Tackling Plastic Waste and CO2 Emissions for Pharma Sustainability: Does Massive Sample Multiplexing Offer a Path to Lab Sustainability? 

Summary: Life science labs are major CO2 emitters due to plastic use, hindering lab sustainability efforts. New massively multiplexed transcriptomic workflows, such as MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq, can cut plastic consumption by up to 95% according to internal estimates, lowering waste, emissions, and costs while maintaining data quality and helping achieve pharma sustainability. 

The pharmaceutical industry emits over 55% more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per million US dollars of revenue than the automotive industry (1). However, suboptimal pharma sustainability (and lab sustainability in general) is still overlooked as a major contributor to global heating. While the factors are complex, these high emissions are in part driven by an overreliance on single-use plastics, with industrial and academic research labs generating millions of tons of plastic waste each year (2). 

But can the pharmaceutical and biomedical research sectors meaningfully reduce plastic use without compromising data quality or workflow reliability? 

Recent innovations suggest they can. By rethinking how samples are processed, streamlined “plastic-light” workflows that rely on massive sample multiplexing could pave the way for more sustainable, high-throughput transcriptomic screening. 

How Can the Pharmaceutical Industry Reduce Plastic Waste and CO2 Emissions? 

To address the growing need for emissions reductions, major pharmaceutical companies have now set net-zero carbon-emission targets to be achieved by 2050 at the latest, aligning with the Paris Agreement and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) framework (3).  

Emissions in biopharmaceuticals are complex and are generally split into three scopes. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from company-owned sources, such as manufacturing and vehicles; Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased energy; and Scope 3 consists of all other indirect emissions from the value chain, such as suppliers, distribution, and the use and disposal of products like lab plastics (4).  

Scope 3 emissions are arguably the most difficult to tackle and often fall short of Scope 1 and 2 in pharmaceutical company emission-reduction targets as a result (Fig. 1). Strikingly, Scope 3 emissions remain 4.3 times greater than Scope 1 and 2 emissions combined, suggesting the value chain needs to shift to more sustainable suppliers and technologies (4).  

Figure 1. The commitments of 16 pharmaceutical companies to percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Scope 1, 2, and 3 categories, for a range of target years (Figure taken from (3)).  

How Much Plastic Waste Do Pharmaceutical Labs Produce Each Year? 

Despite target commitments, reports suggest a disconnect between these ambitious aspirations and concrete action (5). Estimates from MilliporeSigma suggest that the biopharmaceutical sector disposes of between 94,000 and 200,000 metric tons of plastic annually (6). Other sources indicate figures closer to 300 million metric tons (5).  

Both estimates highlight the significant effect of plastic on overall emissions. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has also recently named plastic pollution as one of the top ten global environmental challenges.  

Are There Alternatives to Single-Use Plastics to Improve Lab Sustainability?  

Biomedical labs often consider disposable lab plasticware a “necessary evil” to ensure product safety, eliminate contamination risks, and reduce costs. According to a study by researchers at the University of Vienna, the main culprits are serological pipettes, pipette tips and boxes, multi-well plates, centrifuge tubes, and gloves, which together account for 86.6% of plastic waste (7). However, steps towards a Reduce, Reuse, Recycle approach are gaining traction, thanks to technologies that reduce overall plastic use (such as massive-sample multiplexing in transcriptomics), improved waste streams, bioplastic alternatives, and sterilizable labware (7). 

While reusing and recycling plastics are undoubtedly part of the solution to the plastic waste and emissions crisis in the life sciences, reducing the amount of plastic used in the first instance is arguably a more powerful approach. 

Massive Sample Multiplexing Can Cut Plastic Use by Up to 95% Compared to Traditional RNA-seq 

For large-scale transcriptomic experiments, researchers can already take one significant step to reduce their plastic consumption and related emissions (plus experimental costs) without compromising data quality.  

It relies on early sample multiplexing optimized in Alithea’s MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq and MERCURIUS™ BRB-seq technologies (Fig. 2). MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq is completely RNA-extraction-free and generates libraries directly from cell lysates, followed by early sample barcoding and pooling. MERCURIUS™ BRB-seq requires prior RNA extraction as it’s optimised for purified RNA, but still allows sample barcoding and early pooling. This early pooling and subsequent simultaneous processing of samples in a single tube offersdramatic reductions in plastic use compared to standard RNA-seq library preparation methods. 

Intrigued by what massive sample multiplexing means for your carbon-conscious experimental workflow? Visit the MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq or MERCURIUS™ BRB-seq technology pages or download the user guide to find out more.  

Figure 2. Schematic of the difference in plastic usage between MERCURIUS™ massively multiplexed RNA-seq library preparation technologies versus standard, sample-by-sample technologies.  

Let’s break down how reductions in plastic use are possible with a hypothetical example of 1,000 RNA samples prepared for RNA-seq with traditional library preparation methods versus MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq.  

Traditional RNA-seq library preparation approaches work on a sample-by-sample basis. They require new tubes and tips for each sample at most steps in the workflow to avoid cross-sample and reagent contamination.  

For 1,000 samples, we estimated that it would require 1,000 purification columns, 20,000 reaction tubes, and 20,000 tips to cover all stages of a standard library preparation protocol (Fig. 3A). We don’t include other factors, such as cell culture plates, tip boxes, gloves, or reagents, in this estimate. 

Figure 3. MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq’s massive sample multiplexing enables a dramatic reduction in the amount of plastic required for a transcriptomic experiment versus a standard sample-by-sample RNA-seq approach. (A) Estimated number of plastic consumables used. (B) Estimated number of plastic consumables saved. (C) Estimated plastic savings by weight.  

With MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq, samples from 96-, 384-, or 1536-well plates are directly barcoded and multiplexed into the same tube during the reverse transcription stage very early in the workflow. As a result, it needs no purification columns and only 1,020 reaction tubes and 1,020 tips if the 96-well plate format is used (Fig. 3A). That’s an estimated saving of 1,000 purification columns, 18,980 tubes, and 18,980 tips (Fig. 3B), equivalent to approximately 60 kgs of polypropylene overall (Fig. 3C), the weight of a small lab technician! 

As we saw, polypropylene purification columns, reaction tubes, and pipette tips are among the most significant contributors to plastic waste, so methods that directly reduce their use stand to have a considerable impact on overall Scope 3 emissions. 

How does this reduction in plastic translate to emissions? 

Estimates suggest that producing 1 kg of polypropylene emits between 1.95 kg and 3.5 kg of CO2, depending on the production region. As MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq saves users approximately 60 kg of polypropylene in our hypothetical 1,000-sample experiment, this means between 120 kg and 150 kg of CO2 is saved compared to traditional sample-by-sample library preparation approaches (Fig. 4). These estimates don’t account for the reduced emissions associated with waste disposal or with the reduced number of cell culture plates required due to the miniaturization possible with MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq (as few as 200,000 cells). 

How Much Do RNA-seq Reagents Contribute to Emissions? 

Alongside single-use plastics, experimental reagents are also a major source of emissions. In our representative 1,000 sample example, we calculated that standard RNA-seq library prep methods use around 100 liters of reagents while MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq uses only 1 liter, a saving of 99 liters (Table 1). Using emissions estimates from an analysis of COVID vaccines made with components similar to those in our kits, we estimate a saving of between 9.9 kg and 39.6 kg of CO2 (Table 1) (8). 

Table 1. MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq uses 99% less reagent than standard RNA-seq. 

Are these plastic, reagent, and emissions reductions just a drop in the ocean for pharmaceutical companies? 

Scope 3 emissions reductions remain challenging, and every little helps. As high-throughput transcriptomic screening gains prominence across large-scale compound developmental pipelines, toxicology, and population-scale studies, investigating hundreds of thousands of samples is now a realistic possibility, with the side effect of increased plastic use. For instance, the UK Biobank houses over 10 million biological samples, many of which are well-suited to transcriptomic studies. In-house compound libraries nowfrequently include hundreds of thousands of investigational molecules. Similarly, novel AI and machine learning algorithms increasingly need vast, robust, and bespoke transcriptomic training data to accelerate compound discovery and toxicology pipelines.  

Scaled to one million samples, plastic savings with MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq versus traditional RNA-seq library prep extend to approximately 60 metric tons. That’s between 120 and 150 metric tons of CO2 emissions saved by switching to massively multiplexed RNA-seq library preparation technologies. That’s the equivalent of 234.6 round-trip flights from Helsinki to Munich, according to openCO2net. 

A shift away from sample-by-sample RNA-seq approaches toward massively multiplexed bulk RNA-seq library preparation technologies, like MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq, will enable high-throughput transcriptomic screens to grow substantially, reduce overall plastic consumption, and generate high-quality transcriptome-wide data without compromising ambitious future emissions targets. 

Discover how MERCURIUS™ DRUG-seq can help scale your high-throughput transcriptomic screens with 95% less plastic and no compromise on data quality. Contact us for a free consultation. 

Frequently Asked Questions: Plastic Waste, CO₂ Emissions, and Sustainable Research 

 1. How much plastic waste do research laboratories generate each year?

Global estimates suggest that biomedical and pharmaceutical labs produce approximately 5.5 million tons of plastic waste annually, much of it from single-use items like pipette tips, tubes, and plates (2).  

2. Why does the pharmaceutical industry have a high carbon footprint?

Pharmaceutical production and research rely on energy-intensive processes and single-use consumables made from petroleum-based plastics. A 2019 study found that the industry emits over 55% more CO₂e per dollar of revenue than the automotive sector, in part due to Scope 3 emissions from supply chains, packaging, and lab operations. 

• Scope 1 – Direct emissions from company-owned operations (e.g., manufacturing, vehicles). 

• Scope 2 – Indirect emissions from purchased energy. 

• Scope 3 – All other indirect emissions, such as those from suppliers, transport, and waste disposal. 
  Most plastic-related emissions fall into Scope 3, which is typically the hardest to reduce. 
    

4. How does single-use lab plastic contribute to CO₂ emissions?

Most lab consumables are made from polypropylene, whose production releases 1.9–3.5 kg of CO₂ per kilogram. When factoring in manufacturing, transport, and incineration, single-use plastics account for a significant share of research-related greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing their use offers a direct path to sustainability. 

Yes. New, massively multiplexed workflows in transcriptomics enable hundreds of samples to be processed together in a single reaction. This approach dramatically reduces the number of tubes and tips needed, while maintaining and often improving reproducibility and throughput while lowering overall experimental costs. 
  

6. What is massive sample multiplexing in RNA-seq?

Massive sample multiplexing is a technique that barcodes and pools samples early in the RNA-seq library prep workflow, enabling multiple libraries to be generated simultaneously. This reduces reagent and plastic use by up to 95% compared with traditional sample-by-sample methods. 
 

7. How much CO₂ can be saved by using massively multiplexed RNA-seq technologies?

8. Are there sustainable alternatives to single-use lab plastics?

Yes. Some companies and institutions are adopting bioplastics, sterilizable glassware, and reusable labware systems. However, reducing total plastic consumption through workflow innovation — such as extraction-free library prep or miniaturized assay formats — often yields greater environmental benefits. 

9. How can sustainable transcriptomics reduce both emissions and costs?

By pooling samples early, massively multiplexed transcriptomics reduces reagent volumes and consumable orders. For example, a 1,000-sample study might use 1 liter instead of 100 liters of reagents, cutting both CO₂ emissions and per-sample costs significantly. Sustainability and efficiency go hand-in-hand in optimized workflows. 

10. How can scientists make their research more sustainable?

Researchers can: 

• Audit consumables and identify high-waste steps. 

• Switch to multiplexed or miniaturized workflows. 

• Choose suppliers with ‘plastic-light’ technologies. 

• Reuse or recycle where safety allows. 

• Engage in institutional sustainability programs that track Scope 3 emissions. 
   

References 

1. Belkhir L, Elmeligi A. Carbon footprint of the global pharmaceutical industry and relative impact of its major players. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019 Mar 20;214:185-94.Urbina MA, Watts AJR, and Reardon EE Labs should cut plastic waste too Nature 2015 528 479-479. 
2. Urbina MA, Watts AJ, Reardon EE. Labs should cut plastic waste too. Nature. 2015 Dec 24;528(7583):479-. 
3. Booth A, Jager A, Faulkner SD, Winchester CC, Shaw SE. Pharmaceutical company targets and strategies to address climate change: content analysis of public reports from 20 pharmaceutical companies. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2023 Feb 11;20(4):3206. 
4. Hagenaars RH, Heijungs R, de Koning A, Tukker A, Wang R. The greenhouse gas emissions of pharmaceutical consumption and production: an input–output analysis over time and across global supply chains. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2025 Mar 1;9(3):e196-206. 
5. Embedding Environmental Sustainability into Pharma’s DNA. Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions. Overview Report. Oct. 2022. 
6. Holland, J., The State of Plastics Recycling in Biopharma. PharmaExec.com. 2023 
7. Weber PM, Michelsen C, Kerou M. What’s in our bin? Labs kick off and demand the transition towards a circular economy for lab plastics. EMBO reports. 2025 Jan 27;26(2):297-302. 
8. Patenaude B, Ballreich J. Estimating & comparing greenhouse gas emissions for existing intramuscular COVID-19 vaccines and a novel thermostable oral vaccine. The Journal of Climate Change and Health. 2022 May 1;6:100127.