Reducing plastic usage in sterile filtration workflows with VacuCap™ filtration systems: A product comparison
Sustainability is clearly a weighted factor in selection of quality products and good design considers environmental impact. In light of this, we have developed our VacuCap™ sterile vacuum filtration system with reduced plastic usage to minimize waste.
In this weight-based comparative study, we explore the reduction in plastic waste generated in sterile filtration workflows ranging from 100 mL to 5 L. Filtration within this volume range typically utilizes vacuum filtration systems consisting of a bottle-top filter funnel and a receiving bottle; however, the single-use nature of these products contributes to a large plastic waste generation.
Here, we demonstrate that VacuCap filter systems can:
- Reduce plastic waste by up to 76% when compared with competitive complete filtration systems with a similar membrane diameter.
- Act as a more sustainable alternative in sterile filtration workflows ranging from 100 mL to 5 L.
Introduction
Plastic pollution is a global challenge. Since the 1950s, approximately 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic have been produced, with around 75% ending up as waste in landfills or the natural environment (1). Research labs typically rely on single-use plastics in daily workflows so consideration for the amount of plastic used in products is a priority. Vacuum filtration systems are one example of these single-use plastics (commonly used for sterile filtration of biological fluids, tissue culture media, and buffers) that contribute to plastic waste generation.
To address this, we developed VacuCap, a more sustainable sterile vacuum filtration system that reduces plastic usage and minimizes waste. Traditional vacuum filtration systems comprise a bottle-top filter funnel with a receiving bottle that connects directly to a vacuum source to enable contamination-free fluid filtration. The VacuCap filter system is designed for ease-of-use and supports fast fluid flow (100 mL to 5 L) thanks to the encapsulated Supor™ membrane made from hydrophilic polyethersulfone (PES). The system is gamma sterilized and is available in several pore sizes, including 0.1 µm, 0.2 µm, 0.45 µm and 0.8/0.2 µm, and is compatible with a variety of receiver bottles, highlighting its versatility in laboratory settings.
To assess the sustainability we compared the weight of 10 VacuCap units with the weight of complete vacuum filtration systems (bottle-top filter plus receiving bottle) from Merck Millipore, Thermo Fisher, and Sartorius. Additionally, we performed a separate comparison using only the bottle-top filter component of these competitive systems. The analysis was limited to system weight; no assessment of filtration throughput or performance with aqueous solutions was conducted.
Material and methods
We performed the comparative study described here at the Cytiva Harbourgate site (Portsmouth, UK) in 2025. The materials used in the study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. List of materials used in this study
| Product | Manufacturer |
| VacuCap 60 mm Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone, 0.2 µm, 60 mm |
Cytiva |
| VacuCap 90 mm Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone, 0.2 µm, 90 mm |
Cytiva |
| Stericup Quick Release Vacuum Filtration System, Polyethersulfone, 0.22 µm, 500 mL |
Merck Millipore |
| Stericup Quick Release Vacuum Filtration System, Polyethersulfone, 0.22 µm, 1000 mL |
Merck Millipore |
| Nalgene Rapid-Flow Sterile Disposable Filter Units with polyethersulfone, 0.20 µm, 500 mL |
Thermo Fisher |
| Nalgene Rapid-Flow Sterile Disposable Filter Units with polyethersulfone, 0.20 µm, 1000 mL |
Thermo Fisher |
| Sartolab RF PES Vacuum Filtration Units for 500 mL samples | Sartorius |
| Sartolab RF PES Vacuum Filtration Units for 1000 mL samples | Sartorius |
Plastic weight comparison of competitor vacuum filtration equipment with VacuCap filter systems
Our VacuCap filtration system is available in two diameters, 60 mm (VacuCap 60) and 90 mm (VacuCap 90), allowing you to select the appropriate size based on your filtration needs. Each system is supplied with tubing and sinker to support filtration of the fluid of choice.
To assess plastic usage, we weighed ten of each VacuCap systems alongside the associated tubing and sinker and calculated the average weight. These measurements were compared with the average weight of complete competitive vacuum filtration systems, consisting of the bottle top and receiving bottle, from Merck Millipore, Thermo Fisher, and Sartorius (Table 1). We also recorded the weights of the bottle-top filter components (only) from these competitive systems and compared them with the VacuCap systems. All comparisons were based solely on system weight. No evaluation of filtration throughput or performance with aqueous solutions was conducted.
Statistical analysis
Data generated during the study was statistically analysed using Welch’s T-test. The analysis was performed using Minitab LLC ver. 10.0.22631. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. Results are presented as a mean weight.
Results and discussion
Plastic weight comparison of our VacuCap filtration systems versus competitor vacuum filtration systems
The VacuCap 60 filtration system demonstrated the lowest plastic weight among the systems assessed, with a mean weight of 60.11 g (± 0.13 g) corresponding to a 64% to 76% reduction in plastic usage when used in place of the complete competitor filtration systems (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
Table 2. Plastic weights for VacuCap 60 and competitor filtration systems
| Product | Manufacturer | Mean plastic weight of VacuCap 60 or complete filtration system (g) |
| VacuCap 60 mm Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone, 0.2 µm, 60 mm |
Cytiva | 60.11 |
| Stericup Quick Release Vacuum Filtration System, Polyethersulfone, 0.22 µm, 500 mL |
Merck Millipore | 188.41 |
| Stericup Quick Release Vacuum Filtration System, Polyethersulfone, 0.22 µm, 1000 mL |
Merck Millipore | 251.05 |
| Nalgene Rapid-Flow Sterile Disposable Filter Units with polyethersulfone, 0.20 µm, 500 mL |
Thermo Fisher | 165.97 |
Fig 1. Plastic waste generated by VacuCap 60 filtration system and competitive vacuum filtration systems. Complete systems include both the bottle-top filter and the receiving bottle. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 10). Statistical differences in plastic waste were evaluated using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances between the VacuCap filtration system and competitor vacuum filtration units (p < 0.05).
A similar trend was observed for the larger VacuCap 90 filtration system. With a mean plastic weight of 75.68 g (± 0.10 g), it was the lightest product among the systems tested with similar membrane diameters. This corresponds to a 60% to 72% reduction in plastic usage when used in place of the complete competitor filtration systems (see Table 3 and Figure 2).
Table 3. Plastic weights for VacuCap 90 and competitor filtration systems
| Product | Manufacturer | Mean plastic weight of VacuCap 90 or complete filtration system (g) |
| VacuCap 90 mm Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone, 0.2 µm, 90 mm |
Cytiva | 75.68 |
| Nalgene Rapid-Flow Sterile Disposable Filter Units with polyethersulfone, 0.20 µm, 1000 mL |
Thermo Fisher | 271.05 |
| Sartolab RF PES Vacuum Filtration Units for 500 mL samples | Sartorius | 191.39 |
| Sartolab RF PES Vacuum Filtration Units for 1000 mL samples | Sartorius | 266.30 |
Fig 2. Plastic waste generated by VacuCap 90 filtration system and competitive vacuum filtration systems. Complete units include both the bottle-top filter and the receiving bottle. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 10). Statistical differences in plastic waste were evaluated using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances between the VacuCap filtration system and competitive vacuum filtration systems (p < 0.05).
The differences we observed in this part of the study are primarily due to the formats compared. Complete filtration systems include both a bottle-top filter and a receiver bottle of fixed size, each contributing to the overall plastic mass. In contrast, the compact design of VacuCap eliminates the need for an integrated receiver bottle, offering flexibility to connect the system to receiver bottles of varying size that includes reusable options. This flexibility allows VacuCap filtration systems to be incorporated into existing workflows by enabling the use of vacuum-rated glassware in place of dedicated plastic receiver bottles, reducing the overall plastic usage and subsequent waste.
Plastic weight comparison of our VacuCap filtration systems versus competitor bottle-top components
Bottle-top components from each competitive filtration system assessed in this study are available for individual purchase and can be used with existing vacuum-rated glassware.
In the second part of our study, we performed a comparison of the plastic weight of VacuCap filtration systems versus competitor bottle-top components. As recorded previously, the average weight of the VacuCap 60 system was 60.11 g (± 0.13 g), which was significantly lower than all competitor bottle top components assessed (see Table 4 and Figure 3). These weight differences reflect a 16% to 40% reduction in plastic waste when the VacuCap 60 is used in place of the competitor bottle-top components.
Table 4. Plastic weights for VacuCap 60 and competitor filtration systems (bottle-top component only)
| Product | Manufacturer | Mean plastic weight of VacuCap 60 or competitor bottle-top component only (g) |
| VacuCap 60 mm Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone, 0.2 µm, 60 mm |
Cytiva | 60.11 |
| Stericup Quick Release Vacuum Filtration System bottle-top, Polyethersulfone, 0.22 µm, 500 mL |
Merck Millipore | 99.45 |
| Stericup Quick Release Vacuum Filtration System bottle-top, Polyethersulfone, 0.22 µm, 1000 mL |
Merck Millipore | 121.00 |
| Nalgene Rapid-Flow Sterile Disposable Filter Unit bottle-top with polyethersulfone, 0.20 µm, 500 mL |
Thermo Fisher | 71.64 |
Fig 3. Plastic waste generated by VacuCap 60 filtration system and competitive vacuum filtration bottle-top components. This figure compares only the bottle-top components of each filtration unit (receiving bottles excluded). Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 10). Statistical differences in plastic waste were evaluated using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances between the VacuCap filtration system and competitive bottle-tops (p < 0.05).
In this study we also demonstrated that the VacuCap 90 was the lightest among the devices tested with similar membrane diameters, with a weight of 75.68 g (± 0.10 g) (see Table 5 and Figure 4). These results demonstrate that adoption of the VacuCap 90 system to workflows can result in a 25% to 43% reduction in plastic waste when compared to the competitive bottle-top components.
Table 5. Plastic weights for VacuCap 90 and competitor filtration systems (bottle-top component only)
| Product | Manufacturer | Mean plastic weight of VacuCap 90 or competitor bottle-top component only (g) |
| VacuCap 90 mm Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone, 0.2 µm, 90 mm |
Cytiva | 75.68 |
| Nalgene Rapid-Flow Sterile Disposable Filter bottle-top with polyethersulfone, 0.20 µm, 1000 mL |
Thermo Fisher | 121.78 |
| Sartolab RF PES Vacuum Filtration bottle-top for 500 mL samples | Sartorius | 100.35 |
| Sartolab RF PES Vacuum Filtration bottle-top for 1000 mL samples | Sartorius | 132.13 |
Fig 4. Plastic waste generated by VacuCap 90 filtration system and competitive vacuum filtration bottle-top components. This figure compares only the bottle-top components of each filtration system (receiving bottles excluded). Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 10). Statistical differences in plastic waste were evaluated using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances between the VacuCap filtration system and competitive bottle-tops (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
Our results in this weight-based comparative study demonstrate that VacuCap filtration systems can substantially reduce the plastic mass used in workflows involving the sterile filtration of aqueous solutions from 100 mL to 5 L. Under the specific test conditions evaluated, the reduction in plastic waste supports the positioning of VacuCap filtration systems as a more sustainable solution when compared with complete competitive vacuum filtration systems and their bottle-top components.
With a compact design, VacuCap systems eliminate the need for an integrated receiver bottle, offering flexibility to connect the system to receiver bottles of varying size that includes reusable options. This flexibility allows our VacuCap filtration systems to be incorporated into existing workflows by enabling the use of vacuum-rated glassware in place of dedicated plastic receiver bottles, reducing the overall plastic usage and subsequent waste.
References
- Roland Geyer et al. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 3,e1700782(2017). DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1700782