Tolerance testing of passive radio frequency identification tags for solvent, temperature, and pressure conditions encountered in an anatomic pathology or biorepository setting.
Tolerance testing of passive radio frequency identification tags for solvent, temperature, and pressure conditions encountered in an anatomic pathology or biorepository setting.
复制标题
DOI：
10.4103/2153-3539.70710
复制
发表时间：
2010-10-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Yong WH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Leung AA;Lou JJ;Mareninov S;Silver SS;Routbort MJ;Riben M;Andrechak G;Yong WH
射频识别（RFID）标签有可能用于识别和跟踪解剖病理学和生物库实验室的生物标本。然而，关于标签对实验室中可能遇到的溶液、溶剂、温度和压力的耐受性，几乎没有数据。Hitachi Mu-chip RFID标签（病理学用途的候选产品）的功能在这种条件下进行了评价。RFID标签贴在装有组织或培养基、载玻片和组织盒的冷冻管上。在每个测试条件或循环之前和之后询问标签的可读性。单个标签仅在一种测试条件下进行多次循环。测试条件为：1）10次湿高压灭菌循环（121 ° C，15psi）; 2）十个干燥高压釜循环（121 ° C，26psi）; 3）十个组织处理器循环; 4）十个苏木精和伊红（H & E）染色循环; 5）十个抗原修复高压锅循环（125 ° C，15psi）; 6）75 ° C持续7天; 7）75 - 59 ° C昼/夜循环持续7天; 8）-80 °C、-150 °C或-196 °C持续12个月; 9）50个冻融循环（-196 °C至22 ° C）。百分之百的标签暴露在-80至-196 °C的低温下（80个标签，1120次成功读取），52至75 ° C的高温（40个标签，420个读数），H & E染色（20个标签，200个读数）、高压锅抗原修复（20个标签，200个读数）和湿法高压灭菌（20个标签，200个读数）在整个测试过程中和测试后运行良好。值得注意的是，所有20个测试标签耐受50次冻融循环，并且所有60个经受持续冷冻温度的标签在1年后可读。一个干燥的高压灭菌标签在9个循环中存活，但在第10个循环后失效。剩余19个标签在所有10个干燥高压灭菌器循环后可读。一个标签在第一个组织处理周期后失效，而其余19个标签在所有10个组织处理周期中存活。在这项初步研究中，这些RFID标签对测试的溶液、溶剂、温度和压力条件表现出高度的耐受性。然而，在某些情况下，可测量的故障率是可检测的，并且RFID系统的部署可能需要冗余识别系统，例如条形码。我们已经划定了测试协议，可用作初步评估候选RFID标签耐受实验室条件的框架。
Radio frequency identification (RFID) tags have potential for use in identifying and tracking biospecimens in anatomic pathology and biorepository laboratories. However, there is little to no data on the tolerance of tags to solutions, solvents, temperatures, and pressures likely to be encountered in the laboratory. The functioning of the Hitachi Mu-chip RFID tag, a candidate for pathology use, was evaluated under such conditions. The RFID tags were affixed to cryovials containing tissue or media, glass slides, and tissue cassettes. The tags were interrogated for readability before and after each testing condition or cycle. Individual tags were subjected to only one testing condition but for multiple cycles. Testing conditions were: 1) Ten wet autoclave cycles (121°C, 15 psi); 2) Ten dry autoclave cycles (121°C, 26 psi); 3) Ten tissue processor cycles; 4) Ten hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining cycles; 5) Ten antigen retrieval pressure cooker cycles (125°C, 15 psi); 6) 75°C for seven days; 7) 75-59 °C day/night cycles for 7 days; 8) -80°C, -150°C, or -196°C for 12 months; 9) Fifty freeze-thaw cycles (-196°C to 22°C). One hundred percent of tags exposed to cold temperatures from -80 to -196 °C (80 tags, 1120 successful reads), high temperatures from 52 to 75°C (40 tags, 420 reads), H & E staining (20 tags, 200 reads), pressure cooker antigen retrieval (20 tags, 200 reads), and wet autoclaving (20 tags, 200 reads) functioned well throughout and after testing. Of note, all 20 tested tags tolerated 50 freeze-thaw cycles and all 60 tags subjected to sustained freezing temperatures were readable after 1 year. One dry autoclaved tag survived nine cycles but failed after the tenth. The remaining 19 tags were readable after all 10 dry autoclave cycles. One tag failed after the first tissue processing cycle while the remaining 19 tags survived all 10 tissue processing cycles. In this preliminary study, these RFID tags show a high-degree of tolerance to tested solutions, solvents, temperature, and pressure conditions. However, a measurable failure rate is detectable under some circumstances and redundant identification systems such as barcodes may be required with the deployment of RFID systems. We have delineated testing protocols that may be used as a framework for preliminary assessments of candidate RFID tag tolerance to laboratory conditions.