The water and wastewater on-line monitoring instruments market has been developing in Europe since the early nineties. The large number of manufacturers, the numerous technological solutions available, in conjuction with a rather unclear legal framework, make it a complex and highly competitive market. The next few years should bring a simpler picture as the market approaches maturity.
Seit Anfang der 90er Jahre entwickelt sich der europäische Markt der Untersuchungsvorrichtungen, die eine konstante Überwachung (online) des Wassers für die Umwelt ermöglichen. Es handelt sich um einen komplexen konkurrenzfähigen Absatzmarkt, da es mittlerweile unzählige Hersteller gibt und verschiedene messtechnische Lösungen angeboten werden. Außerdem gibt es auf diesem Gebiet noch keine klar festgesetzten Bestimmungen. Die kommenden Jahre sollten jedoch auch in diesem Bereich mehr Klarheit schaffen und man sollte annehmen, dass dann der Reifeprozess voll durchgeschlagen hat.
rective action) and greater knowledge of the effluents being monitored. Not only does it provide better feedback, it may also prove cheaper than laboratory analysis if a large number of measurements are needed. For anyone involved in the measurement of water quality, on-line measuring would seem to provide the most appropriate solution. The market for on-line measuring instruments is therefore likely to benefit greatly from the strengthening of the quality standards currently in force.
Unclear regulatory framework
In practice, things are not quite so straightforward, due to intermingling between the regulations, the state of the art in metrology and market pressures. In this respect, the legislative framework plays an essential role on two levels: water quality standards and standards governing measurement types and methods. We are currently witnessing a rapid strengthening of water quality legislation, which is becoming stricter and includes an ever-increasing number of parameters. Nevertheless uncertainty reigns as to the measurable quantities, the methods that should be used and instrument specifications. The main difficulty arises from the values on which water quality measurements are based. The standard methods (BOD, COD, etc.), based on classic laboratory analyses, are the only ones legally accepted and validated by the control bodies. They are often, as in the case of BOD (1), difficult to adapt to on-line measuring. Automating these standardised methods results in devices based on processes that are often incompletely validated, complex, and expensive to buy and maintain since they are regularly out of order. Faced with these problems, manufacturers offer alternative measurements (allowing an approximation of the regulatory measurement to be achieved by correlation), or even totally new indicators, which are much easier to automate but have rarely been validated. Some bodies conduct validation tests (which takes 3 to 24 months) and allow some of these techniques to be used in certain specific cases. Negotiation and a pragmatic approach are therefore the rule (2). This situation, which prevails at the European level and even worldwide, clearly hampers the development of a market which is first and foremost based on the existing regulations and standards.
Demand: strong market pressure on prices
The level of public awareness of environmental issues, and indeed that of the public authorities, is uneven throughout Europe. The speed with which directives from Brussels are transcribed into national law and especially the degree to which they are applied (reflected in the level of equipment installed, for example) vary from one country to another. Latin countries, France included, are lagging behind northern Europe in terms of equipment for improving water quality. The demand for on-line analysers in Europe is mainly from municipalities and the industrial sector and, to a lesser degree, public control bodies. A close analysis reveals that the market share between these different purchasers is not uniform within the European Union. In Germany, the leading market ahead of the United Kingdom and France, demand is mainly from the industrial sector since public sector installations are already well equipped. Some segments of the German market, for pH metres for instance, have even reached maturity and demand is chiefly for replacements. In contrast, in southern Europe municipalities still present a considerable potential for development.
The fact that regulatory pressure is almost the sole driving force for market development is characteristic of the environment industry as a whole. In the case of water analysers, the regulatory situation influences not only the level to which users equip themselves but also the quality of the material that they purchase. Taking the example of wastewater, there are two important aspects that need to be taken into consideration. First, the acquisition of on-line measuring instruments does not usually generate any added value that is immediately apparent to purchasers (3). In point of fact, these instruments are not viewed as strategic purchases and are consequently highly susceptible to changes in the economic climate. In another respect, on-line instruments are often acquired to monitor expensive water pollution control installations, frequently set up to comply with public authority requirements. In such cases the purchase of measuring devices is seen as an additional expense on which small and medium-sized industries and local councils can achieve savings. As the regulatory situation does not always encourage users to equip themselves with high-performance material (4), price tends to be the leading criterion, ahead of after-sales service quality and the manufacturer's choice of technology. In the years ahead, price is likely to remain a key component of the market.
All of these factors are in play in France, where the choice, possibly open to criticism, of self-surveillance allows those responsible for discharges a certain amount of freedom in their choice of measuring methods. Thus, in the absence of any decision on the part of the State to encourage on-line control, for example of effluent from sewage works, the extensive and widely disparate range of instruments on the market, most of which are expensive and have not been validated, potential purchasers can take full advantage of the competition as well as playing for time by awaiting new developments. To this must be added the financial problems facing the public sector, at a time when French municipal authorities have fallen behind their North European counterparts in terms of equipment. At the current time, many of our elected representatives are, in the words of the Managing Director of Degrémont (5), “tetanised” by the already sharp rise in the price of water and, as a result, they curb investment even though it is essential if the objectives fixed by the European Union for 2002 are to be met. It is worthwhile considering just how much of the cost of a water pollution control unit is devoted to instrumentation: on-line measuring equipment, if carefully chosen and correctly used, does after all help to ensure that installations function at an optimal level. Here, we come
The market.
Only one manufacturer has more than a 10% share of the market and the remainder few exceed a turnover of 50 million FRF. The situation is therefore conducive to new players entering the market.
Back to the notion of added value of on-line instruments.
If this is not well perceived by the users, is it not because the authorities have, above all, stressed the regulatory aspect of automated control? In the circumstances it is hardly surprising if sales representatives use price as their main selling line. This would not seem to be the best way of promoting the use of on-line measuring.
Manufacturers: lively competition
Despite these problems, the rapid change in European regulations, which is tending to strengthen water quality standards, is leading to an expansion of the market. Market forecasters are generally agreed that the years ahead will see a mean annual growth rate of 6%. The market is expected to be worth 3 billion francs by the year 2001 (see figure 1).
Recent developments have revitalised a sector that had been somewhat becalmed, and over the past few years the small group of established specialist firms has been joined by a number of new players with a variety of origins. These include subsidiaries of international groups diversifying from their industrial process, laboratory or environmental control activities. They coexist with recently established small and medium-sized firms, often based on a single innovative, alternative (and thus not validated) and cheaper concept. These different types of producers propose correspondingly varied metrological solutions which, faced with the lack of clarity over the validation of instrument techniques and specifications, compete first and foremost in terms of price. The supply is therefore highly disparate and no one firm in Europe can claim to control groups of producers or joint ventures and various other types of associations. This phenomenon has become increasingly common during the past 3 years and arises from a variety of aims: to gain access to new technology or fresh markets or to attain a suitable size to take advantage of economies of scale.
Two main strategies exist.
The first consists of producing the full range, thus offering users all the necessary sensors and analysers under the same label.
This is the so-called "one-stop shop" strategy adopted by some of the sector's leading suppliers. The user gains by having to deal with only one supplier, whom he knows and who can ensure the harmonisation and follow-up of the entire installation. The supplier is then able to develop customer loyalty, in a similar way to the trend observed in the industrial process instruments market. This attitude upholds strategies of growth by acquisition or the formation of groups, so as to gain additional technology. The trend looks set to continue, since there are still a number of independent and strategically interesting firms and a careful study shows that no one supplier possesses the entire range of know-how available on the market.
The second strategy consists of conquering highly specific market niches. Some groups have built up such a reputation for a given type of instrument or measurement that potential users automatically turn to them first. Smaller firms also adopt this strategy by concentrating their efforts on a technology in which they excel or which they control. These are often the firms that innovate with new parameters, sometimes making themselves the target of groups seeking to offer the full range. Lastly, some firms place the emphasis squarely on responsiveness to customer requirements by offering each client tailor-made solutions.
The keys to future success: R&D and service
The budgetary restraints under which end-users operate often mean that they have difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified personnel to carry out day-to-day maintenance of the installations. Suppliers respond to this situation in two different ways: improving customer service (especially after-sales service) and developing instruments that are easier to use (reduced calibration, reduction in consumables), more rugged, less bulky and always cheaper. On average, firms in this sector spend the equivalent of 10 to 12% of their turnover on R&D and technical developments are rapid. The race to innovate that is currently under way may be to the detriment of the smallest firms, for whom price competition (reduced margins) sometimes leads to a reduction in expenditure on R&D.
R&D is chiefly aimed at updating existing instruments, and few new metrological concepts are likely to see the light of day. It is nevertheless worth mentioning the emergence of spectrophotometers that are inexpensive, rugged and dispense with the need for consumables. By analysing the whole of the visible ultraviolet spectrum, they are, depending on the case, capable of estimating or measuring numerous parameters and certain organic components not previously measurable on line. There have been considerable advances in the technology of multiparameter instruments and revenues from these instruments almost tripled between 1993 and 1997, a success which is largely due to their ease of use. R&D will also have
to make substantial innovations in response to the growing demand for fine biological measurements (parasites and pathogens), a segment where metrology still does not perform well.
With regard to the more classic sensors (pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.), demand can be expected to fall off since this segment is gradually reaching maturity. The instruments that are most likely to benefit from forthcoming investment are TOC meters and the measurement of nitrates, ammonium, phosphates and even turbidity/material in suspension. As for the new polarographs, they are rugged, dependable and high-performance instruments, having been designed for on-line use, and might benefit from the strengthening of standards relating to discharges of heavy metals. These instruments will have to be ever more competitive and easier to use and maintain. They will also have to be upgradeable. For manufacturers, innovation in these areas is one of the fundamental keys to success.
Conclusion
The European market for on-line water analysers is still in the growth phase and is still far from perfect and in a state of flux. The position will not really become simpler until efforts have been made to clarify the situation relating to standards. Before on-line control can develop fully it will need to be recognised by the legislators. Yet legislators’ doubts will not be dispelled until all the players have developed sufficiently strong technical arguments allied with a solid normative framework. This will be no small task: it means, for instance, defining needs, proposing evaluation protocols and rationalising the tools, and perhaps also detailing the tasks within the evaluation bodies. To summarise, setting up a more “intelligent” approach to evaluation which would go beyond just the sensors and analysers and include the entire measuring process, with data transmission and processing. The work of the AGHTM (Association Générale des Hygiénistes et des Techniciens Municipaux), for example, is aimed at preparing the technical bases for on-line analyses. This presupposes being able to dispense with systematically trying to align on-line measurements with laboratory analyses. This could also mean encouraging the acceptance of new or alternative measurements. To this extent, the recent introduction of TOC at the European level is a notable development.
This approach, which seems to be particularly well accepted in France and Denmark, will not have a future unless it can be extended to the rest of Europe. Nothing is yet set in stone. In this area, France has an opportunity to play a leading role in future European choices. It is easier to appreciate what is at stake when one considers the direct link between a country occupying a leading position on environmental standards and the development of its firms in the relevant sector (7).
The history of environmental markets shows that, in general, when official policy aims at achieving leadership in standards for a given market, this allows a strong and innovative sector to be developed, whereas a policy of trying to catch up usually results in the national market being opened up to foreign technology (8).
Our country could adopt measures to demonstrate its confidence in on-line control. This could be done by encouraging, for example in the form of technical specifications, the measurement of chlorine in the output of drinking water treatment works or the presence of turbidimeters as performance indicators for wastewater treatment works. While French manufacturers might not be the only ones to benefit, such measures would act as an incentive for all the players involved on a national scale. For if France is to succeed in playing a leading role in the development of on-line control in Europe, it will only be done through enhancing the available synergies between public authorities, researchers, manufacturers and users.
In France, such an approach is somewhat new and hesitant, yet there does seem to be a fairly general desire to go ahead. There is no time to lose if we want to seize this opportunity to create for our country a solid position in the field of metrology.
