Page 2
o€
54
of
mod631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
2224 Laboratory Fume Hood Testing Study
BH.Ruelm
CHZM WILL Hanford Group, Inc.
Richbnd, WA MI352
U.S. Department of Energy Contract DEdC27-99RLl4047
uc:
EDTIECN:
DRF
Cost Center: 7S900
Charge Coda: 502052
Total Pages: SV
B&R Code:
Key Words: 2224 Laboratory, fume hood, testing, study, plan, a c e velocity, profile,mom,hood, arm
port, open face, airflow, safs m
n
,
containment, smoke (vkualhtion), vapors, turbulence, results,
evaluations, atmIytM equipment, mused,A N S Y A S H W 110-1995, recmm&d oris, cmcluh&
Maintenance Procedure 2399903,properties, characteristics, sash, readings
Abstract: The 2224 LaboratorycOntains 155 active fumehoods that are used to support analytical work
with radioactive andlorbxic materials. The perfrmce of a fume hood m brought into question &r
employees detected odors m the work a m while mixing chemicals w i t h i the subject fume hood.
Following the event, testingof the fume hood was conducted to assess the parformame ofthe &me hod.
Based on observations h n the testing, it was deemed appropriate ta conductperformaace evaluations of
other fume hoods within t
h laboratory.
TRADEMARK DISCWMER. Ribikrsnco h m l n tp any wlk amcHaEal pradua wM#, ot -6
by tn- n m ,
trademark, manufacturer, or Pthemise, does nct necssssrlly mstiMe ~r imply L endorsement,r m m e n d d i o n , or
favorling by the UnW States Government w any agsng themf or Its contrae!ors or subcontractors.
I
P r i M in tba Unltd States dhmrlca. To d i n c
u
w ofthls document, cpntact: Doament Control Serum,
P.O. Box 950, Mallstop H6-08, -land
WA 89352,Phons (5os) 372-2420;Fax (=a) 3 7 W 8 9 .
Date
Releesa Stamp
Approved For Public Release
MOW-767 (REV t 1
. ..
.-
....
Page 3
of
54
of
mod631253
RPP-RPT-32842
Revision 0
222-5 UBORATQRY
FUME HOOD TESTING STUDY
B. 1C Ruehfs
CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc.
Date Published
March 2007
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
O E c e of River Protection
Contract No. DErAC27-99RL14047
Approved for public release; distribution is unlhited
Page 4
o€
54
of
mod631253
RPP.RPT.32842,
R ~.Y0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................
2. TEST METHQDQLOGY.........................................................................................................
3 . TEST RBSULTS ......................................................................................................................
4 . RFCOMMENDATIONS...........
i. ..................................................................................
5 . CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................
6. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................
..
rn
111
1
1
2
6
6
7
APPENDIX: LABORATORY FUME HOOD PERFORMANCE TESTING PLAN ...............46
List of Figures
Figure 1. Room 4K, Hood 3 ...........................................................................................................
Figure2. Room4K, Hood4....................................
L.,...................................................................
Figure3. Room4K.Hod7. ........................................................................................................
Figure 4. Room 4K, Hood 9.........................................................................................................
Figure 5 . Room 43,Hood 5.........................................................................................................
Figure 6 . Room 4D.Hood 6.........................................................................................................
Figure 7. Room 4P. Rood 3; ........................................................................................................
Figure 8. Room 4P.Hood 4 .........................................................................................................
Figure 9. h o r n 4P. Hood 10.......................................................................................................
Figure 10. Room 4P,Hood 1 1.....................................................................................................
Figure 1 1. Room 1K, Hood 4.......................................................................................................
Figure 12. Room lD, Hood 4.......................................................................................................
Figure 13. Room ID, Hood 7 .......................................................................................................
Figure 14. Room lD, R d 8.......................................................................................................
Figure 16. Room 1GA,Hood 4 ....................................................................................................
Figure 17. Room 1L, H o d 6.......................................................................................................
Figure I8. Room 4
1
.
H o d 12.....................................................................................................
Figure 19. Room 45. Hood 3.......................................................................................................
Figure 20. Room 45. Hmd 4.......................................................................................................
Figure 21. Room 4s. Hmd 10.....................................................................................................
Figure 22. Room 4s. Rood I 1.....................................................................................................
Figure 23. Room 4A. Hood 4.......................................................................................................
Figure 24. Room 4A, Hood 5 .......................................................................................................
Figure 25 . Room 4B,Hood 3 .......................................................................................................
Figure 26. Room 4B.H o d 5 .......................................................................................................
Figure 27. Room 4C, H o d 1.......................................................................................................
Figure 28. Room 4M, Hood 1......................................................................................................
Figure 29. Room 4M,Hood 2......................................................................................................
Figure 30. Room 4M.Hood 3......................................................................................................
Figure 31 . Room 4M,Hood 4......................................................................................................
Figure 32 . Room 41, H o d 11......................................................................................................
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
I
Page 5
o€
54
of
mod631253
WP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
Figure 33. Room2H,Bood 1.. .....................................................................................................
40
Figure 34. Room ZB,Hood 3...........,..,.1.I..............................,.........,..........,...,.......,..,....,...,......
41
Figure 35. Room 4I3,Hood 3 (RETEST), ..................................................................................
-42
Figure 36. Room 4B,Hood 5 (RETEST)...................................................................................
.43
Figure 37.
IRHmd2 (RETEST). ............................................................................. ,..,,,.44
Figure 38.
1K, Hood4 (RE’FESV. ...................................................................................
45
List olTables
Table 1. Arm Port Fwne Hood Test Results..................................................................................
Table 2. O p Face Fume HoodTest Results.................................................................................
.
3
5
I
ii
I
~.
Page 6
of
54
of
mod631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October, 26,2006, the pedormance of fume hood 2 in Room 1K of the 2224 Laboratory was
brought into question a f bmployees detedted odors in the m m while mixing chemic& within
the subject fume hood Room 1K and fume hood 2 were pIaced on restrictedaccess uatil Wting
could be perfanned to assess the performance of the fume hood.
Face veIocity and smoke (flow vis-on)
testing of fume hood 2 was conducted on
November 15,2006, to rate the performance of the fume hood under varying conditions. Face
velocity of the subject fumeh o d WEISfound to be within normal operating parameters. Flow
visualization testing revealedthat airflow turbulence within the fume hood resdted in periodic
reversal ofvapors towards the h n t ofhe fume hood, Some of these vapors would then actually
break the sash plane ofthe fume hood, reverse direction, and then flow back into the fume hood.
Based on testing obsewatim, it was deemed slppropxiak to conduct further waluations of 0 t h ~
2223 Labmatory fume h d s . Thirty-four fixme hoods were identified as candidates for
performance testing. Of the 34 candidate fume hoods, 13 were configured with m port sashes
while the remaining 21 had open h e sashes. The majority ofthese ftune hoods contained large
pieces of analytical equipment w exhibited “as-used” conditions similar to fume h o d 2 in
Room 1K
Based on performance testing r d t s , an engineering wduatim was conducted for each of the
candidate fume hoods. This evaluation established an hitidperformance rating for each fume
hood b d on a combination of the air velocity profile and flow v i s d i o n assessment.
Of the 13 arm port fume hoods tested, Seven were rated as Wood” and the remaining six rated as“Fair.” All h e hooh rated as “Fair” contained a significant amount of equipment or materids
that caused a significant increase in turbulence that was normally observed in all the arm part
fume h d s tested.
Of the 21 open-face h e hoods initially tested, 15 were rated as Wood,” three rated as “Fair,”
and three rated as “Poor.” All three ofthe fume hoods rated as “Fair“ received their rating due to
I d z e d air turbulence caused by itlstnmata positioned within 6 in. of the sash face. Each of
the thee fume hods mted as “Pod’ received their rating due to turbulence, slow clearing time,
and the potential for aifflow reversal caused by I q e solid objects placed close to the W e hood
sash plane.
Improvements to fume hood m
o
r
m
a
n
c
uratings can be achieved by the repositioning of
instrumentation or makrials oontained w i t h the fume hood. For example, firme hood 2 in
Room 1K re&ved an improved performance rating by removing excess laboratory items and
positioning the remaining materids at least 6 in, back from the fume hood sash plane.
Flow characteristicscan be impmved by modifying support equipment features. The
performatlcemtings for fume hoods 3 and 5 in Room 4B were raised h.m “Poor“ to “Fair“ by
cutting p i n g s in the lower section of the splash shields that were positioned just inside tfme
fume h o d sash planes. other candidate fume hoods could show similar implroved p e r f o m c e
ratings with minor modifications.
I
Page 3
o€
54
of
mod631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rev. 0
1.
INTRODUCTION
The 2224 Laboratory contains 155 active fume hoods that are used to suppork analytical work
with radioactive a d o r toxic materials. Face velocities for these fumehoods are set aud
maintained based on many years of operating experience and guidance from the American
C o d e m e ofGovemnentd Mustrid ~ygienists(ACGIH? Industrid ~mtitation:A ~ u n ~ a l
of Recommended‘Prwtke. Monthly testing Is perfarmed and documented to mum that the fm
velocity of each fume h o d remains within established parmeters. In addition to this, laboratory
personnel conduct all analytical activities uskg apprwed work practices to ensure safe fume
h o d operation.
On October 26,2006, the @ormance of fiunehood 2 in Room IK ofthe 222-S Lahatory was
brought intoguestion after employ= detected odoxs in the m m while mixing chemiicatswithin
the subject fume hood. Following this event, performance testing was conducted on furm
hood 2, Results of the testing indicated that the large quantity of d y t i c d equipment and
materials contained within the frune hood caused airflow turbulence that led to periodic Elease
of vapors into the surroundingmea.
Based on the ohe.rvatiom from the testing of fume hood 2 in Room lK, a selected group of
candidate fume hoods was identified for perhrrnance hting. These fume hods contained large
pieces of analyticalequipment or congested work surfaces that could contribute to r e d d h e
hood performance.
2.
TEST METHODOLOGY
The selected testing methods were adopted hmANSWASHW 110-1995, M e h d ofresting
Perjbrmmce of h h r a t m y Fume Haoh. The test methods used provided for a qualitative and
quantitative evaluation of hme hood performance.
The quantitative evaluation consisted of air velocity rnwments. These measurements were
taka across the hce of each fume hood utilizing a grid pattern established in accordance with
Analytical Technical Services Maintenance Procedure 2599003, ‘Qen Facdh Port Hood
Airflow Test, 2224.” The average of the velocity measurmenta was calculatsd, the highest and
lowest readings noted, and a velocity profile genwa2wl.
The qualitative portion of the evaluation consisted of general, local, and large volume flow
visuafizationtesting. A mixture of dry ice and hot water was used to generate a visible
“challenge vap09’ for these tests. Direct observation as well as recording of digitaZ video was
utilized to mder a determination on the ability of each fume hood to contain vapors in its
Has-USedn
state.
1
I
Page 8
of
54
of
mod631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rev. 0
Based on flow visualization test results, prfomance ratings were established for each of the
candidate fume hoods. These ratings and criare as foIlows:
Challenge vapors are adequately captured at the face of the fume hood and are drawn into the
fume hood and exhausted Quick cleatance times are olxmved. Limited fume hood roll vortem
No visible escape of vapors at any time. Turbulence and eddying will be observed in a m port
fume hoods between the arm port openings.
Some challenge vapors reverse flow and migrate toward the fume hood face but are recaptured
and exhawtd Dead air spaces are present dhat WQUM
r e a t in a slow migration of vapors
towardthefiunehoodface butareagainI.ecapturedatEd+ted.
Wtedturbuhtvortexis
obsewed, No visible escape of vapm at any time.
Challenge vapors reverse flow near the fume hood f a . Dead air spaces are present that result in
slow migration of vapm toward the fume hood face. Slow crlpture and clearance of challenge
vapors. There is an observed potentid for escape of vapors from the h e hood.
I
Failure
Chdenge vapm migrate directly to the fume hood face and escape from the interior of the fume
h o d into the surrounding m
TESTRESULTS
3.
The data presented in Table 1 shows the avemge and minimum/maximum readings for face
velocities, flow visualizationtest rating, and general comments applicable to each of the
candidate arm port fume hoods,
Ofthe 13 arm port fume hoods tested, seven of these fume h a d received a “Good”
perEormance rating. The rwnainingsix arm port fume hoods received a ‘Fair’’ performance
rating. It was noted during flow visualization testing that d1 a m p
o
r
t fume hods exhibited
varying degrea oftufbulerm between the a m ports and on either side of the arm ports next to
the hood walls. Five ofthe six h e hoods mted as “Fair” contained a Significantm o u n t of
equipment thatwas positioned in such a manner BS to accentuat5 h e hherentturbdence
problem. Fume hood 1 in Room 2H received a “Fair” rating due to turbulence in the front
section of the fume h d caused by poor housekeeping and less than adequate work practices
within the fume hood (materials and equipment very close to the hood face). Fme hoed 6 in
Room 4D was found cluttered with numerous bagged iterns that wae placed between and on top
2
.
I
Page 9
o€
54
of
mod631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rw. 0
of d y t i c d equipment Despite the paor housekeeping, this fume hood received a p e r f o m c e
rating of ‘Good.”
Table 1. Arm Port Elme Hood Test Results,
4c
c
4A
1D
8
L
a
The average faoe velocity for 222.9 taboratory fume hods i s required00 be 125 to 140 feet per minute (FFM).
Performenced n g h test plan.
Note: All values listed arc in FPM
The data p m t e d in Table 2 show the average and minimumlmaximumreadings for face
velocities, flow visualizationtest rating, and general comments applicable to each of the
candidate open face fume hods.
Of the 21 open face fume hoods initially tested, 15 fume hoods received a performance rating of
Wood.” Three fume hoods received a perf;omancerating of “Fair” and three fume hoods
received a performatlce rating of Toor.” All three of the fume hoods rated as “Fair” received
this rating due to s o m Iocalized ebulence and swirling of vapors c a d by insbments
positioned within 6 in of the sash face.
Fume hods 3 and 5 in Room 4B received “Pwr” ratings due to splash shields that were
positionedjust inside the sash faces (within 2 to 3 in.). Velocity profiIes for h e two fume
hoods show a significant decrease in face velocities at the s p h h shield 100catiOtls. A very slow
clearing time of vapors was observed for MI
o f t h e fume hoods dwhg flow visudiZation
testing. Following initial performance testing, the splash shields were modified by c h g
circular opeaings in the lower portion of each shield. Velocity and flow visualization testing was
again prfomd for these two fume hamis. This time, a significant improvement in airflow
I
3
~
.. ..
.
Page 10
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,
Rw. 0
m u d and through the shields was observed with some expected turbdence. These two fume
h o d s d v e d a revised mmance rating of uF&.”
Rood 4 in Room 1K was ratd “Poof‘ due to a Iarge solid support platform that was positioned
in the center front section ofthis fume hood. Flow Visdhtion testing indicated that a potentkd
for escape of vapors from this fume hood might OCGW if personnel attempted to utilize the
limited work surface diredy in fmnt ofthe solid support platfom. Following hitid
performance testing, the solid support platfom contained within this fume hood was q l a c e d by
an open suppart platfbm. Velocity and flow visualization testing was repeated for this hood.
The performance rating for this h e hood remained at “Poor” due to some turbulence and
reversal of airflow at the fume hood Eace between the new platform and some contaiflefs
providw secondary contahent for httled chemicals. This fume hmd h been removed fiom
SerYice until such time 5ts the observed performance issues can be corrected.
Finally, fume hood 2 in Room 1K was retested after excess mataids and items had been either
removed or moved back at kast 6 in. from the fume hood face plane. Some swirling on the deft
side wall of the fumebod was observed This could be attributed to a couple of bottled
chemicals and the tight fit of an instnunent located against the I& wall. Bassd on the results of
the retest, this b e h o d would now be pedomance:rated as “Fair.”
4
Page 11
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rw. 0
1K
2
138
148 I131
Fair
1K
4
133
146 / 121
Poor
RETEST - Good &IO
distribution
W h
h o d , some swixfiq abedon left side
near wall ofhood.
RETEST TUrbul~%and E v l e r ~ eairfl~w
' still obsaved near b
e hood face.
-
I
I
5
Page 12
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rw, 0
Figures 1 through 38 provide a comparison of fume hood face velocity profiles with photographs
of the corresponding hoods showing the position of equipment m
i materials that were contained
within each hood at the time of testing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4,
Equipment should always be placed as deep into the hood as possible and at least 6 in.back from
the sash plane.
Whenever possible, large equipment should be elevated 2 to 3 in.above the work arrrface to
allow airflow under and aroundthe equipment
The amount of equipment and materials in a hood should be Iidted No more than 50% ofthe
work surface should be taken up by equipment, a p p t u s , or large obstructions.
Sufficient space should be provided on the sides of equipment and laboratory materials placed in
furne hoods. This will improve airflow patterns by reducingturbulence and swirling next to the
fume hood wall.
On open face hoods, the sash height should be lowered, when possible, to improve capture of
vapors. Some h e hoods in Room 4s are operated with a reduced sash opening.
I
Adjustment o€rearbafaes on some of the hoods should be considered to improve the flow
characteristics ofthe hood. Erne hoods 2 and 4 in Room 1K might be candidates for W e
adjustment to obtain an increased flow across the working surfaces.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The “dry ice vapor cMlmge’’test proved to be very effective in Visualizing hood flow
characteristics while minimizing waste generation and disruption of analytical processes. It was
demonstrated to be the method of choice for flow visualintion testing within fume hoods
containing sensitive analytical instfilmentation.
Prior ta placement of large analytical equipment into a hood, f h e velocity and flow visualization
testing should be performed to determine the performance characteristics of the hood in the “as_
installed” condition. All testing should be qeated a f k placement of the equipment into the
hood to ensure that hood perforname hw not deteriorated significantly in the “as-used” state.
Some correlationwas observed between the fumehod face velociQ profiles and flow
v i d k t i o n ped-ce
testing, particularly with h e hoods 3 and 5 in Room 4B. Because
this correlation was not consistent, there is justifiable argument for perfbrming flow visualization
testing for dl questionable silmtions.
Page 13
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rw. 0
Arm port fume hoods &odd not be used for analytical w r k that requires the use of large
instnunen& or results in congested working surfaces. The inherent turbulence observed in all
arm port fume hods tested is increased significantly by these conditions, The reduced
pedommcc mtings for dl three arm port b e hoods in Room ID c m be attributed to these
CondEitions.
Regardlms of fume b d perf‘omce rating, consideration must be made with regard to the
toxicologid properties of the materials being handled or are anticipabl to be handEed within
any furne hood. A facility sa&@ repmmmtive &odd be consulted to evaluate faune hood
conditions and all proposed operatims,
6.
REFERJZNCES
2223 Maintenatlce Procedure 2S99003, Rev. 4-0, ‘‘Open FacdArm Port Hood Airflow Test,
222-s,” AuaIyticaa TFachnical S&C%s, cmu HILL HanfQrd Group,Inc.,
Richland, Washhgton.
ACGIHQ 1988, lnduspiul Venfilution: A Mansla1 of Reconsmended Pructice, 2@ Edition,
American Conference of Govwnmental Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio.
ANSVASHW 1 10-1995, “Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods,’’
American National Standaads Institute, New York, New Ywk,
Interoffice Memo, N. L. h e r to J. L.Heinemam and B.H.Ruehs, “Smoke Testing Room 1K
at 222-S Laboratory,” 7S600-NLK-06-009,
dated D a m b e r 5,2006.
7
~
.- . ...-
.
.
.
..
._
Page ld
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. O
Figyre 1. Room 4K,Hood 3,
SASH
i
128
125
\
146
170
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
4K
7100DNO.
2
PERFORMANCE RATYNG: GOOD
Note: Flanders Rag Out Housing is a product of Flanders Corporation, St. Petergburg, Florida.
8
Page 15
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, REV.0
Figure 2. Room 4K,Hood 4.
SASH
I
-
;
I85
!
160
~
~
144
!
144
92
170
:
170
!
95
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
HOODNO.
4
PERFORMANCE XMTING: GOOD
9
- -.. .. . . . _ -. .
. ..
.
Page 18
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
Figure 5. Room 4D,Hood 5.
I
r-
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROQMNO. 41)
HOODNO.
5
PERFORMANCE &WING: PAIR
12
Page 19
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RFT-32842, Rev, 0
Figure 6. Room 4D, Hood 6.
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
HOODNO.
6
PERFORMANCE RATING: GOOD
13
Page 22
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
.
RPP-WT-32842, Rev. 0
Figure 9. Roam 4P,Hood 10.
127
**-------------
137
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO. 4p
HOODNO. 10
PERFORMANCE RATING: GOOD
16
-
Page 25
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
Page 26
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,
Rev. 0
Figure 13. Room l D , Hood 7.
E
Face Velocity Profilc (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
la
I-IOODNO.
1
PEWORMANCE RATING: FAlR
20
Page 28
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
Figure 15. Room XR, Mood 9.
7
I
I
1
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROQMNO.
fi
HOODNO.
9
pEWORMANCE RATING: GOOD
22
Page 31
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
Figure 18. Room 4H, Hood I t .
"
i1
--.A
--1*-----
"
't.
I
SASH
:
150
1
118
152
i
195
.....
..............
I42
f
100
136
I
ROOMNO.
AI-J
HOODNO.
2
PERFORMANCE RATTNG: GOOD
25
:
194
Page 33
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,
Rev. 0
Figure 20. Room 4S, H a d 4.
SASH
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
4s
HOODNO. 4
PERFORMANCE RATING: FAIR
27
Page 39
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
Figure 26, Room 4R,Hood 5.
I
,.
SASH
i
158
f
90
i
137
i
156
i
....................................................................
i
154
i
54
1
137
...............................................
:
140
'
54
i
I50
i
==.=.=. . . . . . . ,
155
150
....................................................................
165
i
I
110
t
177
;
165
,................................................................
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO. 4B
HOODNO.
5
PERFORMANCE RATTNG: POOR
33
:
I
Page 4 0
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RFP-RPT-32842,Rev. 0
Figure 27. Room 4C, Hood 1.
132
141
-
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
HOODNO.
1
PERFORMANCE BATING: GOOD
34
Page 41
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rev.6
SASH
I
164
i
t
87
130
i
654
!
................................
....ii_...
j
...
j
154
t
71
1
135
!
150
t
151
1
TO
i
165
i
E43
I
...................................................................
Face VelociQ Profile (values are in FPM)
PERFORMANCE RATING: FAIR
Note: Safeaire" Hamilton is a product of Hamilton, a part o f Thermo Fisher Scientific, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
35
Page 42
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
Figure 29. Room 4M, Hood 2.
I':J
SASH
-
250
i
120
i
131
142
i
236
!
122
i
129
135
i
!
133
f
123
!
138
136
f
:
I41
i
130
i
131
140
i
i
i
i
I
Face Vclocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
4M
HOODNO. 2
PERFORMANCE BATING: GOOD
36
Page 4d
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32A42, RCV.0
Figure 31. Roam 4M, Hood 4.
71
5'
a
1
SASH
144
:
123
130
141
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
4M
HOODNO. 4
PERFORMANCE RATING: FAIR
38
:
Page 46
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rev. 0
Figum 33. Room ZH,Hood 1.
!
!
: II ?
--
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNU. 2H
HOODNO.
1
PERFORMANCE RATING: FAIR
40
Page 47
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
Figure 34, Room ZR,Hood 3.
SASH
181
j
P....
i
190
i
185
i
190
1
.......T..........--......................................-
150
i
138
I
44
i
130
i
----------...
'...... ................................ ................,
i
i
130
:
I12
51
i
100
r---------------u---------.'...-.-..
f
140
.........._._.__*._**-*.*
i
90
i
102
......................................
I30
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
PERFORMANCE RATING: GOOD
41
:
Page 4 9
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rev. 0
Figure 36. Room
4R,Hood 5 (RETEST).
HORIZONTAL
SASH
I49
i
142
60
i
75
j
I30
153
’
111
144
i
~....~..........~.......~~~~.~~~~~..,......-----..--~--.--.-------.--~
I
190
96
I
169
: 150 f
...............................~~~.~
=...-..-......-..........*.-.--
Face Velocity Profile (values are in PPM)
ROOMNO.
4R
HOODNO.
5
PERFORMANCE RATTNG: PAIR
43
Page 5 0
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rev. 0
Figure 37. Room ZK Rood 2 (RETEST).
HORIZONTAL
SASH
:
f
134
j
134
i
141
:
235
,
131
:
134
I39
:
140
i
135
i
142
133
143
Facc Vclocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
E
HOODNO. 2
PERFORMANCE RATING: FAIR
44
i
Page 51
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-321E42, Rev. 0
Figure 38. Roam lK, Hood 4 (RETEST).
i
130
i
129
i
130
1
136
i
Face Velocity Profile (values are in FPM)
ROOMNO.
fK
HOObNNO.
4
PEKFORMANCE RATTNG: POOR
Note: GBC SDS-270 i s a product of GDC Scientific Equipmcnt, Dandenong, Victoria, Australia.
45
Page 5 2
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rw. 0
APPENDXX:
LABORATORY FUME HOOD PERFORMANCE TJBTING PLAN
Introduction
Selected fume hods within the 222-S Laboratory will be tested to ensure acceptable
containment exists in their “as-used” state. b e d on the test results, an engineering evaluation
will be p d o m d . This evaluation will establish initial p r f i m m c e ratings far the hoods tested,
Recotrrmendrrtionswill be d e to improve h e h o d performance ratings though operator
work practices, equipment placement, and reduction in sash height.
The selected testing methods are adopted from the ANSVASHME 110-1995, Method of Testing
Performance ofkboratory Fume Hcfods. The methods used will provide for a qualitative and
quantitative evaluationofhood performance. The testing methods; and their associated steps
descrikd in this plan may be completed in any order.
General Test Conditions
1. Fume hoods sashes will be in the normal operatingposition.
2. Testing shall be conducted with normal hood apparatus in place.
3. Entry doors to the rmms containing fume hoods to be tested will be in their normal
configuration (in most cases open).
1. A sketch or drawing ofeach room shall be provided to indicate test hood location, other
hoods, the location of signEcant equipment nearby, and dam configurations.
2. The fume hood type, size, and sash configuration shall be noted.
3. The Iocation of materid storage and amount of work surface space occupied by materials
andlor equipment within the fume h o d shall be noted.
Flow Visualization Test
The purpose of this test is to visualize the capacity of a fume hood to contain vapors and render
an observation of hood performance as it is typically used. In the fblbwing tests, it is expected
that all vapors shall be carried to the rear ofthe fume hood and exhausted. Any movement of
vapor towards the face of the fume hood will be defined as negative characteristic airflow, and
any lack of movement will be defined as dead air space. Any vapor escaping the fume h o d face
during any of the tests will result in a “FAILURE” rating for t
h fume hood.
46
Page 53
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842, Rw. 0
Testing will be conducted as follows:
1. General V i s d i d o n Test Using a container of dry ice and water, condwt a compIete traverse of the fume hood face to
determine that a positive flow of air inta the hood is being maintainedover the enthe fume
hood face. No reverse flow should be evident (however, some initialturbulence at the vapor
challenge receptacleis acceptable).
2. Local Visualization Test a. Using a container of dry ice and water, challenge vrlpor test dong each side and across
the working surface of the fume hood, in a line parrillel to the fume hood h e and 6 in.
back into the fume hood. Note airflow patterm
b. Move the challenge media to the rear of the fumehood. Note airflow pertterns and
clearing time.
c. Move the challenge medm to the upper portion of the fume hood. Note airflow patterns
and clearing time.
d. Move the challenge media around any equiprnedmaterial in the fume hood Note
airflow pattern and clearing time.
3. Large Volume Visualization Test -
Place a container of dry ice and water in the center of the fume hood sash opening on the
work surface 6 in.back from the m edge of the sash. Note aifflow pattms. No reverse
flow of vapr should be evident into the work area.
Face Velocity Measurements
The purpose of this test is to quantitatively measure air velocity at the fume hood face.
Measurement locations will be established at the hood face in accordance with Analytical
Tecllnical Sersrices Maintenance Procedure 2S99003, ‘‘Open FacdArtn Port Hood Airflow Test,
2223.”
Air velocity measurements will be taken using a t h d anemometer. Flow rates in feet per
minute (FPM) will be obtained at established locations and recorded.
An average face velocity of 125 to 140 FPM shalt be established for each hood.
47
Page 5d
of
54
of
DAQ4631253
RPP-RPT-32842,Rev. 0
Performance Classifications
Following review of the testing data, @ormum ratings will be established for tach hhood
tested. The ratings and criteria are as fol~ows:
1. Good
Challenge vapors are adequately captured at the face of the fume hood and are drawn into the
h e hood and exhausted. Quick clearance times are observed. Limited fume h o d roll
vortex. No visible escape of vapors during any testing phase. Turbulence and eddying will
be o b m e d in a m ported fume M s between arm port openings.
2. Fair
Some challenge vapors reverse flow and migrate toward the fume hood face but am
recaptured and exhausted, or dead air s-5
are present that would result in a slow migration
of vapors toward the fume hood face but are again recaptured d exhausted. Limited
turbulent vortex is observed. No visible escape ofvapors during any testing p k .
3. Poor
Challenge vapors reverse flow near fume hood face. Dead air spaces are present that result
in slow migration of vapors toward the fume hood face. Slow qttm and clearance of
chaIlenge vapors. There is an observed potential for escape of vapors h m the fume hood.
4. Failure
Challenge vapors migrate dmctly to the furne h o d face and escape fkom the interior of the
hood into the swroutlditlg area.
Discussion
Regardless of fume h o d @mance rating, considerationmust be d e with regard to the
toxicological properties ofthe materials being handled or anticipated to be handled within any
fume hood. A facility safety representative should be contacted to evaluate, fume h o d
conditions and proposed operations.
I
It is strongly recommended that any fume hood that fslils ffow visualization testing be
temporarily removed from service. Additional testing should be conducted as won as possible to
identify the mwe(s) &ecting performance. Once corrective actions have been completed,
fume hood performance h t i n g should be repeated to validate my rating change.
i
I
48