3D printing prosthetics for amputees is an innovative opportunity to provide a lower cost and customized alternative to current technologies. Companies, such as E-NABLE and YouBionic are developing myoelectric prosthetics, electrically powered terminal devices activated by electromyography (EMG), for transradial amputees. Prosthetics that are 3D printed are less expensive for juvenile use, more sustainable, and more accessible for those without insurance. Although they are typically not outfitted with the same complex grip patterns or durability of a traditional myoelectric prosthetic, they offer a sufficient durability (withstanding up to 150 N on average) and allow for new opportunities in prosthetic development. Devils Prosthetics, a student research and development group associated with Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS), has investigated the benefits and pitfalls of utilizing polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) for 3D printing prosthetics as well as combining a MyoWare EMG sensor with machine learning for optimal control of the prosthetic.

3D printing prosthetics for amputees is an innovative opportunity to provide a lower cost and customized alternative to current technologies. Companies, such as E-NABLE and YouBionic are developing myoelectric prosthetics, electrically powered terminal devices activated by electromyography (EMG), for transradial amputees. Prosthetics that are 3D printed are less expensive for juvenile use, more sustainable, and more accessible for those without insurance. Although they are typically not outfitted with the same complex grip patterns or durability of a traditional myoelectric prosthetic, they offer a sufficient durability (withstanding up to 150 N on average) and allow for new opportunities in prosthetic development. Devils Prosthetics, a student research and development group associated with Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS), has investigated the benefits and pitfalls of utilizing polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) for 3D printing prosthetics as well as combining a MyoWare EMG sensor with machine learning for optimal control of the prosthetic.

The production and incineration of single-use micropipette tips and disposable gloves, which are heavily used within laboratory facilities, generate large amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and accelerate climate change. Plastic waste that is not incinerated often is lost in the environment. The long degradation times associated with this waste exacerbates a variety of environmental problems such as substance runoff and ocean pollution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of possible solutions for minimizing micropipette tip and disposable glove waste within laboratory spaces. It was hypothesized that simultaneously implementing the use of micropipette tip washers (MTWs) and energy-from-glove-waste programs (EGWs) would significantly reduce (p < 0.05) the average combined annual single-use plastic micropipette tip and nitrile glove waste (in kg) per square meter of laboratory space in the United States. ASU’s Biodesign Institute (BDI) was used as a case study to inform on the thousands of different laboratory facilities that exist all across the United States. Four separate research laboratories within the largest public university of the U.S. were sampled to assess the volume of plastic waste from single-use micropipette tips and gloves. Resultant data were used to represent the totality of single-use waste from the case study location and then extrapolated to all laboratory space in the United States. With the implementation of EGWs, annual BDI glove waste is reduced by 100% (0.47 ± 0.26 kg/m2; 35.5 ± 19.3 metric tons total) and annual BDI glove-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~5.01% (0.165 ± 0.09 kg/m2; 1.24 ± 0.68 metric tons total). With the implementation of MTWs, annual BDI micropipette tip waste is reduced by 92% (0.117 ± 0.03 kg/m2; 0.88 ± 0.25 metric tons total) and annual BDI tip-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~83.6% (4.04 ± 1.25 kg/m2; 30.5 ± 9.43 metric tons total). There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) observed between the mass of single-use waste (kg) in the sampled laboratory spaces before (x̄ = 47.1; σ = 43.3) and after (x̄ =0.070; σ = 0.033) the implementation of the solutions. When examining both solutions (MTWs & EGWs) implemented in conjunction with one another, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$7.92 ± $9.31/m2 (7,500 m2 of total wet laboratory space) or ~$60,000 ± $70,000 total. These savings represent ~15.77% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The large error margins in these financial estimates create high uncertainty for whether or not BDI would see net savings from implementing both solutions simultaneously. However, when examining the implementation of only MTWs, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$12.01 ± $6.79 kg/m2 or ~$91,000 ± $51,200 total. These savings represent ~23.92% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The lower error margins for this estimate create a much higher likelihood of net savings for BDI. Extrapolating to all laboratory space in the United States, the total annual amount of plastic waste avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 8,130 ± 2,290 tons or 0.023% of all solid plastic waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of nitrile waste avoided with the implementation of the EGWs was identified as 32,800 ± 17,900 tons or 0.36% of all rubber solid waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of carbon emissions avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 281,000 ± 87,000 tons CO2eq or 5.4*10-4 % of all CO2eq GHG emissions produced in the United States in 2020. Both the micropipette tip washer and the glove waste avoidance program solutions can be easily integrated into existing laboratories without compromising the integrity of the activities taking place. Implemented on larger scales, these solutions hold the potential for significant single-use waste reduction.

The production and incineration of single-use micropipette tips and disposable gloves, which are heavily used within laboratory facilities, generate large amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and accelerate climate change. Plastic waste that is not incinerated often is lost in the environment. The long degradation times associated with this waste exacerbates a variety of environmental problems such as substance runoff and ocean pollution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of possible solutions for minimizing micropipette tip and disposable glove waste within laboratory spaces. It was hypothesized that simultaneously implementing the use of micropipette tip washers (MTWs) and energy-from-glove-waste programs (EGWs) would significantly reduce (p < 0.05) the average combined annual single-use plastic micropipette tip and nitrile glove waste (in kg) per square meter of laboratory space in the United States. ASU’s Biodesign Institute (BDI) was used as a case study to inform on the thousands of different laboratory facilities that exist all across the United States. Four separate research laboratories within the largest public university of the U.S. were sampled to assess the volume of plastic waste from single-use micropipette tips and gloves. Resultant data were used to represent the totality of single-use waste from the case study location and then extrapolated to all laboratory space in the United States. With the implementation of EGWs, annual BDI glove waste is reduced by 100% (0.47 ± 0.26 kg/m2; 35.5 ± 19.3 metric tons total) and annual BDI glove-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~5.01% (0.165 ± 0.09 kg/m2; 1.24 ± 0.68 metric tons total). With the implementation of MTWs, annual BDI micropipette tip waste is reduced by 92% (0.117 ± 0.03 kg/m2; 0.88 ± 0.25 metric tons total) and annual BDI tip-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~83.6% (4.04 ± 1.25 kg/m2; 30.5 ± 9.43 metric tons total). There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) observed between the mass of single-use waste (kg) in the sampled laboratory spaces before (x̄ = 47.1; σ = 43.3) and after (x̄ =0.070; σ = 0.033) the implementation of the solutions. When examining both solutions (MTWs & EGWs) implemented in conjunction with one another, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$7.92 ± $9.31/m2 (7,500 m2 of total wet laboratory space) or ~$60,000 ± $70,000 total. These savings represent ~15.77% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The large error margins in these financial estimates create high uncertainty for whether or not BDI would see net savings from implementing both solutions simultaneously. However, when examining the implementation of only MTWs, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$12.01 ± $6.79 kg/m2 or ~$91,000 ± $51,200 total. These savings represent ~23.92% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The lower error margins for this estimate create a much higher likelihood of net savings for BDI. Extrapolating to all laboratory space in the United States, the total annual amount of plastic waste avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 8,130 ± 2,290 tons or 0.023% of all solid plastic waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of nitrile waste avoided with the implementation of the EGWs was identified as 32,800 ± 17,900 tons or 0.36% of all rubber solid waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of carbon emissions avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 281,000 ± 87,000 tons CO2eq or 5.4*10-4 % of all CO2eq GHG emissions produced in the United States in 2020. Both the micropipette tip washer and the glove waste avoidance program solutions can be easily integrated into existing laboratories without compromising the integrity of the activities taking place. Implemented on larger scales, these solutions hold the potential for significant single-use waste reduction.