[labnetwork] updated survey

[Ian Harvey]

Hear, Hear!

Great question!  

Though another possible benefit is to our students and their potential employers.  We are an educational institution, after all.  If it looks like a fab and acts like a fab then maybe we give our students the credibility to be hired by a fab because they have not become lazy.  Too, we hope that when inside the fab they also act thoughtfully and deliberately around some of the dangerous materials they work with.  

When I worked in industry, we generally regarded the air showers as not being very helpful to the cause of particle reduction, but the ritual of gowning and the air shower created a transition space for both thought and behavior:  when inside the cleanroom, there are certain behaviors (such as running) that you simply do not do here.  Fortunately we have not built the expense of an air shower into our research cleanroom, but our students are already so prone to taking shortcuts that I wonder if the bunnysuit-assisted culture of "act and think differently here" isn't worth it.

Let the debate rage on!

—Ian Harvey
Utah Nanofab

On May 17, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Paolini, Steven wrote:

Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that’s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the “wrap em’ up”  method, but my perennial question is “at what expense?” Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room’s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance.
After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren’t fully gowned but that’s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a “non value add” activity? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space?
I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It’s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it’s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product.
 Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ?
Thanks for listening.
 
 
Steve Paolini
Principal Equipment Engineer
Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems
11 Oxford St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
617- 496- 9816
spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu
www.cns.fas.harvard.edu
 
From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey
 
Here’s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks.
 
On a side note, I did a video audit of our “Honor System” run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity.
 
Institution
System
FTE's
Interlocks
Total
52% Home Grown
0.60
83.3%
UC Davis
Badger
0.25
Yes
University of Houston
Home Grown
0.0025
No
Stanford
Badger
0
Yes
University of Utah
Coral
1
Yes
University of Freiburg
Home Grown/w Coral
1
Yes
MIT
Coral
1
Yes
Delft University
Phoenix
2
Yes
University of Delaware
FOM
0.1
Yes
UNC
Home Grown
0.1
No
UC San Diego
FOM
0.25
Yes
University of Louisville
FOM
0.1
Yes
UMass Lowell
FOM
0.2
No
Purdue
Ilab
2
Yes
EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland:
Home Grown
1
Yes
Cal-Tech
Home Grown/Labrunr
0.3
Yes
University of Texas
Home Grown
0.2
Yes
Harvard
Home Grown
0.1
Yes
Berkeley
Home Grown
0.75
Yes
UCSB
Home Grown/SignupMonkey
0.125
No
Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF)
Home Grown/w Coral
1
Yes
Georgia Tech
Home Grown SUMS
2
Yes
Columbia University
Badger
0
Yes
University of Alberta
Home Grown LMACS
0.5
Yes
University of Florida
Home Grown
0.5
Yes
 
Best Regards
 
Tom
 
Thomas S. Ferraguto
Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director
Saab ETIC Building Director
1 University Avenue
Lowell MA 01854
Mobile 617-755-0910
Land 978-934-1809
Fax 978-934-1014
 
 
_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20170517/d3eef6b3/attachment.html>