• The flame creates turbulence in the laminar flow of air minimizing product protection.
• Heat could melt HEPA filter bonding agents which destroys the filters effectiveness and loss of containment.
• If flame goes out gas will be distributed into the space possibly reaching explosive limits. ( use of an class II -A2 70% recirculation)

The BMBL states open flames are not required in the near microbe- free environment of a BSC and that touch plate micro burners could be used minimizing turbulence and heat buildup.

The CDC states if a flame is necessary there are products that are safer than the Bunsen burner. Attached is one of these and check out the video link on how it works.

In researching this I found that NUAIRE and Baker Company have issued similar warnings regarding the use of Gas in a BSC.

We call this type of learning “collaborative learning” – the grouping of peers for the purpose of achieving a learning objective where the success of the learning is the responsibility of those peers.  This poll can be corroborated by a recent survey by R&D magazine  and also in our own work where our clients are asking for collaborative work environments in the workplace, teaching labs and research labs.

Most of our clients request a collaborative lab environment since one of the most important knowledge sources available to that company is its employees and their intellect.  Collaborative spaces come in different types and sizes but they seem to fall into two different categories:  formal and informal.   The formal are enclosed conference and huddle spaces. The informal are where people tend to gather while doing a shared activity like getting coffee.  It is the Architect’s goal to find where these bump zones may exist in the work/research process and create an environment that promotes and enhances interaction. 

In order to achieve a collaborative environment we need to remove the physical as well as social barriers that impede collaboration.  TAKE DOWN THE WALLS, when appropriate. This fosters open communication and collegiality.

Possible ways to improve collaboration in the lab:

• Remove as many walls as possible, creating an open lab environment.
• Create lab neighborhoods centering on shared resources and spaces for collaboration.
• Remove shelving between the modules. If you have three shelves remove one and adjust the remaining shelves so that there is an opening through to the other side at eye level. This will allow you to communicate with your bench mate.
• Create destination spaces that people have to go to run a test or pick up supplies.  Some of these space could be:
  • Shared instrument spaces: Recently one of our clients stated that the instrument spaces build community and would be a nice place to discuss science while waiting for your results.  He went on to say these spaces would have to be different than the typical equipment pass thru and would need to be inviting and have white boards.
  • Create a mini one stop supply store for consumables.
  • Create glassware stores. Not everyone needs a 6L Erlenmeyer flask but there is that one time it would be nice to use one and, even better yet, it isn’t taking up space in your lab module.
• Use places where there is natural light to create a collaboration zone.
• Leverage technology to share research virtually.
• Create a welcoming kitchen/coffee bar adjacent to the restrooms.
• Create alcoves adjacent to the stairs for impromptu meetings.

 If the culture of the lab does not support collaboration then it doesn’t matter how nice the open lab and bump zones are; they won’t be used to their fullest potential.  The process of designing collaboration space starts with defining the behaviors of the scientist and building consensus with management at the beginning of the project. The design of collaboration spaces should not be left over spaces, but planned locations along the process that enhance communication.

 By implementing and embracing a collaborative learning culture will result in greater knowledge and greater research results.

I’m not blind to the differences but I feel we share many similarities.

So what makes us similar?

Vision:  whether it’s designing a building or developing a new compound that will be the active ingredient in the next wonder drug.  Architects and Scientists start with a vision, an abstract idea and develop it into something tangible.

Creativity: both solve problems by thinking out of the box or from a different perspective. We both have the tendency to generate alternatives/possibilities to solve a particular problem.   

The process: our tools that we use are different but we both have a time tested processes that we follow to achieve our solution.  Scientists use the scientific method which consist of stating the problem, gathering information, creating a hypothesis, preforming the experiment, analyze and interpret data, and finally publish results and getting recognized by their peers. Architects utilize a building delivery system.  In a traditional design, bid, build method the process consists of the following phases programming, schematic design, design development, construction documentation, and finally construction administration. 

Architects use the programming phase to define the problem, develop a clear vision and gather data. We test these ideas out during the schematic phase where we prepare studies to demonstrate a design approach or strategy to solve our client’s needs; our hypothesis. Once these ideas have been approved we go through a series of refinements in the design development and construction document phase. The construction documentation phase results in a limited publication to a contractor that instructs them on how to assemble a building.  During the construction administration phase we observer the construction to make sure the vision and quality of the design is maintained. 

Even though our processes may differ we both end up creating a solution that solves a problem.

Finally, Problem Solvers: I would surmise that the reason Architects and Scientist come to work each day is for the money.  No! It’s to solve problems. 

We both typically solve these problems in a very linear fashion taking known elements and bonding them together either by covalent or ionic bonds or in an Architect’s case nails and screws.  We both need to have the ability to view spaces or compounds in three dimensions.  In a conversation with a researcher he felt that one of the biggest reason people struggle with organic chemistry is that they do not have the ability to visualize the compound and its structure in three dimensions.  

Scientist and Architects are continually reinventing/ retesting age old ideas and I conclude that both professions use different tools and processes to achieve the ultimate goal to modify human existence for the betterment of mankind.

The top issues for 2011 and 2012:

Updating Permissible Exposure Limits (PELS): 

Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2)

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)/Globally Harmonized System (GHS)

OSHA Reform and NIOSH Recognition

Laboratory Accreditation (only 250 labs qualify now)

Three of these perked my interest to expand upon.

Updating Permissible Exposure Limits (PELS):  Since these are consensus based limits and are the basic tool that EH&S to protect workers; it floored me that some of these limits have not been updated since 1960.  The bright side is that OSHA has developed an internal group to discuss this very issue. 

Material Safety Sheets (MSDS):  The AIHA is supporting the adoption of the globally harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS).  This is a voluntary international system that imposes no binding treaty obligations on countries. Per the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 67 countries have adopted or amended this system.

Implementation by US Agencies:

According to the Sigma – Aldrich wed site  that US implementation is  likely to be staggered across all 4 agencies, listed below, ranging between 2007 – 2012. This might be optimistic since some of these agencies are still looking at the GHS and how it affects their current standards. 

The department of labor (OSHA):  Public hearings were held on March 31, 2010.

The department of Transportation (DOT): modified its regulations to incorporate most elements of the GHS.

The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC): currently underway the CPSC is reviewing and determining what standards to implement and or adapt.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Transition in multiple stages over several years.

I know implementing these standards will have economic implications for the company which in turn could be passed on to the consumer, but I feel the GHS is a desirable objective as our markets become more global.  I look forward to the day that I can pick up an MSDS sheet and see the desired information in the same order and format for each chemical that are used the labs that I design.

Laboratory Accreditation:  The primary purpose of this program is to establish and maintain the highest possible standards of performance for laboratories analyzing samples to support the evaluation of occupational and environmental exposures to hazardous agents. Based on the web site I count less than 200 industrial Hygiene laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP) participants worldwide.

How do we do this?   We implement Lean Lab Principles.  Lean lab principles are derived from lean manufacturing and the 5S workplace organization methodology.  These Lean principles can aid a laboratory in increasing speed, efficiency, quality and safety.  The physical layout will affect how people work.

Going through this collaborative process you can improve the performance of your lab by improving flow and eliminating waste.

These Five principles are:

   1.  Sort – to get rid of unnecessary equipment or store it.
   2.  Straighten (or “Set in Order”) – Organize work areas for maximum efficiency by organizing tools & equipment to promote optimum work flows through minimizing movement.
   3.  Shine – Everything is cleaned and functioning properly.
   4.  Standardize – Develop a routine for sorting, setting and shining.�
   5.  Sustain–create a culture that follows the steps on a daily basis.

Steps to applying the Lean Lab design:

1.  Sort:  This is where the tough decisions and value judgments need to be made. How do we eliminate waste or non-valued added activities?  There are seven original wastes  defined in the lean method.  Some other sources add another waste – not using knowledge and intellect.

• Transportation, Inventory, Motion, Wait, Over-production, Over-producing, Defect,  added waste not using knowledge and intellect of the staff

An easy way to remember the original 7 is the acronym TIM WOOD

Data gathering & engagement: this is the foundation that provides us information to measure and identify opportunities for improvement.  We need to understand what you do, your goals and how we will measure success!  In order to measure success we need to identify the right measures, metrics, qualities and quantities of space for the laboratory, support labs, and workspaces.

To do this we acquire data on present staffing and projected staffing. Look at present business models and long-term growth models. Look at industry trends, preform formal surveys, conduct observational walkthroughs, researcher in-lab interviews, and map work flow.  Finally, we gather information on space, equipment, and materials usage and their locations.  One exercise we use during the engagement part of data gathering is asking focus groups what the current state of their labs are and then ask  them to define their future state. In an article I read a few years ago there was a quote that I liked which summed this step up. 

“When all is done, we have seen the enemy, and low and behold, it is not us!  It’s the system we have been working in, and most importantly, using science, we have personally and socially interacted to change it!”

How do we sort all this stuff out?  We look at each process for these eight wastes and try to eliminate them.  I use tools such as:

• Single Line Diagrams: this is where we have the researcher give us a day in their life where they identify what they are doing, how long are they doing it, where are they doing it, and obstacles.  This gives us a map as to their daily process.  Once drawn it looks like spaghetti.  This can be evaluated for efficiencies in motion and waiting!
• Breaking down the facility into smaller buckets so you can wrap your hands around it.  These buckets could be the: floor, wall, ceiling, base cabinets, bench top, shelving, wall cabinet, support areas, and fume hoods.  During our observation we look at each bucket and all the STUFF that we see in that bucket and ask the following three questions: What is it?  Why is it there?  When is it used?  This can be evaluated for efficiencies in motion and waiting, inventory and transportation.

 There is some low hang fruit that can be achieved at almost every facility: 

• Equipment: look at each piece of equipment and “Red Tag” anything that that could be eliminated. Move it to a temporary storage area and then get final approval from management to remove it or store it.
• Supplies: remove excess supplies to a central area or create satellite storage areas where it can be accessed by others that might need it.  At one facility we took a walk with the user groups opening up all the base cabinets and one member exclaimed “I did not know you had those, I just order another box!”
• Chemicals: look at the chemicals stored on the bench top / shelves and determine whether these are required to be there in bulk quantities or could these be located in an adjacent chemical storage area.

2.  Set in order: This is the synthesis and validation part of our process.   Using all the data that we have gathered we develop opportunities for improvement.  We like to use “Seed Ideas” which are concepts that are derived from data depicting optimal work areas, flows, and process suggestions.  These ideas can be represented as a sketch or a picture.  The basic idea is to get these seeds in the hands of the people that can nurture them, the users.  Here they can be developed into schemes that can be implemented or become the spring board for a totally different idea.  The most important part of this process is generating input from the user group into how they want  to work and how to improve it through implementing standard operating procedures or by modifying the lab and or building to facilitate the required change.

Typical seed ideas

3.  Shine:  The intent of this step is to keep your equipment and work area clean and functioning properly.  One way to keep your equipment functioning properly is to implement an inventory control program which will keep you pro-active instead of reactive. This system tracks important dates such as purchase, maintenance, calibration, breakdowns and repair.  Another way that the design team can help in this step is to design spaces which are ecologically friendly and easy to maintain.

4.  Standardize:  This is primarily about the user group defining standard operating procedures to improve their work process and or environment.  But I see this as a challenge to standardize the kit of parts that are used in each lab. From general lab organization to casework I look at how to standardize systems and locate functions from lab to lab / floor to floor in the same locations so that the facility and staff can adapt to the ever changing business needs. 

5.  Sustain is: 

• Motivate all  members of the organization to ensure that the new project is applied and improved through employee involvement.  You need to empower them to be involved and to continually improve the project. 
• Educate and align people on how to use the space – change communications/management.   We have created user manuals and/or narrated 3d fly overs of thespace depicting and explaining the benefits and proper use of the space. These documents and videos define what behaviors would be expected from them in their space.  
• Re-Assessment is a critical part of the success of the change process. This is a process that you revisit, at intervals, the goals of the project and make sure you are still in alignment. 
• Environmental implication: did this process remove waste or implement green chemistry.  (The hyper link will take you to the EPA web site on Green Chemistry).  According to the EPA Green Chemistry can reduce waste, provide safer products, and reduce energy and resources.  Sustainability also applies to the design of the space and its environment.  By using LEED, an internationally recognized green building certification system you promote a whole-building approach to sustainability by using an integrated design process that explores all economic and environmental factors.
• Analysis of change: Finally you also need to measure the improvements so that you can validate success. By revisiting the goals and metrics collected during the first step of this process you will be able to gage the extent of your success and determine your next steps. 

This process is one of continual improvement!

So how do you effectively and efficiently reduce the large amounts of energy that is used for ventilation while at the same time maximize safety in the lab?  In balancing these two factors more exhaust air is not always the answer – after all, more air out requires more air in. As a result, excessive ventilation can actually diminish safety conditions in the labs.  Currently Labs 21 is supporting optimization rather than maximization.  

Just as a reference point, a typical lab building consumes 3 to 5 times more energy than a typical office building.  Per Labs 21 If you break down consumption annually it would look like the chart below.  

Air Changes per Hour (ACH) is one of the guidelines that is most discussed during the design process of a lab but typically ACH does not measure the ventilation effectiveness and the protection of the lab personnel.    The factors that should influence the ventilation rate are:  

• Toxicity and properties of a wide range of hazardous materials present
• Availability and use of local ventilation capture – control contaminates at the source
• Use of gases, volatile liquids and fine powders or aerosols requiring specialized exhaust
• Flexibility and adaptability of the lab space
• The SOP’s for training & compliance in the facility

These are some strategies you should consider in order to optimize energy consumption and maintain or increase safety:  

• Right size all new hoods.  By this I mean ask yourself the question what do I need this hood for and could this process be done with a localized exhaust. This might be a conversation between the designer, Safety Officer and the design team.
• Sash management: Per NFPA 45 recommends closing the sash manually whenever possible, however, that takes some enforcement. There are automatic sash positioning systems (ASPS^TM ) that can automate this process for you.  This system reduces energy and thus saves money by ensuring that the sash is closed in a unoccupied mode.  This system allows the VAV system to reduce airflow consumption by as much as 80% and protects the user by automatically closing the sash when occupants are away.   Conversly, the ASPS™ detects the technician approaching the fume hood and automatically opens the sash.   This allows for a hands and barrier-free work environment. 
• In the design phase, understand the difference between heat loads and exhaust requirements.  If you can effectively isolate heat loads from exhaust demand you can employ supplemental cooling methods that will greatly reduce the demand for air.
• Use a Zone Presence Sensor (ZPS).  This will reduce air flow but in a different way by reducing the open sashes face velocity when unoccupied and could achieve a 40% flow reduction. 
•  Use Variable Air Volume (VAV) hood in conjunction with a VAV control system which controls thermal loads.
• Occupancy control:  Providing occupancy sensors that are tried to the VAV system that can setback the ACH to the NFPA 45 recommended 4 ACH minimum while the space is unoccupied.   
• Centralized Demand Control Ventilation (CDCV) is a design refinement of the labo­ratory’s supply and exhaust system.  It provides increased airflow and negative pressurization in emergency situations.  Utilizing a CDCV in a lab would allow for variable air changes per hour based on indoor air pollutants not simply based on the guidelines listed above.   Typically these ACH would be between 4 to 16 ACH vs. a fixed 9 ACH in a typical lab. If you already apply VAV technology to the fume hoods and thermal loads why not apply it to the ACH/dilution.  Keep in mind that this system must rely on sensors. These sensors tend to be expensive and they have to be calibrated frequently.  Also note that the long-term reliability of these sensors is unknown.  To help overcome these issues OptiNet collects air samples in the room and routes them to a central sensor suite for evaluation every 30 to 40 seconds. These sensors can pick up air cleanliness, lab specific chemicals, and contort and ventilation. By using a central sensing suite you can provide better sensing and reduce calibration cost. 

All of these methods are based on reducing the demand air and will save your lab and the facility money.  With energy rates increasing it is important to utilize as many of these as possible.  But, before you start down this road of deciding your laboratories ventilation rate you should:  

• Ensure that the authority having jurisdiction is identified and involved from the start.
• Define energy savings goals for this project.  Are you going for LEED or is there a mandate form the state or company to be more energy efficient?
• Have a design/LEED charrette which brings together all ventilation stakeholders to discuss the goals of the project, budget, and possible concepts.  Discussions around each concept should include safety implications, start-up costs of the system, and life cycle costing.
• After all has been decided implement the strategies.

The Standard operating procedures for this particular lab is that no coats or gloves leave the lab.  So as a lab designer there is a simple way to handle - place enough coat hooks for the researchers to hang their coats up. Sounds silly and easy but how many labs have you gone into that do not have coat hooks and the researcher hangs their coat on the back of a chair or better yet the controls of the fume hood.  As for the quantity you do not want the researcher to stack lab coats on top of each other.  This simply transfers the potential hazards from the dirty side of the coat to the clean side that is adjacent to your clothing and body.

By talking to the EHS officer and asking his perspective on the SOP’s, I now understand some of the restrictions researchers need to abide by to do their work, “what are their pains”.  Think about adjacencies and how often they need to take off their coats and put on gloves. Also can the support space, such as equipment zones with analytical equipment and chemical dispensing/ disposal,  be inside the boundary of the lab thus reducing the time it takes the researcher to remove and apply gloves and lab coats.

A bit more about lab coats: something we take for granted but it provides the researcher protection from direct exposure to dangerous chemicals and infectious materials and will provide the researcher some protection form fire.  This garment is not fire proof but if the lab coat catches on fire then it could be removed quickly. This was brought to light in an article in Lab Manager Magazine last month where a researched died from injuries sustained in a lab fire. She was extracting a flammable chemical from a bottle and it spilled on her clothing setting them on fire.  She was not wearing her lab coat.  The article continues on to list several other safety tips for the use of a lab coat, Check it out!

This technology holds the promise of freeing the building envelope and its occupants from the many protocols that are found in a regulated manufacturing environment.  Fundamentally changing design, energy consumption and gowning protocols in a cGMP spaces.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMO3HoLJuJYThe NIH Peer Review Revealed video can be viewed and downloaded via the center for scientific review (CSR’s) website.

There is a companion video to this which is NIH Tips for the Applicant which can be downloaded  from the same web site as the Peer review Video.

Both videos are geared to the newer applicants but it wouldn’t hurt to take a look at these prior to starting your next grant application.

The Mission of the CSR is to organize the peer review groups that evaluate the majority of grant applications submitted to NIH. These groups include experienced and respected researchers from across the country and abroad. Since 1946, CSR’s mission has been to see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews—free from inappropriate influences—so NIH can fund the most promising research. CSR also receives all incoming applications and assigns them to the NIH institutes and centers that fund grants.

For more information, go to CSR’s website.

This 1 story, developer “Flex” type building is designed to be used as office/flex warehouse if a laboratory market cannot initially support full facility occupancy.  These “flex” type buildings are economical and the large interior spans of the structural system provide an easily configurable interior space.  1 story facility eliminates the cost of heavy structural framing of multi-story buildings to provide for a vibration free facility required to support a lab use as many scientific instruments are vibration sensitive.

Incubator Building Program:

Programmatic Spaces:
          Modular Laboratory bays (11’x30’)
          Shared laboratory support spaces and specialty function spaces.
          Office areas
          Collaboration space
          Building support areas: Mechanical & Electrical services, receiving/dock area,
          exterior equipment support zone for generators, cylinder storage, etc.