Hello and welcome to this CSA Group webinar.

My name is Katie, and I will be your GlobalSpec moderator.

Now, I would like to introduce today’s presenters. With us, today, is Jack Chin. Jack is a certification specialist of hazardous locations with CSA Group. Also with us today is Bhas Nanavati. Bhas is a certifier of hazardous locations with CSA Group. Gentlemen, welcome to today’s event, and with that, I’d like to pass things along to you to get us started. Thank you, Katie,

Hello, everyone. My name is Bhas. I will be doing a brief introduction of the combustible gas detection performance standard. Then, I will pass the presentation to my colleague, Mr. Jack Chen, who will be discussing some of the recent explosion cases, importance of gas detection performance assessment, and you will hear my voice again when we discuss types of equipment and some critical test methods within the standards, followed by a Q&A led by my colleague, Mr. Aaron Wagner. The standard that we will be discussing today is 60079-29-1, which covers the performance requirements of detectors for flammable gasses used in industrial and heavy commercial applications. This standard provides construction requirements, testing and performance, and describes the test methods for different type of equipment for detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor concentrations with air. The standard does not apply to external sampling systems or to equipment of laboratory or scientific type, or to equipment used only for process monitoring and or control purposes. It also does not apply to open path or line of sight detectors. These requirements are stated within standard IEC 60079-29-4. However, equipment with very short optical paths intended for use where the concentration is uniform do fall into the scope of 60079-29-1. The next voice you will hear is of my colleague, Mr. Jack Chin, and he will discuss explosion cases and importance of performance assessment.

Thank you, Bhas. We first would highlight a few cases where gas detectors could have prevented the loss of life and property. More than a year ago, there was a massive explosion at a Pennsylvania chocolate factory that destroyed one of the buildings and damaged nearby properties. This resulted in tragic loss of seven employees and 11 were injured. The explosion was due to a natural gas leak. Though, what ignited the gas may remain unknown. The National Transportation Safety Board NTSB reported that the company’s Emergency Preparedness Plan addressed food and safety but had no procedures regarding natural gas emergencies. Several related changes have been made since the incident, including the addition of natural gas detectors in other buildings in a gas leak procedure, instructions for employees. In another explosion in Quebec, Canada, the Quebec workplace Health, Safety and Equity Standards Board, CNESST says welding led to the fatal blast that killed a 26-year-old welder and two secretaries in the adjacent office. On the day of the accident, the worker was dwelling on the chassis of a tanker truck that contained residual gasoline and diesel fuel. The gasoline vapors ignited, resulting in an explosion followed by ensuing fire that killed the three workers. The fuel distributor and the welding contractor should have done more to confirm that the tanker truck was completely empty of the fuel before the welding started, the CNESST had issued a number of instructions during its investigation to avoid similar occurrences, to first identify and eliminate hazards by conducting an analysis prior to undertaking any hot work, clean containers and tanks to remove any combustible material or material that may release toxic or flammable vapors when heated, check the concentration of flammable vapors and gasses, and, obviously, to use a gas detector, inform workers of the hazards associated with their work and provide them with the appropriate training

and supervision.

The third explosion case was an Ohio paint plan that occurred in Spril 2021. The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, CSB released its report of the explosion at the paint facility in December 2023, one employee was tragically killed, and eight other workers were injured, plus more than $1 million of property damaged. Investigators concluded that malfunction equipment caused the destruction. The explosion and fire occurred when a mixture of the resin liquid escaped through the seal of an operating kettle with flammable vapors migrating to the ignition source. The CSB made several important recommendations to Yenkin-Majestic as well as the professional and trade associations. Among the key safety recommendations is emergency preparedness. The CSB noted that plant did not have adequate safeguards to minimize the consequences of the incident. They did not effectively utilize flammable gas detection system and associated audible alarms to notify on-site personnel of a hazardous gas release and the need to evacuate. Some of the gas detectors installed within the facility detected flammable solvent release about one minute after the release began, an email was actually sent to a personnel off site. He was not working that night. The gas detectors were not set up to some audible alarms to warn plant employees or used for early alerting. Visual indicating alarms on the HDMI screens were not observed as operators were not present. Additionally, the plant did not specifically train its employees to recognize and respond to the presence of a flammable solvent, vapor cloud and its associated hazards. This lack of hazard recognition led to some personnel approaching the flammable, hazardous gas to investigate the release instead of initiating a plant wide evacuation. The final explosion case in Nisku, Alberta. The workers at JCO welding in Nisku, south of Edmonton, Alberta, were fabricating a metal skid when leaking acetylene ignited, causing a fatal explosion. The devastating workplace accident occurred on the morning of December 27, 2018, when spark ignited acetylene, causing an explosion and fire. The explosion resulted in a fatality, one serious life-altering injury, multiple reported medical aid injuries and psychological injuries. On February 24, 2021, the welding company pled guilty to the following counts. The employer in Nisku did fail to ensure the health and safety of the welder on December 27, 2018, contrary to section three of the Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act on the same date and place being an employer did fail to ensure the health and safety of welders by failing to use a leak detection system in the acetylene shack, contrary to section three of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In short, there was no gas detector or the detection system available to perform proper checks. At sentencing, the welding company was ordered to pay $300,000 to fund occupational health and safety education focusing on manufacturing and fabrication. There were other fines imposed.

As with most explosion cases,

we see the importance of gas detection. Safety is paramount. Flammable gas, or combustible gasses vapors, and flammable liquids

pose a significant risk of explosion and fire. This affects the equipment selection, installation, alarming, and personnel safety. The certification of flammable gas detector verifies that flammable gas detectors meet the minimum safety and performance required established by the applicable standards, helping protect property equipment and reducing the likeliness of accidents, supporting worker safety. Measurement accuracy is very important for gas detection. Flammable gas detectors are relied upon for accurate measurements and for warning, an alarm of the percentage LFL concentration of the flammable gas. Lesser known is the use of flammable gas detection as an explosion protection method for the National Electrical Code and the Canadian electrical code part one for the NEC a detection system for flammable gasses shall be permitted as a means of protection in restricted industrial establishments.

Article 500.7K

and Article 505.8I, the certified listed gas detector for detection of the specific gas or vapor shall be performance tested to standards like UL 60079-29-1. These listed gas detectors can be used in the interior of a building and closed space where unclassified equipment may be installed in a Class 1, Division 2 or Zone 2, when the area is protected by certified flammable gas detector. Also, in the interior of a control panel using or measuring flammable, the equipment suitable for Class 1, Division 2 or Zone 2, installed within an enclosure with a flammable gas detector to monitor for leaks where there is inadequate ventilation. The equipment suitable for Class 1, Division 2 or Zone 2 can be installed in an area classified for Division 1 or Zone 1, when properly protected by a certified flammable gas detector. The Canadian Electrical Code part one allows the use of combustible gas detector when rule J18-068 0r 18-070 is applied. For example, general purpose, non-hazardous locations equipment may be installed in a Class 1, Division 2 or Zone 2 location where the area is monitored by a certified combustible gas detector. In CEC Part 1: Annex H, portable combustible gas detectors can be used to provide advanced warning and alarms to personnel when flammable gas or vapor concentrations in air reach unsafe levels in confined spaces or process buildings, validate also the environment and monitor potential sources of release when hot work is in progress. Measurement accuracy for safety device required by the ATEX Directive: Annex II and the UKCA Schedule 1. According to the ATEX Directive and UKCA regulations, the gas detection system that is used as a safety device to reduce the risk of explosion has to be performance certified to EN 60079-29-1.

The same EN 50079-29-1

is also one of the harmonized standards required by the Marine Equipment Directive for gas detectors used on ships. The reliability of a gas detector is a must. Certified gas detectors after preconditioning and mechanical testing such as vibration and drop tests, must undergo testing to verify their accuracy, sensitivity, response time, temperature variation tests, etc. All gas detectors must reliably provide timely warnings and alarms, whether visual or audible, allowing personal and systems to take necessary precautions and actions. These functions and signals are part of the performance testing. Last, and perhaps the most important, is compliance with regulatory requirements. The product certification demonstrates compliance with applicable industry standards.

This provides assurance to users, manufacturers, and regulatory authorities that the product adheres to the applicable safety standards. This concludes my part of the presentation, and I now pass it back to my colleague, Bhas.

Thank you, Jack, for providing

details on the explosion cases and helping us understand the importance of gas detector performance assessment. Hello, everyone. My name is Bhas. I will be providing details regarding types of equipment, and we’ll discuss some of the critical clauses of the combustible gas detector performance standard, 60079-29-1. There are three major types of equipment, fixed equipment, transportable equipment and portable equipment. Fixed equipment is fastened to a support or secured in a specific location when energized. Transportable equipment is not intended to be carried by a person during operation, nor it is intended for fixed installation.

Portable equipment

is intended to be carried by a person during operation. A portable equipment is battery powered and includes, but not limited to a handheld equipment, typically less than one kilogram. It could be personal monitors similar in size and mass to a handheld equipment that are continuously operating but may not necessarily continuously sense the gas while they’re attached to the user. Larger equipment that can be operated by the user while it is carried, either by hand or by shoulder strap or carrying harness, and which may or may not have a hand directed probe. As part of the performance testing, there are two preconditioning tests that are conducted on the equipment before conducting all other tests. The first one is unpowered storage. Unpowered storage is conducted by temperature cycling from room ambient to negative 25 degrees Celsius for at least 24 hours, followed by room ambient for at least 24 hours, followed by positive 60 degrees Celsius for at least 24 hours, followed by room ambient for 24 hours. This test is conducted by mounting the equipment inside an environmental chamber, and equipment is powered off during the entire duration of this test. Some of the observations include battery degradation, component level degradation, overall assembly degradation, overall performance degradation, which is observed during the further testing of the equipment and sometimes damage may not be apparent due to the temperature cycle until further testing is conducted.

Second Test that

is part of the preconditioning requirement is vibration test. The vibration test is carried out in accordance with IEC standard 60068-2-6. The equipment shall be energized and mounted on the vibration test machine and vibrated successively in each of three planes, respectively, parallel to each of the three major axes of the equipment. The alarm during the test is set to 20% of the measuring range before and at the conclusion of the test. Te equipment shall be exposed to clean air, followed by standard test gas. The equipment shall be mounted on the vibration table in the same manner as intended for use. This includes mounting of any resilient mounts, carriers, or holding devices that are provided as standard parts of equipment by the manufacturer. The equipment shall be vibrated over the frequency range specified at the excursion or constant acceleration peak, specified for a period of at least one hour in each of the three mutually perpendicular planes. The frequency shall continuously change exponentially with time, and the rate of change of the frequency shall be one octave per minute. Some general observations during this test is battery degradation, component degradation, overall assembly degradation, and overall performance degradation that is observed by further testing. After successfully completing the preconditioning tests, calibration and adjustment test is conducted. This test is conducted by exposing the equipment to the gas selected at 0%, 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of the equipment measuring range, starting with the lowest and finishing with the highest of the selected volume fractions. This operation is carried out three times consecutively to verify the consistency of the equipment. A critical note in this test clause is for other gasses for which the equipment is claimed to be suitable, the calibration curves for these gasses and the response time shall be supplied by the manufacturer in the equipment literature, and a representative sample is verified by the testing laboratory. The tolerance on the nominal volume fraction of all test gasses shall not exceed plus or minus 10% the volume fraction of the component within the test gasses shall be known to the to a relative expanded uncertainty of plus or minus 2% of the nominal value. This test is typically conducted by diluting 100% by volume of the gas, by mixing it with air to achieve the accurate test gas concentration. Some of the general observations include equipment inaccuracy, inaccuracies at certain level only, and false alarms.

Another test as

part of Clause 5.4.3

is response to different types of gasses for a group two equipment, the accuracies of the response curves or correction charts provided in the instruction manual or product literature shall be checked by measuring the response for the representative gasses in accordance with clause 5.3.2 at a minimum of three different volume fractions spread evenly over the measuring range to verify response characteristics. This operation shall be conducted two times consecutively to verify the consistency of the equipment. The ratio between the indication of the equipment before correction using the manufacturer’s response curves and the gas volume fraction obtained for each of the three gas volume fractions of each gas tested shall not be less than 0.4

and shall not exceed 2.0.

Equipment which incorporates a semiconductor or catalytic type sensor shall then be exposed to test gas with a volume fraction between 45% to 55% of the measuring range continuously for 60 minutes, and the deviation of the indication during the exposure is measured. This is to verify in case there is a drift in the reading, some of the general observation include equipment inaccuracy, inaccuracies at certain levels only, and false alarms. Alarm set points. There are two types of equipment, equipment for measuring rising concentration and equipment for measuring falling concentrations. In case of rising concentration, the alarm set point is set at 10% relative below the concentration of standard test gas selected, the equipment shall be adjusted with clean air and standard test gas or the specified test gas, and then expose the equipment to clean air, and then do the standard test gas or specified test gas until alarm activation, or twice the respective t(90), whichever is less. In case of falling concentration, set the equipment alarm, set point at upper flammable limit, plus 10% of the measuring range. The specified test gas shall have a volume fraction of the alarm set point minus 5% of the measuring range. The equipment shall be adjusted with clean air and standard test gas or specified test gas, then expose the equipment to the test gas with a volume fraction of 90% of the measuring range, and then to the specified test gas until alarm activation or twice the respective t(90), whichever is less. General observations include no alarm trigger, delay in alarm trigger and false alarms. Air velocity. This test is only applicable to diffusion type equipment, irrespective of whether the flow chamber or other flow equipment is used, the direction of the air flow with respect to sensor inlet shall be flow directed at the sensor inlet, 180 degrees to the sensor inlet and 90 degrees to the sensor inlet. Air velocity flow measurement shall be made at the intended sensor inlet location prior to placing the equipment test in place, the gas concentration measurements shall be made at zero meters per second, also called non forced ventilation conditions, three meters per second, and six meters per second. Some of the general observations include measurement inaccuracies at all air velocity conditions, or at some of the air velocity conditions, high and low flow alarms, and overload alarms. Drop test. Drop test is only applicable to portable and transportable type equipment. The difference between the testing for portable equipment and transportable equipment is that a portable equipment shall be released while operating from a height of one meter above a concrete surface and is allowed to free fall. Transportable type equipment with mass less than five kilograms shall be released while not operating from a height of point three meter above a concrete surface and is allowed to free fall. Other transportable equipment shall be released while not operating from a height of 0.1 meter above a concrete surface, and is allowed to free fall. Passing criteria based on the interpretation sheet released by IEC for this clause states that any loss of function after the test, including any change of state, is considered a failure, since there is a continued dependency of the life safety device under adverse effects, such as an accidental drop of the device during use — automatic or manual restarting is not acceptable. Automatic restarting or shutdown of the equipment shall not occur during the test. Some of the general observations include measurement inaccuracies observed during further testing, false alarms during drop test, and loss of function after drop test has been conducted. Time of response measurement. The equipment shall be switched on in clean air and after an interval corresponding to at least two times the warmup time without switching off, the equipment or the sensor shall be subjected to step changes from clean air to standard test gas and from standard test gas to cleaner. The changes shall be introduced by suitable test equipment, as described in Annex B of the standard IEC 60079-29-1. The time of response, t(50) and t(90) for increasing concentration, and t(50) to t(10) for decreasing concentration, shall be measured. On the right side of the slide, and in the next slide, you will notice some of the approved test equipment by the standard. These are some more examples of the approved test equipment to conduct time of response measurement test.

One more example of

approved test equipment to conduct time of response measurement test. This particular setup is applicable to aspirated equipment types only. Environmental exposure — Dust Ingress Protection claim, clause 5.4.24, is only applicable to UL standard 60079-29-1, and is only applied as part of the requirement when manufacturer is claiming performance of the equipment during dust exposure. The equipment for this test is mounted in accordance with manufacturers instruction set to the lowest alarm level possible, or 10% of the measuring range, whichever is greater, and then calibrated and the time to 90% of the standard test gas application shall be recorded. The equipment shall be exposed to the circulating dust cloud within the chamber for a period of two hours with no vacuum applied to the sensor. The acceptance criteria for this test clause is that the equipment shall not give any false alarms during the two hour test. Upon the completion of the two-hour test, any trouble or fault condition indicated may be cleared in accordance with the manufacturer’s instruction, and the equipment shall be allowed to undergo any stated maintenance conditions. The equipment shall be exposed to the standard test gas and the final value and the time to 90% of the standard test gas application shall be recorded. General observations include measurement inaccuracies and false alarm. Environmental Exposure — Water Ingress Protection claim, clause 5.4.24. Water Ingress Protection claim is only applicable to UL standard 60079-29-1. The claim verification requirement is similar to the dust Ingress protection claim discussed in the previous slide. The test method for water Ingress Protection claim is that the equipment shall be mounted in accordance with manufacturers instructions, set to the lowest alarm level, or 10% of the measuring range, whichever is greater, and then calibrated and the time to 90% of the standard test gas application shall be recorded. This test is performed in accordance with the specific water test of the applied environmental standard, excluding any preconditioning requirements of the applied environmental standard. The acceptance criteria is that the equipment shall not give any false alarms during the test. Upon completion of the test, any trouble or fault conditions indicated may be cleared in accordance with manufacturers instructions, and the equipment shall be allowed to undergo any stated maintenance conditions. The equipment shall be exposed to the standard test gas and the final value and time to 90% of the standard test guess application shall be recorded. Some of the general observations include measurement inaccuracy and false alarms.

Faults verification clause

5.4.25 is only applicable to UL standard 60079-29-1. This clause requires verification of fault signals, and some of the faults that are verified are low voltage and power interruption in case of externally powered equipment, field wiring faults, measure values below zero, sensor disconnection, and flow rate verification for aspirated type equipment. Some of the general observations include equipment inaccuracy, loss of function, false alarms, and false signals. Electromagnetic Compatibility, or EMC requirements. The EMC requirements for combustible gas detectors are provided within IEC 613261-1 standard, table two within the standard describes list of tests required based on the type of equipment. The tests include electrostatic discharge, radiated immunity, burst surge, immunity, conducted immunity, magnetic immunity, and voltage dips and interruption. A critical deviation for EN standard 60079-29-1 is that the requirements of complete EMC standard EN 50270

are required to be met.

Software Function for software-controlled equipment. The functional safety aspects for gas detectors involving software are described within clause 4.2.9 of the gas detection performance standard 60079-29-1. A critical national deviation for EN standard 60079-29-1 is that the design and function of the equipment using software

or digital technologies

shall be evaluated in accordance with the full EN 50271 standard.

This brings us to the end of the list of critical tests within the combustible gas detection performance standard. In today’s presentation, we discussed the standards required for meeting combustible gas detection performance. The standards are CSA 60079-29-1, UL 60079-29-1,

and IEC and EN 60079-29-1.

We discussed the importance of performance testing and compliance. We discussed types of equipment. We discussed some critical tests and general observations made during those tests, and we also touched upon EMC and software assessment requirements.

I would now like to invite Mr. Aaron Wagner

to provide details on how CSA Group can be helpful with your performance needs and take questions

from the audience.

All right, Bhas and Jack, thank

you so much for that great presentation. Now, just a quick word about CSA Group before we take some live questions. Please stick with us.

CSA Group has over 20 certifiers globally to help you obtain certification for combustible gas detection performance and its test laboratories for this purpose, located in Canada and in the UK. We can be your partner to navigate the requirements of the standard and to obtain certification for your combustible gas detector for any market that requires and accepts the 60079-29-1 standard. Because of the vast capabilities that CSA Group has, it can be your one stop shop for all of your hazardous compliance needs, not just combustible gas performance. We can help you to obtain certification to IECx, ATEX, and UKCA standards, as well as to both Division and Zone standards in North America. We have the capabilities to perform a wide array of standards evaluation and custom testing related to hazardous location standards, and can help you to obtain certification anywhere using our global market access services.

All right. Bhas and Jack, thank you so much for that great presentation. So, we are going to move into our live Q&A session. So, our first question today, everyone, is all right, this person is asking, What do terms LEL and or LFL mean?

Thanks, Katie, for the question. The LFL and means lower flammable limit, and LEL means lower explosive limit. They essentially mean the same thing. It’s just that North American standards versus IEC and EN standards, they use different terms when talking about lower flammable limits. Example is methane, zero to 5% by volume is considered zero to 100% LEL in North America, but zero to 4.4% by volume or zero to 100% LEL for IEC and EN standards/

All right, thank you so much for that answer. Moving on to the next question in our queue here, this person is asking, what is clean air, zero gas? Good question.

So, clean air or zero gas is gas which is recommended by the equipment manufacturer, which is free of flammable gasses and any interfering or contaminating substances. The main purpose of zero gas is calibration or adjustment of the equipment to zero. Okay, Bhas, thank

you so much for that answer. As a reminder to the attendees, if you have a question today, feel free to enter it into the Q&A window and click ‘submit.’ All right, our next one here, what is standard test gas, and then in parentheses, it says STG.

A standard test gas,

and I believe STG is,

is a term that is used

by some of the test labs noting the standard test gas. So standard test gas is a composition specified for each item of equipment and gas and/or vapor that is used for testing. For example, if a test is conducted for an equipment which is intended to detect methane, 50% LEL, or 2.5% by volume for North America, is applied during testing, so 50% LEL will be considered as a standard test gas when testing.

All right. Thank you so much for that answer. All right, moving on to the next one in the queue. What gasses are used for testing for this standard?

There are four situations that are defined in the standard, I believe under under the test clause and sub clause test gasses. I believe the four situations that are provided by the standard are testing with specific gas for equipment, if the equipment is intended for single gas sensing, methane-only testing for equipment intended for sensing methane only, or firedam, methane, and propane or butane for general purpose gas detection, and gas from the manufacturers list of flammable gasses for which equipment is claimed to be suitable. Most manufacturers, in my experience, they opt for general purpose gas detection, which is methane and propane or butane, and then, depending on their customers requirements and specific gasses on top of the assessment and get those specific gasses that they claim to be suitable for are then added to the certificate.

Okay, thank you so much for that answer, Bhas. We’ve got time for a few more questions here. Next one in the queue. How many samples are required for the test program?

At CSA Group, the way we execute the test plan is we require a minimum of three working samples. One is used specifically for electromagnetic compatibility testing. Their timeline may be different than the hazardous location lab, and so the EMC testing is conducted independently. Two more samples that are provided to the hazardous location lab — one Sample will go through preconditioning. I’m sorry, both the samples will go through preconditioning. One sample out of the two will be used for long term testing, and the third sample will be used for all other testing. So, in total, a minimum of three samples requested, one for EMC, one for long term, and one for all other tests.

All right, thank you so much for that answer. As I mentioned before, if anyone has a question, feel free to enter it now into that Q&A window. All right, Bhas, our next one here, What is considered loss of function?

Loss of function based on the interpretation sheet provided by IEC and which is also now added to the standard as part of the newer edition of the standard, is a change of state, or change of state could be entering into an alarm, a pump failure, any control failure, or display failure is considered as loss of function. Automatic restarting and shutdown of the equipment is also not allowed. This is specific to drop test. Loss of function should not occur during or after drop test. All

right, thank you so much for that answer. We’ve got a couple more in our queue here, Bhas. So, the next one, what is aspirated and automatically aspirated equipment?

So, aspirated type equipment is considered as equipment that draws gas into itself or into the gas sensor area or cartridge or section of the equipment. Aspirated equipment typically have internal pumps or external pumps that are directly connected to the equipment.

All right, thank you so much for that answer. Okay, next one here. What is diffusion equipment?

Diffusion equipment is,

is an equipment in which the transfer of gas from the atmosphere to the sensor takes place without an aspirated flow, or without any without a pump. The diffusion equipment essentially detects primal gasses in ambient air. Sure. All right, thank

you for that answer, Bhas. So, we are reaching the top of the hour, so this will be the final request for any questions from the audience. You will be able to come back and watch this webinar again, so you can always ask questions during the on-demand period, which will last 90 days. All right, Bhas, another one here.

This person is asking,

How long does it take for a long-term test?

Long term test plan is dependent on the type of equipment that is being assessed. There is a 20-day long-term test for portable equipment. And there is, I believe, a 60-day long-term test for transportable and fixed type of equipment.

All right. Thank you so much. So, I’m looking at the queue here. We’re going to take one more question today, Bhas, then we will wrap the webinar up. So, anybody that has a last-minute question, we will reach out to you following today’s webinar. All right. Bhas, the last one for today, Are all equipment with environmental IP ratings tested for IP claim during performance?

No.

Environmental IP ratings that manufacturer has on their equipment are not always confirmed during performance assessment. The IP rating clauses that are within the performance standard are for the claim that is made for performance only. For example, if a manufacturer is claiming IP 66 for flammable gas detection performance, then and only then, the IP claim will be tested by the performance standard. If the equipment is claiming, if the equipment is assessed for environmental ratings based on the IEC 60529 standard for IP 66 that does not mean it is mandatory for the performance standard to consider those IP ratings as well.

All right, Bhas, thank you so much for that answer. So, as I mentioned, we are close to the top of the hour, so we are going to start to wrap the webinar up right now. If you have a question that has not been answered, we will get back to you following today’s webinar. Want to say a huge thank you to Bhas and for Jack, for the great presentation and for answering some of the attendees’ questions. So, gentlemen, thank you for being here, and a huge thank you to our audience members for being part of this webinar event. Take care and we will speak with you soon. Thank you.