POST 00242 : PIS 2000

Post00242 PIS 2000 13 April 2000 CONTENTS 1. PRODUCT INFORMATION SHEETS 2000: DISCUSSION 2. EQUIPMENT IN THE PIS The Product Information Sheets (PIS) are contained in the joint WHO/UNICEF 1997 publication Product Information Sheets[WHO/EPI/LHIS/97.01] and the in Product Information Sheets 1998 Supplement to the 1997 edition [WHO/EPI/LHIS/98.04]. The product information sheets are currently being revised by WHO/V&B/EPI and will be updated to include newly qualified equipment, Temperature - Zones, and low temperature protection. Paul Mallins, WHO/V&B/EPI, has kindly posted the proposed format for the product information sheets. The files are now available for download! E3-Current-PIS-Format-27.03.00.PDF and E3-Proposed-PIS-Format-27.03.00.PDF Paul requests your comments on the new format. Comments to: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] * The files are available for download send an email to: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] with this message: get technet E3-Current-PIS-Format-27.03.00.PDF get technet E3-Proposed-PIS-Format-27.03.00.PDF or on the web at: ftp://ftp.acithn.uq.edu.au/Technet/1-ClickHereForTECHNETfiles/ click on the folder: PIS-2000 Then select the files as above. ____________________________________*______________________________________ 1. PRODUCT INFORMATION SHEETS 2000: DISCUSSION In TECHNET Post00238, NEW! PIS 2000, 4 April 2000, Paul Malinson, WHO/EPI, requested comment on a sample Product Information Sheet for use in the revised 2000 edition. Soren Spanner, WHO/SEARO/EPI, and Hans Everts, WHO/EPI, discuss the PIS format and its simplification, clarification, and additions & deletions! Allan Bass, TFM, requests that information on freeze protection and low temperature cutouts be included in equipment descriptions. Comments to: [[email protected]][email protected][/email], [[email protected]][email protected][/email] Action, comments and additions please: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] or use your reply button ___________________________________________________________________________ From: "Spanner, Mr. Soren" To: [[email protected]][email protected][/email], "'Technet Moderator'" Subject: RE: Post00338 NEW! PIS 2000 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:58:16 +0530 Paul, A few words on the sample PIS R134A should be R134a For VESTFROST ILRs. There is a note, not to store DPT,TTetc. in the bottom, that is very wrong. The bottom, though it may sound strange is the warmest place in the ILR (that is because of the IPs for the ice-lining being in the upper part. I recommend the note be removed. At the same time VESTFROST must remove the stickers saying not to store DPT etc. Vestfrost has an e-mail address, one is: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] Tel and fax nos. should read +45 7914 2222 +45 7914 2355 I believe that power consumption should be available from VESTFROST What I think is important is: * Not to mislead the user buyer by saying and issue warnings "do not store DPT etc... below this line" when it is actually the safest place, I'm only talking about the VESTFROST ILRs. IN SHORT, DO NOT PUT THESE WARNINGS. * In the future when new test specs are made and introduced, there will be no temps below 0. Best regards Soren Spanner Technical Officer Cold Chain & Logistics Tel.: +91 11 331 7804 Fax.:+91 11 335 2106 --- From: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:48:54 +0200 To: , , Subject: RE: Post00338 NEW! PIS 2000 Soren, You are right. All these warnings should disappear. We do have plenty test reports though, showing that the bottom is the coldest place, but I know you did other tests, indicating the opposite. Anyway, the sheet Paul sent was not finalised in that regard. The issue was whether we should simplify all sheets and give only information that is really necessary to make the choice. What the user basically needs to know is that the appliance passed the tests, which implies that temperatures during the tests were between 0?C and 8?C. To add the precise temperatures, as is currently done in the PIS, does not give any additional useful information and occupies space that could be used for other issues, or just left empty. It may even lead to confusion, because the precise temperatures can not really be used as basis for decision making. The purpose of sending the sheet was therefore more to get feedback on what Technet members think about minimising the information given in the sheets to what is really necessary for decision makers. Regards Hans Everts Technical Officer EPI WHO Geneva Tel: 00 41 33 791 3863 --- From: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:56:01 +0200 To: , , Subject: RE: Post00338 NEW! PIS 2000 Soren, I agree, but we asked for comments on the way we want to simplify the sheets and not on the specific contents. All sheets are at presents drafts and as we discussed already, the warnings should disappear. So please give me feedback about the idea of taking all redundant information out of the sheets. regards, Hans ---- From: "Spanner, Mr. Soren" To: "EVERTS.J." , , , Subject: RE: Post00338 NEW! PIS 2000 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:28:32 +0530 Hans, OK, take away the redundant stuff. Include kWh/24h "** Gross volume is excluded the volume taken by icelining" I don't think that sentence makes much sense. What does it mean? What we need to know is how much volume can be used for vaccine storage. SPECIFICATIONS: I don't think there is any need for saying cooling refrigerant, just refrigerant 134a SPARES NEEDED PER 10 UNITS: Should be revised. It does not make sense to spend $35 for 920g R134a. COMMENTS AND ACCESSORIES: Voltage stabilizer with minimum 5-min. delay ACCESSORIES: I presume you mean lockable lid. Best regards Soren --- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:36:03 +1000 To: [[email protected]][email protected][/email], [[email protected]][email protected][/email] From: Allan Bass Subject: Re PIS 2000 Dear Paul, In addition to the points made by others, I would like to see information on freeze protection and low temperature cutouts included in equipment descriptions. I suggest a check box for indicating that active or passive low temperature protection is fitted to the equipment or is available as an add on. regards, allan ____________________________________*______________________________________ 2. EQUIPMENT IN THE PIS Anthony Battersby, FBA, loks at the proposed PIS changes and then suggests other issues that need to be addressed in this revision of the PIS. Contributions, comments and additions please: [[email protected]][email protected][/email] or use your reply button ___________________________________________________________________________ Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:04:53 -0400 From: Anthony Battersby Subject: Equipment in the PIS To: technet moderator Dear Allan, The request for comments on the new PIS set me looking into the old PIS. I have some comments and questions. I do not think that the proposed changes should be adopted. If the internal temperatures are not shown then you have no idea how well the unit is functioning. The example shown in the old format indicates that the unit exceeds the safe temperatures at +43 degC. If lower specified units such as the E3/90 are to be shown in the PIS then the day night range performance is vital. They are likely to behave unsatisfactorily in a 32/15degC cycle leading to freezing at night. Why leave out the information that the unit is available with different voltages? I think the PIS needs a glossary of terms. For example what do two ++ mean? What do numbers in () mean. What does -M in the code mean? What is a LST compressor? Warning notices need to be much clearer, maybe the code should enable the purchaser to see at once the suitability of the equipment. I suspect that people look at the price first and last. There is some unclear English eg Gross volume is excluded the volume taken by icelining On a separate but associated issue. Some time ago we discussed the issue of accepting different standards in the PIS, I note that the supplement to the 1997 PIS has two refrigerators E3/90-M and E3/89-M. These are both refrigerators that only keep vaccine safey up to +32 degC. They cost a great deal less than say the Sibir or the Electrolux units. Have they been supplied to countries? If so is there any data available on how these units have functioned in the field? Are those responsible for selecting equipment choosing the correct equipment for the situation or choosing by price? I think we should know if including variable standards is working before the new edition of the PIS is finalised, because if it is not then we should reconsider how the inclusion of lower standard equipment is handled. Thanks Anthony ____________________________________*________________________