Industrial Chemistry
Open Access

Eco-friendly; Analytical chemistry; Sustainability; Metrics; Environmental impact; Green chemistry

Introduction

The field of analytical chemistry plays a critical role in scientific research, industrial processes, and environmental monitoring. As society confronts the challenges of sustainability and environmental impact, there is a growing imperative to reevaluate and improve the methods used in analytical chemistry [1]. Traditional analytical techniques often involve significant resource consumption, generate substantial waste, and contribute to environmental pollution. In response, researchers and practitioners have increasingly focused on developing and adopting eco-friendly analytical methods that minimize these adverse effects. To effectively assess the sustainability of analytical techniques, various metrics and frameworks have been developed. These metrics aim to quantify and evaluate the environmental impact of analytical methods across their entire life cycle—from raw material extraction and analysis to waste disposal [2,3]. By integrating principles of green chemistry and sustainability into analytical practices, researchers seek to optimize resource utilization, reduce energy consumption, minimize waste generation, and mitigate harmful emissions. This article provides a comprehensive examination of sixteen key eco-friendly metrics used in analytical chemistry to evaluate the sustainability of analytical techniques. These metrics encompass a broad spectrum of criteria including energy efficiency, solvent selection, waste generation, toxicity assessment, greenhouse gas emissions, and the integration of renewable resources [4,5]. Each metric offers unique insights into the environmental footprint of analytical methods, guiding researchers and practitioners towards more sustainable practices. By exploring these metrics in depth, this article aims to highlight their significance in promoting eco-friendly innovations and driving forward the agenda of sustainable development within the field of analytical chemistry [6]. Embracing these metrics not only enhances the environmental performance of analytical methods but also contributes to broader efforts towards achieving global sustainability goals. As technological advancements continue to evolve, integrating these metrics into routine analytical procedures will be essential for advancing environmental stewardship and fostering a sustainable future for generations to come [7,8]. The field of analytical chemistry has increasingly embraced sustainability as a critical parameter in method development and application. This shift is driven by the recognition of environmental impacts associated with traditional analytical methods and the growing global emphasis on sustainable practices. In response, researchers have developed various metrics and frameworks to assess the "greenness" or eco-friendliness of analytical techniques. This article explores sixteen key metrics that are used to evaluate the sustainability of analytical methods, highlighting their importance and application in contemporary analytical chemistry [9,10].

Life cycle assessment (LCA): Life Cycle Assessment is a comprehensive method for evaluating the environmental impacts of a product or process throughout its entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to disposal. In analytical chemistry, LCA helps quantify energy consumption, resource depletion, and emissions associated with analytical methods.

Green analytical procedures index (GAPI): GAPI assesses the environmental impact of analytical methods based on factors such as solvent usage, energy consumption, and waste generation. It provides a numerical score to rank methods according to their eco-friendliness.

Atom economy (AE): Atom Economy measures the efficiency of chemical reactions by calculating the proportion of atoms in reactants that end up in the desired product. Higher atom economy signifies less waste generation and better sustainability in analytical processes.

Solvent greenness metrics: Metrics like the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) and Green Solvent Selection Guide evaluate the environmental impact of solvents used in analytical techniques. They consider factors such as toxicity, biodegradability, and ozone depletion potential.

Energy efficiency metrics: Energy efficiency metrics assess the amount of energy consumed per unit of analysis or per analytical technique. Methods that require less energy contribute to reduced carbon footprint and overall sustainability.

Waste generation metrics: Metrics such as Waste Generation Index (WGI) quantify the amount and type of waste generated during analytical procedures. Minimizing waste production is crucial for reducing environmental impact and promoting sustainable practices.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment

Assessment of GHG emissions associated with analytical methods helps quantify their contribution to climate change. Techniques that emit fewer GHGs or employ carbon-neutral strategies are considered more sustainable.

Renewable resource utilization metrics: Metrics evaluating the use of renewable resources in analytical processes promote sustainability by reducing dependency on finite resources and supporting renewable energy initiatives.

Toxicity assessment metrics: Toxicity assessment metrics evaluate the toxicity of reagents, solvents, and by-products generated during analytical procedures. Lower toxicity levels contribute to safer working environments and reduced environmental impact.

Water usage efficiency: Water usage efficiency metrics assess the amount of water consumed per unit of analysis. Techniques that minimize water usage or utilize water-efficient strategies contribute to sustainable water management.

Green analytical techniques development: Metrics focusing on the development of new green analytical techniques promote innovation in sustainable practices. Techniques such as miniaturization, automation, and biosensors reduce environmental impact while improving analytical efficiency.

Environmental footprint calculation: Calculating the environmental footprint of analytical methods provides a holistic view of their overall impact on ecosystems and natural resources. It considers cumulative impacts on air, water, and soil quality.

Eco-efficiency analysis: Eco-efficiency analysis evaluates the balance between economic value and environmental impact of analytical techniques. Methods that achieve high eco-efficiency optimize resource use and minimize costs associated with environmental management.

Green chemistry principles integration: Integration of green chemistry principles into analytical methods emphasizes the design of processes that are inherently safer and more sustainable. Principles such as prevention of waste, use of renewable feedstocks, and safer solvents guide method development.

Sustainability reporting metrics: Metrics for sustainability reporting in analytical chemistry provide transparency and accountability regarding environmental performance. They encourage continuous improvement in sustainability practices and stakeholder engagement.

Social impact assessment: Assessment of social impacts associated with analytical methods considers factors such as occupational health, community well-being and ethical considerations. Methods that prioritize social responsibility contribute to holistic sustainability.

Conclusion

The adoption of eco-friendly metrics in analytical chemistry is crucial for advancing sustainability goals and mitigating environmental impacts. The sixteen metrics discussed in this article provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the greenness of analytical methods, guiding researchers and practitioners towards more sustainable practices. As technology and methodologies evolve, integrating these metrics into routine analytical procedures will be essential for promoting a sustainable future and addressing global environmental challenges. By prioritizing eco-friendliness and sustainability, the field of analytical chemistry can contribute significantly to broader efforts towards environmental stewardship and resource conservation.

1. Dolfi SC, Chan LL, Qiu J, Tedeschi PM, Bertino JR, et al. (2013) The metabolic demands of cancer cells are coupled to their size and protein synthesis rates. Rheumatology 1: 20-29.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Bastajian N, Friesen H, Andrews BJ (2013) Bck2 acts through the MADS box protein Mcm1 to activate cell-cycle-regulated genes in budding yeast. PLOS Genet 95: 100-3507.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Venkova L, Recho P, Lagomarsino MC, Piel M (2019) The physics of cell-size regulation across timescales. Behavioral Sciences 1510: 993-1004.

Google Scholar

4. Campos M, Surovtsev IV, Kato S, Paintdakhi A, Beltran B, et al. (2014) A constant size extension drives bacterial cell size homeostasis. Rheumatology 1596: 1433-1446.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Chen Y, Zhao G, Zahumensky J, Honey S, Futcher B, et al. (2020) Differential scaling of gene expression with cell size may explain size control in budding yeast. Behavioral Sciences 782: 359-706.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Cockcroff C, Healy JM, Murray JA (2000) Cyclin D control of growth rate in plants. Nature 405: 575-679.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Cross FR (2020) Regulation of multiple fission and cell-cycle-dependent gene expression by CDKA1 and the Rb-E2F pathway in Chlamydomonas. Curr Biol 3010: 1855-2654.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Demidenko ZN, Blagosklonny MV (2008) Growth stimulation leads to cellular senescence when the cell cycle is blocked. Cell Cycle 721:335-561.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Curran S, Dey G, Rees P, Nurse P (2022) A quantitative and spatial analysis of cell cycle regulators during the fission yeast cycle. bioRxiv 48: 81-127.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Dannenberg JH, Rossum A, Schuijff L, Riele H (2000) Ablation of the retinoblastoma gene family deregulates G1 control causing immortalization and increased cell turnover under growth-restricting conditions. Genes Dev 1423: 3051-3064.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref