About This Archive  |	DCHAS-L 2014 Index   |	DCHAS-L Yearly Index
Search All Posts:   Advanced Search     Disclaimer

Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.

Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Fume Hood Evaluation Form Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:48:20 AM Author: Wayne Wood <wayne.wood**At_Symbol_Here**MCGILL.CA>

Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Fume Hood Evaluation Form Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:07:15 +0000 Author: Debbie M. Decker

I would not consider commissioning complete without a valid acceptance test of the hood to meet specs.

Cheers!

Ray Cook, CIH, CSP
ApexHSE.com
832-477-4454

I Cor 1:18
Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 20, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Wayne Wood wrote:
>
> Thank you for the references and wise advice, Bruce. I agree 100% with your recommendation about linking periodic evaluations to the designed performance test - given the variations in face velocity that have been shown to be acceptable we don't really have a choice.
>
> The question I am wrestling with now is whether factory containment tests are adequate or whether we have to do field containment tests like ASHRAE 110 at the time of hood commissioning.
>
> W.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Bruce Van Scoy
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:13 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Fume Hood Evaluation Form
>
> W.,
> I am not familiar with a comprehensive standardized form for the evaluation of chemical fume hoods.
> Some of the better guidance that I have found is available at the two links listed below.
> I would strongly recommend that the designed performance specifications be specified initially with the periodic evaluations completed to verify that the hoods are actually performing as designed. My personal experience is that inadvertent maintenance or user activities have negatively affected the routine performance requirements, usually due to the maintenance worker or employee not realizing the impact of seemingly "minor" modifications. I like using smoke tubes to educate employees on the impacts and results of these "seemingly minor modifications" with verbal coverage of what needs to be obtained/maintained. We can't be in every lab all of the time and I've had good results of laboratory workers recognizing potential hazards and getting EHS involved when they are not sure based upon these practices, once
> they have been educated.
> Please see:
> http://orf.od.nih.gov/PoliciesAndGuidelines/Bioenvironmental/Documents/SECTI
> ON15991CONSTANTVOLUMEJune2007_508.pdf
> http://orf.od.nih.gov/PoliciesAndGuidelines/Bioenvironmental/Documents/SECTI
> ON15992VARIABLEVOLUMEJune2007_508.pdf
> My $0.02 - based upon numerous negative/positive trials and errors over the years!
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Wood
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:26 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Fume Hood Evaluation Form
>
> Smart people ask good questions. Good questions, Ralph.
>
> Ralph, I was looking mainly for a basic chemical fume hood evaluation and inspection checklist which could be used by an EHS technician once or twice a year but you and Kim Gates, who replied privately, have expanded my
> horizon somewhat.
>
> You asked:
>
> What aspect of a fume hood are you interested in evaluating:
> - the design of the hood itself
>
> I wasn't thinking of that but Kim got me interested in a commissioning checklist. It would be hard to do periodic evaluations without data on commissioning, such as the performance specs at the time of installation.
>
> - its containment?
>
> ASHRAE 110 appears to be the way to go, this is something that would fit well in a commissioning checklist.
>
> - how it's being used?
>
> Yes, insofar as we would want to identify uses that compromise the hood;s operation, like clutter and or heat or other turbulence-generating activities.
>
> - whether it's operating as designed relative to the general ventilation system in the lab?
>
> That would be more difficult to check. I won't pretend that is something we systematically follow up on in my institutions; I'm curious to know what others are doing?
>
> I think that these would require distinct forms?
>
> Yes, and in some cases the persons completing the forms might need different competencies as well.
>
> W.
>
>
> - Ralph
>
> Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
> Chemical Hygiene Officer
> Keene State College
>
> ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu
>

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post