I once observed the unfavorable consequences of using a similar homemade device made of plywood. The device greatly changed the aerodynamics in the hood, causing formation of
vortices/
tubulence (because of the high flow rates) instead of the intended front to rear nearly laminar flow. The investigators were using
dispersible radioactive material in the hood. The turbulence caused the
microparticulates to be deposited on their sleeves. Furthermore, each time the users withdrew their arms, a bolus of swirling air escaped the enclosure. The result was (a) considerable contamination of lab coat sleeves, (b) deposition of radioactive material on the floor in front of the the hood, and (c) shoe contamination/tracking of the radioactive particulates. After decontamination, smoke tests by professional industrial hygienists (who were not previously consulted as per policy
)_demonstrated the (a) vortices/turbulence in the hood, and (b) the escape of smoke from the hood when the
users even partially withdrew their arms.
David Haugen
Retired
From: "Peter Zavon" <pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**ROCHESTER..RR.COM>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 9:09:06 PM
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Any experience with the "Continuous Access Port" for a hood??
Today a colleague
asked for my opinion of the fume hood related device described at http://www.isolationsciences.com/home.html.
This is an insert that roughly converts a standard chemical fume hood to a glove
box - but with no glove in, or intended to be in, the gauntlet openings. This
reduces the face opening and permits substantial reduction in ventilation
volume.
The concept is
intriguing and I wanted to ask if there is anyone on this list who has actual
experience with this device, and, if so, what that experience might
be.
My first thoughts
about possible drawbacks were about combustibility (not just flame spread)
and susceptibility to puncture or tearing when new or as it ages. I also
wonder about the possibility of accumulation of airborne contaminants in the
work volume as a result of the lower ventilation rates this
makes.
I would appreciate
you insights based on actual experience with this or something
similar.
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield,
NY
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com