1 / 20

Glassware Effects on PBM Measurements

Glassware Effects on PBM Measurements. Discovery at Remote Site in WI. 12-10-06 04:10:00 CONT B OKF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .066 0.138 4311 0.471 12-10-06 04:15:00 CONT A NPF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .053 .000 0 .000

Michelle
Télécharger la présentation

Glassware Effects on PBM Measurements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Glassware Effects on PBM Measurements

  2. Discovery at Remote Site in WI • 12-10-06 04:10:00 CONT B OKF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .066 0.138 4311 0.471 • 12-10-06 04:15:00 CONT A NPF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .053 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 04:20:00 CONT B NPF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .058 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 04:25:00 CONT A OKF 2 300 5.01 0.136 .054 0.148 40632 4.482 • 12-10-06 04:30:00 CONT B OKF 3 300 5.01 0.136 .055 0.256 502887 55.011 • 12-10-06 04:35:00 CONT A OKF 3 300 5.01 0.136 .072 0.141 18436 2.034 • 12-10-06 04:40:00 CONT B NPF 3 300 5.01 0.136 .065 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 04:45:00 CONT A NPF 4 300 5.01 0.136 .061 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 04:50:00 CONT B NPF 4 300 5.01 0.136 .072 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 04:55:00 CONT A NPF 4 300 5.01 0.136 .056 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 05:00:00 CONT B NPF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .049 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 05:05:00 CONT A NPF 1 300 5.01 0.136 .064 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 05:10:00 CONT B OK 0 300 5.00 0.136 .060 0.146 33321 0.781 • 12-10-06 05:15:00 CONT A OK 0 300 5.01 0.136 .069 0.149 45063 1.065 • 12-10-06 13:10:00 CONT B OKF 1 300 5.01 0.133 .057 0.138 13131 1.435 • 12-10-06 13:15:00 CONT A OKF 1 300 5.01 0.133 .067 0.137 12248 1.352 • 12-10-06 13:20:00 CONT B OKF 1 300 5.01 0.133 .067 0.136 6524 0.713 • 12-10-06 13:25:00 CONT A OKF 2 300 5.01 0.133 .066 0.164 120656 13.315 • 12-10-06 13:30:00 CONT B OKF 3 300 5.01 0.133 .057 0.357 940133 102.801 • 12-10-06 13:35:00 CONT A OKF 3 300 5.01 0.133 .098 0.143 33438 3.690 • 12-10-06 13:40:00 CONT B NPF 3 300 5.01 0.133 .069 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 13:45:00 CONT A OKF 4 300 5.01 0.133 .051 0.136 8431 0.930 • 12-10-06 13:50:00 CONT B NPF 4 300 5.01 0.133 .058 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 13:55:00 CONT A NPF 4 300 5.01 0.133 .057 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 14:00:00 CONT B NPF 1 300 5.01 0.133 .057 .000 0 .000 • 12-10-06 14:05:00 CONT A NPF 1 300 5.01 0.133 .068 .000 0 .000

  3. RPF Would Read Both High and Low

  4. Sum of Results, Dynamic vs Others Which RPF is Right?

  5. Horicon Co-Location Study • Horicon is AMNet WI-07, since 2011 • Extra instrumentation provided by AMNet, multiple audits by Mark Olson throughout study • Study intended to investigate RPF effects • Two instruments between 09/2013 and 09/2014 • Three instruments between 09/2014 and 01/2015

  6. Horicon Co-Location Study, GEM

  7. Horicon Co-Location Study Initial Phase (09/2013 – 04/2014) • Compare Typical RPFs to establish variability • Confirm Dynamic RPF • Swap between instruments to confirm readings related to RPF, not other instrumental effect • Frequent inlet flow measurements

  8. “Typical” RPFs, Swapped

  9. “Dynamic” vs “Typical”, Swapped

  10. Horicon Co-Location Study, PBM

  11. Horicon Co-Location Study Second Phase (04/2014 – 08/2014) • Typical RPFs only in primary system (reported to AMNet) • Clean High Reading RPF in stages (stem only, remove quartz wool, acid/water/methanol wash) • Repeated for 2 High Reading RPFs

  12. Progression of Cleaning RPF, 05 – 07/2014

  13. Horicon Co-Location Study, PBM

  14. Horicon Co-Location Study Final Phase (09/2014 – 01/2015) • Typical RPFs only in primary system • Confirm effectiveness of cleaning • Evaluate additional RPFs • Clean Low Reading RPF, Not completed prior to end of study

  15. Horicon Co-Location Study, PBM

  16. Dynamic/Typical/TypicalPBM 09/17/2014 – 10/28/2014

  17. Typical/Typical/TypicalPBM 11/26/2014 – 12/16/2014

  18. Did the Cleaning Work??PBM 12/30/2014 – 1/15/2015

  19. Horicon Co-Location Study • Overall, 9 RPFs Used: 1 “Dynamic”, 1 BECAME “Dynamic”, 6 “Typical”, 1 consistent Low Reader • While cleaning did appear to convert “Dynamic” RPFs to “Typical” status, they quickly returned to “Dynamic” status. Does this imply more frequent cleaning required, or is it an artifact from the cleaning being completed in summer? • Note in final slide how sometimes all 3 RPFs line up, but at other times both “Dynamic” pieces responding much more strongly. Does this indicate preferential capture of different PBM forms?

  20. Glassware Effects on PBM Measurements Which RPFs are more accurate? What are we measuring? Where do we go from here??

More Related