Installing and Upgrading Water Monitoring Systems in Laboratory Facilities

Water quality is a foundational utility in laboratory environments, supporting everything from routine handwashing to highly sensitive analytical, research, and clinical processes. As laboratories grow more complex and regulatory expectations continue to evolve, many facilities are re-evaluating whether their existing water monitoring strategies are sufficient, or whether new systems are needed to improve reliability, visibility, and compliance. Installing or upgrading a water monitoring system requires careful logistical planning that spans infrastructure, workflows, and long-term operational strategy.

Evaluating whether the current approach is adequate

A critical first step is determining whether current monitoring practices truly reflect how water systems behave in real-world lab conditions. According to Riley Mulhern, PhD, CEO of Aquantix Technologies, “One of the most important questions labs can ask is whether their monitoring approach reflects how failures actually happen in real-world water systems.” Traditional time-based maintenance schedules can be misleading, because “filtration systems don’t degrade on a calendar. They degrade based on how much water flows through them, how variable that usage is, and what upstream conditions look like.” Without insight into actual usage, labs may replace filters too early, increasing costs, or too late, risking compromised samples and equipment downtime.

Evaluating a water monitoring system therefore begins with understanding points of use, water demand variability, and the consequences of failure. Lab managers and facility stakeholders should map where water quality is most critical, identify high-risk processes, and assess how failures would be detected under current practices. An effective monitoring strategy should provide “timely insight into what’s actually happening at the point of use,” rather than relying solely on periodic checks or manual logs.

New construction vs. existing labs: different constraints, different strategies

The logistics of implementation vary significantly between new laboratory facilities and occupied, existing labs. New construction offers the advantage of early integration, allowing monitoring strategies to be considered alongside plumbing layouts, equipment planning, and digital infrastructure. However, Mulhern cautions that teams can unintentionally limit future flexibility if systems are “tightly coupled to today’s layout or assumptions and become difficult to adapt as programs grow or change.” Designing for scalability—both in terms of physical layout and data architecture—is essential.

Existing laboratories face different challenges. Legacy plumbing systems, inconsistent fixture types, and limited tolerance for downtime can make monitoring upgrades feel daunting. In these environments, teams may assume that monitoring requires invasive retrofits or centralized hardware that disrupts operations. In practice, the feasibility of an upgrade often depends on whether monitoring can be deployed incrementally and with minimal impact to daily work. Systems designed for point-of-use deployment can reduce the need for major infrastructure changes while allowing facilities to prioritize critical areas first.

Infrastructure and coordination considerations

Regardless of project type, early coordination among lab planners, architects, engineers, and facility teams is key to avoiding overlooked infrastructure constraints. Common issues include assumptions about available power, data connectivity, and maintenance access. Mulhern notes that “early coordination with architects and engineers helps teams choose solutions that fit the physical reality of the lab rather than forcing workarounds after the fact.” Maintenance access, in particular, is often underestimated. Monitoring components that are difficult to service can create long-term operational burdens, even if installation itself is straightforward.

Beyond physical infrastructure, successful water monitoring systems must align with laboratory workflows. In high-throughput or regulated environments, additional manual tasks can quickly become barriers to adoption. “The systems that work best are the ones that don’t require people to change how they work,” Mulhern explains. Lab staff already manage demanding protocols and documentation requirements, making it critical that monitoring operates passively in the background. Automated data collection and logging, paired with targeted alerts, allow staff to focus on core responsibilities while still maintaining oversight of water quality risks.

Supporting compliance, documentation, and audits

Data management and alerting strategies also play a decisive role in system effectiveness. Many labs struggle not because they lack information, but because they are overwhelmed by it. Mulhern observes that “the most effective programs focus on a small number of operationally meaningful parameters, paired with clearly defined thresholds and notification rules.” Equally important is defining responsibility. Facilities, lab management, and EHS teams must understand who responds to which alerts and under what circumstances. Without clear ownership, even well-designed systems can fail to drive action.

Water monitoring systems increasingly support regulatory, accreditation, and internal quality requirements, making recordkeeping and audit readiness central considerations. Fragmented documentation—spread across manual logs, service records, and disconnected platforms—can complicate validation and inspections. Continuous monitoring paired with centralized records helps create “a more coherent and defensible record of system performance over time,” Mulhern says, simplifying audits and reducing disruption.

Planning for long-term success and scalability

Finally, long-term success depends on viewing water monitoring as an ongoing program rather than a one-time installation. Maintenance strategies, staffing responsibility, and lifecycle planning should be established early. Mulhern notes that labs often learn “the hard way” that systems without clear ownership or scalability lose relevance over time, leading to unmanaged sensors or ignored alerts. Planning for gradual expansion and evolving needs helps ensure that monitoring systems continue to deliver value as facilities and research demands change.

Whether implemented during new construction or retrofitted into an active facility, water monitoring systems are most effective when thoughtfully integrated into the broader lab ecosystem. By aligning infrastructure, workflows, and accountability from the outset, laboratories can improve reliability, reduce risk, and build a more resilient foundation for scientific work.