Post00250 Product Info Sheets - 2000 8May 2000
CONTENTS
1. COMMENT RE: Post00242 PIS 2000
2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO PIS E3 FAMILY
1. COMMENT RE: Post00242 PIS 20001
In TECHNET Forum Post00224, Anthony Battersby, FBA, raised a number of
issues relating to the ongoing revision of the Cold Chain Equipment
Product Information Sheets. Hans Everts, WHO/V&B/EPI, replies.
From: [[email protected]][email protected][/email]
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:20:48 +0200
To:
Subject: RE: Post00242 PIS 2000
Dear Allan,
If many people agree with Anthony, that the sheets should not be
simplified, that would save us a lot of work. However, there is more to it.
Anthony argues that the lines we propose to remove are needed for decision
makers. If that was true, I would never consider taking them out, but our
point is that even if the decision maker had the full test reports, those
lines would still give very incomplete and misleading information.
For example, the internal temperatures. A refrigerator with continuous and
more or less stable temperatures of 3?C, but with short peaks of 8?C, will
have 8?C indicated as maximum temperature. An appliance that runs
constantly at 7?C will have that as maximum temperature. Which one is the
best for vaccine storage? I think the first one, but the main point is that
they both passed and comply with the standards.
In addition the temperatures are recorded under strictly controlled
laboratory conditions. They give a relative, but not an absolute indication
on how the appliance will function in the field. In other words, it would
be a mistake to think that an appliance with a 4?C recorded temperature is
by definition better than one that recorded 6?C.
In other words appliances that pass the test are good enough to store
vaccine and the others are not. Within the group that passed the choice
should not be based on test results, but on other specifications like
storage volume, energy source, temperature zone, etc..
Anthony, I do suggest you have another look at the proposed sheet and at
the PIS. Different voltages were not removed, but put under the more
logical heading 'Energy requirements'. There is a glossary in the PIS (page
XX).
As was said in previous messages, most warnings will disappear due to
the combined effect of the introduction of temperature zones and the change
of specifications (and/or the way they are applied). Warnings are hardly
read and making them clearer will not change much.
We have quite some reports on the E3/89 and 90, mostly negative. We are
following up on this with UNICEF and the manufacturer. The appliance passed
the tests and was designed for temperatures up to 32?C. It failed at 43?C.
More feedback from the field would be useful. Readers are invited to send
it to us and Angus Pringle in UNICEF Copenhagen.
Hans Everts
Technical Officer
EPI
WHO Geneva
Tel: 00 41 33 791 3863
____________________________________*______________________________________
2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO PIS E3 FAMILY
Paul Mallins, WHO/V&B/EPI has posted draft Product information sheets for
the E3 family of the PIS - 2000 revision for comment.
The files are available for download at:
ftp://ftp.acithn.uq.edu.au/Technet/1-ClickHereForTECHNETfiles/PIS-2000
E3-proposed-format-27.03.00.doc
E3-current-format-27.03.00.doc
Or send an email to: [[email protected]][email protected][/email]
with the message:
get technet E3-proposed-format-27.03.00.doc
get technet E3-current-format-27.03.00.doc
From: [[email protected]][email protected][/email]
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:56:13 +0200
To: [[email protected]][email protected][/email]
Subject: Proposed changes to PIS E3 family
Dear All,
Please find attached an example sheet for the proposed revision of the E3
family format.
The current format is posted for comparison.
The changes are:
- Removal of internal and day night temperatures from Performance section
- Movement of energy info from Comments to Energy section
- Removal of statement that appliance is CFC free
- Movement of cooling refrigerant info from Comment to Specs section
The proposed changes are aimed at simplifying the sheets by taking away
info that does not assist the decision making process and secondly to move
information to a more logical section.
Allan, we thought final comments from this expert group would be useful
before the final decision is taken.
Your comments will be gratefully received.
Thanks and best regards
Paul Mallins
____________________________________*______________________________________
There are no replies made for this post yet.