Keeping Track

In PMMI’s recently released “2014 Trends in Robotics Market Assessment,” the authors noted that:

Leading the way for innovative uses of [robotic] vision sensor technology are pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are applying the technology to help with serialization. During the past decade, the pharmaceutical industry has been working to implement item-level serialization and e-Pedigree data transfer for end-to-end tracking and tracing capabilities - starting from when the product comes off the packaging line to when it reaches a merchant.(1)

The study points out that while only about half of all robotics installations currently include vision technology, that number is expected to increase significantly over the next five years. (2) As a packaging machinery manufacturer for the pharmaceutical industry and a FANUC America robotics integrator, ESS has already seen a marked increase in interest for these types of systems. Beyond the ergonomic advantages of reducing repetitive motion for human workers, robots also provide error-proof inspection and aggregation in track & trace serialization applications.

Robotic case packers and robotic pallet cells easily integrate with track & trace systems from OEM suppliers. Faced with impending track & trace compliance mandates, pharmaceutical manufacturers are turning to integrators like ESS to provide vision-enabled track & trace serialization for packaging lines. These packaging systems integrate scanners, cameras, and PC-based software, supplied by the track & trace OEM, to read the unique aggregate code on each unit they manufacture and send that information to a track & trace software package. In a robotic case packing application, a robot facilitates the process by holding an aggregated pack pattern over a vision inspection system to verify the coded units before loading them in the case. Once the aggregation is verified and the units case packed, the track & trace system may also have the capability to print a label that itemizes the contents of a case.

Robotic Case Packer With Integrated Vision Inspection for Track & Trace Serialization

Track & trace robotic pallet cells work in a similar fashion. The case labels printed by the track & trace system may include a unique code for the case as well as information about the case contents. Or alternately, the unique code may be applied on a separate label. In either case, this unique code can also be vision-inspected while the case is conveyed to the robotic pallet cell, or the robot could be programmed to pick the case and hold it up to a vision inspection system prior to palletizing. The track & trace software can also keep track of the pallet’s contents as cases are loaded, and a pallet labeler can be integrated to print and apply the pallet aggregation information.

The recent passage of the federal Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA, H.R. 3204) has given pharmaceutical manufacturers a clear direction forward regarding the implementation of track & trace serialization in their manufacturing and packaging processes. Many pharmaceutical manufacturers, anticipating the need to comply with California’s now superseded e-Pedigree laws, have already begun to specify, purchase, and install robotic, automated track & trace packaging solutions. Experienced packaging machinery OEMs and integrators offer an excellent resource to pharmaceutical manufacturers, providing insight and practical solutions for meeting these emerging drug packaging standards. 

(1)  PMMI. (February 2014) “2014 Trends in Robotics Market Assessment,” page 8.

(2) Ibid.

The Ergonomics of Automation

As an integrator for FANUC Robotics, North America, ESS has given a good deal of discussion to the advantages of increased productivity achievable when manufacturers automate their manual processes. A number of factors contribute to the increased production, including faster speeds, improved material handling, and reduced downtime associated with changeover. The ergonomics of automation are less widely discussed, but reducing workplace injuries also increases productivity and can save manufacturers thousands of dollars in lost productivity and worker’s compensation.

Ergonomic Injuries by the Numbers

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), often referred to as ergonomic injuries, accounted for 28 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses requiring time away from work...[i] MSDs include sprains and strains, inflammation, degeneration, tears, pinched nerves or blood vessels, bone splintering and stress fractures. Repetitive motion injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome fall into this category as well.

A research paper published earlier this year, “An Ergonomic Investigation of the Case Packing Line at Company XYZ”[ii] provides a succinct analysis of the types of injuries and their impact on a manual case packing operation. The paper concludes that the most common injuries were associated with the wrist and the back.[iii] Back injuries are most commonly the result of improper lifting techniques; wrist injuries are caused by cumulative trauma disorders (CDTs), such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. In this particular study, seven OSHA recordable injuries totaled more than $59,000 in workers compensation claims over a four year period.[iv] While the paper did not include data for manual palletizing processes, it is not hard to imagine a similar injury rate for that physically demanding process. Data from the BLS further underscores the lost of productivity due to workplace injuries, for example:

·         3,277,700 total reportable injuries; 965,000 of those injuries resulted in time missed from work

·         379,340 injury reports involved sprains, strains, and tears; 11% of those injuries (43,100) occurred to workers in the manufacturing industry

·         195,150 back injuries were reported; 10% (20,540) occurred to workers in the manufacturing industry [v]

The study of the case packing line concluded that, “The case-packing process should be further investigated in order to implement changes that will reduce the ergonomic risk factors currently present.”[vi]

Automation Solutions

Robotics automation offers a quick and relatively uncomplicated solution to reducing the ergonomic risks of both manual case packing and palletizing processes. Robotic case packers can quickly collate and load cases of product, and often these systems require less floor space than manual case packing stations. While the case packer still requires human intervention to run the machine and re-load the case magazine, the repetitive motions are handled by the robot, which cannot be injured.

Robotic pallet cells also require a human operator, mainly to operate the pallet jack to move pallets into and out of the pallet cell, but the robot handles the case lifting and stacking motions, again reducing the risk of injury to personnel. Even assembly and material handling processes can present an injury risk to employees. Assembly processes very often include repetitive processes that can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome or tendonitis, as can some material handling processes. For example, hand feeding a high speed blister packaging machine can require anywhere from one to six people to repetitively load blisters with product. Robots today have the dexterity needed for many assembly and material handling processes, allowing human personnel to be reassigned to duties that are less likely to cause injury.

Conclusion

Looking at the bottom line only, by reducing the risk of injury to their personnel, manufacturers can realize decreased downtime due to employee absence as well as decreased worker’s compensation costs. This may lead to increased profitability, which may, among other things, allow manufacturers to avoid relocating their factories to countries with lower wages in order to reduce overhead costs. Factor in the human equation and calculate the number of injuries not suffered by employees, and manufacturers can clearly see the ergonomic advantages of automating manual processes.

[i] Bureau of Labor Statistics (11/9/2010) “Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Requiring Days Away From Work, 2009.” Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov 10/14/2011.

[ii] Schmidt, J. (2011) An Ergonomic Investigation of the Case Packing Line at Company XYZ. Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2011/2011.schmidtjos.pdf 10/14/2011.

[iii] Ibid, p. 34.

[iv] Ibid, p. 49.

[v] Bureau of Labor Statistics “Latest Numbers.” Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/IIF/ 10/14/2011.

[vi] Schmidt, p. 38.

---

Servo vs. Mechanical: Which machine is best for you?

A recent LinkedIn discussion amongst members of the Packaging Machinery group debated the virtues and drawbacks of mechanical versus servo-driven automated packaging machinery. Several comments focused on increased flexibility offered by servo machines, which includes allowing changes to be made “on the fly,” and increased production speed compared to mechanical systems. Others noted that the skill level required to service servo-driven machines is very different from the skill set needed for mechanical machines, remarking that industrial mechanics generally understand (or can figure out) the workings of mechanical machines, but not all understand servo motors and the programming involved with using them. But cost is the big difference between servo and mechanical machinery, so it is important to understand when to use servos and when a more cost-effective mechanical solution will work.

For manufacturers and packagers of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, medical devices, cosmetics, and consumer goods, an audit of the packaging process offers the best way to determine which solution should be implemented, especially in scenarios where a manual process is being replaced by an automated process. It not only allows the company to fully understand the current process, it is helpful when writing the equipment specification and calculating ROI. A complete system audit allows companies to understand their current strengths and weaknesses, and put the money where it will have the greatest impact. In general, servo systems work best in applications with multiple product sizes at fairly high production speeds. Mechanical solutions are often more cost effective in production lines with one or two high volume products that can easily justify the cost of custom tooling. A forward thinking system integrator can design a mechanical system that can be upgraded to use servos in the future. The audit allows the integrator and the manufacturer to have a conversation about which type of machine is best for the application and define the best performing, most cost-effective solution.

Which type of machine works best for your application? We would love to hear about it.