ArticleFrontiers in sustainability2026
Case study of low-cost energy reductions in shared research laboratories at a U.S. public university.
Article in Frontiers in sustainability, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific sample storage and assay development require vast energy; decreasing the laboratory's footprint addresses urgent climate needs and efficient use of indirect funds. However, external sustainability certifications require financing and administrative buy-in. We describe our near zero-cost effort to improve energy efficiency within a U.S. public university system. Methods: We collected forty-four plug-load estimates of individual machines (e.g., cold-boxes, incubators, hot-plates) using commercially available 120V energy monitors. Measurements occurred for an average of 135 minutes. Larger device data (biosafety cabinets and autoclave) were interpolated from the literature, while ultralow temperature freezer values were estimated based on a combination of measured, and previously reported, consumption estimates. Estimated savings from fourteen discrete interventions are cataloged. Results: Our group's year-long adjustments, particularly estimates from turning up ultralow temperature freezers and powering down biosafety cabinets and an autoclave after hours, resulted in savings similar to powering 9 homes. Our estimate of these savings exceeds 83,000 kWh or ~$10,000. Extrapolation of scenario estimates to campus-wide savings from the freezer intervention suggest University savings of more than 2 years' of indirect funding costs for an R01 equivalent grant, while annual energy savings for the 430 campus-wide labs may exceed $4 million.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.