Sustainable reduction of asbestos sample losses using Radio Frequency Identification and the 5S method

Eurofins Asbestos Testing Europe

Master Thesis

Sustainable reduction of asbestos sample losses using radio frequency identification (RFID) and the 5S method

Elie Falcand

29/01/2021

Abstract

This study is a research around an issue encountered by MyEasyLab, a laboratory involved in asbestos testing for the French market. They are facing a problem of sample losses, which is hardly acceptable, especially when growing on a highly competitive and price driven market. They are therefore looking for ways to have a better traceability of their samples.

The technicians were observed to identify their needs and the problems the company is facing. This study is presenting as a result two complementary solutions: the reorganization of the working space, and the usage of the RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology to track the samples.

The reorganization of the room using the 5S method should enable a more optimized way of working. This method initially used in the industry early on by Toyota, enables to optimize the flows (goods, person, waste …) in a sustainable way.

The use of RFID presents the opportunity of a deep change in the whole process of the company, from the client to the labs. Bags already tagged RFID could be sent to the clients for their sample collection, enabling traceability from the beginning of the chain. The samples could, using RFID, be detected as they enter the site, leave the site and if they are in an undesired location (for example in the trash). The RFID technology is also an opportunity to facilitate the work of the technician, with a possibility to save around 4h15 of working time per day. The kind of tags that seems the most appropriate for this application is passive UHF tags. They present the advantages of being cheaper, easier to buy in bulk and readable from longer distances.

Even though the RFID technology is often seen as expensive, a return on investment seems possible for a tag price under 0.08€.

Further experimental tests need to be realized to refine the results of this study.

Table of content

Abstract ... 0

Table of content ... 2

Abbreviations list ... 4

Glossary ... 4

Introduction ... 5

Background ... 6

Asbestos: Generalities ... 6

Asbestos in France ... 7

Eurofins... 7

The group Eurofins ... 7

MyEasyLab (MEL) ... 8

Asbestos testing in MEL’s laboratories ... 9

Methodology ... 11

Interviews and observations ... 12

Technician work and losses risks ... 12

Point of view of the other actors ... 13

Other possible losses ... 14

Outcomes of the observations and interviews ... 14

Literature study ... 16

The 5S method ... 16

Barcode technology ... 17

QR code technology ... 18

RFID technology ... 19

Transponders ... 19

Readers ... 22

Pros and cons ... 23

Other technologies ... 23

Design of the intelligent bag ... 25

The RFID labels ... 25

Possible business cases ... 25

The recommended technology to use ... 26

The new process ... 26

Barcode vs QR cade ... 29

Economical considerations ... 29

The cost of losses ... 29

Possibility of gain using RFID ... 30

Costs of the RFID solution ... 30

Cost per sample ... 31

Environmental considerations ... 33

Carbon footprint of MEL... 33

Impact of the RFID solution ... 34

Guidelines and idea to reduce the impact ... 34

Experimentation ... 36

Organization of the work place and work station ... 36

RFID testing ... 38

Arrival of the package... 38

Departure of the boxes ... 39

Testing under the hood ... 39

Trash testing ... 40

Conclusion ... 41

Appendix 1 – Normal operation process flow chart ... 43

Appendix 2 – NC handling process flow chart ... 44

Appendix 3 – Risks list and quotation ... 45

References ... 48

Abbreviations list

ADEME Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (agency for ecological transition)

BLE Bluetooth Low Energy

Cofrac Comité français d’accréditation (French accreditation committee) GPS Global Positioning System

EAN code European Article Number code EATE Eurofins Asbestos Testing Europe ERP Enterprise Resource planning

ESAT Etablissements ou services d’aide par le travail (Establishments that propose in France jobs for handicapped people who cannot work in an ordinary company) FTE Full time equivalents

LDPE Low Density PolyEthylene

MBU Marketing Business Unit, used to designate the reception center of Saint-Herblain

MEL MyEasyLab

NC Non-compliant

PL Poland

PLM Polarized light microscope

PO Purchase order

PT Portugal

RF Radio Frequency

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

RO Romania

TEM Transmission electron microscope WORM Write Once Read Many

Glossary

eLims software used as an ERP

Introduction

As more and more awareness is shed on the environmental and public health issues, legislation is slowly changing around the world on the products that can be used in daily life materials. Asbestos for example was widely incorporated in materials in the twentieth century in Europe due to its interesting properties in terms of heat resistance and durability (Wagner, 2016).

But as the impact on public health has become more understood, the product has now been banned from several countries. In France it has been the case since 1997 (Revol, 1998) and it is mandatory for constructions built before 1997, to be checked for it. This generated a boom in the number of tests in France, enabling the development of new businesses and labs specialized in asbestos testing.

This is the case of Eurofins and its business unit MyEasyLab.

But in a new, competitive, and fast-growing business simple errors are often big game changers. The labs are today facing a quality problem with the loss of samples along their process, which is unacceptable to keep an edge on competition.

This paper aims at presenting a feasibility study and guidelines for the implementation of a reliable and sustainable system to reduce and prevent sample losses.

The objectives of this report are to present the initial situation of the company, possible

solutions, analyze them in terms of cost, impact, and coverage of the needs. Guidelines are also given

to conduct further studies and help the implementation of the chosen solution.

Background

This section presents general information in order to give more context to the reader about asbestos, and Eurofins.

Asbestos: Generalities

Asbestos is a generic term used to describe a family of silicate minerals present in nature.

They are divided into two groups: the amphiboles (which include crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite), and the serpentines (which include only chrysotile) (Sporn, 2014). They are fibrous materials with various composition, crystalline organization and looks, depending on their type. The composition of asbestiform minerals is presented in table 1.

Table 1: Chemical composition of asbestiform minerals (adapted from Spron, 2014)

Asbestos variety Chemical formula

Chrysotile Mg

Si

O

(OH)

Crocidolite Na

Fe

Fe

Si

O

(OH)

Amosite (Mg, Fe

)

Si

O

(OH)

Tremolite Ca

Mg

Si

O

(OH)

Anthophyllite (Mg, Fe

)

Si

O

(OH)

Actinolite Ca

(Mg, Fe

)

Si

O

(OH)

Asbestos has been known and used for its thermal properties as well as chemical resistance since antiquity (Sporn, 2014). But its usage has boomed during the 20

century, as it was relatively cheap, and has been incorporated in insulation materials, construction materials, asphalt, fire protection surfaces, canalizations, specially manufacture products (Darcey D.J., 2014) … The figure 1 shows the evolution of the production of asbestos worldwide.

Figure 1: Worldwide production of asbestos from 1900 to 2019 (adapted from Virta, 2006; US Geological Survey 2006-2020)

But as the usage increased, more and more understanding emerged on the effect of asbestos on public health. Indeed, asbestos is recognized today as causing serious health damages such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis after inhalation, that often appear 30 to 40 years after the exposure. In 2004 for example it is estimated that 107 000 people died because of exposure to asbestos (WHO, n.d.). This awareness on the public health risks due to asbestos, generated a change in some countries’ legislation, starting with Denmark in the 70s. In 2018 asbestos had been banned from more than 62 countries (Lin, 2019).

The biggest consumers of asbestos today are China, India, and Brazil and most of the world production is concentrated to 5 countries: Russia (69%), Kazakhstan (18%), China (11%), Brazil (1.4%), and Zimbabwe (0.2%) (US Geological Survey, 2020).

Asbestos in France

In the European Union, Asbestos has been banned since 2005, but France was one of the early countries legislating on this subject, with a ban of the product since 1997 (Haynes, 2010).

Moreover, it is indicated to watch and repair the material containing asbestos (prior to 1997) especially since the risks occur when they are degraded. It is mandatory to check housing (both individual houses and apartments) built before 1997 for asbestos in case of selling or demolition. The owners are responsible for the implementation of those measures (Ministère de la Transition écologique, 2018).

This legal obligation to do testing for asbestos in buildings generated a boom in the demand of asbestos analysis in the 2000s. In 2016 the market was estimated to produce around 4 350 000 samples for building materials, 265 000 samples for road materials, and 580 000 samples of air per year in France according to Carol Agnes, business line manager of EATE, interviewed the 8

of September 2020.

In order to be able to deliver legally recognized asbestos analysis results in France, the laboratories need to be accredited by the Cofrac. An international lab can be also accredited to deliver results for the French market if it is accredited by an international organization which has an agreement with the Cofrac (for example the IPAC in Portugal).

The rules of analysis for the French market have been recently changed by the “arrêté du 1er octobre 2019”. This new regulation re-defines the competences required to perform the analysis, the methods that can be used, the preparation of the samples, the storage duration of the samples, and introduces a distinction between asbestos that has been deliberately introduced in the material or asbestos naturally present.

Eurofins

This project is carried out with the group Eurofins in response to one of its quality needs. The group is presented hereafter.

The group Eurofins

Eurofins is a French company created in 1987, with a business originally centered on the

commercialization of the SNIF-NMR technology to test the origin and purity of wine. Ever since, the

group has increased the number of tests provided and now have a portfolio of 200 000 analysis

performed in more than 800 labs, in 47 different countries. Eurofins is today a global reference in

food, environmental, pharmaceutical and cosmetics products testing (Eurofins, n.d.).

The group is organized as a network of smaller independent companies. This enables them to keep in the growing venture, more flexibility and an entrepreneurship spirit that often disappear as companies grow (Merson, 2016). But the support services (HR, IT …) are centralized, and good practices are shared among the different entities to keep a global cohesion and operational excellence in the group.

MyEasyLab (MEL)

MyEasyLab is one of the legally independent business units in Eurofins. They belong to the Environment division of the group and are specialized in asbestos analysis.

Asbestos testing in Eurofins started at the beginning of the 2000s and boomed from 80 employees in 2011 to 1000 today. In 2016 the existing laboratories in France were crowded and could not respond to the markets demands. As a response, MEL was created in September 2016. Its purpose was to develop a low-cost alternative for asbestos testing. The model they offer is to have something as simple as possible with no options, a set price, no possible negotiations and totally digitalized.

The values presented by the company are Simplicity (with a focus on standardization), The right cost (by trying to pull the market price down), Boldness (trying to innovate on a market filled with “old school” practices), Modernity (with as much as possible digitalization, automation of the process and adaptation of the daily life innovation).

MEL is a B2B business (for professional of real-estate diagnostic) that represents today around 5% of the market shares of the asbestos business testing in France according to Carol Agnes, business line manager of EATE, interviewed the 8

of September 2020. The enterprise became profitable 1 year ago and predicts a consequent growth for the upcoming years (around 30% next year). One of the key factors of success at the MEL is its customer relation. Indeed, in a low-cost business with a very simple offer, the client is not easily retained if unsatisfied. Therefore, it is of upmost importance for them to have great relations with their customer and to be reactive to problems.

EATE (Eurofins Asbestos Testing) is composed of four enterprises: MEL, one laboratory in Poland (PL), one laboratory in Portugal (PT), and one laboratory in Romania (RO). MEL is then composed of several divisions: the technical division (responsible for quality in the labs), the commercial division (in charge of the customers and prospection), the customer service division (in charge of responding to the customers’ needs and of administrative processes, like invoicing), a project and operation division (based in Saint-Herblain, France, to take care of the reception and sending of the samples to the labs) and a marketing division.

The process to realize an analysis with MEL usually goes as presented in figure 2:

Figure 2: Classical process MEL Sample

collection by the

client

Shipping to MEL

Decontamination and coding

Shipping to the european

labs

Analysis

Results sent back electronically

to the customer

≈ 5 days

The material tested by MEL are housing materials, road asphalt and dust. No liquid or air can be tested with the MEL offer. The results usually arrive in about 5 days, but this time frame can change according to the demand and activity in the labs.

This project was realized in the Project and Operation division in Saint-Herblain, France. The activity there consists in receiving the samples, decontaminating, and coding them, and finally sending them to the labs. Around 2 000 samples are treated there each day. Unfortunately, during the current process, losses of samples occur, which are more or less understood and identified. As the number of samples treated per day is expected to increase (with no plan of increasing the work force), it is very likely that the number of losses will increase too, as it is already observed today during days of high activity. MEL is therefore now looking for new solutions to reduce and prevent the risks of losses during the process.

Asbestos testing in MEL’s laboratories

The laboratories working with MyEasyLab analyze the samples for the presence of asbestos, but do not quantify the amount present. The analysis is carried out by dividing the sample into different layers that each represent one material. For example, in a sample of a piece of tile, the tile can be a layer but if there is glue on the tile it corresponds to a second layer.

The process used to identify the presence (or not) of asbestos is the following. First the samples arriving in the lab are encoded again to ensure anonymity. After a first observation by eyes of its external look, the sample is characterized (ex: paint, homogenous). If the sample is made of visible fibers, it is analyzed with polarized light microscope (PLM). If the sample is tested positive to the presence of asbestos the process stops here. With PLM only asbestos fibers bigger than 20 nm can be detected. If no asbestos is detected in the sample at this step, it undergoes a calcification under high temperature during a few hours. After the calcification, a step of chemical attack is realized, using a strong acid, pared with mechanical grinding and ultrasound. The samples are then washed and a deposit on a grid is realized. These grids can then be analyzed using a transmission electron microscope (TEM). This process is presented in figure 3.

Figure 3: preparation process in the lab (adapted from Belaud, 2018) Coding PLM

Preparation

Thermal attack

Chemical attack (acid) and mechanical

(grinding + ultrasound)

Elimination acid

Standardization of concentration

(dilution)

Grid deposit

Solid preparation

With the TEM, fibers under 20 nm can be detected. The machine also gives a diffraction pattern and a chemical analysis that enables to precisely identify the type of asbestos fiber encountered. An example of the result of the TEM analysis is presented in figure 4.

Figure 4: TEM results (Belaud, 2018)

In figure 4 we can observe the presence in the sample of asbestos, type chrysotile, that can be precisely identified from the other types with the chemical analysis and the diffraction pattern.

Chrysotile bundle ( x 15 000)

Microdiffraction pattern

Chemical analysis

Methodology

Several methods have been used to carry out this project. The main one has been adapted from the Design Thinking method, which correspond to a way of designing goods oriented for the users and to foster collective creativity. This method is divided into five steps: the empathy phase, the definition phase, the ideation phase, the prototyping phase, and the testing phase (Müller- Roterberg, 2020). The empathy phase corresponds to a time of observation with the goal to understand the users and their needs. In this project, interviews of the different engineers and the business line manager were carried out, and several days of immersion with the technicians were realized. Once the insights on the current situation have been gathered, the definition phase is a time to properly sort them out and highlight the main take away. This enables to clearly formulate the scope and the problematic of the project. This is followed by a moment of ideation, that should foster creativity and generate a multiplicity of solutions. For this project, several workshops have been implemented with engineers, technicians and other member of the team not directly related to the project.

Once several solutions have been identified, a literature study and a fast prototyping have

been carried to evaluate the feasibility in terms of costs, impacts, sustainability, coverage of the

user’s needs, to identify the most relevant option. Costs and technical feasibility have also been

estimated by contacting suppliers. For confidentiality reasons, theses suppliers cannot be named in

this study.

Interviews and observations

The first step in following the design thinking method is to empathize with the user.

Therefore, in order to understand the initial situation, the technicians have been followed during several days to observe their behaviors, and engineers and the business line manager have been interviewed about their needs.

Technician work and losses risks

The technicians’ work on the site of Saint-Herblain is mainly to decontaminate the samples, encode them in the system, label them, and then send them to the appropriate laboratory.

An ordinary day starts with the arrival of the technician at his desk. He must scan the appropriate barcodes to set the coding software on the right destination and deadline. He can then take care of the packages. Indeed, the samples are received by delivery via transporters (mail, packages ...). Some customers deliver the samples themselves to the site, but this represents a small number of samples (less than 5%). The packages are opened, and the files of samples are distributed between the two technicians present, according to the order of priority (some clients being analyzed first).

The files then undergo decontamination and coding. Those two operations are done under an extractor hood. Files are supposed to be composed of the samples to analyze, that must arrive hermetically double bagged (in two freezing bags for example), and of a purchase order (PO) associated to the samples and containing a barcode. They are then manually wiped with a wet wipe to fix the potential asbestos fiber that could have attached themselves to the outside of the double bags and the purchase order. The samples must be counted, attached 10 by 10 in a coherent order and correspond to what is written on the PO. Once this first decontamination is realized, the barcode on the PO is scanned. If the information appearing on the screen is coherent with the file (number of samples, right reference …), the samples can be labelled. For this, another barcode, which is on the desk and labelled “print”, is scanned. This sends an order to a labelling machine that prints one label for the file and then one label for each sample. All the samples and the corresponding PO are then placed in a big freezing bag and put in a box to be sent later in the corresponding laboratory.

If for some reason the file cannot be properly decontaminated or labelled (for example once the PO scanned it is not recognized by the data base, or samples are missing/in excess), the file is set aside, labelled non-compliant (NC) and undergoes a specific procedure according to the type of errors (see Appendix 2).

At the end of the day when the boxes are full, they are emptied again by putting all the files under the extractor hood. The files are then rescanned one by one and the references stored on a separate excel sheet, to keep track of what is actually sent to the labs.

When the box has undergone the scanning process, it is partially sealed (to mark that it has been scanned, but can still be easily opened again if needed). At the end of the day all the boxes are properly sealed and sent via DHL to the appropriate destination.

A more detailed flow chart of the process is presented in Appendix 1 for the normal

operation and in Appendix 2 for the NC.

At this point in the process, losses of samples, of PO or of entire files are possible. This could happen in the different steps, for example samples or a file could go in the trash while throwing away an envelope, or could fall on the floor, behind a desk … The different moments a loss can happen are identified in Appendix 1 and the quotation of the risks is presented in Appendix 3. Most of the times those losses are not detected by MEL but by the client. Indeed, the person ordering an analysis receive an acknowledgment of receipt by email after the coding, and around five days later should have received its result. Therefore, if the acknowledgment of receipt takes too long to arrive after sending a package of samples, or if the results do not arrive, the client often calls back MEL for what might be a case of lost file.

To prevent, but also to better understand where the loss could have happened, a set of emergency solutions have been implemented prior to the study:



Procedures have been written, with good practices and check points o Checking the names on the package arriving

o Counting the number of packages arriving

o Opening wide every envelope and package to check that nothing is still inside o Counting the samples

o Checking if the numbers correspond between the number of samples effective, the number on the PO, the number that appear on the screen

o Grouping the samples ten by ten o Cleaning of the working station



An extra step has been added: Rescanning of the boxes

o The content of every box is rescanned a second time to be sure which files are effectively sent. This allows to know more effectively, in case of loss, if it occurred in MEL or after.

o This extra step is also adding risks of losing samples while emptying the boxes



The trashes near the decontamination stations are now kept for a week with an indication of the dates of opening and closure, and the technician working at the time

In general, these processes are mostly manual, and they are viewed as highly time consuming today. Moreover, they are not enough to reduce the risk of losses down to a significantly low level.

For the technicians, what is really important in the solution of loss reduction is that it should be easy to use and very ergonomic, especially as some of them are considered as handicapped worker.

Point of view of the other actors

For the engineers and the business line manager working on the site, losses are viewed as

unacceptable quality mistakes. For a business based on very easy and low-cost offers, customers are

very versatile and quick to change laboratory. It is therefore important to have a solution to

significantly reduce the losses. What has been implemented so far is more of a temporary fix, waiting

for a more elegant and long lasting solution.

For the different laboratories, the solution needs to be either transparent to them, or improve their process. But a solution that would require more time on their side would be very hard to implement.

Other possible losses

Since several stakeholders are involved in the whole process of analysis with MEL, it is a challenge to track where exactly the loss occurred and who is responsible. Indeed, from the beginning the client could have lost it, for example by generating the order but not sending it, creating a feeling of lost file. It can then be lost during transportation (either not sent to the right address or lost by the transporter). Those two cases are hard to differentiate and track, as MEL has no control over the samples before they actually arrive in Saint-Herblain.

The samples can then be lost in the reception center of Saint-Herblain (also referred as the MBU). If this happens before coding, there is no trace that the file was actually there, making it hard to distinguish between the two previous cases. If the loss happens after coding, there is a trace of it in the software and therefore possible to know that the sample/file was there, at which date and handled by which technician.

A loss can then occur during the transportation from the logistical center to the European laboratory. The recent scanning of the boxes in Saint-Herblain enables them to know what has been sent and then compare it with what the destination lab has received.

Then the lab could also generate a loss. This is today tracked with an export of a file recapitulating the status of the sample in the laboratory. It could be:



“#N/A” meaning that the file has been coded in the MBU but the import of the data has not been realized in the lab



“Electronic order received” meaning that the coding has been realized in the MBU and the data corresponding has been imported by the lab, but the file has not been coded in the lab.



“Sample logged” meaning that the file has been coded by the lab



“Sample under measurement” meaning that the analysis has started on the sample



“Partial validation” meaning that a report with the result is being generated (takes on average 15min)



“Sample validated” meaning that the report with the result has been validated

These different statuses enable to track from the MBU where the samples are, but this is also done manually by export from the eLims (by pointing and clicking). This process had just been implemented at the time of the study and therefore it has not really been used yet. An improvement of this would be to try to automatize alerts when a sample stays “to long” in the status “Electronic order received”. Indeed, samples in that category represent the one that have potentially been lost either during the transportation or at the lab before coding (those two cases being hard to differentiate with today’s methods).

Outcomes of the observations and interviews

The key insights that have been identified from this observation part are:



Losses are a critical quality problem



Technicians need easy and ergonomic solutions



Losses can occur:

o When the client pack (forget to put in samples, files etc.)



Hard to detect

o During transportation from the client to MEL (loss in the transport, package not deliver in the right address)



Hard to detect o In MEL

 Before coding (go in the trash, lost in the room)



Hard to detect

 After coding (go in the trash, not put in the right box, forgotten in the office)



“Easier” to detect

o During transportation to the European labs



Quite unlikely o In the labs



The “top 7 risks” (see Appendix 3) are:

o During decontamination, when the files are removed from the letter/packaging and spread on the table they might fall/go in the trash

o During decontamination, throw away a file with the letter/packaging

o During the end of the day scanning, when the files are spread on the table, they might fall/go in the trash

o During the handling of the NC in the computer room, have a file that falls in the trash o Once an NC has been resolved, to mix what have been treated and what hasn’t o When the packages arrive with the samples in MEL, when the boxes are flattened

and thrown away, files might be thrown away with them

o When the boxes are sent from MEL to the labs, small files might fall from the boxes during transportation



Interfaces between two stakeholders are critical riks because it creates a blur on the responsibility



Solution can be technological, organizational, in the process mode …

Literature study

Once the problems and the need are clearly identified (emphasize and definition phase), it is possible to start to generate ideas to solve them (ideation phase). Different possible solutions have been identified during workshops organized within the company. They are: re-organizing the working station and the decontamination room to optimize it, have a more “intelligent” sample bag using tracking technologies (like GPE, BLE or RFID), have more “intelligent” boxes using the same kind of technology.

This literature study aims at presenting the different possible methods and technologies in order to make the appropriate design choices.

The 5S method

The 5S method is a methodology invented by Toyota to organize and optimize the workspace (Randhawa, 2017). It is often seen as a part of what is referred as Lean Management, which is a set of tools which aims at maximizing end-value rapidly, with few costs, and at the right amount (limit wastes) (Bhasin, 2015). The 5S method is mostly used by industries on production lines but its concepts can easily be adapted to the lab work.

The method is based on 5 pillars, also called the 5S, which are Seiro (1S, sorting), Seiton (2S, set in order), Seiso (3S, shine), Seiketsu (4S, standardize) and Shitsuke (5S, sustain) (Michalska, 2007).

Seiro the first S is referring to the idea of sorting the work environment. The goal is to identify the “unnecessary” things in the work-space to perform the daily tasks. A method that can be used is the “Red label”. It consists in marking the tools that are identified as “unnecessary” with a red label and put them in another location. If the object is indeed unnecessary in the daily task, it can stay away. If the worker needs it, he can write on the label what he needed it for and how often this happen. Having a red label make it visually clear what the company wants to get rid of and how it arrives there (Michalska, 2007). After this step everything that is in the room should be needed for work and everything needed for work should be in the room.

The second S, Seiton, aims at arranging the work place. This can be done by first separating the different objects left into different categories, for example:



Things that you need rarely (less than once a month) can then be set aside (in a storage room ex.),



Things that you need once a week can be kept close by (in a shelf in the office for example)



Things that are used less than once a day but more than once a week can be on the working station



Thing that are used very frequently (at least once per hour) can be directly on the technician During this phase, the places of the different tools/objects should be unique and marked (labels, shadows) for a quick identification. A focus should be directed towards having the things in the most appropriate location (place, height, accessibility) and in the right amount (Michalska, 2007).

The next S, Seiso, represents the implementation of regular cleaning in the workplace. The

goal here is to keep the progress made in the previous steps and also to easily see problems on

machines, where it is coming from, and what maintenance could be needed. While cleaning, inspection of the workplace should be implemented to suppress the problems from the source (Michalska, 2007).

Seiketsu, the fourth S, aims at standardizing the process by writing procedures and notes, to also keep the progress made in the previous steps. This work is to be done with the technician to ensure something as close as possible to the reality and the approval of the workers. This should be as visual as possible, engaging and easy to find (Michalska, 2007).

The last S, Shitsuke, is often referred to as sustain or self-discipline. The goal here is to keep improving the progress from the previous steps, keep them in the long run and implement new ones.

In practice this also means verifying and control that the rules are respected, and keep re-applying the method on a regular basis (Michalska, 2007). This step is very important, as most of the company that failed implementing the 5S method is due to a lack of surveillance.

This method impacts the work environment both on its organization but also on the working conditions of the employee. It has benefits regarding the quality of the products, the safety, the productivity, the wastes, the stock management and the overall satisfaction of both clients and employees (Randhawa, 2017). This is a quite inexpensive method that relies mostly on the availability and acceptation of the workers (Korenko, 2014). The optimization of the flux is also expected to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the company in the long run.

Barcode technology

Barcode is an identification method that was invented in the 70s. It was first implemented to be used for the supermarket and quickly spread to other applications, mainly for logistical purposes (Raising the Barcode Scanner Technology and Productivity in the Retail Sector, 2012). It consists in a succession of black and white vertical bars with various widths. The structure is often made of a quiet zone free from any printing before the start of the barcode, a start code that present the beginning of the barcode, the data, which is the actual information encoded in the barcode, the check digit (optional) which is a mathematical sum to verify that the information read is coherent, and the stop code that indicates the end of the barcode. There are several types of barcode that can be in one or two dimensions. The barcode is read by a scanner that would classically be using a laser light. The light is absorbed by the black bars and reflected back to the scanner by the white bars enabling to descript the data (Lahiri, 2005).

The classical decoding process for barcode is presented in the figure 5.

Figure 5: Classical decoding process for barcodes (adapted from Lahiri, 2005)

A barcode can store a limited amount of information in a given space. Typically, the most popular barcode EAN (European Article Number) code store 13 digits (Finkenzeller, 2010). The limitations of barcodes also include the fact that once it is printed the information it encodes cannot be changed and is not encrypted (so can be read by anyone with a scanner). Moreover, the tags are usually read up to 20cm from the scanner and are quite sensitive to the integrity of the printing.

This is the method currently used by MEL as it is today well known in the logistical world and very easy and cheap to implement. The standard used by the company to generate them is called code 128.

QR code technology

QR codes were created as a response to a need of storing more information in a small space.

They are two-dimensional codes and can therefore store more information in less space, up to 7 089 characters. They can easily be read by any device containing a camera system. Indeed, the only need is to be able to download a QR code reading application. QR codes are also not sensitive to orientation and can be read from several directions. They also are easier to read as 30% of its data can be reconstituted (Bao, 2017).

A QR code with its typical structure is presented in figure 6.

Figure 6: QR code structure (Bao, 2017)

RFID technology

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a technology that enables to exchange information between a tag and a device via radio frequency. This technology can be found today in various very different applications like credit cards, animal identification, antitheft tags in stores, building access control (Weis, 2007) …

Transponders

A classical RFID system is made of a transponder (classically a tag) on the object and an interrogator or reader (the device) that can read (and sometimes write) the information. The transponder is made of coupling elements (classically an antenna that enables to communicate) and a microchip that store the information. A first categorization of transponders can be made by dividing them into passive and active tags. An active tag comes with its own power source, like a battery for example, and can send information all the time and be detected in wider ranges. It is also possible to add captors to the tag (Finkenzeller, 2010).

Passive tags do not have their own source of energy. The rest of the study focuses mainly on passive tags. Since they don’t have their own energy source, they are activated when in the range of the reading zone of the interrogator, otherwise they are totally passive. For most of the tags (at least 90%) this is done by using induction (Finkenzeller, 2010). When the passive tag enters in the range of the reader its antenna can detect the electromagnetic signal broadcasted by the reader. In general, induction produced by the electromagnetic waves in the tag generate an electric current that can be stored by a capacitor. Once it is charged, the capacitor releases energy to the system, that emits electromagnetic waves at a different frequency that contains the information stored in the tag. This new radio wave can then be demodulated by the reader and the data reconstituted. A simplified representation of how a passive RFID tag work is represented in figure 7 (Weinstein, 2005).

Figure 7: Schematic representation of data transfer in low-frequency RFID tags (adapted from Weinstein, 2005)

Passive tags have the advantages of being cheaper and smaller than the active tags but can only be detected on shorter distances (Weinstein, 2005).

A transponder can come in different formats depending on the application. It can be for example in a plastic housing to be protected from mechanical stress, in glass housing especially to be injected in animals, in key badges, in “smart” cards, in clocks, in labels (Finkenzeller, 2010) … Those different formats are presented in figure 8. All the tags presented there are passive tags.

Figure 8: different format for the RFID transponders (adapted from Finkenzeller, 2010) a. plastic housing; b.

glass housing; c. watch integration; d. contactless card; e. labels

a. b. c.

d. e.

The frequencies used in RFID technology can range from 30 Hz to more than 3 GHz and are divided into Low Frequencies (LF, 30 to 300 kHz), High Frequencies (HF, 3 to 30 MHz), Ultra High Frequencies (UHF, 300 MHz to 3 GHz) and microwaves (around 3 GHz) (Finkenzeller, 2010). The exact frequencies that can be used are determined by the legislation in the different countries (Lahiri, 2005). The frequencies affect the distance at which the tag is readable. LF and HF are typically readable around 1 to 10 cm, while UHF and microwaves are readable around 3 meters (Weis, 2007).

When a tag operates in less than one wavelength of the electromagnetic field it is referred as near field communication (this is the case of LF and HF tags) and if the tag operates beyond one wavelength it is referred to as far field (this is the case for UHF and microwaves tags) (Lahiri, 2005).

Therefore, LF will have more application for access control or contactless payments that require an almost direct contact, while UHF could find more application in supply chain. LF are also less sensitive to absorption by metal, water, or nonconductive substances while microwaves are less affected by electromagnetic interference generated by robots or electric motors (Finkenzeller, 2010; Lahiri, 2005). The table 2 gives some example of materials’ properties regarding radio frequencies.

Table 2 : Materials' properties regarding radio frequencies (adapted from Lahiri, 2005)

Material LF HF UHF Microwave

Clothing RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent Dry wood RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-absorbent Graphite RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-opaque RF-opaque Liquids (some types) RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-absorbent RF-absorbent Metals RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-opaque RF-opaque Motor oil RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent Paper products RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent Plastics (some types) RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-lucent Shampoo RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-absorbent RF-absorbent Water RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-absorbent RF-absorbent Wet wood RF-lucent RF-lucent RF-absorbent RF-absorbent

The term RF-lucent refers to the fact that the waves pass through the material without loss of energy. RF-opaque refers to a material that totally block the waves. RF-absorbent refers to the fact that the wave passes through the material but lose some of its energy.

Transponders can be delivered already written (with a serial number for example) or be writable, once or several times. Read-only transponders often broadcast continuously their information. In order to avoid data collision, only one tag should be in the reader zone of detection.

A RFID transponder can store information from a few bytes to several kilobytes. There is on the market tags able to carry 1 byte of information, that enables two state “the tag is in the range of the reader” or “the tag is not” that often used to detect shoplifting or to perform shelf monitoring. Read- only tags and 1-byte tags are the simplest and therefore cheapest kinds of tags. Writable tags can often store more information and support anti-collision procedures (Finkenzeller, 2010). The action of writing a tag and associating it with a unique object is often supported by the reader (Lahiri, 2005).

The price of a transponders differs mostly according to the frequency used. UHF tags typically

range from 0.04 € to 0.10€, while HF tags more around 0.50€, depending on the supplier.

Readers

A reader is generally composed of a transmitter, a receiver, a microprocessor, a memory system, input and output channels (for external sensors etc.), a controller, communication interface and a power supply (Lahiri 2005). A schematic representation of an example of reader is presented in figure 9.

Figure 9: Schematic representation of an example of RFID reader (Lahiri 2005)

The transmitter enables to transmit the signal to the transponders via antennas, which can be one or several by the transmitter. The receiver receives the electromagnetic waves generated by the transponder via antennas, convert it and transmit it to the microprocessor. The compound is then in charge of decoding the signal and “read” the tags’ information. A sensor added to the reader can enable the system to be activated only at given period of time, for example using a motion of light sensor, and in that way save energy. The input or output channels can also be connected to annunciator that can send a signal like an alarm when a tag is read, or to actuators that can command an action like closing a door. The controller enables to control the readers (and sensors, annunciators, actuators …). It can be a part of the reader and merge with the communication interface (Lahiri, 2005).

The readers like the transponders can be divided into different categories. First a distinction can be made between serial and network readers. A serial reader communicates with what is referred as serial communication (Lahiri 2005). In serial communication, bits are sent one by one to deliver the information. It is opposed to parallel communication, where all the bits are sent at the same time, which is more expensive because it requires more hardware (Frenzel, 2016). Serial readers have to be physically connected to the computer. This type of reader has the advantage of being more reliable than the network readers but might generate a higher maintenance costs and operation downtime.

On the other hand, network readers use networks to be connected to the computer. It is therefore often easier to install, and to upgrade from distance. But as said above it is less reliable and is very dependent on the performance of the network. If the network does not work, the data from the tags cannot be accessed. This can be attenuated if the reader has an appropriate memory system (Lahiri, 2005).

Readers can be stationary, fixed or mobile (handheld). A stationary reader would be

physically stationary (Lahiri, 2005). This is typically the readers at the entrance of a shop to prevent

shop lifting. RFID printers that can generate so called “smart labels” are also stationary readers (Lahiri, 2005). A smart label is an ensemble of typically a bar code (or a QR cade) and RFID tag. This enables to read the tag both with RFID systems and more traditional bar code systems. A stationary reader would typically be able to give the following information: the tag ID, the time of reading, how long it has stayed in the reading zone, the antenna that detected the tag and the reader name (Lahiri, 2005).

Handheld system would be a smaller version of reader that can fit in hands. They would therefore come with integrated antennas and be more expensive (Lahiri, 2005).

The antenna attached to the reader can emit a linear or a circular polarized electromagnetic wave. Linear beams are often narrower and oriented towards one direction. This is therefore interesting for application where it is perfectly known how the tag is positioned. Indeed, linear polarized antennas are sensitive to tag orientation. An advantage of this technology is that it has a longer read range. Circular polarized antennas emit a circular polarized electromagnetic wave resulting in a wider beam. This technique is less sensitive to tag orientation but has a shorter read range (Lahiri, 2005).

A reader in general can only read one tag at a time. This means that in order to be able to read several tags in the same location the reader must use what is called anti-collision algorithms (Lahiri, 2005). Collision problems could also happen not between the tags but between readers them self. It is therefore necessary to either have them far enough to not have their read range overlapping, or set them to broadcast on different times (Lahiri, 2005).

Pros and cons

As presented in the previous chapters, the RFID technology is contactless and therefore does not require a contact between the technician and the object. This can enable a considerate gain of time. It can also be available in a large range of frequencies and can store more information if necessary than a barcode. The time to read a tag is moreover very short and therefore enable to read quickly a large number of tags using anti-collision algorithms.

Writable tags also offer the possibility to rewrite information on the same tag over 10 000 times (Lahiri, 2005) which make the object tagged highly reusable if needed. However, reusing tags might generate extra costs in the process (sending objects back …).

RFID technology also offer the advantage of being able to read tags through some material depending on the frequency (see table 2). On the other hand, this might generate security issues as tags could be read by anyone as long as they are in the range of a reader.

RFID technologies also present limitations. Indeed, they are highly sensitive to their environment (material around but also machines and other electromagnetic noise generators). The number of tags that can be read “at the same time” are also limited by the anti-collision algorithms.

Another strong limitation of RFID system is their price.

Other technologies

Other kinds of technologies could also come to mind for traceability. For example, GPS,

Bluetooth Low Energy, ultrasounds, and artificial intelligence …

GPS (Global Positioning System) is a way of determining on object’s position anywhere on the Earth using radio waves (McNamara, 2004). Satellites in the earth orbit emit the electromagnetic waves that contains amongst other things, a time information and position. The receptors on Earth that pics up a signal can then calculate its distance to the satellite. By knowing its distance to several satellites, it is possible to know the receiver’s exact location (Hofmann-Wellenhof, 2001). This system is in general accurate within 15m (McNamara, 2004).

A GPS chip is usually around a few hundreds of euros (McNamara, 2004). In order to function, the GPS chip needs a source of energy with it (battery or directly connected to the energy network).

Bluetooth low energy is a technology enabling communication between a receiver and a beacon via radio waves around 2.4 GHz. BLE can typically communicate on a distance around 2 to 5m (Townsend, 2013). In order to properly function, both the beacon and the receiver have to have an energy supply.

The price of one BLE beacon is estimated to range from 2€ to 20€ depending on the supplier.

The other technologies have been excluded from this study as they were seen as too expensive or complicated to implement.

Design of the intelligent bag

An idea to reduce the losses of samples and files that emerged during workshops, is to have a sample bag that can be easily located. This means that the company would know at almost any time where the samples bags are in the buildings or identify key moments and points where the company want the information.

Amongst the different tracking technologies that have been identified and presented in the literature study, the RFID seems to be the best solution as it is the less expensive and does not require any source of energy.

The RFID labels

Possible business cases

A solution to quickly identify the samples would be to use RFID labels instead of the classical paper labels. In order to see where the RFID technology could make sense, a business-flow diagram of MEL’s business has been realized and is presented in figure 10.

Figure 10: Business-flow diagram

The diagram presents the classical path for samples in MEL. On the figure, the steps involving human counting and barcode reading have been marked as they represent potential opportunities for the use of RFID. Bottlenecks, that is to say a location where every sample has to pass, have also been marked as they represent points that can be interesting to monitor with the RFID technology.

The two main bottlenecks identified are when the samples of the day are delivered at Saint-Herblain and then when they leave for the labs. It is then possible to imagine three main moments to tag the samples: either at the client, in the MBU or in the lab. As the scope of this study is focusing on the work in Saint-Herblain, only the two first options will be investigated. But it is important to keep in mind that for the business, the RFID can also have very interesting outcomes for the laboratories.

If the samples are tagged in the MBU, this means that the process would be similar as to what it is today until after coding. Therefore, this solution would only tackle the risks occurring after the labeling step. But, as presented in Appendix 3, the two major risks occur before.

On the other hand, tagging the sample at the client enable a tracking along all the chain of value and also gives the opportunity of deeply rethinking the processes from the beginning. For those reasons, the study will focus more this option.

The recommended technology to use

For this project, passive tags appear as more appropriate, as the application does not require very long-distance reading or captors. The technology that seems the more adequate is the UHF.

Indeed, the application here would require being able to read tags from a distance (about a meter).

Moreover, as the samples are in plastic bag and are not liquid (water is UFH absorbent see table 2) or made of metal, UHF tags should work. UHF tags are also cheaper and easier to buy in bulk.

Another solution could be to use mixed technology (both UHF and HF tags). This could enable to read from both shorter and longer range, and enable reading with a smart phone. The price of the tags would be the one of an HF tag. In first approach this option is not the one developed in the rest of the study.

A tag could be already written (and then be associated with a file: typically, if send to the customer) or Write Once, Read Many (WORM) if coded in the MBU. There is no need for the tags to be rewritable for this application.

The new process

Based on the previous assumptions, and to optimize the usage of the RFID technology, the following new business case is proposed. Several possibilities are given for certain steps.

Experimentation will enable to properly choose the most suitable option.

As presented earlier, in order to have traceability from the beginning of the chain of value, it is necessary to implement it with the client. He would have to order to MEL, before his sample collection, bags that are pre-labeled with an RFID tag. Those bags could be prepared by the technicians at MEL by manually sticking labels on plastic freezing bags size 10x15cm. But since this task would require very low qualification, it can be externalized either to the label supplier or to an ESAT (Establishments that propose in France jobs for handicapped people who cannot work in an ordinary company).

The label would be composed of the logo of MEL, a barcode or QR-code, a number of

identifications with the same information, a RFID tag also encoded with the same information, and a

text reminding of the good practice of double bagging. Figure 11 propose a visual for this new label.

Figure 11: Example of new RFID label text says “Remember to double-bag your samples”

Once an order of bags has been done, MEL would prepare it and send it to the client. The sampling technician will have to use it during his collection to double-bag all the samples. Another solution could be to send only the labels that the sampling technician would stick. This would cost less to MEL as it does not have to give away plastic bags for free, and limit the risk of two labels on one sample, but it might meet a lower engagement of the clients.

When filling their purchasing order, the client will have to indicate as a number for the sample the number on the label (either by scanning it or by entering it “by hand”). This would enable a link in the software between a bag and the sample.

Once the purchase has been made, the client can send the samples and the PO to MEL. The PO would not really be necessary for the process anymore, but would serve as a backup.

At the reception at Saint-Herblain, the packages would as previously be passed through the window and set on the reception table. At this stage, being able to detect one sample per file is the minimum required, as the information of which files were received is the most crucial. Several options are then possible. In the first one, MEL would acquire a dock door. This would theoretically enable to detect all the samples in a package before opening. Tests must be conducted beforehand to verify the maximum number of tags detectable by the dock door, and under what time. If it is made sure that at least one sample per file is detected, by retrieving the information from the software, it will then be possible to make the link.

Another solution could be to have instead of a dock door, a reader under the reception table.

As the packages would be opened, the files would be passed one by one over the reader, making sure to detect at least one tag. This solution requires more actions from the technician but is safer and cheaper than the previous one.

The last option at this stage could be to have a portable scanner and scan by hand the files one by one. This would be even cheaper but require even more action from the technician.

Then, as in the current process, the files are divided between the technicians according to

the priorities. The technician still would set his working station on the desired time and destination

and open a box next to the hood. What would be different is that under the hood a small reader

would be installed, with a short range (about 50cm) to enable to scan only what is under the hood. If

the range is too long, it is possible to shield the hood using typically chicken wire or aluminum foil.

The samples would be handled one by one under the hood. The technician would press a button to launch the reading. As the samples are decontaminated one by one, they would pass over the scanner and be detected. Once the decontamination is over and all the samples have been passed, the technician could press a stop button. This would then be interfaced with the software that will be able to retrieve the order, and verify that all the samples are present. In case of non- compliance the software could send different errors messages:

- “The order is not recognizing”, if no order is associated to any of these sample

- “The sample XX does not belong to the order YYY of 12 samples but belong to the order ZZZ of 75 samples”, if there is an extra sample associated to another order

- “The sample XX does not belong to the order YYY of 12 samples, and does not belong to the any other order”, if there is an extra sample not associated to another order

- “The sample XXX is missing”, if a sample is missing - Or any combination of the previous messages

If the file is compliant, the technician would save it, and put all the samples in a new plastic bag and deposit it in the box next to the working station. A file label can still be printed in a transition period to facilitate the work in the labs. This new process would remove the necessity to sort the samples anymore, and to not have to stick a label on each, gaining significant time on this step.

When all of the files have been treated, the inside of the boxes need to be rescanned.

Several processes can again be imagined:

- A bit like in the current process, the box is emptied under the hood and the files scanned one by one with the hood’s reader

- The technician uses the reception table reader, enabling him to be standing

- The technician passes the box in a dock door, so it can scan the inside without having to empty it. As presented before, this option would enable the biggest gain of time but would be more expensive and requires testing to validate that every file is indeed scanned

Once scanned, the boxes could be sealed and sent to the labs.

At the end of the day, the trashes can be scanned with a hand scanner to know if they contain any files that have been misplaced.

In case a file is suspected to have been misplaced, a search option is available on almost every hand reader. The closer you get to the researched tag, the louder the reader gets.

In the labs one of the first actions is to recount all the samples per file. This could be done by taking advantages of the RFID technology. As previously different option could be imaginable: using a fixed table reader, using a hand reader, or using a dock door.

The RFID technology could also enhance the productivity and traceability during the analysis

by knowing when the sample passes through strategic points. Improvement can also be forsaken in

the de-archiving process. The subject of improvement from the analysis and after could be the scope of another study.

Figure 12 presents the new business case. The red boxes are actions carried by the clients, blue actions carried by MEL and green by the labs.

Figure 12: New business case using RFID technology

Barcode vs QR code

On the label today barcodes are being used, but it could be beneficial to convert them into QR-codes. Indeed, if the sample bags are sent pre-tagged to the customers, they would have to fill out the number of the bag on the purchasing order. But this is likely to be quite long (around 20 digits) and therefore tiring to enter by hand. A QR-code would be easy to read with a smartphone, and do not really require any specific reader or application. Moreover, QR-codes take less space for the same amount of information and are less sensitive to deterioration (as the data can be partially recovered). This is an important criteria considering the different transportations the labels would undergo.

Economic considerations

The cost of losses

The cost of losing samples has been assessed for 2020. The calculation includes the time

spent on looking for sample and the extra actions implemented, the financial compensation, the

money not gained and the lost clients. Figure 13 presents the total estimation and the repartition of

the costs.

Figure 13: Estimation of the costs associated to sample loses

It is estimated that the lost samples and the search for them represented a loss of 14 100 € for MyEasyLab. The time spent in Saint-Herblain looking for them account for the biggest part of it (around 54%).

This calculation does not include another important cost for the company that is damages to its image.

Possibility of gain using RFID

In first approach the possible gains from using the RFID labels are estimated around 25 300 € in the MBU. This is mostly time gained on the searched of lost files and samples, but also under the hood. Indeed, in the new process, the technicians would not have to sort the samples and stick label on every samples. This would represent a gain of around 4h15 of technician time per day. This estimation has been made with linear regression on time measurement of the different steps under the hood.

For the labs, the gain of time is estimated in first approach around 1h per day for the reception. This approximation is probably a minimum. To have a better estimate, the same time measurement is to be done with the technicians in the labs.

Costs of the RFID solution

A first estimate of costs of the RFID solution has been realized with suppliers’ information.

The equipment taken in the calculation are two hand readers (one for each technician), three fixed

scanners (one the reception table, and one for each hood), one printer, and cost of external

implementation. Table 3 is recapitulating the different equipment, their number and costs.

Table 3: Cost estimate of RFID project

Price TTC (€) Quantity Total cost (€) Consumables

UHF tag 0.07 520000 36400

Investments

Hand reader 1500 2 3000

Fixed reader 3000 3 9000

Printer 3500 1 3500

Additional external intervention 10% of the project 1 5190

Total 57 090 €

The different costs have been separated between consumables that need to be bought every year and investments that are estimated to be renewed every 7 years.

The price of the tag of 0.07 € is an average value. The UHF tag price can vary from 0.04 € to 0.10 € depending on the supplier.

The total cost of implementing it is estimated around 57 000 €. It does not include the IT development required in-house on the software and the logistical cost of sending bags.

Cost per sample

With the hypothesis made above, the cost per sample is around 0.076 €. But if the gains of time at the MBU are considered, the cost is of 0.027 €/sample.

If it is considered that the labs would pay for half of the tag they receive (since they will also benefit from it), the cost goes down to -0.007 €. This means that the solution would actually enable to gain money and increase traceability.

The possible return on investment would be depending on the deployment of the solution (the percentage of client using the solution) and the initial price of the tag.

Regarding the deployment of the solution, figure 13 presents the cost per sample tagged

with RFID according to the percentage of clients using it.