Chaos isn’t a good standard

Interview with
Graduate engineer Anna-Lena Fricke, University Hospital Bonn and
Charlotte Kaspari, GB6 Facility Management, University Hospital Bonn

Laboratory safety? “Early” is the key word. Why? Two University Hospital Bonn experts from this year’s trade symposium explain.

Are laboratories safer today than they were ten years ago or are there simply more regulations?

Charlotte Kaspari laughs: No, it's not the regulations, but rather the awareness of the users. There are many safety devices today and they are used. That has improved today. We humans are wired in such a way that we virtually forget the potential dangers during operation. To prevent this from happening, users need to develop an awareness of them.
Anna-Lena Fricke: Regular instructions definitely help to maintain this awareness.

What’s the relationship with authorities like when it comes to safety?

Fricke: The authorities that we deal with “get involved”. We know from experience that it’s much more difficult when officials make their decisions from behind a desk. It’s much better if they can visit the site, where it’s quicker and easier to explain everything clearly. Another advantage is that when authorities visit the laboratory, they bring standards with them. In other words, there’s no “individual” safety solution that’s been formulated by the laboratory team. And that benefits the research work, where we need clear standards for reproducible results. To put it more casually: Chaos isn’t a good standard in the lab.

In a legally-compliant laboratory, how important are people when it comes to laboratory safety?

Kaspari: Very important. Organisational responsibility is hugely important. Safety equipment that doesn’t get used is no use to anyone.
Fricke: As I said, training raises awareness. I find that well-organised risk management, such as that at UKB, is vital. In medical fields, we also have CIRS, the Critical Incident Reporting System, where risks and incidents can be reported. A similar system might also be an interesting concept in the laboratory setting. Such a system also allows us to learn from others’ mistakes and avoid them. It’s also a good idea to have a third party audit your own risk management from time to time.

Have the hazardous materials that you routinely work with today changed? And does that mean more Biosafety Level 3 (S3) laboratories are needed?

Fricke: Our research is conducted in the medical field, and I can certainly say we do need more S3 labs when it comes to coronavirus research. There’s an increasing trend to research more pathogens from wild animals, so that we can respond faster to any mutations with the ability to jump to humans and combat them. An additional S3 laboratory would therefore certainly be interesting for UKB.

Have the demands of laboratory users changed?

Kaspari: Yes, undoubtedly. I used to be involved in laboratory planning, and I know from experience that users today are much better informed. They have experience with far more laboratories. Universities are well equipped and they now want that equipment in their own place of work.  They place a lot of value on flexibility, which means constructing laboratories that are as flexible as possible with well-planned equipment is definitely money well-invested. I helped plan laboratories more than ten years ago and they still operate with ever-changing, satisfied users.

So how should I involve future users in the planning?

Kaspari: As early as possible, certainly at planning phase 0, but preferably immediately. There's no such thing as “too early”. It’s also important to ask questions like: What do they want to bring over from the old laboratory? Or: What kind of processes do they need? That’s often where it’s done wrong.
Fricke: And of course, it’s important for the authorities to be on board from the start: Fire protection, occupational safety, biosafety ... and, quite simply, all the officers. If they only visit the laboratory at the end before having seen anything, they’re almost bound to be frustrated.
Kaspari: It’s always faster and better to clarify everything in advance than have to remedy anything afterwards.

What kinds of problems do users still face on a daily basis? 

Kaspari: the biggest hurdle is the lack of storage space. There’s never enough cold storage. Once a working group moves into their laboratory, their numbers usually grow faster than the space available to them.
Fricke: But sometimes, the lab users are also the issue. There’s always people who have a tendency to “leave behind” their refrigerated products when they switch to a different laboratory. Something else that can be problematic is if there are users who purchase equipment by their own means and then connect it without any regard for the building design.

And what areas no longer pose a problem?

Fricke: For one thing, we now have water cooling for equipment, which stops devices being so loud and becoming hot, which could lead to uncomfortable temperatures in the laboratory in the summer. Other loud equipment is no longer housed in the laboratory, but in other, additional rooms.
Kaspari: These days, laboratories are planned as entire functional units, which also includes the corridors. This means that researchers can easily take their work equipment and switch from one work zone to another without any obstructing doors. For the most part, the higher level of user satisfaction is simply down to the fact that users are involved in the planning process early.

How long does a laboratory have to last today? That is, how flexible do I have to be in my future planning? And can I upgrade “old” laboratories?

Kaspari: Absolutely: it makes sense to upgrade old laboratories. Just in terms of the carbon footprint, it’s preferable to upgrade rather than build from new. Laboratories today can be expected to last for around 25 years. But we have a couple that are much older and still operational.
We also have to perform more diagnostics now due to the increase in outpatients. Which is why we’re currently planning a rebuild in the central laboratory to create a new laboratory line with a bit more IT. The one we have there at the moment is around 17 years old, although it’ll stay in operation while we build the new one. 

What needs to be considered when upgrading old laboratories to meet new safety standards (e.g., connections to the air management system)?

Kaspari:The actual rebuild isn’t that extensive, but the planning that goes into it has been occupying us for almost a year. Everything is planned down to the finest detail in advance so that the rebuild itself goes as quickly as possible and with as little disruption as possible to the laboratory staff.

What about the differences between German safety standards and those in the USA or Japan? To what extent is that important for German laboratory operators or for international collaboration?

Kaspari: Quite simply, laboratory users need to adjust to the requirements in the specific country. When it comes to safety, laboratories are essentially as safe here as they are there. We may be stricter in some areas, but less so in others. In the USA, for example, far more research is allowed into genetic engineering.
Fricke: Thanks to international research, however, we’re also able to swap ideas on good laboratory design. The idea of the open-plan laboratory, for example, originally comes from the USA where it has since become common practice.