A study that qualifies what your storage actually does, in summer and in winter, full and empty — so you can show an inspector evidence rather than an assurance.
Warehouses, cold rooms, freezers, fridges, cabinets and vehicles. Protocol, study and reported findings, written to be read by somebody sceptical.
Every storage environment has hot spots and cold spots. Near the door, under the evaporator, at the top of the racking, in the corner nobody walks to. A mapping study exists to find them, prove where they are, and tell you what follows: where the monitoring sensors go, which locations you should not store product in, and how long you have when the power fails.
The common failure is a monitoring system installed where it was convenient to run a cable, generating a perfect record of a location that was never at risk. Mapping is what turns a sensor position from a decision somebody made into a decision somebody can defend.
Summer and winter are different buildings. A study run in October tells you what a UK warehouse does in October. Where the risk is genuinely seasonal we will say so and recommend a second study at the opposite extreme, rather than issue a report that quietly covers one half of the year.
Four stages. The first one is the one that gets skipped, and skipping it is why some mapping reports do not survive contact with an inspector.
Agreed and signed before anything is measured: what is being qualified, the acceptance criteria, sensor count and positions, duration, load condition, and what would constitute a failure. Written first, because a protocol produced afterwards is a description rather than a test.
Calibrated loggers placed to the protocol, including the awkward positions, running long enough to capture normal operation and the daily cycle. Door openings, deliveries and defrost cycles are part of what you are measuring, not interruptions to it.
Where the extremes were, how long they lasted, whether they breached the criteria, and what caused them. Including the open-door and power-failure behaviour, which is usually the most useful thing in the report and the least often asked for.
Findings, conclusions, calibration certificates and raw data, plus a plain recommendation on sensor placement and any locations that should not be used for product. Written to be read by somebody who was not there.
Ambient warehouses, chilled rooms and freezers, mapped loaded and empty where it matters. The largest studies and the ones where placement decisions save the most money afterwards.
Pharmacy fridges, laboratory freezers and dispensing cabinets. Small, quick, and routinely the source of findings because nobody thinks of a fridge as a qualified environment until somebody asks.
Refrigerated vehicles and ambient vans, mapped in the conditions they actually work in. A van in July is a materially different environment from the same van in February, and both are on your licence.
The measurement period is typically several days for a storage environment — long enough to cover the full daily cycle including deliveries and defrost, rather than a quiet weekend that flatters the room. Small cabinets are quicker. The protocol and report either side add time, and the honest total from first conversation to issued report is usually a few weeks rather than a few days.
It depends on volume and geometry, and it is set in the protocol with a documented rationale rather than picked to suit the kit in the van. Under-sensoring is the more common problem: a study that misses the hot spot is worse than no study, because it creates a document that says the room is fine.
No, and generally you should not. Loaded is the condition you operate in, so loaded is usually what should be qualified. Where the risk profile genuinely differs between full and empty, the protocol covers both — that is a decision made in writing at the start, not discovered at the end.
On a defined cycle set by your own quality system, and additionally whenever something changes — racking, HVAC, layout, doors, or use. The cycle length is yours to justify; what an inspector will look for is that you have one, that you follow it, and that you can explain why it is the right interval for that environment.
It is written to. Protocol first, acceptance criteria stated in advance, calibration certificates appended, raw data included, and conclusions that follow from the data rather than from the outcome anybody wanted. We cannot promise you an inspection result — nobody honest can — but you will not be caught out by the document.
You find out from us before you find out from an inspector, which is the entire value of doing it. A failure is a finding with a cause and a set of options — move the product, change the set point, add air movement, restrict a location. We will tell you what we think it needs and what it would cost to fix.
The building, the product and what you have been asked to prove. We will tell you what a study would involve before you commit to one.
