GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Feb 16, 2018 | Blogs, Software, Technology | 0 comments
In the old days, if you wanted to monitor your lab’s data, you would either remain by your instrument as long as it took to complete the sample run or dial-in via a telephone modem. Neither option, however, offered much in the way of enhancing productivity.
Today’s lab, however, has more choices when it comes to ensuring smooth operations and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) using remote monitoring services, a topic that we have touched upon a few times recently.
“An increase in machine-to-machine (M2M) connectivity is a key enabler in cost savings, efficiency gains, revenue opportunities, and competitive advantage,” said Andy Wight, Director, SCIEX Service Product Portfolio, in a 2014 R&D Magazine article1.
Three years later, the same holds true as remote monitoring offers a low-risk solution in a situation where time is most certainly money.
Consider this statement from Lab Manager Magazine2, which offers an in-depth, third-party perspective on criteria for selecting service options. “A critical factor in selecting the service option for a particular instrument is the longest acceptable time that it can be out of service without seriously impacting customers. When these costs are very high, options offering short times to repair are often the most advantageous choices in spite of higher prices if the lab has no immediate reserve measurement capability2.”
Which brings us to remote monitoring which, “Is no longer a component of a break-fix repair business, but is enabling a service option in its own right,” said Wight in 2014. It can also help you:
By now, you understand that remote monitoring services play a critical role in lowering your OEE, as it helps you find the root cause of your errors faster and avoid them when possible. Simply put, reducing downtime means your instruments can be running samples that would otherwise be waiting, costing you throughput, time and expense.
What’s more, is that critical instrument data such as voltages, pressures, temperatures, and system/component states and errors (but never your proprietary sample data), are recorded and can be used to speed up the troubleshooting process, and reduce time to fix.
As instruments become “smarter,” and scientists have access to larger amounts of real-time data, analysis and interpretation becomes more important and more complex. When implemented as an integrated service solution, remote monitoring and data analytics provide innovative capabilities to:
In summary, using remote monitoring software enables your lab to save time and costs, without sacrificing on the quality of your analyses.
Want to increase your lab’s productivity with remote monitoring from SCIEX?
Ultra‑low reporting limits, expanding target lists, and the constant risk of background contamination mean that even small missteps before injection can compromise data integrity. PFAS can be introduced at nearly every stage of prep, from sampling containers and PPE to SPE cartridges, filters, solvents, and lab consumables, making contamination control as critical as analyte recovery.
In monoclonal antibody (mAb) development, assessment of purity and integrity of the protein in question is critical. CE‑SDS is the gold standard assay and is routinely run from analytical development through QC and lot release. It’s trusted because it consistently delivers quantitative, size‑based insight into purity and fragmentation, and it fits naturally into regulated environments.
In drug discovery and development, Metabolite Identification (Met ID) plays a critical role in understanding biotransformation pathways, ensuring safety, and meeting regulatory requirements. Advanced mass spectrometry techniques have revolutionized this process, particularly through electron-based fragmentation methods such as Electron Activated Dissociation (EAD) and Electron Transfer Dissociation (ETD). While both techniques leverage electron interactions to generate informative fragment ions, they differ significantly in mechanism, performance, and suitability for Met ID workflows.
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network