Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:34:25 -0500
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pierre Chantal <Pierre.Chantal**At_Symbol_Here**HC-SC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Flammable gas in a quartz tube/electric furnace assembly
In-Reply-To: <110994D9-9C1C-4296-997F-26C2C28F749E**At_Symbol_Here**ehrs.upenn.edu>
Hi,
I have operated a similar plant ( a little smaller 18" h x 12" od) with
quartz tube at these temperatures with a flow of a few liters per minute.
We did have modified slightly the furnace to allow a slow purge of
nitrogen within the furnace (i.e. a small hole in the insulation to allow
a 1/8" ss tubing. We have operated this furnace uniterrupted for up to 500
h and have never experience any problem. The units where installed in a
pilot plant area under a canopy.
Hope this help
Joseph Passante
Sent by: DCHAS-L Discussion List
2010-01-20 09:18 AM
Please respond to
DCHAS-L Discussion List
To
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: [DCHAS-L] Flammable gas in a quartz tube/electric furnace assembly
What the original poster describes is very common. Nanotube are made this
way (lab scale) and furnaces used to pacify surfaces (such as silicon
wafers) in fabrication labs. The only difference is the flow volumes. Is
it CFM or scfm? I've never seen flow rates in excess of a 100 cc/min.
Hello everyone:
A researcher here plans to continuously flow 100 % flammable gas (methane,
ethylene, hydrogen, or mixture) at 1 cfm through a quartz tube/electric
furnace assembly that is heated to 800 degrees C (exceeds the
auto-ignition temperature of the gases). The researcher intends to have
four (4) of these units (~18"h x 24"d x 60" w) in the lab; at least two
units will be active throughout the day.
The discussion centers on where to safely set up and operate them. The
researcher proposed mounting the units on open benchtops (two per
benchtop) to accommodate their size and facilitate use (the gases would be
piped to the units via stainless steel tubing from an adjacent gas room).
Though seemingly practical, I feel this would require considerable $$
investment in engineering controls (canopy hood, blast shields, etc.) to
adequately protect the research staff from potential mishaps (gas leaks,
explosions). My thought is to mount the assembly in the labŐs wet process
hood (vertical laminar flow) and lower the sash during operation. Though
not ideal, it would reduce the potential of these mishaps. NOTE: There are
only two available process hoods in the lab, hence, only two assemblies
would be up and running (not a bad thing in my opinion).
Joseph R. Passante, CIH, CHO
Associate Director
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Environmental Health & Radiation Safety
University of Pennsylvania
215.746.6550
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post