Code Table Request - add preservation values for different types of 'frozen'

[ccicero]

Currently CTPART_PRESERVATION has the following values for 'frozen'

frozen frozen, flash

Suggestion is to add values for:

frozen, -20 frozen, ultralow frozen, LN2

(or spell out liquid nitrogen?)

This will allow us to better distinguish how parts are frozen.

Given 'High Priority' since we're actively separating parts from preservation now. It would be good to do this before the change so that new parts can choose different frozen preservation methods.

Related issue: https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1460

[Jegelewicz]

definitions please

[dustymc]

I like the idea.

We cannot proceed without definitions.

There should be some indication of units - is that -20K (which would be an interesting state...)?

"Ultralow" is ambiguous - could mean -40, -80, and probably some other stuff. Suggest sticking to numbers.

Maybe for LN2 as well, that's consistent and an easy way to separate liquid vs vapor.

[campmlc]

I think we can put rough numbers, but there is implicit variability in all of these. Ultralow freezers sometimes lose cooling capacity and can't go below -50C, but usually they are between -70 and -80C. We can't put too much detail in here - we need a real environmental module to do that. Really these should be three separate attributes - but we will never get community buy in for that. frozen, -20C: frozen in a standard freezer at -20 degrees Celsius.. frozen, ultralow: frozen in an ultralow freezer at temperatures typically -50 to -80 degrees Celsius. Specify exact temperature outside of this range in remarks. frozen, nitrogen: frozen in liquid or vapor phase nitrogen at -150 to -194 degrees Celsius.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:59 PM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

I like the idea.

We cannot proceed without definitions.

There should be some indication of units - is that -20K (which would be an interesting state...)?

"Ultralow" is ambiguous - could mean -40, -80, and probably some other stuff. Suggest sticking to numbers.

Maybe for LN2 as well, that's consistent and an easy way to separate liquid vs vapor.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3649#issuecomment-856360013, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBAO3LTSUJFBHERS5SLTRVTOPANCNFSM46IXPZOQ .

[campmlc]

We should add: frozen, dry ice: frozen on dry ice at -70 to -80 Celsius for temporary storage/shipping. frozen, ice: stored on ice at 0 degrees C for temporary storage/shipping.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 10:33 PM Mariel Campbell @.***> wrote:

I think we can put rough numbers, but there is implicit variability in all of these. Ultralow freezers sometimes lose cooling capacity and can't go below -50C, but usually they are between -70 and -80C. We can't put too much detail in here - we need a real environmental module to do that. Really these should be three separate attributes - but we will never get community buy in for that. frozen, -20C: frozen in a standard freezer at -20 degrees Celsius.. frozen, ultralow: frozen in an ultralow freezer at temperatures typically -50 to -80 degrees Celsius. Specify exact temperature outside of this range in remarks. frozen, nitrogen: frozen in liquid or vapor phase nitrogen at -150 to -194 degrees Celsius.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:59 PM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

I like the idea.

We cannot proceed without definitions.

There should be some indication of units - is that -20K (which would be an interesting state...)?

"Ultralow" is ambiguous - could mean -40, -80, and probably some other stuff. Suggest sticking to numbers.

Maybe for LN2 as well, that's consistent and an easy way to separate liquid vs vapor.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3649#issuecomment-856360013, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBAO3LTSUJFBHERS5SLTRVTOPANCNFSM46IXPZOQ .

[dustymc]

we need a real environmental module to do that.

We have one. I argued for using it instead of doing this.

[ccicero]

@dustymc please explain re: environmental module. Arctos screenshot?

[dustymc]

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1119#issuecomment-298777350

[Jegelewicz]

I WISH SOMEONE would DO this consistently. It would make a great publication.

[Jegelewicz]

How about these terms?

frozen, -20: frozen in a standard freezer at -20 degrees Celsius. frozen, -80: frozen in an ultralow freezer at temperatures typically -50 to -80 degrees Celsius. frozen, LN2: frozen in liquid or vapor phase nitrogen at -150 to -194 degrees Celsius. frozen, dry ice: frozen on dry ice at -70 to -80 Celsius for temporary storage/shipping. frozen, ice: stored on ice at 0 degrees C for temporary storage/shipping.

[Jegelewicz]

@ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators suggest that we add container types to address this issue. @ebraker to write a How To for using containers without barcodes (or record a video tutorial, or both?) :-)

Suggested additions to the container type code table:

freezer -20: frozen in a standard freezer at -20 degrees Celsius. freezer -80: frozen in an ultralow freezer at temperatures typically -50 to -80 degrees Celsius. cooler dry ice: frozen on dry ice at -70 to -80 Celsius for temporary storage/shipping. cooler ice: stored on ice at 0 degrees C for temporary storage/shipping.

We already have cryotank to cover the frozen, LN2 instance.

[campmlc]

Sorry I missed the meeting - Is the proposal to make the different types of frozen a container type or a preservation type? Because we use the same container type (cryovial) at different temperatures.

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 3:38 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

@ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators https://github.com/orgs/ArctosDB/teams/arctos-code-table-administrators suggest that we add container types to address this issue. @ebraker https://github.com/ebraker to write a How To for using containers without barcodes (or record a video tutorial, or both?) :-)

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3649#issuecomment-881029902, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBAFXWEWA6KKJTC5WF3TX5IOVANCNFSM46IXPZOQ .

[Jegelewicz]

Container type.

Because we use the same container type (cryovial) at different temperatures.

The containers will be the freezers, so the fact that the cryovial is in an ultralow freezer would tell you how it is frozen and if it moves to cryo, that history would go with it.

[Jegelewicz]

We did discuss that container info is not public - that will need to be worked out. Probably a new issue if anyone feels strongly about it and assuming this solution works...

[Jegelewicz]

Adding to AWG Issues Meeting Agenda

[campmlc]

That sounds reasonable. Even better if we could somehow integrate container environment with preservation history - but that is a different issue. Freezer temps go up and down - we should be able to record this, at least extreme events such as freezer failures.

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:20 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

Container type.

Because we use the same container type (cryovial) at different temperatures.

The containers will be the freezers, so the fact that the cryovial is in an ultralow freezer would tell you how it is frozen and if it moves to cryo, that history would go with it.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3649#issuecomment-881048141, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBCTWYBU6IQ7WBZEGXLTX5NMNANCNFSM46IXPZOQ .

[dustymc]

we should be able to record this,

You can (and should - the proposed container type approach is much less robust).

[campmlc]

We need a protocol for how to integrate these two data streams, then. Right now, container history is only visible through object tracking. If a freezer fails and I record a high temp value as a container check - does that history propagate to the history of all containers within the freezer?

[campmlc]

Also, container history should be integrated with part Condition history for this approach to work, e.g. in catalog record -> Edit Parts

[Jegelewicz]

Where did these get added?

[dustymc]

There's no direction, no use case, no recent activity, this isn't actionable and I see little indication that it will become so. I can transfer to discussions, but making a habit of that will probably lead to everything over there becoming inaccessible behind all the clutter. I really think that at some point we need to just close issues that don't seem to be getting closer to a resolution so that we can keep track of the things that are active and/or actionable.