Designing a new warehouse and logistics of material for the production process

Optimizacija materialnega toka in razporeditev inventarja v skladiščnem prostoru sta ključnega pomena. S premišljeno ureditvijo skladišča lahko čas iskanja materiala, priprave materiala, transporta in s tem tudi izdelave izdelka bistveno skrajšamo. V zadnjih nekaj desetletjih dajemo večjo pozornost notranji logistiki materiala, s tem pa zremo k čim bolj tekočemu, varnemu in efektivnemu proizvodnemu procesu. V diplomskem delu smo izmerili čase, potrebne za opravljanje skladiščnih operacij v podjetju Raycap, d. o. o., in iskali rešitve, s katerimi bi te operacije opravljali hitreje. Ugotovili smo, da že z manjšimi spremembami, kot sta skladiščenje enega materiala na isti lokaciji in bolj efektivna uporaba viličarjev v skladišču, razbremenimo delavce in povečamo produktivnost. V iskanju bolj drastičnih sprememb smo ugotovili, da bi z menjavo visokoregalnega skladišča za avtomatizirano skladišče delovne naloge opravljali približno za 22 % hitreje. Vseeno pa je za takšno spremembo treba narediti načrt, ki bo v celoti realiziran v čim krajšem času.The optimization of material flow and the distribution of inventory in the storage area are crucial. With a well-thought-out layout of a warehouse, we can significantly reduce the durations of the search for, preparation, transportation and, with it, the production of materials. Over the past few decades, we have been paying more attention to internal logistics, and with this we aim to make the production process as fluid, safe and effective as possible. In this paper, we measured the time intervals required for the execution of warehouse operations at Raycap d.o.o. and looked for solutions which would make these operations run faster. We have found that even with minor changes, such as storing one kind of material at the same location or a more efficient use of forklifts in a warehouse, we can lighten the workload and increase productivity. While searching for more drastic solutions, we found that by replacing the high rack warehouse with the automated warehouse, we would shorten the time for completion of tasks by approximately 22 %however, for such a transition to happen effectively, it is necessary to make a plan that could be fully realized withing the shortest possible period

Additive-manufactured anisotropic magnets for harsh environments

We describe the fabrication of SrFe12O19-based filaments, using polyphenylene sulphide (PPS) as the binder for the magnetic particles, and the subsequent printing of this filament with a 3D printer. PPS is an ideal polymer for applications in harsh environments, making it applicable for the automotive industry, where it is widely used with injection moulding. However, 3D printing this polymer introduces a major challenge. Because PPS is more difficult to extrude than polyamide, the filling factor in this study was set to 70 wt. %, which is lower than when used in injection moulding (close to 90 wt. %). The filament with a diameter of 2.75 mm was printed into a disk-shaped magnet with a diameter of 10 mm and a height of 4 mm using a HAGE 3D printer that uses a belt system for the filament extrusion. The magnets were printed onto a glass surface and onto a bulk Nd-Fe-B permanent magnet with an external magnetic field, parallel to the printer’s z-axis. Printing in the presence of a magnetic field was found to increase the magnet’s remanent magnetization by 61%, compared to an isotropic print. Without an external magnetic field we achieved a remanence of 23.9 emu/g for the 70 wt.% filling fraction, while when printing in a magnetic field, the value of the remanence improved to 39.7 emu/g because of the improved magnetic texture

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020