NIST has released a 62-page technical primer for the “smart factory” (Candell, R.; Hany, M.T. et al. Guide to Industrial Wireless Systems Deployments. NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 300-4, Apr 2018; https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.300-4). As I read it, I recognized that it is relevant to the “smart laboratory.” Then, I thought, this really fits, since chemical and life science laboratories are data factories.
The technical primer leads off with some useful definitions that focus on engineering aspects, including allocations of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. Many regions are not accessible unless one has a license. This removes potential interference with critical communications. Choosing a suitable frequency for intralaboratory or intrafacility applications is one consideration. Indeed, creating a frequency plan to avoid interdevice interference for the laboratory will probably be essential as the traffic increases.
Interference from microwave ovens was described in some detail. Some ovens operate in a spectral region (2.4 GHz) that is open to unlicensed communications devices. One noteworthy comment is that dirt can reduce the effectiveness of RF shielding of ovens.
The authors also point out that the topography that the communication will traverse is also important, since radiofrequency signals can be reflected or blocked from “canyons” created by idiosyncrasies of existing structures and equipment in the laboratory.
Most benefits driving the IoT rush are improved laboratory performance, including detection and remediation of out-of-specification results. The authors also point out that after collecting data for some time, they anticipate that engineers can look for achievable cost savings, including latency targets and better integration of workflows.
The Guide to Industrial Wireless Systems Deployments provides much more detailed technical considerations for the IoT than I’ve seen previously. I expect that vendors of IoT products for the laboratory will find it useful in setting technical specifications for their new products and systems.
Perhaps it is even time to consider setting standards for the intranet and intranet of things for the laboratory segment?
Your views please.
Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D., is Editor Emeritus, American Laboratory/Labcompare; e-mail: [email protected]