{"id":2123,"date":"2018-07-19T10:14:44","date_gmt":"2018-07-19T08:14:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.blogs.yokogawa.de\/chemical-pharma\/uncategorized\/process-analytical-technology-is-expensive-isnt-it\/"},"modified":"2022-06-17T09:28:23","modified_gmt":"2022-06-17T07:28:23","slug":"process-analytical-technology-is-expensive-isnt-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yokogawa.com\/eu\/blog\/chemical-pharma\/en\/process-analytical-technology-is-expensive-isnt-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Process analytical technology is expensive, isn\u2019t it?"},"content":{"rendered":"

At the NAMUR Annual General Meeting<\/a> in November 2017, one presentation particularly caught my attention: the one dealing with the value added by process analytical technology in the process industry<\/a> by Gerlach, Gr\u00fcmbel, Sch\u00fcnemann and Stieler.<\/p>\n

Not how, but why?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

At long last, someone asked not how to make PAT (that\u2019s a topic for the relevant working groups) but what PAT can do to help. It tends to be the how and the what that are discussed at meetings or in forums everywhere. The question of why we\u2019re doing it is only rarely raised, regardless of the context.<\/p>\n

PAT adds value<\/strong><\/h3>\n

What are the benefits of PAT and what value does it add for the process industry? What contribution does it make?<\/p>\n

Two alternatives are presented here: on the one hand, there are laboratory analyses which enable the quality of a product to be reliably verified. They check that the product has all of the features (specifications) laid down by the customer \u2013 which could be important from the point of view of the warranty, for instance. I know whether my process has worked, i.e. in the final step we confirm that everything has gone according to plan. The PAT measurements are verified at the same time.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, we have PAT (process analytical technology), which delivers accurate results continuously and as close as possible to real time.\u00a0 We monitor the process and correct any deviations as soon as they occur. In other words, we don\u2019t simply check whether the outcome is right; we make sure that the outcome will<\/em> be right. We \u201csee\u201d what happens.<\/p>\n

PAT \u2013 the eyes in the process<\/strong><\/h3>\n

What value is added by eyes?<\/strong> Imagine you\u2019ve been told to paint a room. The lamps have been taken down, so you\u2019ll have to do it in the dark. When you\u2019ve finished, the laboratory analyst \u2013 or in this case, the master decorator \u2013 comes along with his lamp. That\u2019s when you see all the places you missed while you were painting in the dark.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s only one thing for it: you\u2019ll have to go over (at least) those places again, and the mahogany door that got painted as well because you couldn\u2019t see what you were doing will have to be replaced. Okay, so the person who owns the room remained blissfully unaware, but it was expensive all the same. And just think what else might have happened! The value added by eyes needs no further explanation. But more about that later.<\/p>\n

I particularly liked the rather provocative title of one of the slides in that presentation: PAT is expensive, isn\u2019t it?<\/em> Yes, of course, PAT is expensive. PAT solutions are rarely \u201cone size fits all\u201d. PAT solutions are generally customized solutions which vary from one process, or from one user, to another: the choice of a suitable analyzer, the design of the sample conditioning system, the installation position, safety and so on. Even users\u2019 trade secrets are built into some of them. After all, a made-to-measure suit is more expensive than one purchased off the rack \u2013 but then again, it fits perfectly. As custom tailors for PAT solutions, we know what we\u2019re talking about.<\/p>\n

And what about maintenance?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

And the maintenance costs are high, aren\u2019t they?<\/em> PAT solutions obviously have to be maintained too \u2013 calibration, cleaning, checking, the sampling system, replacements for worn parts and the occasional repair are unavoidable (PAT systems are often defective or faulty, aren\u2019t they?<\/em>). And that work has to be done by someone with PAT experience. At any rate, the authors \u2013 all of them users and PAT experts \u2013 testify to 98% availability as normal for a PAT solution<\/strong>. And provided NAMUR Recommendation NE 146 is observed, it can also be used in a SIS! The message: yes, PAT is a viable option.<\/p>\n

The final question for me is whether PAT ultimately adds enough value to justify the application or the investment? According to the authors, there is a more expensive alternative to PAT \u2013 namely no PAT, eyes blindfold. If you take a look at a list of typical PAT applications, you\u2019ll see that a payback period of 3 to 24 months<\/strong> is realistic. That isn\u2019t long, especially compared to the plants themselves. Can something really be expensive when the payback period is so short? I think it\u2019s great that, for once, concrete figures are openly communicated.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d be very interested to hear about your experience of PAT and the value it adds for you. PAT owners, please contact us!<\/strong><\/h3>\n

I also recommend that you read the German article in PROCESS<\/a> 1\/2 2018 \u201cSprung in die Digitalisierung\u201d, particularly the last section.<\/p>\n

And for another exciting post on PAT<\/strong>, see:<\/p>\n