Last year, our vacation was a day and an evening in Cleveland. Cleveland has much to offer – the “Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, innovative restaurants! Truth be told, our vacations end up getting squeezed in around conferences and committee meetings. Recently, our travels have taken us to PCx (Ohio), SUR/FIN (Illinois), an IEST conference (New York), and an ISO working group (Ireland). After reflecting on these recent technical programs and committee meetings, I would like to share some insights on what is likely to happen and what ought to happen in critical cleaning and contamination control.
PCx
This past April (was that my spring break?) took us to Columbus OH, where we participated in the Parts Cleaning Expo. Given the co-location with PMTS (the Precision Machining Technology Show), the conference is geared toward cleaning of metal parts at various stages of stamping, fabrication, assembly, and coating. This is not necessarily what some of you may consider “precision cleaning.” However, critical cleaning processes – those that make or break successful production – have become a reality in the parts cleaning arena. The concerns and questions voiced by attendees in the conference portion continue to become more complex and sophisticated.
On the grounds that it is sometimes more productive to learn from what does not work, Ed Kanegsberg and I presented “Cleaning Catastrophes and How to Avoid Them.” Presentations tended to center around either aqueous cleaning or, for solvent cleaning, to focus on environmentally-preferred “airless” or “airtight” cleaning systems. Environmental regulatory requirements as well as the cost of some solvents may make investment in well-contained cleaning systems more attractive. In addition, water is a precious commodity; this is highlighted by water shortages in the West. Management of water throughout the cleaning process can yield economic, product quality, and environmental benefits. “Closed-loop” or “zero discharge” aqueous cleaning systems are becoming increasingly popular; and it will be interesting to see how aqueous based processes evolve over the next few years.
SUR/FIN
The conference and trade show, which took place in June in Rosemont, IL, continued a trend toward increasing sophistication in metal finishing. We had favorable responses to two presentations. One was cleaning “challenging” surfaces, such as soft metals, parts containing a mixture of substrates, and metal parts and products produced via 3D (additive) manufacturing. We also presented recent studies revisiting the impact of ultrasonic variables on cleaning effectiveness. These studies, conducted with Steve Norris of Plasma Technology (PTI), indicate that, to achieve optimal cleaning with ultrasonic systems, it is useful to revisit our long-held assumptions. Our studies are ongoing. We’ll provide you with periodic updates.
We also noticed an increased global interest in education and training – in helping technicians, operators, and managers to understand the chemistry and physics of critical cleaning. As far as we know, with rare exceptions, critical cleaning is not taught in colleges and universities. Maybe it’s time for that to happen.
IEST
Canandaigua, New York in early June! We participated in the Spring 2015 Contamination Control Technical Seminar of the Upstate New York Chapter of IEST. This was a focused technical program, not a trade show; and there were many great opportunities for information exchange. While on the surface (pun intended), the areas of interest of attendees were different than for those involved in PCx and SUR/FIN, there was a keen interest in understanding the basics and challenges of critical product cleaning. We discussed cleaning the product that gets shipped out the door of the cleanroom. Most of the attendees are involved in cleanroom and contamination control issues; and the primary focus for many is on the cleanliness of the cleanroom itself. While cleaning is a continuum, focusing on cleaning product surfaces may require a bit of a “reset” for those concentrating on cleanroom design, monitoring, and protocol. It would no doubt be useful to develop programs that integrate cleaning of the cleanroom with cleaning of the product manufactured or processed in the cleanroom.
ISO
(International Organization for Standardization) I am a United States Expert to ISO/TC 209 WG 12: “Cleaning of surfaces to achieve defined levels of cleanliness in terms of particle and chemical classifications.” The standard is under development; and the working group met in late July in Dublin Ireland. The standard has been a challenge to put together. One major challenge is the differing backgrounds and areas of emphasis of attendees. An additional and related challenge is achieving clarity of language. The challenge is not just a result of differences among languages, although that is certainly a factor. The major challenge, as we see it, is the “English to English” translation. One goal, as I see it, is to clearly and unambiguously convey the intent and “educational messages” of the standard. This is particularly important because the standard has the potential for wide ranging applicability in disparate manufacturing situations. It will be read by groups of technical people with an assortment of primary languages. In English or in any given language, the same phrases can convey different meanings depending on the education, training, and experiences of whoever reads the document.
Achieving clarity is a major challenge for any standard. As I learned at the working group meeting and during other recent conferences indicated above, the manufacturing community would benefit from more ongoing “crossover” education. I benefit from crossover education, because I have a liberal arts education. It was certainly enlightening to reread James Joyce’s “Dubliners” after years of experience and “in situ” in Dublin. I understood the book differently than I had as an undergrad. By analogy, engineering and manufacturing have become so specialized that words have different meanings depending on the background of the individuals involved. It seems to me that it would be helpful to have the equivalent of a practical, liberal arts education for technical people, particularly for those involved in cleanrooms design and management and for those involved directly in manufacture of product. Because manufacturing requirements are changing so rapidly, technical “cross-training” education about cleaning and contamination control should happen on an ongoing basis. We can’t depend on what we think we know! For example, in contrast to the assertions of some local experts in Dublin, based on my own recent observations, the plumbing and electrical facilities at the Gresham Hotel have improved markedly since the time of James Joyce. An encompassing standard that will impact critical product manufacturing ought to reflect the expectations and requirements of experts focused on cleanrooms as well as of those focused on the product produced within the cleanroom.
