuide Appliance Directory is
released by Natural Resource Canada annually. It provides ratings which are based on tests
that imitate actual appliance use; so it is recommended to utilize the information given in
this Directory as a guideline to purchase new refrigerators.
Manufacturers
Model
Capacity
(L)
Danby
Danby
Danby
Danby
Diplomat
Frigidaire
GoldStar
D740 WTGE
D9600WY
DMR 1706WE
DMR 1706WE
C978-62911-1
FRU17B2JW9
GR-151SP
311
272
493
493
521
481
125
Nameplate
Power Rating
(kWh/year)
516
376
438
438
656
324
350
1.65
1.38
0.88
0.88
1.25
0.67
2.8
Operating
Cost
($/week) *1
0.42
0.31
0.36
0.36
0.54
0.27
0.29
Kenmore
4921*70*
609
633
1.03
0.52
LG
GR-389R
323
585
1.81
0.48
MAYTAG
MSB2154GR*
611*2
625
1.02
0.51
MAYTAG
Wood
Wood
Woods
Wood's
PSB2151GR
WR17-*W/E
WR17-*W/E
WR17-ZW/E
R17WCA
603*2
493
493
493
481
625
438
377
438
438
1.03
0.88
0.76
0.88
0.91
0.51
0.36
0.31
0.36
0.36
kWh/year/L
*1
Remarks
Measured by wattmeter
Top freezer, Bottom fridge;
Autodefrost
Top fridge, Bottom freezer;
Autodefrost
Side by side freezer and fridge;
Autodefrost
Measured by wattmeter
5.8 Shakers
Shakers are usually incubated or refrigerated. Compared to the shakers which do not have
any temperature control, these incubated and refrigerated shakers consume more energy.
Of the four shakers in which energy consumptions were measured, three of them are
switched on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Two of the shakers which are on all the time
were actually empty during the time of visits.
It could be convenient to keep the shakers on all the time so they are always ready to use.
However, if shakers are not used on a daily basis, lab users might consider switching on the
units an hour earlier to warm up or cool down the temperature. For shakers which are used
daily, they should still be switched off at the end of the day. If a lab is operated 12 hours
every day, simply by switching off the shakers at the end of the day could already save up to
50% of energy.
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that shakers are used 100 hours/week, which
is about the averaged value of the actual usage time. Instead of kWh/week/m3,
kWh/week/m2 was used for comparative purpose.
A list of energy consumption of shakers is illustrated in Table 11.
It is important to note that some of the power rating provided by the manufacturers are in
VA units, which is usually higher than the power rating in W.
Manufacturers
Model
Platform
Area
(m2)
Lab-Line
Lab-Line
3521
3525
0.093
0.348
100
780
10
78
108
224
Operating
Cost
($/week)
*1
0.43
3.35
Lab-Line
3525
0.348
153
15.3
43.97
0.66
Lab-Line
Max Q
3527
SHKE4000
0.209
0.209
600
625
60
62.5
287
299
2.57
2.68
Max Q
SHKE4000
0.209
113
11.3
54.07
0.48
Max Q
New Brunswick
New Brunswick
SHKA5000
Classic CI
EXCELLA E24
0.089
0.212
1450
270VA
800*2
145
27
80
303
377
6.22
1.16
3.42
New Brunswick
G24
0.127
135
13.5
106.30
0.58
New Brunswick
New Brunswick
Innova 4000
Innova 44
0.212
0.350
600VA
800VA
60
80
283
229
2.57
3.43
New Brunswick
CLASSIC C24
0.212
140
14
66.04
0.60
VWR
VWR
98019
980001
0.203
0.085
150
500
15
50
74
588
0.64
2.15
Nameplate
Power
Rating (W)
kWh/week
*1
kWh/week/m
*1
Remarks
Measured by
wattmeter
Measured by
wattmeter
Measured by
wattmeter
Measured by
wattmeter
* Nameplate power rating is 1500VA, online specifications power rating is 800W. http://www.nbsc.com/files/E24_E25SpecChart.pdf
6.0 Conclusion
Some of the most common laboratory equipment including autoclaves, biosafety cabinets, centrifuges,
freezers, incubators, ovens, refrigerators and shakers were investigated in this study. Average weekly
power consumption, capacities and weekly cost of operation were analyzed.
Through our research of the common laboratory equipment, it was discovered that laboratory
personnel and users are mostly aware of the importance of energy saving. Nonetheless, they are often
restricted by the cost and the functional requirement while purchasing laboratory equipment. However,
lab personnel could still operate in an energy efficient practice by, for instance, simply switching off the
lab equipment and defrosting the freezers once the ice reaches 5mm thick.
To conclude, lab users are still playing important roles in energy saving. There are many energy saving
recommendations and guidelines which lab users can consider and practice. If more lab users take the
initiative and carry out the suggested energy saving practices continually, there will be a more green
campus and carbon neutral can be achieved.