Chicago — Rethinking “industry standard” specifications for lighting, ventilation, and other design elements could significantly improve science buildings’ sustainability — and save institutions millions in construction and operating costs — according to an architect with years of experience designing colleges’ science facilities.

James H. Collins, president of Payette Associates Inc., said during a presentation at the SCUP conference here that the industry standards were in some cases nothing more than “received wisdom” handed down over decades, rather than requirements supported by data. Even so, he said, persuading a designer to specify levels below the industry standard was difficult.

He said the standard for lab lighting — a work-surface light level of 100 foot-candles, in lighting-industry parlance — was apparently established in the late 1950s after lobbying by electric utilities. The standard only a few years before had been less than half that.

Todd C. Sloane, an associate principal at Payette, said that on a recent project at an institution he declined to name, light levels in the college’s existing labs were measured at 50 foot-candles, and faculty members said that was plenty. Reducing the lighting specs for the college’s new building to 50 foot-candles also reduced the amount of heat generated by lights, meaning the building would need a smaller — and less expensive — air-conditioning system. Because the new building would allow a significant amount of daylight into the labs, work surfaces would often be brighter than the 50-foot-candle minimum, he said.

The college, which had a very tight budget for the building, also saved money by deciding not to air condition teaching labs that would not be used during the summer, Mr. Collins said. And it decided to use natural ventilation for a large lobby area. The building ended up with an air-conditioning system half the size of what was originally envisioned.

On another lab project — for a wealthier institution with a strong commitment to sustainability — Mr. Collins recommended moving non-essential work spaces from the lab proper to an adjoining area. That reduced the amount of space subject to the high air-change requirements of labs, in which air is typically changed a minimum of six times an hour. For non-lab spaces, changing the air twice an hour is usually sufficient, he said.

Because changing air involves not only running fans but also heating or cooling the fresh air being moved into the room, reducing the amount of space in the high-change zone was “the single most sustainable thing we could do for the building.”

Mr. Collins said that he, like other lab designers, had spent years recommending that institutions build large “open labs” that locate many functions in the same large space — recommendations that he suggested he now sees as costly mistakes. He also noted that European building specs set much wider comfort zones for indoor temperature and humidity levels than do American specs, because the American specs are tailored to the comfort of men in suits.