Seeking help from experienced laboratory managers in chemical plants

The advantages and disadvantages of this approach depend mainly on the specific conditions of the chemical plant and the level of demand for process control. Here are some possible advantages and disadvantages: Advantages: 1. Reducing the workload on the laboratory: By conducting process analysis in-house, the workshop can share the workload of the laboratory, allowing it to focus more on testing raw materials and finished products. 2. Faster test results: Analyzing process data in the workshop allows for quicker adjustments and optimizations to the production process. 3. Promote cooperation between the workshop and the laboratory: The workshop and the laboratory can work more closely together to ensure that products meet quality standards. Disadvantages: 1. Risks in quality control: Workshop-level analysis may not fully guarantee the accuracy and reliability of process data, which could affect the stability of product quality. 2. More training and technical support are needed: Workshop staff require professional training and technical support to ensure they can analyze process data correctly and effectively. 3. Enforcement risks: When defective products are detected during the production process, if the process analysis is carried out by the workshop itself, the laboratory may be held accountable for enforcement responsibilities. .

I have experienced both. The first option is to have all tests conducted in a laboratory. Advantages: No systematic errors, easy to train for, all testing is carried out in the laboratory, as workshop operators generally lack the testing skills of laboratory staff. And just buy a set of instruments to be placed in the laboratory. There is no need to build another laboratory in the workshop; just buy two sets of instruments. Disadvantage: The time required to send samples is long; it’s best to take samples in advance, as the time needed to send them is added directly to the production time. The second method is to conduct tests in the central sample workshop, as well as in the laboratories for incoming materials and finished products. Advantages: Short sampling time, and the laboratory is located near the control room. Production time is reduced, increasing output per unit of time. Disadvantage: The laboratory staff have nothing to do, while the workshop workers are so busy that they don’t even have time to eat. An additional laboratory needs to be set up in the workshop; the regulations involved are quite complex, and a set of testing equipment must also be provided for the workshop, which is expensive. Based on experience, the first option is preferred, as the second one results in laboratory staff being relatively idle while workshop staff are too busy. There are severe internal conflicts within the company, the work attitude is poor, and production levels simply won’t increase.

The companies under Sinopec originally followed the second model, that is: analysis sections were established within the workshops. Now the second mode is being used, with everything brought under the Centralization Office.

It was explained in great detail; thank you very much.

It seems that, from an overall perspective, it’s better to put them all in the laboratory. So, from the perspective of laboratory managers alone? Which mode is better?

From the perspective of laboratory managers alone, the Sinochem Laboratory model is also better. Specialization, linear functions, and no disputes over laboratory data.

Thank you very much: handshake

I believe there’s already a problem with this issue: “The chemical plant is building a laboratory; now it’s considering having the workshops handle process analysis on their own.” Whether it’s workshop-based analysis or laboratory analysis, certain prerequisites must be met (such as instruments, testing personnel, and relevant skills). For Zhongkong Testing, the consideration isn’t about whom to assign the task to, but rather how to ensure that the testing requirements are met. It is entirely possible to set up a workshop laboratory, as long as the necessary conditions are met. If the workshop laboratory is relatively basic, it can carry out tests on some simple indicators to facilitate sample submission by the workshop and enable timely adjustments in production; critical tests should be sent to a central laboratory for analysis. Therefore, a feasibility assessment should be conducted in advance regarding the testing items, testing accuracy, and requirements for report delivery times. Everything is focused on achieving the testing objectives and ensuring the quality of intermediate products and finished goods.

Actually, it also depends on the size of the enterprise. 1. If the enterprise operates as a integrated fine chemical plant, there are relatively few tests conducted during the intermediate control processes. Since these processes are directly related to the adjustment of reaction temperature and reaction time, it’s better for the plant itself to carry out those tests. The laboratory, on the other hand, is responsible only for quality control by testing the specific raw materials and products. 2. If the enterprise is a large-scale chemical manufacturing company that operates on a continuous basis, there are numerous tests to be carried out during the intermediate control processes, and these tests involve complex and diverse analytical equipment (such as gas chromatography, spectrophotometry, potentiometric titration, etc.). It is therefore necessary to allocate resources wisely in order to reduce costs and increase the utilization rate of such chromatography equipment. The same device can analyze multiple samples, and centralized management helps save manpower, resources, and funds. Secondly is quality control management, ensuring that professionals handle professional tasks, with each having expertise in their respective fields. Review: The two approaches depend on the company’s size and the degree of process continuity, in order to save labor, resources, and financial costs. From a quality management perspective, quality can be controlled as long as the control procedures are standardized, and inspection efforts are intensified (from raw material intake, storage quality, production control, additives, packaging, storage, dispatch, transportation, to use).