To: Imaging User Group Members

From: Shawn Banker Subject: 09-21-2015 User Group Meeting Notes

Date: 09-24-2015 Attendees: S. Banker, T. Bennett, N. Cherim, L. Deravi, E. Hrabak, M. Knezevic, J. Krzanowski, D. Plachetzki, S. Sower, M. Townley, J. Tsavalas, J. Wilderman

The following is a summary of the discussion and points discussed during the 09-21-2015 Imaging User Group meeting. A copy of the presentation is also available in the BOX folder for viewing and sharing.

The UIC team led the meeting with a presentation with the following basic agenda: 1. UIC Initiatives and Report Out

2. User Feedback Solicitation 3. Plans for future meeting(s)

Key discussion and points are as follows:

 New faculty member, Brian Barth will likely be a high throughput user. The UIC is already working with Brian on the new flow cytometer MRI pre-proposal and demonstrations.

 John Tsavalas suggested breaking out user data by which labs use the instruments and how many users from each lab are using them.

 Many commented that the use of the confocal by the users in Rudman and it makes sense to keep it located where most of the users reside.

 John Tsavalas asked why the focus is on increasing internal users first, then externally. Rationale was that the main reason for the instruments is to support researchers and that the external client income helps offset costs.

 Jim Krzanowski asked why the TEM rates are as high as the new SEM when the TEM is not as useful as the new SEM. The rationale was that these rates are based on costs incurred to maintain and operate the instruments and rates are set using a specific format in concert with the VPFA office.

 Estelle asked if the outside users are from the region or across the country. The response was they are mostly from the region but we have capabilities that can be further reaching (remote access or ship samples to the UIC).  Stacia Sower provided feedback on the new Ideal Elan laboratory software that it was another software she needed to learn and that more administration activities cut into her research time. She and others understood the reason for the software.

 John Tsavalas commented that the TEM does not have the capabilities needed and is sometimes difficult to get access to. A new TEM was considered but we need faculty that have TEM demand and are willing to lead an NSF MRI or other proposal. The access issue stems from sample loading criticality. 24/7 access will be available for fully trained users.

 A discussion on the use of the imaging instruments in course work took place. Jim Krzanowski uses the facility in the following courses: ME 761/861 and ME 561 and 781. It is believed that the EM course taught by Wayne Fagerberg will discontinue after he retires.

 John Tsavalas is in the planning stages of a chemistry microscopy course he plans to teach that would utilize many of the UIC techniques.

 A new flow cytometer was discussed and at this point, we need to gather a group including David Plachetzki, Brian Barth, Mark Townley and others already identified and prepare the NSF MRI pre-proposal, due October 16. David agreed to help get this going with the expectation that Brian would likely be the lead PI.

 The subject of centralized microscopy areas was discussed and all were very interested and positive about where this can go. Some faculty members like David Plachetzki and Jim Haney have sophisticated microscopes (dissecting, fluorescence, light microscopes with digital cameras, micro injection and micro manipulators) that are underutilized of which they are responsible to maintain and provide operators for. In this case, they may limit access and use due to concerns of mis-use or lack of training. Consideration for creating a microscopy core where someone like Mark Townley can oversee many microscopes, train new users, and keep them operational was brought forward as something the group would like the UIC to pursue further.

 It was suggested by Stacia Sower that having a good inventory of who will share what instruments is important. The Scientific Instrument Inventory (SII) in CEMS is set up to do this but faculty do not have time to keep in updated and accurate. Improving on the accuracy and use of the SII is a possible method to capture this information and a concerted inventory update process was discussed.

 Inventorying instruments and disposing of ones that should no longer be in operation was discussed. Stacia suggested that Bob Mooney might be a person to help with this as he has been doing this for years and was tasked with doing this over the past year for COLSA.

 Chuck Walker and Wayne Fagerberg will be retiring and it was unclear what will happen with their sophisticated microscopes. This may tie back to the bullet on a microscopy core mentioned above.  John Tsavalas suggested that a useful service the UIC could provide in addition to helping to locate and facilitate use on campus would be to understand high end instrumentation capabilities at other universities and industrial companies and help facilitate this access or knowledge.

 The subject of recognizing the UIC in publications was discussed and clearly there is no standard practice or consistency across campus users. It was suggested that the UIC require this either through an annual request or other method to help promote the UIC.

 All were asked to consider who else should be included in these meetings and a recommendation for the frequency for future meetings. It was agreed that the team was appropriate and a meeting once per semester was adequate. This served as the first of three user group meetings for the UIC. The plan will be to respond to this input with actions upon conclusion of the other two meetings. Thank you all for the valuable input and participation. To: Imaging User Group Members

From: Shawn Banker Subject: 09-30-2015 User Group Meeting Notes

Date: 10-09-2015 Attendees: S. Banker, Eric Hobbie, Sarah Joiner, Gonghu Li, Scott Greenwood, Kyle Rodriguez, Holly Weaver, J. Wilderman, Pat Wilkinson

The following is a summary of the discussion and points discussed during the 09-30-2015 Spectroscopy User Group meeting. A copy of the presentation is also available in the BOX folder for viewing and sharing.

The UIC team led the meeting with a presentation with the following basic agenda: 4. UIC Initiatives and Report Out

5. User Feedback Solicitation 6. Plans for future meeting(s)

Key discussion and points are as follows: Notes from Spectroscopy User Group (9/30/15)

 The question of why has usage declined over FYs for NMRs was raised? Possible reasons mentioned included graduation of high use grad students, improvements in training efficiency and the addition of Mnova for off line processing.  Scott Greenwood suggested making the y Axis of the hourly usage graph number of spectra collected in order to better understand why the hours are down. Are people more efficient or are they running fewer samples.  When asked about why the Solids NMR sees no use, several comments were made including no one knows it is here or when it is appropriate to use. More promotion and direct applications are warranted.  Gonghu mentioned that a collaborator at George Washington University will be looking to use the Solids NMR in December.  The question was asked in the UIC and Genome users overlap each other and was there an opportunity to dual promote services to each.  The publications sited and located using Scifinder was discussed and several stated an interest in having access to a common format for UIC citation.

 Eric Hobbie asked that it might be helpful to have a per sample estimate to align with the hourly rates to provide an idea of what the per-sample cost would be in typical applications.  Shawn asked where people would find the UIC rates or where to look for them. They are not posted anywhere but are available on request. It was recommended that we post on the website.  It was suggested that the UIC make connections with the community colleges which could be good avenues to increase our outreach opportunities and potential user base.  Raman is located in John Tsavalas’ lab and it was asked if we received inquiries for this instrument. John Wilderman said in the past he has directed people here but to no significant volume.  Foot traffic through the UIC was raised as one of the best opportunities to raise awareness. Looking to develop methods to increase foot traffic and interaction with UIC staff should be a focus.  Sarah Joiner asked if there was something similar to an open house to raise awareness. Sarah attended the new faculty orientation and found it helpful. Shawn relayed the info about the new faculty speed dating event put on by the research office but the group also recognized the need to increase awareness.

 Eric Hobbie asked if the UIC does cost sharing. Shawn stated that any instruments we cost share would need to be utilized not just by the one group but for many researchers. We can help advertise the instruments of other labs to help bring them more business as well even if they are not part of the UIC, but are part of UNH.

 Scott Greenwood emphasized the importance of personal connections and he is more likely to go to someone he knows and has met in person than a group that is seemingly less involved or present. Recent interactions with Pat are exactly the types of interactions we need to develop and increase.

 Sarah Joiner asked if there has been an increase in the use of the smaller instruments since the new software (Idea Elan) came active. Guarantee of the instrument availability should help increase business as it’s frustrating to be turned away if the instrument is occupied. Knowing in advance of showing up is a great improvement.

 Scott Greenwood asked about the possibility of renting out -80 C freezer space or other continued services to help improve visibility. It would save others from having to find the space themselves or purchase equipment for their lab.  A suggestion was made to connect more to other staff members like Pat and Scott since they are often more closely linked to purchases and lab activities than the PI might be.

 It was mentioned that a possible user of the Solids NMR might be for the analysis of soil samples and that we should make a connection with Serita Frey of the Dept. of Natural Resources and the Environment.

 The question of what is the criteria used to keep an instrument in the UIC or to bring one into the UIC was raised. As this is being defined by the core research strategy, it is dependent on a number of things including usage, research enabled, condition, revenue and expenses but no formal/documented method currently exists.

 All were asked to consider who else should be included in these meetings and a recommendation for the frequency for future meetings. It was agreed that meeting once per semester was adequate and that we should consider adding Andrew Ouimette (Manager of the UNH Stable Isotope Lab) to the team. This served as the second of three user group meetings for the UIC. The plan will be to respond to this input with actions upon conclusion of the last user group meeting. Thank you all for the valuable input and participation. To: Engineering Services User Group Members

From: Shawn Banker Subject: 10-26-2015 User Group Meeting Notes

Date: 10-27-2015 Attendees: S. Banker, Robert Cinq-Mars, Wendy Beagen, Andy Glode, Laurie Westover, Nancy Whitehouse, J. Wilderman

The following is a summary of the discussion and points discussed during the 10-26-2015 Engineering Services User Group meeting. A copy of the presentation is also available in the BOX folder for viewing and sharing.

The UIC team led the meeting with a presentation with the following basic agenda: 7. UIC Initiatives and Report Out

8. User Feedback Solicitation 9. Plans for future meeting(s)

Key discussion and points are as follows:

 A review of the data/graphs from the service request database highlighted several key points. The categories captured (Repair, Maintenance, Lab PM, etc.) should be revisited and clarified on definition now that this data is being used.  The priorities of the requests appear appropriate with a balance between immediate and high priority and lower priorities.

 COLSA and specifically MCBS are the key requestors for services, mainly repairs and calibrations. CEPS is minimal due to the TSC group taking on repairs. With Kevan not present, we did not get a chance to discuss how the TSC works with the group.

 In 2015, the highest contributor to costs were parts and services associated with the -80 freezers which the UIC took on during this time period. These costs are passed on by the UIC to the users.

 Operating costs for the Engineering Services portion of the UIC in 2015 was $118,260 not including parts and services. The OSVPR subsidized the Engineering Services at a rate of 71% in 2015 with 29% being recovered by service fees.

 During the discussion on calibration services it was generally agreed that the level of research instrument calibration is not adequate and many are deferred due to the cost. It was generally agreed that teaching instruments are less critical and likely calibrated to an appropriate level. It was agreed that having the UIC develop a program to proactively complete and manage calibrations for research instruments would be an appropriate action out of this meeting.

 Utilizing a work student for calibrations was added in the past year and is proving beneficial. There were no concerns with a trained student performing this function.

 Refrigerated instruments and the refrigerant management program was discussed. The group felt that the inventory management of the devices should be controlled by facilities with the disposal process being the method to capture when they should be removed from the inventory list. It was agreed that we would follow up on this to ensure this is happening.

 Alarms for ultralow freezers was discussed. Currently the process involves connecting to the Keltron and utilizing UNH Dispatch to get the alarm and dispatch accordingly. Other options such as wireless monitoring can do the same task at what appears to be lower cost and with other benefits including temp trending to assist with troubleshooting and for record keeping where needed. It was agreed that having the UIC initiate a project on wireless monitoring for such applications (and others) working with Telecom was appropriate. One comment made by Laurie was to connect with facilities (Stephanie Cartebona) as there may be other alarm system plans for these devices as lab spaces are renovated.

 The topic of department cores (centralized shared instrument spaces) was discussed and all felt it was where we need to go to optimize space and resources. Nancy commented that RPI has a nice set up that might be appropriate to inquire about.

 The group felt that more CEPS representatives would be appropriate for future meetings.  It was agreed that once per semester is adequate for meeting as a group and that the 12/13 week of the semester is probably a better time to hold future meetings.

This served as the last of the three user group meetings for the UIC this semester. A list of actions will be generated, distributed and tracked for future meetings.

Thank you all for the valuable input and participation.