Volume 7, Issue 4 (Winter 2021)
johe 2021, 7(4): 1-7 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nikpey A, Madandar M, Fallahmorad Z. Qualitative Evaluation of Laboratory Hoods in Departments Affiliated to Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Followed by an Interventional Measure. johe 2021; 7 (4) :1-7
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-599-en.html
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-599-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran , nikpey@gmail.com
2- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran
Abstract: (3354 Views)
Background and Objective: Various types of chemical and biological agents with different physicochemical properties and health effects are used in laboratories. The present study aimed to qualitatively evaluate the operation of laboratory hoods in the "Campus" laboratories, as well as the Food and Drug Administration affiliated to Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.
Materials and Methods: This study evaluated 19 chemical and 10 biological hoods located in the "Campus" laboratories, as well as the Food and Drug Administration according to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists standards in Qazvin Province, Iran. Different factors, such as velocity at the hood mouth, structural specifications, and their accordance with the standards were examined in this study. The data were then analyzed in SPSS software (version 21). In total, seven hoods were found malfunctioned, and a central ventilation system was designed using the velocity pressure method.
Results: According to the results, the velocity at the hood mouth was inappropriate in 92.6% of the hoods, and the maximum velocity at the mouth was estimated at 158 fpm. Moreover, obvious leakage was observed in 67% of the chemical hoods, and they were improperly connected to the roof channels using flexible ducts. The result of the velocity assessment in the hood mouth connected to the central ventilation system indicated a 60% increase in the airflow and 11±92 fpm velocity supply in the hood mouth. In order to utilize the air diluting capacities, the ventilation system chimney was installed at the highest point on the building to prevent contaminated air return into the building.
Conclusion: The majority of the evaluated hoods were found malfunctioned and unable to control the respiratory exposure. Moreover, the ventilators connected to the hoods were not able to overcome the pressure drop in the discharge flow paths and produced a lot of noise
Materials and Methods: This study evaluated 19 chemical and 10 biological hoods located in the "Campus" laboratories, as well as the Food and Drug Administration according to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists standards in Qazvin Province, Iran. Different factors, such as velocity at the hood mouth, structural specifications, and their accordance with the standards were examined in this study. The data were then analyzed in SPSS software (version 21). In total, seven hoods were found malfunctioned, and a central ventilation system was designed using the velocity pressure method.
Results: According to the results, the velocity at the hood mouth was inappropriate in 92.6% of the hoods, and the maximum velocity at the mouth was estimated at 158 fpm. Moreover, obvious leakage was observed in 67% of the chemical hoods, and they were improperly connected to the roof channels using flexible ducts. The result of the velocity assessment in the hood mouth connected to the central ventilation system indicated a 60% increase in the airflow and 11±92 fpm velocity supply in the hood mouth. In order to utilize the air diluting capacities, the ventilation system chimney was installed at the highest point on the building to prevent contaminated air return into the building.
Conclusion: The majority of the evaluated hoods were found malfunctioned and unable to control the respiratory exposure. Moreover, the ventilators connected to the hoods were not able to overcome the pressure drop in the discharge flow paths and produced a lot of noise
Type of Study: Research Article |
Subject:
Chemical agents
References
1. Malakouti J, Rezazade Azari M, Goneh Farahani A. Occupational exposure risk assessment of researchers to harmful chemical agents in Shahid Beheshti university of medical sciences. Benesina. 2010;13(3-4):12-6. [Persian]
2. Olin GR. The hazards of a chemical laboratory environment--a study of the mortality in two cohorts of Swedish chemists. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1978;39(7):557-62. PMID: 567938 DOI: 10.1080/0002889778507808 [DOI] [PubMed]
3. Ahn K, Ellenbecker MJ, Woskie SR, DiBerardinis LJ. A new quantitative method for testing performance of in-use laboratory chemical fume hoods. J Chem Health Saf. 2016;23(4):32-7. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.8b23409 [DOI]
4. Man AB, Gold D. Safety and health in the use of chemicals at work: a training manual. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization; 1993.
5. Maupins K, Hitchings DT. Reducing employee exposure potential using the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 method of testing performance of laboratory fume hoods as a diagnostic tool. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998;59(2):133-8. PMID: 9487667 DOI: 10.1080/15428119891010398 [DOI] [PubMed]
6. Eller PM, Cassinelli ME. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. Pennsylvania: Diane Publishing; 1994.
7. Jafari M, Kalantari S, Zendehdel R, Sarbakhsh P. Feasibility of substituting ethylene with sulfur hexafluoride as a tracer gas in hood performance test by ASHRAE-110-95 method. Int J Occup Hyg. 2014;6(1):31-6.
8. Malakouti J, Mosaferchi S, Hasely F, Azizi F, Mahdinia M. Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories of Qom university of medical sciences. Iran Occup Health. 2014;11(2):13-25. [Persian]
9. Chen K, Wang W, Zhang W. Investigation of influential factors on laboratory fume hood containment performance. Sci Technol Built Environ. 2020;26(3):387-99.
10. Nor M. Effectiveness of local exhaust ventilation systems in reducing personal exposure. J Appl Sci. 2014;14(13):1365.
11. Peplow M, Marris E. How dangerous is chemistry? Nature. 2006;441(7093):560-1. PMID: 16738625 DOI: 10.1038/441560a [DOI] [PubMed]
12. Marendaz JL, Suard JC, Meyer T. A systematic tool for assessment and classification of hazards in laboratories (ACHiL). Saf Sci. 2013;53:168-76. DOI: 0.1016/j.ssci.2012.10.001 [DOI]
13. Marlow DA, Looney T, Reutman S. An evaluation of local exhaust ventilation systems for controlling hazardous exposures in nail salons. Division of applied research and technology engineering and physical Hazards Branch EPHB Report. Washington, D.C: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2012.
14. Mari Oriyad H, Zare Derisi F, Jahangiri M, Rismanchian M, Karimi A. Evaluation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system performance in an administrative building in Tehran (Iran). Health Saf Work. 2014;4(3):59-66. [Persian]
15. Tseng LC, Huang RF, Chen CC, Chang CP. Correlation between airflow patterns and performance of a laboratory fume hood. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2006;3(12):694-706. PMID: 17133690 DOI: 10.1080/15459620601015695 [DOI] [PubMed]
16. Volin CE, Joao RV, Reiman JS, Party E, Gershey EL. Fume hood performance: face velocity variability inconsistent air volume systems. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 1998;13(9):656-62. DOI: 10.1080/1047322X.1998.10390134 [DOI]
17. Ahn K, Woskie S, DiBerardinis L, Ellenbecker M. A review of published quantitative experimental studies on factors affecting laboratory fume hood performance. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008;5(11):735-53. PMID: 18780237 DOI: 10.1080/15459620802399989 [DOI] [PubMed]
18. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Industrial ventilation: a manual of recommended practice for design. New York: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; 2013.
19. Arefi MF, Shahna FG, Karamimosafer A. Qualitative evaluation of the performance of chemical fume hoods located in the laboratories of the university of medical sciences in 2017. J Occup Hyg Eng Volume. 2018;5(1):1-7. DOI: 10.21859/johe-5.1.1 [DOI]
20. Esmaeilzadeh A, Golbabaei F, Zare S. Qualitative assessment of local ventilation in petrochemical company laboratories for reducing staffs exposure. J Occup Hyg Eng. 2014;1(3):60-6. [Persian]
21. Tseng LC, Huang RF, Chen CC. Significance of face velocity fluctuation in relation to laboratory fume hood performance. Ind Health. 2010;48(1):43-51. PMID: 20160407 DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.48.43 [DOI] [PubMed]
22. Memarzadeh F. Methodology for optimization of laboratory hood containment-volumes I and II. Bethesda, MD: Division of Engineering Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health; 1996.
23. Choobineh A, Golbabaie F. Performance evaluation of biological safety cabinets in a biological research center. J Sch Public Health Instit Public Health Res. 2005;3(2):49-58. [Persian]
24. Goodfellow HD, Tahti E. Industrial ventilation design guidebook. Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2001.
25. Ahn K, Ellenbecker MJ, Woskie SR, DiBerardinis LJ. Effects of work practices and upper body movements on the performance of a laboratory fume hood. J Chem Health Saf. 2016;23(6):2-9. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.8b23604 [DOI]
26. United States Department of Labor. Technical Manual (OTM). Section III: Chapter 5 Washington, D.C: Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 2010.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.
Published by UMSHA Press
Journal Tel: +9881 38380090
Publisher Tel: +988138380548
Website: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir
Email: johe[at]umsha.ac.ir
