Search Results

In the last year there has been much discussion about the increasing demand for low power long-range wireless devices to serve the need of the  emerging IIoT market . This technology is collectively known as LPWA (Low Power Wide Area) and the main players (and unsurprisingly, those making the most noise) in this category are Sigfox, LoRa, CAT-M1 and NB-IOT technology. While evangelists for these respective technologies naturally claim that theirs is the one true solution, all is not as it seems. This paper discusses the issues surrounding Sigfox and LoRa specifically – another article will examine those around CAT-M1 and NB-IOT. The goal of LPWA technology LWPA technology used in Sigfox and LoRa is low cost, straightforward and requires no deep technical knowledge. The proposition is that LPWA devices can be deployed in the field without needing connection to a power source and will continue to function on battery power for around 10 years. Connected directly to a sensor (e.g. temperature sensor) or attached to an existing device (e.g. water or electricity meter) these LWPA instruments forward meaningful data to a base station which then transmits to the Cloud. Deployment can be handled by those with basic technical knowledge and skills (no engineering BSc required) and when the devices come to the end of their decade of service, they can either be disposed of, or have their battery replaced. How the issue of compromise compromises these LPWA technologies As with all technologies compromises have to be made to achieve the required results. Here are the notable ones. The first major compromise that both Sigfox and LoRa have made is to elect to create products that only use unlicensed ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) radio bands. These radio frequencies are freely available for anyone to use (provided they obey their country’s RF regulations). For SigFox and LoRa, the use of free ISM radio bands avoids the otherwise hefty license fees required for exclusive use of frequencies. Additionally, through this method they have garnered an advantage over competitors like cell phone companies who may have spent billions of dollars buying licenses for exclusive use of frequencies. Read: The completely overlooked but drastic cost savings municipal water departments can achieve with this simple IIoT application But herein lies the downside: by using unlicensed radio bands, control over bandwidth is lost. Even players as big as Sigfox and LoRa cannot force users of the same frequencies to curtail their usage should it become harmful or disruptive for their customers. And with this volume of users no assumptions can be made about their behavior, making it impossible to make future predictions. So the question is, will these providers be able to guarantee quality of service in decades to come? Elimination of cell technology Both Sigfox and LoRa use simple radio designs which use less silicon and therefore cost less to make. These designs deliver signals over very long distances, eliminating the need for cell type technology as signals can be picked up from a few gateways scattered around a city (this is referred to as a star topology). In theory this reduces infrastructure costs enormously compared to cell technology but one of issues with this is that the devices continuously transmit on the highest power whether they need to or not (this is sometimes called “shout loud”) and has obvious negative implications for power savings, which will be discussed later. The benefit of the shout loud approach means data can be picked up by distant gateways, however, this could – in the end – limit the amount of connections and data in the network. Control of usage vs freedom of use One of the big differences between Sigfox and LoRa is that Sigfox controls the base stations themselves whereas LoRA allows anyone to set up a network. With Sigfox managing their own network they have some control over aspects like how many nodes are allowed to connect and the location of base stations. By contrast many LoRa deployments are demonstrated on a building-wide network, using it simply as a local collator of data. This is a direction that LoRa seem to be increasingly heading towards. This in some ways negates the benefits of reducing infrastructure costs by having long range devices. Using LoRa as a short range radio should at the very least deliver deep coverage across the building location. But what might be the consequences of such deployments using the unlicensed band? An unlicensed radio band Deathmatch? If this scenario is widely adopted and 10,000’s of LoRa networks appear in buildings throughout a city, what would be the result? Will they potentially interfere with each other? Will they cause problems with other networks including Sigfox who are competing on the same band? Research on this scenario is scant. However one paper concludes that this could potentially become a major problem for both these technologies. The paper:  Bad Neighbors? A comparison of LPWA technology options  suggests that LoRa and Sigfox do not play nicely together and that it is hard to predict the performance of both these systems, particularly if they intend to operate with many 100’s or 1000’s of concurrent networks in a city scenario. Understanding some of the other compromises related to low power operation will be my next topic. Download this Whitepaper: Drastic Limitations of Sigfox and LoRa

This infographic provides insights into how marketers targeting technical prospects in the manufacturing, software and engineer sectors are allocating their budgets, the channels they are using and the results they are getting. Drawing data from Engineering.com ’s 2018 report “ Budget Trends in Industrial & Technology Marketing ” this builds a picture of how engineers and other industrial professionals are responding to marketing messages.

As you dig into the world of the Internet of Things (IoT) and it’s subset the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) you’ll encounter many abbreviations (like the two in this sentence). These get thrown around in a manner that assumes you already know what they mean and what they do. This can be frustrating, so let’s begin decoding these terms. What does MQTT mean and how does it work? MQTT stands for Message Query Telemetry Transport and it is a communication protocol.  But what does that actually mean? Put simply, it’s a language spoken by machines to other machines (machines that are connected to the IoT). And like any language it has its own set of rules, functions and formats. By machines I mean anything from domestic fridges, cars, and HVAC systems to industrial manufacturing robots, municipal wastewater systems and citywide streetlight networks (so pretty much everything!) Machines talking to machines is often referred to as machine-to-machine or M2M and there are many M2M languages of which MQTT is just one. How do machines connect to the IIoT Cloud? Newer machines may have native IIoT capabilities but the majority of machines require connection to an  IIoT Cloud Gateway  or some other type of  Cloud Interface  before they can communicate with the MQTT broker in the Cloud. When is MQTT used and why? MQTT is used to send data from a large number of machines to a single destination – the Cloud – where the data can be analyzed, interpreted and forwarded. The Cloud hosts an MQTT broker – an intermediary between machines and other machines and/or humans. And this is an important distinction as the machines aren’t actually talking directly to each other but via the broker. MQTT uses the concept of ‘topics” to organize its data and a publish/subscribe model to communicate the topics to other parties via the Cloud. For example: an HVAC system sends (or publishes) data on the topic of the “health” of its compressors to the Cloud. Any interested parties with approved credentials – machine or human – can subscribe to this topic to receive the information. Subscribers may include maintenance technicians (humans), parts procurement systems (machine) or servicing scheduling systems (machine). Suddenly every aspect of a machine’s life cycle is available for scrutiny and this represents an exciting and profound opportunity to connect to and act upon this information for fault finding, cost savings, improved efficiency and scheduling – which is why everyone is excited about the potential of the Internet of Things.

In an emerging market initially there tends to be a glut of vendors, a plethora of early adopters who have spotted the opportunity to get in on the ground floor. But as the market matures, vendor numbers dwindle until typically only a handful remain. This natural attrition comes in many guises but one of the most the powerful is action from a major player. And this is what we have seen recently from communications giant Verizon and their launch of web-based IoT development platform, ThingSpace. Verizon says “ThingSpace is a gateway to a simplified IoT workspace and machine-to-machine (M2M) management center for prototype through production…to bring your IoT solutions to life, and to market.” While news of another IoT development platform isn’t much of an eyebrow-raiser  what is,  is the decision by Verizon to offer CAT-M1 modules from USD 6.50 each, and to allow free certification on their network and additionally provide 100 hours of expert help. The axe has fallen By its actions, Verizon has clearly indicated its intent to capitalize on the billions of IoT devices predicted to come online in the next few years, and by subsidizing hardware connections, its service becomes a very attractive option. Furthermore Verizon is one of the few companies who already have the infrastructure in place to support this. This latest move will likely secure substantial market penetration for Verizon while at the same time potentially culling several existing players from the market. This “market cleansing” action has significant impact for Sigfox and LoRa and may signal the death knell for these LPWA technologies in the U.S. market. READ:  The completely overlooked but drastic cost savings municipal water departments can achieve with this simple IIoT application The advantage is clear CAT-M1 has huge advantage over both SigFox and Lora in the type of applications that can be achieved with it. With a direct TCP connection from the sensor and no third-party servers, gateways or services required to connect to the internet, CAT-M1 is in a strong position to significantly reduce cost, complication and latency whilst still allowing for complete flexibility. The introduction of CAT-M1 modules at this price point means Verizon can now also compete in the simple, low-frequency (time), low-data applications that Sigfox and LoRa were invented for e.g. daily automatic meter reading. In my opinion any advantages that Sigfox or LoRa thought they had are now dwindling fast in the light of this power play by Verizon. The comparison table below summarizes some important points in determining which direction device manufacturers should head. Comparing Sigfox, LoRa and CAT-M1 Verizon CAT-M1 Sigfox LoRa Network operated by a Fortune 500 company? U.S. nation-wide coverage complete? Device operating in protected licensed frequency? Latency between web and device? (very good/good/poor) Battery life for simple applications (very good/good/poor) Hardware cost for simple applications* (very good/good/poor) * Simple application defined as obtaining a meter reading for an existing meter and posting to the internet once per day.

Understanding your WiFi network and how to successfully get your IoT device on to your network can be tricky for the uninitiated. In this guide you’ll learn some networking basics to help you along. WiFi and Wireless, what’s the difference? Wireless is a generic term that just means there’s no wires. The term “wireless” tends to be used to describe a requirement i.e. “it needs to be wireless”, whereas WiFi is a particular standard, and one of several others like Bluetooth or Zigbee, for example. Access Point Mode or Station Mode? Typically devices can run in one of 2 modes: Access Point Mode or Station Mode (often called Client Mode). Station Mode (STA) is what most people would consider the normal mode for a WiFi device. A device uses Station Mode to join a network that already exists, exactly like your smartphone does when its connects to your WiFi network at home. In this instance your phone is running in Station Mode. In Access Point Mode (AP)  the device is the Access Point  and so becomes an entity that everything else can connect to, rather than it connecting to a network. In an industrial IoT context, Access Point Mode is generally for set up and then once configured the unit will exit AP mode and run in Station Mode for the rest of the  IoT application . Demystifying IP addresses An IP address is a string of digits that define the location of a device on a network. The address comprises of 4 groups of numbers separated by dots and it is very much like a street address in that it must be unique. IP addresses can be static or dynamic (more on this later). In a domestic scenario, typically when a device connects to your home network it is dynamically assigned one by the router from the addresses currently not in use. IP addresses have banded designations: a numerical range of addresses that have been reserved for specific uses. What does DHCP mean? DHCP stands for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. It is a network protocol that allows a server to automatically assign an IP address to a device from a defined range of addresses. Basically, when a device logs on to your network and requests an IP address from the Access Point, it will be assigned one automatically from the remaining free addresses. At some point this IP address may get reassigned to another device, depending on network traffic – it’s not fixed. It may last for a couple of days or a couple of weeks depending on your network. However, if the device is being used every day it will likely keep the same IP address. Most networks have DHCP enabled and so during setup of Define Instruments  products with Wifi modules , if the “Use DHCP” checkbox in the WorkBench configuration software is ticked then your device can automatically be assigned a unique IP address. What are Port numbers? If your IP address is like a street address, a port is like a cubbyhole at that address where incoming mail is sorted: one for bills, another for letters, another for junk mail, etc. Different ports for different types of communications. For example: for Modbus, generally port 502 is used. That’s because this port number has been purchased by the Modbus Organization for exclusive use with devices using Modbus communications. Port numbers range from 1 to 65,535. A list of commonly known and registered ports numbers  can be found on Wikipedia . Where do I find which port number to use? Generally, this is determined by the protocol you’re using, e.g. MQTT has a specific port number (port 1883) and so do websites (port 80 for http) refer to the above link for guidance on the standard port assignations. Otherwise, talk to your System Admin and they can help you identify a port that is not in use by any other protocol on your network and can be dedicated to your IoT application.

Compressed air is widely used in manufacturing plants across the United States. And, if your company relies on it, you’ll know that it’s as vital as electricity to ensure the continued running of your operations. For example, in an electronics manufacturing facility compressed air is used to power automatic assembly equipment and continuous air flow is critical to maintain production. Without reliable air delivery, manufacturing will cease and the resultant downtime could lead to tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Given the “lifeblood” status of compressed air it is interesting to note that maintenance and monitoring of the system as a whole is, for the most part, overlooked. The servicing that does occur is usually focused on the hardware in the compressor room, which does need attention but is only a part of the overall system. Most problems occur in the piping distribution system. Typical issues are things like rust, leaks or incorrect pipe size and are typically straightforward to fix but without the monitoring of this piping, troubleshooting can be time-consuming and expensive. For full visibility of the entire compressed air system, sensors must be deployed in key locations inside your facility. These sensors should measure pressure, vibration, flow, temperature, humidity and power. The cost of lost pressure Around 2psi of air pressure equals 1% of a compressed air systems total energy cost. This means a system with less than optimum air pressure is wasting energy and wasting money. Pressure loss is commonly caused by: distribution pipe corrosion incorrectly sized piping incorrectly sized compressor capacity lack of compressed air storage Just one of these can result in your compressor working far harder than it should and will contribute to shortening the working life of the unit. Operational oversight also prevents time and money being wasted on taking action that appears to be the solution but in actuality is not. For example, one may conclude loss of pressure is due to your compressor capacity not being large enough for the task. But only after investing in and installing a newer, larger compressor, it is discovered that this does nothing to alleviate the pressure issues. Full visibility of the system could identify the real culprit – a corroded pipe – without such expense and also indicate exactly where pressure starts to drop. Of course, you could take pressure measurements manually with a pressure gauge but these readings only provide information for that one point in time. Publishing sensor data to the Cloud provides rich and detailed data giving you solid business intelligence to make better decisions. Dealing to the problems caused by humidity Excess moisture causes corrosion in pipes and damage to internal components impacting maintenance costs and raising the risk of downtime. It also causes problems in certain finishing applications and, in food and beverage applications, can breed harmful bacteria that spoils or contaminates ingredients or finished foods. All the more reason to get clear on the impact humidity is having on your facility. Measuring humidity in your plant allows you to take necessary action to mitigate its effects, reduce your costs and comply with any applicable health and safely regulations. Monitoring flow for first indications of issues As already stated, a common causes of pressure loss are incorrectly sized piping or corroded piping which restricts air flow in the pipe. Undersized piping is often overlooked as what was appropriate and correct at time of installation is in many cases now too small to keep up with current demand. Leaks can also cause your air system to run inefficiently, this can be caused by threaded connections during a less-than-careful installation. Over time a threaded connection will begin to separate, opening a space for air to pass through and escape. Monitoring flow data acts as an early warning mechanism beyond visual inspection because the inside of pipes corrode without noticeable decay of the pipe exterior. Poor flow readings indicate corrosion, threading or pipe size issues long before they become critical. Temperature monitoring as an overall indicator Monitoring the temperature of various components in your compressed air system provides an indication their overall health. By comparing current component temperatures to the manufacturers documented optimal working temperatures, one can see if the system is being over-worked or under is performing. Power consumption monitoring With the above sensors installed, the last metric to monitor is power consumption – do this by installing a current sensor. Used in conjunction with the data from the flow sensors the overall health of the compressed air system can be determined. And from this it is easy to calculate the cost per unit of your compressed air set-up. Increases in costs can reveal issues such as faulty controls, short cycling and unregulated spiking. Compressed air is the lifeblood of many production facilities Once the sensors and cloud monitoring is deployed, you finally achieve operational oversight of your system. With this comes insights on the idiosyncrasies and behavior of the system, component lifespan, real servicing requirements, usage profiles and whole lot more. Compressed is air is vital to so many manufacturers, what are you doing to safeguard your supply?

The opportunity to better serve customers is driving greater interest in IIoT remote monitoring and predictive servicing solutions. In any industry it is a proven fact that customers who are loyal remain with you for longer, spend more on your goods and services, and have less of a cost impact when compared to acquiring new customers. Yet so many businesses focus on slick sales and marketing activities for customer acquisition, only to lose them once acquired. If the ideal outcome is years of customer loyalty, how do you breed this in your customer base? One part of the answer is to deliver a consistently excellent customer experience. A designated customer service champion Finding faster and smarter ways to pre-empt and address the needs of your customers is a priority. Consultant and Author Joseph Michelli who studied businesses that displayed excellent customer service in his book  Prescription for Excellence , identifies that to be successful a business needs “an executive, preferable in the top echelon, overseeing all aspects of the customer experience and ensuring a systematic approach.” For many smaller companies though, a spare executive may not be on hand to exclusively spearhead the much needed architecting of the customer experience. But all is not lost. Where a designated “customer service champion” may be lacking in your team, leveraging IIoT technology may be a way forward. While deploying IIoT technology is not a silver bullet, it can help in some specific areas. One such area is the consumables-to-customer sector. Finding faster and smarter ways to pre-empt and address the needs of your customers is a priority. Avoiding run-to-empty scenarios that destroy customer loyalty For companies selling consumables, the worst case scenario is a customer running out of that consumable at a crucial time. The consequences of which could range from an annoying inconvenience (running out of printer ink) to a life threatening situation (heating oil deliveries in Chicago during a Polar Vortex). A “run-to-empty” scenario is massively damaging for your customer and your company alike. With the IIoT (Industrial Internet of Things) there is real opportunity for companies that regularly supply consumables to customers to leverage remote monitoring to mitigate this scenario, and to learn more about their customer’s consumption habits. Reshaping the idea of customer service Today, we often associate customer service with picking up the phone to call a company’s service agent. This phone call can take some (considerable) time: first we have to navigate automated screening systems, then spend a frustrating amount of time on hold and when we finally do speak to a human being we don’t always get the issue sorted first time. But what if the reverse was true? What if  you  received call from the customer service department informing you that you are running low and declaring an estimated run-to-empty date? Or perhaps just a notification via the app informing you that a delivery has already been dispatched to replenish your supply. This example of predictive customer service is increasingly becoming a reality. Automated consumables replenishment avoids disappointing your customers and the subsequent damage to your reputation. The old way Replenishment request received from the customer Procurement of the item from the warehouse Scheduling of delivery and delivery route planning in line with other customer requests Customer Delivery The challenges to business faced by the old way: For customers to be aware that they are running low, they need to establish how much of the consumable is remaining. This may require external inspection and the customer finding the time to make this inspection. Customers need to understand their consumption habits to estimate how long their remaining supply will last so they can schedule a new delivery. Few, if any will recall the last time they called to with a replenishment request, let alone those in the last 12 months. Customers may not be able to raise a replenishment request at an obvious point (e.g. when a tank is half-full) due to capacity and minimum delivery quantities. E.g. Minimum order for a water deliver may be 10,000 liters. Customers with a 15,000 liter tank can’t reorder when half empty as their tank does not have the capacity to accommodate a 10k delivery. Unfortunately, some customers don’t realize there are running low until they’re completely out. Customers may have meant to make a replenishment request earlier but got distracted, busy or just plain forgot. Delays in making a request further increases run-to-empty risk. The seamless supply of consumables without the customer needing to pick up the phone is a huge step forward. Predictive servicing via IIoT remote monitoring leads the way. A sensor installed at the customer’s location measures current levels and this is visualized via an app to provide at-a-glance levels to the customer without external inspection. The publishing of user data to the Cloud over time builds a picture of the users consumption habits, trends and points of dire need. Notifications within the remote monitoring app can alert customers when the consumable falls below a set level, boosting awareness. IoT remote monitoring integrates with the consumables supplier’s ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system so replenishment is automatically procured and scheduled for delivery . Delivering massive value Many innovative businesses have already adopted predictive service and replenishment. Service agents monitor the incoming data from customer devices and action replenishment accordingly. The seamless supply of consumables without the customer needing to pick up the phone is a huge step forward. Imagine: no more phone calls to call centers, no more being left to dangle on hold, no more “you are number 26 in the queue”. In the eyes of the customer you are delivering huge value by removing the onus normally placed on them and instead are proactively taking care of them, sometimes replenishing before they even realize it is required. Predictive servicing is the new gold standard in customer service. Of course, the customer also does not mind paying a little extra for this peace of mind.

Today, less than 5% of all data generated in the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) industry is analyzed for insights. This means that CPG manufacturing companies remain reactive rather than proactive in their approach to operations. Yet the answers to much sought after questions such as: “How can productivity be increased?, “How might operating costs be reduced?” And “How can the reliability of operations be improved?” are all within their grasp with the deployment of IIoT remote monitoring/condition monitoring. Yet the answers to much sought after questions such as“How can productivity be increased?” are within your grasp IIoT plays an important role in answering these questions because it enables CPG businesses to harness the richness of machine and production data over time, analyze it and gain insights to drive operational improvements. Condition monitoring of conveyor systems previously too costly to implement CPG production lines comprise of many small roller conveyor belts and hundreds of motors that drive these belts. Historically the problem for this industry was the cost of implementing condition-based monitoring on these motors was greater than the cost of the motors themselves. So motors were left to run to failure and only once the failure event had occurred would action be taken to replace them. This approach was crude and inefficient, and came with its own set of issues including: disruption, impact on productivity, wastage, and excess inventory. The end of roller conveyor motors running to failure With the emergence of IIoT, CPG manufacturers are now able to connect these motors to the Cloud for analysis using simple and very affordable wireless sensors. Condition monitoring of conveyor rollers, belt drives, bearings and other components of CPG machinery is now simpler and far more affordable. One simple IoT application for condition monitoring conveyors is to measure and monitor the temperature and vibration data from the conveyor motors themselves. Once monitoring has been implemented, trends such as wilder oscillations in vibration metrics and/or increases in temperature over time can be detected. Visualization of conveyor belt motor data over time yields insights By utilizing simple visual analytics it is possible for plant operators and managers to get answers to questions such as “Are all motors continuing to operate below a safe threshold in terms of vibration?”, “Are the motors exhibiting any unusual behavior in a sustained manner.” and “Is there a correlation with this in respect to temperature?” By studying the visual analytics, plant managers can quickly identify which conveyor motors are likely to fail and can schedule a planned shutdown to replace them. This is a very cost-effective and practical use of condition monitoring with IIoT to improve the cost of reliability. A bigger picture of the complete manufacturing environment At a higher level, this type of monitoring can also benefit the manufacturing company as a whole. Implementing IIoT condition monitoring solutions across multiple manufacturing facilities enables the comparison of each facility and its performance. Insights such as why one plant is more efficient than another or how operations might be scaled can be gleaned. IIoT monitoring, the Cloud and analytic technology offers manufacturing and production facilities a much bigger picture in terms of pathways to achieving a higher level of productivity and reliability of their operations.

This article explains LTE CAT-M1 in relation to its competing technologies and examines some of the pros and cons of each. The telecommunications industry now has a new, IoT-friendly standard: CAT-M1. CAT-M1, sometimes referred to as LTE-M1, LTE CAT M1 or CAT M, it is a technology that enables connection directly to a 4G network without a gateway, connecting IoT devices to the internet via the cellular network. The first advantage One of several technologies known collectively as an LPWA (Low Power Wide Area), the CAT-M1 network is operated by cellular network providers utilizing their own frequency bands. It is this ownership that is the first notable advantage over competitors such as SigFox and LoRa WAN. By controlling the devices that are able to use their network, telco’s have secured the long-term quality of this service. Meanwhile, competitors Sigfox and LoRa have opted to use unlicensed ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands. The blessing and curse of unlicensed bands is that they are free for everyone to use. The blessing and curse of unlicensed bands is that they are free for everyone to use. This may jeopardize quality of service in years to come as neither Sigfox nor LoRa have any influence should the behavior of other users of these frequencies become harmful or disruptive to their customers. The use cases are different for different regions and some rules in some countries are not kind to LPWA networks. For more information on this please  see article by David Castells-Rufas, Adria Galin-Pons and Jordi Carrabina No need to shout loud Cellular network operators also have another advantage: they use cell technology. As a rebuttal competitors claim that their tech needs fewer “tower points” to provide coverage compared to conventional cell operators because it can transmit over longer distances. On paper, this would seem like an enormous benefit with regard to infrastructure costs. However, this is achieved by the devices transmitting on full power at all times. To get an idea of the implications of this, let’s relate it to human interactions. Firstly Sigfox and LoRa: Imagine a room half full of people. Certain individuals are permitted to shout messages to others across the room. They do so by following these rules: Messages can only be yelled once every 10 minutes Messages must be repeated 3 times (in case someone else is also yelling at that moment) As the room fills up the amount of messages that everyone is allowed to share has to decrease to accommodate the growing number of shouters. So this type of messaging works best with short one-way message payloads. But with cell technology human interactions would be more like the following: People in the room are split into small groups. They huddle together so there’s no need for shouting and relevant messages can be heard above the low volume of chatter from the other groups. Much more information can be shared this way. LTE CAT-M1 best positioned for the coming IoT revolution Until now the primary driver for cell network providers has been to service the insatiable human demand for live streaming HD video and music directly to mobile devices. But it has been determined that most IoT devices do not require this kind of bandwidth and so CAT-M1 has been optimized for this lower bandwidth IoT world. While the looming 5G promises bandwidth speeds of 1Gbit per second, CAT-M1 is happy to play at around 256Kbits per second. One of the by-products of this is a significant increase in coverage as by reducing RF bandwidth, signal-to-noise ratio increases. A report by AT&T  suggests that this technology can increase coverage by a factor of 7. In practical terms this means that in locations where 4G fizzles out CAT-M1 continues to work just fine. While 5G promises bandwidth speeds of 1Gbit per sec, CAT-M1 is happy to play at 256Kbits per sec. Consider the benefits of this coverage to devices in remote country areas or deep in the basements of buildings. Where once it was virtually impossible for signals to reach these locations CAT-M1 technology now makes it possible, and best of all there is no wait time while networks are built – they already exist! Some of the other advantages that CAT-M1 provides: Supports native TCP  which features TLS (Transport Layer Security), encryption and security certificates. Direct connection to leading cloud providers  like AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google cloud, et al without routing through third party servers. (Sigfox sends all data from Sigfox devices to their servers in France before redistributing it to other cloud providers.) Supports bi-directional data and always connected states . With latencies of less than a second this is perfect for alarm monitoring and remote-control applications. Bandwidth is enough to support voice calls and still photos . Also great for alarm systems Supports OTAU (Over The Air Updates)  essential for future-proofing IoT applications. By enabling software updates to be deployed remotely, it removes the need to visit the (possibly far removed) location. Initial and ongoing cost considerations Because CAT-M1 is a more complex unit than the likes of Sigfox, the amount of silicon required is greater and costs should therefore be higher. However some prices sighted have been as little as $6.50 US. It’s likely that this pricing is the result of telecoms subsidizing traffic to enter their network. In the free market the price is a more realistic $20 US per module but these prices are expected to fall over time. Some plans on offer start at $0.85 US per month for a limited data plan and $1.50 US per month unlimited data at 256Kbits per second. With such affordable choices an application with 150 sensors updating to the Cloud every minute could cost as little as 1 penny per month per sensor. Into the future CAT-M1 has been a valuable and welcome addition to the LPWA IoT landscape. Although it has arrived late to the party, it is well thought out and brings numerous advantages. It promises to be a reliable and well-maintained option. More akin to a Toyota Corolla than a pre-war Volkswagen Beetle.

As the issue of maintaining healthy Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in the workplace becomes more prevalent, companies are being taken to task for ignoring the harmful effects of poor air quality on their employees. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indoor air quality may be between 2 to 100 times more polluted than outdoor air. Recent years have witnessed an upward trend in number of lawsuits filed against employers relating to poor air quality. Here are some examples. Chevron pays $21.4 Million in damages to families of brothers who died from cancer after daily exposure to VOCs In 2019 a judge in Northern California ordered Chevron Corp to pay the families of two brothers who died of cancer $21.4 Million in damages after concluding the company failed to properly warn the men about the dangers of toxic solvents they worked with at a company tire factory. Gary and Randy Eaves both worked for decades at Cooper Tire & Rubber in Texarkana, Arkanas. As part of their work the brothers were frequently exposed to the chemical benzene, commonly used as a rubber solvent. Benzene is a VOC and known human carcinogen. Gary Eaves was a tire handler and hauler in the tire plant’s curing department. In this role he was exposed to the solvent on daily basis and as a spray booth operator he was responsible for spraying tires with the chemical. Gary also hauled the tires coated in benzene. In June 2013, Gary Eaves was diagnosed with cancerous non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, at the age of 59. He died just two years later in July 2015. Randy Eaves was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia a few years later, in June 2016. He also died less than 2 years later, in March 2018. Both of the brothers were 59 when they were diagnosed with cancer. The families’ lawyer argued that none of the plant workers wore respirators or protective clothing while working with the solvent and were never advised to handle benzene inside of a ventilation booth. Alexander also argued that the manufacturer should have warned of the dangers of using the chemicals and that the benzene solvent was shipped without Safety Data Sheets that could indicate this. Samsung’s estimated $15.3 Million payout and apology to workers who developed cancer after exposure to VOCs In November 2018 multinational electronics conglomerate Samsung reached a final settlement with a group representing the families of ex-employees who died from leukemia and other cancers while working at the company’s semiconductor plants. The tech giant’s apology and settlement ended a controversy that dogged the company for over a decade. The issue began in 2007 when a 22-year-old woman named Yu-mi Hwang, who had worked at Samsung’s Giheung semiconductor plant, died of leukemia. A year later, a 30-year-old woman who shared a workstation with Yu-mi died, also of leukemia. Thus began a series of reported deaths and severe illnesses affecting Samsung workers. Campaigners claimed that in this time 320 Samsung employees developed illnesses after being exposed to VOCs at chip factories. They also claimed that 118 people died as a result. Benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride are VOCs used widely in semiconductor and electronics manufacturing and are associated with cancer, nervous system damage and are also known to affect developing embryos. After years of denying responsibility, Korean smartphone giant promised to offer adequate compensation for employees who died of or developed leukemia from working at the company’s semiconductor plants. Under the agreement, Samsung agreed to compensate any employee who became sick from working in the company’s semiconductor and LCD lines from May 1984 onwards – when Samsung built its first chip line at Giheung. Compensation was based on when and where an employee worked, and the kind of sickness they contracted. Those who suffered leukemia received up to around US$130,000. A conservative estimate of the payout puts this at around $15.3 Million dollars. The decade long fight by campaigners to hold Samsung responsible for health problems related to working conditions, galvanized public opinion and birthed a broader movement to hold businesses accountable for safety lapses in the chip and display industries which use large amounts of chemical compounds. Boeing Aviation in ongoing lawsuit with pilots and air crew over exposure to contaminated cabin air Most recent is the lawsuit filed in Jan 2020 by 3 Delta Airlines flight attendants against aviation giant Boeing. The suit alleges that cabin air on all Boeing’s commercial aircraft (except the 787 Dreamliner) could be filled with toxins due to their use of a “bleed air” system which use the planes engines to draw in outside air. Due to its design the bleed air system may also suck in heated jet engine oil, hydraulic fluid and chemical compounds that can also be found in insecticides and pesticides. The lawsuit stems from an event on a February 2018 flight from Frankfurt to Detroit that left passengers and flight crew sick. The flight attendants claim that while aboard a Boeing 767-300ER aircraft “toxic” air flowed into the cabin. The suit says the fumes cause nausea and dizziness as well as long term health problems such as memory loss, tremors and joint and muscle pain. The suit also alleges that Boeing has known about the design flaw but has failed to fix it and has deceptively created the image that the air in its cabins are safe. Although there are engineering standards that recommend levels of air filtration for airplanes there is no federal requirement for airplanes to install air filters, so that means that the air in many cabins may not be filtered or cleaned in any way, exposing passengers and crew to harmful particulates. Accounts of events similar to that above were echoed in March 2019 when the BBC reported that British Airways, EasyJet, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic (all operators of Boeing aircraft) were  subject to legal action by the Unite union over “aerotoxic syndrome” . The cases continue. Are you monitoring VOC levels in your workplace? Taking control of the air you and your employees breathe begins with monitoring indoor air quality. As these accounts demonstrate, the  measurement of VOC concentrations in working environments  is increasingly important. Monitoring IAQ is part of being a workplace health compliant employer, will save lives and mitigate worker related litigation.

Volatile Organic Compounds are organic chemical compounds that negatively affect the environment and human health. They evaporate at normal room temperature and pressure and are present in both indoor and outdoor environments. Outside VOCs tend to affect the natural environment (and indirectly wildlife and humans) e.g. Smog but inside, exposure to VOCs can drastically affect the health of humans. Some VOCs are more volatile than others: those that evaporate faster are more dangerous and pose a greater risk. To provide clarity around VOCs and their risks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adapted World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines to divide indoor organic pollutants into 3 classifications: Very Volatile Organic Compounds (VVOCs) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) The three classifications are all important to indoor air and are all considered to fall within the broad definition of indoor volatile organic compounds. Very Volatile Organic Compounds (VVOCs) VVOCs are the most dangerous class of pollutants and can be toxic at very low concentrations. Examples include propane, butane and methyl chloride. Propane Propane is the most commonly used VVOC and is highly dangerous. Typically it is shipped as a liquefied gas under its vapour pressure and used for heating and cooking. Many households use portable propane heaters to warm garages and utility areas while propane gas grills are used for barbecuing. Butane Used in an almost identical fashion to propane, butane is contained in items including camping stoves, lighters, torches, fridges and freezers. Butane is regarded as one of the more harmful volatile substances to inhale. Methyl Chloride Also known as Chloromethane, this is colorless, flammable, toxic gas that is widely used as a refrigerant but has many other industrial applications. Some examples include: as solvent in petroleum refining, a propellant in polystyrene foam production, a methylating and chlorinating agent in organic chemistry and as a herbicide. Exposure to methyl chloride causes a wide variety of issues from drowsiness and dizziness to seizures and comas depending on the level of concentration and duration of exposure. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Although less dangerous than VVOCs, VOCs are still hazardous to human health. Generally you are more likely to encounter VOCs as many are found in household products and VOCs may also be present in home or work environments . Exposure guidelines and thresholds for VOCs have been collated and published by the EPA. Below is a list of the most common VOCs. Formaldehyde This VOC is a known carcinogen. Formaldehyde is used to make resins for building materials, coatings for clothing fabrics, and paper. It commonly occurs in molded plastics, glues, lacquers, insulation materials and pressed wood products such as laminate flooring, plywood, fibreboard and particle board. Vinyl Chloride Used to make PVC plastics, piping, floor coverings and consumer goods, Vinyl Chloride is also known as chloroethene, chloroethylene and ethylene monochloride. The United States EPA IRIS program determined that vinyl chloride is “highly likely to be carcinogenic” and those residing close to factories that produce this chemical are at risk. The liver is the main toxicity target of vinyl chloride. Liver lesions and impaired liver function have been reported in workers exposed to low air levels over time. Carbon Tetrachloride EPA cites this VOC as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”. Historically it was used as a dry-cleaning agent, a refrigerant and propellant for aerosol cans, and used in fire extinguishers and as a grain fumigant. Because of its harmful effects, these uses were banned and now Carbon Tetrachloride is only used in specific industrial applications. Toluene An important chemical used as a gasoline additive and to make nylon, plastics, solvents, dyes, inks and paints. Paints in particular are under scrutiny as both commercial office and home remodeling involves exposing people to this VOC through paint fumes. Low VOC and toluene-free paints are available. In recent years several paint companies have been charged with misleading consumers over claims of VOC free paint products. Acetone Used mainly as a commercial chemical solvent in consumer products and industrial processes, people’s exposure to acetone usually stems from use of paints, glues, nail polishes and particularly nail polish removers – either through home use or at consumer nail beauty bars. It also found in wallpaper and furniture polish. Isopropyl alcohol Used in making cosmetics, skin and hair preparations, pharmaceuticals, perfumes, lacquer formulations, dye solutions, antifreezes, and soaps. However, the most likely exposure to Isopropyl alcohol is via its widespread use as a cleaner and disinfecting agent. Hexanal Hexaldehyde is used as a flavoring in food production and as a fragrance in perfumes. Additionally it is used to create other chemicals that are used in the production of plastics, rubbers and insecticides. People exposed to moderate concentrations of Hexanal for a short time can suffer irritation of the nose, throat, lungs, eyes and skin. Longer periods or higher exposure result in a choking feeling, coughing and rapid breathing. Carbon Disulfide Also called Carbon Bisulfide, this highly volatile compound is used in the manufacture of viscose rayon and cellophane. It is also present in varnishes, solvents and insecticides. The most common source of human toxicity is via inhalation in an occupational setting. Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) SVOCs tend to have a higher molecular weight and boiling point than VOCs meaning they are less likely to become a vapor at room temperature. However, this does not mean they are any less dangerous. The use of SVOCs in building materials, furnishings, electronics, and furniture is often proprietary – usually indicated by the term “additives” – therefore their presence and concentration is not required to be publicly disclosed. This represents a serious gap in information. Examples of SVOCS include: Pesticides Organochlorine pesticides, one more widely known as DDT was used extensively from the 1940s to the 1960s in agriculture and mosquito control. As neurotoxicants they caused severe health and environmental problems which led to them being banned. Chlordane Listed as a “probably human carcinogen”, this SVOC was used as a contact insecticide for lawns and crops until it was discovered that Chlordane was very persistent in the environment, surviving in soils for more than 20 years. Between 1983 and 1998 its only approved used was to control termites, then in 1988 the EPA banned all uses of it. Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl alcohol is used as a solvent, a preservative, and to make other chemicals. It is also used as a fragrance in perfumes and in flavoring, and is an ingredient in ointments and cosmetics. Also used in inks, as a photographic developer, and in dyeing nylon filament, textiles and sheet plastics. Fire retardants A significant source of SVOCs are flame retardant chemicals such as those found in fire extinguishers. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs or PBBs) are the most common of these. Take control of the air you breathe VOCs are ubiquitous in indoor air, the questions are: what concentration levels are in the air you breathe? and how long are you exposed to them? Using sensors to sample indoor air quality and measure VOC concentrations is the only way to know for sure.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)  are organic chemicals that are damaging to human health. Many VOCs are found in building materials and home improvement products and can off-gas (release their harmful emissions) into indoor air. Due to the risk to human health, VOC level compliance in consumer products is patrolled vigorously by Public Health Organizations. But in the recent past some companies have attempted to put profits before the health of their customers and it hasn’t turned out well for them. Here are some examples: Lumber Liquidators settles VOC non-compliance in flooring lawsuit for $36 Million dollars In 2017 Virginia-based Lumber Liquidators agreed to pay $36 Million to settle 2 class-action lawsuits accusing the company of selling laminate flooring containing dangerous levels of toxins. North America’s largest specialty retailer of hardwood flooring was heavily criticized in a  2015 report by CBSs 60 Minutes  for selling Chinese manufactured product that contained nearly 20 times the legal level of formaldehyde. It was estimated that “tens of thousands” of households in California and “hundreds of thousands” across the United States had installed the flooring. The report further alleged that the wood was falsely labelled as being CARB Phase 2-compliant, referring to the California Air Resources Board, which sets the standards for formaldehyde emissions in world flooring. Formaldehyde is a VOC and known carcinogen. It can cause myeloid leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer at high levels and respiratory issues and well as eye, nose and throat irritation at low levels. Lumber Liquidators founder Tom Sullivan initially denied any wrong doing by the company, even going as far as  posting a rebuttal on Forbes.com  claiming a short-sellers conspiracy and that “Lumber Liquidators products are safe and only 15% of inventory is laminate from China”. But independent testing of a wide variety of samples showed the Chinese laminate averaged seven times the state standard and some were close to 20 times. Even today, the scandal continues to dog the company: as recently as Jan 21, 2020 shares in Lumber Liquidators Holding Inc slid about 10% after Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to the equivalent of sell, citing competitive and operational headwinds stemming from the 2015 fallout. Benjamin Moore and 3 others settle allegations of misleading customers over VOC levels in “VOC-free” paints In 2017 four paint companies agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that they deceptively marketed products as emission-free or containing zero VOCs. The four companies: Benjamin Moore & Co, ICP Construction Inc, YOLO Colorhouse and Imperial Paints LLC were accused of misleading consumers over the VOC levels in their paint products. Some promotions even made explicit safe claims regarding babies, children and pregnant women all of which the FTC said were unsubstantiated. All of the paint products emitted VOCs during the painting process and while drying and the FTC said the companies did not possess the appropriate scientific evidence to prove their paints would not emit chemicals that could materially harm consumers. The FTC also claimed that the companies circulated misleading information to retailers selling their products leading customers to believe they may have been safer than they actually were. The wording in their adverts, packaging and TV commercials was called into question. Benjamin Moore’s TV ad showed painters in a nursery while a baby slept and included the voiceover: “If you want a paint with no harsh fumes; if you want a paint that is safer for your family and the environment, only this can. Natura by Benjamin Moore”. Imperial Paints claimed that its Lullaby paint was the “safest paint available” and “did not contain toxic chemicals”, and was “Newborn baby-safe. Pregnant mom-safe. Safe enough for kids to paint with.” ICP Construction claimed its Muralo BreatheSafe Paints were “free of VOCs” and “formulated with no harmful solvents and based on sustainable chemistry technology.” Ads claimed BreatheSafe was “ideal for nursing homes, schools, babies’ rooms and health care facilities.” To make matters worse both Benjamin Moore and ICP Construction displayed environmental seals on their packaging without disclosing to consumers that they had “invented” these and awarded them to themselves. In Benjamin Moore’s case, the company placed a “Green Promise” seal on its Natura paints but did not reveal that the official looking seal was in fact of the company’s own creation. ICP included an “Eco Assurance” logo on its BreatheSafe paints, giving the impression that the products were endorsed or certified by an independent third-party. In reality, the seal was created by ICP marketing department. The changes that were ordered for settling the case In settling the FTC charges, the companies agreed to four provisions designed to ensure they did not engage in similar conduct in the future. The companies were: Prohibited from making unqualified emission-free and VOC-free claims, unless both content and emissions are actually zero, or emissions are at trace levels, beginning at application and thereafter. Prohibited from making claims about emission, VOC levels, odor, and other environmental or health benefits, unless they are true and not misleading, and unless the companies have competent and reliable scientific evidence to back them up. Barred from providing third parties with the means of making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading representations about material facts regarding paints. Ordered to correct current unsubstantiated claims by sending letters to distributors, instructing them to stop using existing marketing materials and providing stickers or placards to correct misleading claims appearing on product packaging or labelling. Home Depot USA settles lawsuit for $8 Million over illegal VOC levels in paint In April 2013, Home Depot USA agreed to settle a lawsuit over VOC paint claims for $8 Million. The lawsuit filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) alleged that the company sold thousands of gallons of paint and architectural coating that contained an illegal amount of VOCs – exceeding the limit of 50g of VOC per liter. The lawsuit was initially filed against Home Depot in July 2011. It came after Air Quality Management District (AQMD) inspectors found noncompliant paints at more than two dozen stores. AQMD said that the products were available at stores even after Home Depot management had been notified of the problem and that some of the products had been marked down for quick sale. Prior to the lawsuit, Home Depot had undergone SCAQMD investigations between September 2009 and April 2010; the agency had found violations in over 15 locations. SCAQMD alleged that Home Depot had continued to sell paint laced with illegal amount of VOCs even though it promised to have corrected the problem following a warning by the agency.