Handbook - Fume Hoods

Instructor’s Resource/Handout 1
MYTH: Fume Hoods are a Laminar Air Flow Device
The fume hood is considered by many to be a laminar device, in part because that way of thinking sup-
ports the face velocity myth. Few question this myth, even though anyone who has ever smoke tested a
hood has never seen a laminar smoke pattern. The following illustrations can be found in the ASHRAE
1999 and 2003 HVAC Application Handbooks on laboratories.
Figure 1
Up until an engineer published an article in 1999 mathematically explaining on how fume hoods worked
based on Reynolds numbers that started the “high performance low airflow” revolution, ASHRAE fol-
lowed the fume hoods laminar airflow myth that was promoted by the fume hood manufacturers and the
industrial hygienist college textbook. Engineers are basically created to solve problems with their best
work done when they “think outside the box.” Engineers have no issue admitting their mistakes as long
as they can simply solve the mistake, so ASHRAE removed the fume hood’s laminar pattern illustration
from their 2003 Handbook.
1
Unfortunately, the most often-used industrial hygienist’s college textbook on laboratory operation, Pru-
dent Practices in the Laboratory, still promotes the idea that the fume hood is laminar and face velocity is
what makes a fume hood safe to use. This is why today’s graduating industrial hygienists may not know
how fume hoods work or what OSHA requires for worker safety.
Figure 2
Many architects and industrial hygienists may think these are minor issues; however, the relying on face
velocity as the measurement of safety does not follow OSHA’s performance monitoring mandate, and
doing so places lab workers safety in jeopardy and the organizations they work for in unnecessary legal
jeopardy.
Why We Know Fume Hoods are not Laminar
When studying any device used to convey airflow or fluid, the first step is to determine the “regime turbu-
lence factor” by calculating the devices Reynolds Number (Re). The Reynolds number is a dimensionless
number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces (Vp) to viscous forces (u / L) and explains how
these two types of forces create the airflow conditions. Re is used to characterize different airflow regimes,
such as laminar, transitional, or turbulent airflows:
● Laminar flow occurs only at low Re numbers below 2000, where viscous
forces are dominant, and is characterized by a smooth, constant airflow motion,
● Turbulent airflow occurs at high Re numbers above 4000 and is dominated
by inertial forces, which will produce random eddies, vortices and other flow
2
fluctuations unless the vessel such as the fume hood is designed to control the
pattern of the turbulence.
● The zone between laminar 2000 and turbulent 4000 is a transitional zone,
which could be either laminar or turbulent depending on conditions such as the
vessels wall friction that will impact the airflow.
Re numbers will predict conditions where airflow is in constant motion to a fume hood’s internal surfaces.
For airflow moving in a pipe, the diameter is used; for rectangular shapes such as the fume hoods sash
face opening or upper vortex chamber, r an equivalent diameter is calculated.
Re for Airflow Velocity in Pipe or Equivalent Diameter
Where:
V is the mean fluid velocity in feet per minute
D is the diameter or equivalent in inches
n is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid
v is the kinematic viscosity centpoise
p is the density in pounds per cubic foot
Q is the volumetric flow rate CFM
A is the pipe cross-sectional area square inches
From (The Measurement of Air Flow, Ower & Pankhurst, page 77)
Density and viscosity at 29. 92” Hg pressure and 68 F.
If you substitute the values for viscosity and density at the above conditions, then Reynolds number sim-
plifies to:
Re= 8.6 x V X D
3
Where Velocity (V) is in fpm (face velocity) and (sash opening) equivalent diameter (D) is in inches
For the rectangular fume hood’s sash-opening, the equivalent diameter (D) is
calculated by 4 times the cross-sectional area “A”, divided by the sash-opening
perimeter “P”. D = 4A / P
Calculating the fume hood’s Re number will either validate or debunk every “rule of thumb” myth sur-
rounding fume hoods. The myth when a fume hoods liner becomes dirty, the fume hood’s “performance”
deteriorates is true. A dirty hood will have an increased Re number and turbulence. The myth that longer
length fume hoods “perform” more poorly than shorter length fume hoods is also true. A leading fume
hood manufacturer published testing results years ago indicating that longer fume hoods perform more
poorly, and increasing the face velocity further degraded the fume hoods performance. The paper never
explained why, even though the paper was a complete reversal to the myth about face velocity.
The reason longer hoods do not work as well is because the longer hoods have increased Re numbers and
turbulence. The original ASHRAE study by Caplan and Knutson that created today’s tracer gas ASHRAE
110 standard indicated that fume hoods at 50 fpm face velocity appeared to “perform” better than fume
hoods at increased face velocity. That was also true because of lower Re numbers and reduced turbulence.
The following graph illustrates the different operating Re numbers between a four-foot and eight-foot
standard bench hood at either 50 fpm or 100 fpm face velocity.
Figure 3
4
Fume hoods are VERY TURBULENT, even at reduced face velocity. Hoods were never laminar. Why
some fume hoods “work” better than others is all about how they were internally designed. Why stan-
dard “Walk-in” (floor mounted) fume hoods perform poorly is that their Re numbers are more than double
those of bench hoods and twice as turbulent. The error made by the fume hood manufacturer, architect
and industrial hygienist is to assume that since the face velocity was fairly uniform across the sash cham-
ber opening, then so was the internal fume hood’s airflow patterns. The following figure can be found in
an engineer’s typical college textbook on fluids under the study of “Incompressible Flow.”
Figure 4
The airflow either entering or exiting a reservoir will have a laminar profile but will then quickly become
turbulent. This is exactly how a fume hood behaves.
5
CFD and Fume Hood Design
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

modeling has become a great tool to
challenge any design to prove its func-
tionality. CFD is an accurate and well-
validated analytical method to assess
all types of ventilation designs. CFD is
used in worker related laboratory injury
cases since it can easily show a jury
how a complex systems and devices like
a fume hood, lab ventilation, or exhaust
system failed to protect the worker.
CFD is a type of virtual reality because
it can graphically show 3D images of
Figure 5
these complex systems. CFD has some
added benefits to “conventional” virtual
reality computer programs. Along with lighting and shading, important airflow parameters can be shown
such as air velocity and direction, air temperature and humidity, air contamination, fume hood tracer gas
testing and almost all physical aspects of airflow. The following is a CFD study illustrating one particular
design of a “high performance low airflow fume hood” but based on a stable vortex operating at 51 fpm
face velocity. One model shows the air velocity speeds, direction and internal airflow patterns entering
the fume hood, and the other illustrates a virtual reality ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test in the center posi-
tion.
Figure 6
6
The CFD ASHRAE 110 tracer gas study dramatically shows that if the vortex is very stable there are
no harmful vapors within the stable vortex. The stable vortex suppresses the harmful vapors away from
the workers breathing zone and sash handle. If only large volume smoke testing is used, the only thing
that would be seen is the smoke pattern providing incorrect information, which is why fume hoods were
designed so poorly in the past.
The following CFD study illustrates how simple equipment

loading changes will drastically affect the fume hood vortex’s
stability and performance. Fume hood manufacturers design
and test fume hoods empty in ideal space environments. This
study is on a different manufacturers “high performance low
airflow fume hood” not based on developing a stable vortex.
Every fume hood by every manufacturer will perform differ-
ently and even differently from similar products made by the
same manufacturer. Some of the older fume hoods will “work”
better than their newer versions. It appears the “industrial
revolution” on standardized parts and design has never quite
made it to the laboratory furniture industry.
The CFD study illustrates a fume hood at full sash opening

with moderate glassware equipment loading at the recommend-
ed 6″ from the sash opening. The ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test
requires that the SF6 gas ejector be located 6″ from the plane
of the sash opening. In reality this is never done. The glass-
ware is also elevated 2″ off the work surface with blocks. This
is also recommended but never done. This fume hoods vortex
has a lower concentration of tracer gas indicating it is weak.
The CFD study just moved the elevated glassware to within 1″

of the sash opening but maintained the SF6 tracer gas ejector
6″ within the fume hood per ASHRAE 110 requirements. The
fume hood’s vortex completely de-stabilized, flooding the
vortex chamber with fumes.
The CFD study left the glassware within 1″ of sash opening

and the SF6 tracer gas ejector 6″ within the fume hood per
ASHRAE 110 testing standard but removed the 2″ blocks el-
evating the glassware off the work surface. This loading better
represents real world conditions. The fume hood now failed
tracer gas testing.
Figure 7
7
The above study was validated by tracer
gas ASHRAE 110 testing with a manikin,
and the testing results duplicated the CFD
study results with results even worst than
the CFD models without a manikin.
The rear baffle slot adjustments distribute
the air within the fume hood upper vor-
tex chamber and the lower work-opening
chamber. As most hoods are currently
manufactured, there are generally just two
slots: the top slot “A” and the bottom slot
“C.” Some fume hoods have a third fixed
center slot “B”. The top and bottom slots
are generally adjustable from closed to 2″
open. The center slot “B” is a fixed open-
ing from 1″ to 1-1/2″. The fume hood fur-
niture industry believes that these slots are
adjusted to compensate for heavier than
air gases, which is completely false. Some
fume hood manufactures also suggest that
Figure 8
the top slot should be adjusted further open
for heated reactions, which is also false. The industrial hygienist college textbook teaches that the baffle
slots are adjusted to produce a uniform face velocity, which is also false. Since the laboratory furniture
industry and industrial hygienists do not appear to know how the baffle or fume hood works, there are
related problems both in product design and worker protection.
Rear Baffle Slot Adjustment
Controls the Vortex The center slot is the most important slot, but it is missing from most
fume hoods. If the center slot is provided on the standard flat plate
baffle design, it is always facing the sash opening, which is a mistake
following the assumed laminar air flow and the face velocity myths.
The center slot should be facing down towards the work surface, since
the air circulation is counter clock-wise, moving down the front face of
the hood across the hoods sash opening and back up towards the miss-
ing center slot of the fume hood. This baffle style is called the “Morris”
baffle.
The top slot “A” receives the maximum exhaust potential because it
is closer to the hood exhaust connection and because of the very poor
rear baffle plenum aspect ratio. The typical rear baffle plenum size
for a six-foot hood is 62″ wide x 48″ high x 3″ deep. This is a tortuous
Figure 9
path for airflow distribution and is one of the causes for poor face ve-
8
locity distributions on the left and right sides of the sash opening. The other issue is the exhaust connec-
tion “take-off.” Older fume hoods used round inlet bell “takeoffs.” Over time, fume hood manufacturers
eliminated the inlet bells to reduce cost, since there were no one left to tell them why they were needed
in the first place. Now fume hoods use square edge inlet connections that cause unpredictable dynamic
losses, which make top baffle slot “A” difficult to adjust and non-repeatable. For a fume hood with a fully
open sash, if the top slot is set too large, the vortex chambers Re numbers increase and it reduces the ex-
haust to center slot “B” but most to the bottom slot “C”. For a typical flat plate baffle designed fume hood,
with a fully open sash, a good starting slot adjustment is to set the top slot “A” at 1/2″ and “C” wide open
(min 2″). This setting hopefully generates a stable vortex that is level with the bottom of the raised sash.
Figure 10
By increasing the top slot “A” & “C” wide open (2″) will enlarge the vortex where it will extend below
the raised sash and then becomes easily unstable and more susceptible to energy pressure waves. In-
creasing the top slot ”A” opening may be necessary to stabilize the vortex when the sash is less than full
open and the vortex chamber is enlarged, but it will then cause a problem when the sash is fully opened.
9
All these adjustments are for an empty fume hood. As the fume
hood is loaded with equipment, it will increase the fume hoods
Re numbers and the slot adjustments will require readjustments.
This is why both ANSI/NFPA-45 Fire Code and ANSI/AIHA Z
9.5 Laboratory Standard requires a fume hood be re-tracer gas
tested whenever “work area conditions” such as fume hood
loading changes. The CT should either note loading conditions
in the fume hood testing report or, better yet, take a photograph
of the operating conditions, including slot size adjustments.
Adjusting the baffle slots for fume hood operating conditions is
not easy, especially since a fume hood must be tested in the
full open abuse operating condition. Industrial hygienist may
try to convince or even force the CT fume hood tester to test
the fume hood to pass at a reduced sash opening, even though
the industrial hygienist knows the vertical sash stops will be
ignored by the worker since the 18″ opening is not ergonomi-
cally correct for the less than average size worker. Industrial
hygienists will always try to test fume hoods to pass since they
do not know how to fix them to make them safe for all operat-
ing conditions.
Because of the difficulty in adjusting the baffle slots to match

operating conditions, there are “high performance low airflow
fume hoods” designed where the rear baffle slot velocities
are controlled to maintain a stable vortex under all operating
conditions. These style hoods are called “Stable Vortex” fume
hoods because the will produce a stable vortex in all operat-
ing conditions and offer “zero” spill performance. The “Stable
Vortex” fume hoods incorporate the “Morris” baffle and airfoil
design and other features.
The key in measuring and controlling the strength of the rotat-

ing vortex is to be able to sense the vortex’s total pressure (Tvp)
that includes fume hood static pressure (sp) that represents the
face velocity and the smaller vortex velocity pressure (vp) value
that represents the vortex rotational energy. Fume hood face
velocity static pressure is an easy measurement and is regularly
measured for “closed loop” VAV face velocity fume hood con-
trolled systems. VAV fume hood face velocity pressure trans-
ducers lack the resolution to measure the vortex rotational
Figure 11
pressure that appears to VAV static pressure transducer as
10
background noise. The stable vortex fume hoods incorporating auto adjusting baffle slot velocity controls
are called VFV fume hood controlled systems because these stable vortex constant exhaust volume fume
hood’s face velocity varies with different sash openings. The total vortex pressure transducer senses a
change in the vortex’s rotational strength. This change is caused by energy pressure waves from hood
loading, temperature, crosscurrents and sash movements. These variables affect the fume hoods ever
changing Re number and causes the pressure transducer to automatically readjust the slot velocities by
modulating a baffle plenum venturi valve to redirect the exhaust air from the different slots to maintain a
stable vortex operating within the fume hoods effective Re number.
If fume hoods fail ASHRAE 110 tracer gas testing, there are stable vortex conversion kits available with
VFV baffle control that convert existing fume hoods in to “high performance low airflow” stable vortex
hoods. These fume hood conversion kits also replace the rear baffle, up-grade the sash to meet ANSI/
NFPA 45 fire code splash & explosion requirements and correct the work surface airfoil design. Energy
savings from reducing the laboratories exhaust and supply make-up air, quickly pay for the fix. Sheet
metal workers install the fume hood conversion kits.
The other purpose of the airfoil is to introduce air in to the fume hood as the sash closes without creating
dynamic losses and turbulence and not to sweep air across the work surface. Introducing makeup air non-
turbulently into a space is very similar to a requirement that follows the Law of Conservation of Momen-
tum. The standard airfoil design does not follow the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The standard
airfoil fails to introduce the bypass air into the fume hood in a non-turbulent fashion. This explains why
when ASHRAE 110 tracer gas testing for sash movement, the “as installed” testing will pass and the “as
used” testing will fail.
Newton’s first law of motion states that a body will maintain its state of rest or uniform motion (at con-
stant velocity) along a straight line unless compelled by some unbalanced force to change that state. The
momentum of a body is the product of its mass and its velocity and will tend to be conserved. Momen-
tum is a vector quantity that follows the direction of its velocity so that an unbalanced force must cause
a change of direction. Conservation of momentum concepts in fluids is used to calculate the dynamic
forces exerted by moving fluids on fixed obstructions in its path. This is not a concern in most HVAC
applications, but the law of conservation of momentum is important to be followed where dynamic losses
will affect the performance such as the design of a fume hoods work surface airfoil.
Consider a rectangular sidewall supply air

outlet delivering air into a room at the same
temperature as the room air. Air emerging
from the grille will induce room air. This
induction effect, according to the law of
conservation of momentum, will decrease the
velocity of the total air stream while increas-
Figure 12
11
ing its volume. If M1 and V1 are the mass and velocity of the supply air, M2 and V2 are the mass and
velocity of the entrained room air, and M3 and V3 are the mass and velocity of the total air mixture, then
the law of conservation of momentum follows this equation:
M1V1+M2V2=M3V3
Since V2, for all practical purposes, may be considered zero prior to the acceleration of the entrained air and
since M3 = M1 + M2, The equation becomes: M1V1+(Ml + M2)V3
The velocity of the mixture stream, V3, has been reduced from V1 since M1 + M2 must be greater than Ml .
As the geometry of the grille changes, the induction ratio, (M1 + M2)/M1, also changes, by entraining vary-
ing amounts of air. This is why multiple long narrow outlets on a supply diffuser have a significantly higher
induction ratio than square outlets and performs better in introducing air into a space. This same multiple
long narrow outlet design should have been used for fume hood airfoil design. The law of conservation of
momentum can also predict the pattern of the air stream as it exits the opening. Since the density of the air
existing the opening is the same as the room air, you can substitute the volumetric flow rate for the mass
flow rate, following the equation: Q1V1 = (Q1+ Q2)V3 With Q1 being the volumetric flow rate of the exiting
supply (primary) air and Q2 being the volumetric flow rate of the entrained (secondary) air. If the grill
opening is 1 sq ft (A1) supplying air at 1000 cfm and 1000 fpm, then at location 2 on the above figure an
additional 1000 cfm of secondary air is entrained into the air stream. Solving for the mass rate indicates
that the velocity at location 2 is now reduced to 500 fpm the flow area increased to 4 sq ft. This air volume
increase has occurred due to the basic principles of the law of conservation of momentum. The air could be
discharging into a room or into a plenum both would exhibit this same geometry.
The principle of the conservation of momentum is not one of the areas thought about by the design engi-
neer during fume hood exhaust duct design but its importance to proper design of duct fittings and duct
configurations with their resulting dynamic losses is profound for good fume hood performance. This is
why it is so important to follow all SMACNA standards for duct design and installation, if not the dynam-
ic duct losses become the leading source for unstable airflow and face velocity and the cause of poor
fume hood performance.
Some of today’s “high performance low airflow” fume hoods incorporate a work surface airfoil follow-
ing the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The “Morris” airfoil has multiple long, narrow outlets at
angles that create the conditions where the bypass air is entrained with the vortex without destabilizing
the vortex. These are low turbulence hoods and are used even with very sensitive triple beam electronic
powder weigh scales where the slightest air turbulence will make them unusable. The following CFD
studies illustrate the airflow patterns of the “Morris” airfoil with the sash closed and fully opened with a
worker present.
12
“Morris” Airfoil Sash Closed
Figure 13
Stable Vortex Fume Hood with

“Morris” Baffle & Airfoil Sash Opened
Figure 14
13
CHAPTER 1
History of Fume Hoods CT

Introduction: Historical Highlights
Objectives:
After this chapter attendees will be able to:
● Describe the first fume hoods used by alchemists and how they were tested
● Describe how fume hood design has changed since the use of fireplaces
● Explain why the measurement of face velocity alone is not sufficient when testing fume hoods
● Summarize why Certified Technologist (CT’s) should not attempt to diagnose the reason for test
failure
FT
F
ume hoods have been around for centuries, the earliest forms being fireplaces used by alchemists.
A
The early fume hoods used stack height and candles placed on the fireplace smoke shelf to
R
create a draft from the room and up the chimney. In the 1800’s, gas rings replaced candles, which
lasted until fans and electric motors were developed and used to replace the gas rings. Changes to overall
D
hood design have evolved slowly.
Figure 1
Early on, fume hoods were sized similar to a kitchen appliance so they could be carried through an aver-
age door and placed on a 30″ deep by 36″ high bench, with overall height limited to nine and one half
feet, the average height of ceilings. The depth and aisle spacing requirements of the fume hood deter-
mines structural features of the laboratory, including overall building column spacing, building size, and
construction costs. Narrow fume hoods cost less to manufacture and lower building construction costs by
Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 1

CHAPTER 1

allowing narrower 9 to 10 foot column spacing. Unfortunately, the narrower fume hoods are more turbu-
lent and may fail to protect lab workers adequately.
In the 1940’s, a back exhaust baffle “picture window” shaped entrance and work surface airfoil were
introduced to hoods. The “picture window” post design (with utility water and gas handles and vertical
sash guide channel) created localized eddies and airflow reversals at the sash opening. Because the fume
hood performance rating was based on face velocity, no thought was given to problems associated with
airflow irregularities caused by the uneven back baffle energy distribution from the very narrow but wide
and tall baffle plenum design and it’s effect on the fume hoods internal airflow patterns. Some indus-
T
try professionals believed the fume hood rear baffle slot adjustments were based on the fume hood’s air
F
density. The theory was to open the top slot when using lighter than air fumes and open the bottom baffle
A
slots for heavier than air fumes. However fume hoods are very turbulent, and lighter and heavier air do
not always separate neatly enough for the design to function as expected.
R
In the 1950’s, a sash air bypass was added above the sash opening in an attempt to produce more uniform
D
face velocity with sash closure. The bypass fume hood replaced the horizontal and standard sash style
hoods. The bypass hood design introduced uncontrollable turbulence within the fume hood, sometimes
resulting in and poor fume hood performance and inadequate exhaust. Lastly in the 1950’s, wood and as-
bestos materials were replaced with metal and asbestos until the mid 1980’s when metal and fire resistant
polymer liners were used.
In the 1960’s, in efforts to save energy, unconditioned auxiliary makeup air was introduced above and
around the sash. Because some auxiliary makeup fume hoods failed to protect lab workers, many auxil-
iary makeup systems were abandoned. Industry professionals recognized the potential life safety issues
with auxiliary makeup fume hoods, and their textbooks discourage their use. Architects may still specify
auxiliary style makeup fume hoods, and lab furniture manufactures still supply them.
In the late 70’s, to address rising energy costs, horizontal sash fume hoods were reintroduced to reduce
the size of the sash opening. The horizontal sash panels are guided in friction channels located in the sash
handle. The sash handle channel tracks can be prone to chemical attack and debris buildup, preventing
proper air movement and creating turbulence and reverse airflows at the sash handle. The most important
purpose of a horizontal sash should have been worker safety, not energy savings.
In the late 90’s, ANSI/NFPA 45 code required horizontal sashes for splash and explosion protection,
and by 2000 Canadian OSHA required horizontal sashes for the very same reasons. If a worker could
physically position the horizontal sash panel as a full body shield with their arms around the sash panel,
workers would be protected from fume vapors, chemical splash and explosions. The problem is most
horizontal single and two track designs have panel widths wider than workers can put their arms around,
particularly in the case of less than average height workers.
2 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

CHAPTER 1

ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 lab standard requires sash panes no wider than 14 ½″ and ergonomically designed. The
panels are required to be top roller guide to move freely with workers movement. The furniture trade
organization Scientific Equipment & Furniture Association (SEFA) in 2002 Lab Recommended Practices
addresses the safety importance of horizontal sashes.
Horizontal sash panels provide an effective barrier to splashes or explosions, but

remember that high vapor concentrations can develop inside the sash panels. As a gen-
eral rule, you should avoid rapid movements near the vertical edges of the sash panels.
T
Various methods were developed as far back as the late 1940’s to vary fume hood exhaust airflow volume
F
and to maintain a fixed face velocity in fpm for varying sash openings. Earlier attempts at variable air
A
volume (VAV) fume hood control were abandoned, but such designs were reinvented in the 1980’s with
rising energy costs. The VAV controlled fume hood has the potential to save energy associated with re-
R
ducing the amount of conditioned make up air exhausted. At $.10 per kilowatt-hour and $7/million BTUs,
depending on hood geographical location, it will cost $4.50 to $6.50 a year in the United States to replen-
D
ish one cubic foot per minute (cfm) of condition makeup air exhausted by the fume hood. On average, a
six-foot standard bypass fume hood balanced at 100 cfm face velocity will consume over $300,000 in
energy cost in its lifetime. VAV controlled fume hoods can save energy but cannot guarantee the energy
savings since it is limited by the lab’s supply makeup air systems turndown capability. VAV fume hood
controls cannot correct for fume hood design errors and cannot improve lab worker safety. VAV fume
hood technology dominated how fume hoods and labs operated through the 1980’s into the early 2000’s.
In the 40’s and 50’s, VAV complexity and difficulty of maintenance caused their demise. The same issues
are being revisited in today’s complicated and difficult to maintain fume hood VAV controlled labs.
The greatest changes to fume hoods and lab design have happened since 1998, when an engineer math-
ematically determined how a fume hood works based on a “stable vortex.” The engineer’s work formed
the basis of today’s “high performance low airflow fume hood” design, where fume hoods operate at a
low constant volume airflow exhaust to realize dramatic improvement in worker safety and reduced en-
ergy operating cost. It is now possible to field convert existing fume hoods and turn them in to the safer,
energy efficient “high performance low airflow” hoods. Laboratory owners have become motivated to fix
and tracer gas test old fume hoods since the energy savings pay for both fixing the fume hood and proper
testing.
Face Velocity History & Timeline
Fume hood capture face velocity discussions and worker safety were first proposed in the late 40’s. Ar-
ticles on fume hood face velocity began to appear in trade publications. American Institute of Architects
(AIA) and the Atomic Energy Commission sited lessons learned on what not to do based on the morbidity

CHAPTER 1

rate of research workers during nuclear weapon development. At that time, they used Geiger counters to
measure fume hood performance versus today’s use of SF6 tracer gas. The following was reported back
then on fume hood face velocity and not much has changed over the last 60 years.
There are many variations of hood design devised to meet the criteria of reason-
able face velocities, and selection of the proper design must evaluate consider-
ations of required face velocities and economics. It is fairly well established that
face velocities in excess of 200 fpm cannot be tolerated in this type of hood opera-
tion, and there are many instances where velocities in the order of 100 fpm are far
T
more desirable. When hoods of proper design are available, face velocities of 50
F
fpm are permissible. Unfortunately, this fairly wide range of velocities leaves many
types of hoods to be considered on the basis of economics involving costs of hoods,
A
controls, and air systems. All these must be carefully evaluated to ensure selection
of the most desirable and economical design.
R
By the early 60’s, a prescriptive theory between fume hood face velocity capture and levels of toxicity
D
were being suggested.
TABLE 1 - HOOD FACE VELOCITIES*

Control laboratories or similar space; having low toxic levels and nominal 50 fpm
hazard
Most research laboratories having wide latitude of chemical use — must handle Minimum - 65 fpm
range of toxic requirements Desirable - 75 fpm
Low level radio-chemical hood having nominal toxic hazard 75 fpm

High toxic level hoods, radio-chemical hoods in warm range 100-125 fpm
Radio-chemical hoods at high toxic levels’** 100-250 fpm
*Theoretical minimum capture velocity - 30 fpm. Desirable minimum capture velocity - 50 fpm. Recommended face velocities
(average):
**In such cases, glove boxes, shields and total enclosures may be indicated. It is not believed practical to apply the higher ve-
locities to the large laboratory type hoods requiring large quantities of air.

CHAPTER 1

By the 1970’s, a totally prescriptive table of classes of fume hoods from “A” to “C” relating to toxicity
levels was promoted by the fume hood manufacturers trade organization “Scientific Apparatus Makers
Association (SAMA)” that eventually became Scientific Equipment & Furniture Association (SEFA) in the
1980’s.
5.2 Face Velocity Guide.
Face velocities of laboratory fume hoods may be determined on the basis of the toxicity or hazard of the
T
materials used or the operations conducted within the fume hood; a suggested guide for determining face
F
velocities that may be suitable for laboratory fume hoods is as follows:
A
5.2.1 Class A Fume Hoods.
R
Fume hoods in this classification are used for materials of extreme toxicity or
hazard such as tetraethyl lead, beryllium compounds, metal carbonyls, and volatile
D
carcinogens. The recommendations for average velocity at the face of the fume hood
are 125 to 150 feet per minute with the corresponding minimums at any one point
100 to 125 feet per minute.
5.2.2 Class B Fume Hoods.

Fume hoods in this classification are used for most materials and operations in the
laboratory. The recommendation for average velocity at the face of the fume hood is
100 feet per minute with a minimum at any one point of 80 feet per minute.
5.2.3 Class C Fume Hoods.

Fume hoods in this classification are used for materials or operations where the
hazard is not high. Class C fume hoods may be used for low toxicity materials such
as acetone, ethanol, and straight-chain hydrocarbons, and for operations creating
nuisance dusts and fumes. The recommendations for average velocity at the face of
the fume hood range from 75 to 80 feet per minute, with corresponding minimums at
any one point of 50 to 60 feet per minute.
Some industry professionals may still want to follow this simply to apply fume hood face velocity capture
theory. This fume hood face velocity and worker protection concept influenced the language on fume
hood safety in laws, codes and conformance standards of the day. The past prescriptive directives on face
velocity measurement as the method for fume hood worker safety were simple to apply and required little
or no training to measure. By just slightly manipulating the orientation of the “hot wire” anemometer face
velocity-measuring instrument in the airflow, you can obtain any face velocity measurement value you
wish. The outdated prescriptive face velocity fume hood safety approach may still be required and en-
forced by some laboratories.

CHAPTER 1

In 1990 the OSHA laboratory regulation sites health issues as just one of the many reasons why new labo-
ratory worker safety regulations were required.
TABLE 2 - FPM AND DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

120 CFM 1.36 MPH wind (0.000897” water column)
T
As the chart shows, 100 fpm fume hood face velocity is around 1 MPH wind speed. 1 MPH wind is “dead
F
air” to a sailor, and as many a golfer realizes, a 1 MPH wind will not move fog off of a golf course. If the
fume hood manufacturer’s classification based on capture face velocity was possible, then the difference
A
between a Class “A” hood for very dangerous toxic materials versus a nuisance odor Class “C” hood is
R
less than ½ MPH wind speed. This is too small an energy difference to make a great impact. Fume hood
performance was never based on capturing fumes but containing them, very similar to how a fireplace
D
works.
Members of ASHRAE sponsored a research project RP-70 that eventually became ANSI/ASHRAE-110
1995 conformance standard that introduced tracer gas as part of the fume hood performance test. Once
the tracer gas testing method was used by industry to test fume hood performance, many engineering
based research papers began to appear that indicated some style fume hoods never protected workers as
well as reported. Tracer gas fume hood studies also indicated that the less than average size lab workers
were at greater risk working in front of some styles of fume hoods.
The following are excerpts from the SEFA 1-2002 manufacturer’s recommended practices that architects
reference when specifying a fume hood.
4.3 Testing of Laboratory Fume Hoods - As Manufactured

The ASHRAE 110 test is a method of testing the performance of laboratory fume
hoods involving three test procedures: 1. the face velocity grid test; 2. the flow
visualization or smoke test; 3. the tracer gas containment test. The ASHRAE 110 is
the recognized method for evaluating the performance of fume hoods; ASHRAE has
defined three modes, As Manufactured (AM), As Installed (AI), and As Used (AU).
The ASHRAE test should be conducted by an authorized person cognizant of each of
the three test procedures.
SEFA now recognizes the importance of supplying all three modes of complete ANSI/
ASHRAE 110 testing. SEFA recognizes the need for a person trained in all the appropriate testing proce-
dures to conduct the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 testing; thus, the importance of having properly educated and
test-certified fume hood technologists is recognized by the key groups in the industry.

CHAPTER 1

4.3.1 Face Velocity
Face Velocity Guide - Face velocities of laboratory fume hoods may be estab-
lished on the basis of the toxicity or hazard of the materials used or the operations
conducted within the fume hood. The most widely requested target average face
velocity is 100 FPM. The measured deviation across the face may vary + 20 FPM.
Face velocity shall be adequate to provide containment. Face velocity is not a measure of safety.
T
4.3.2 Containment Testing - As Manufactured (AM)
The manufacturer shall provide standard (AM) test data for all standard hoods.
F
This should be done in accordance with the most current ASHRAE 110 standard.
A
The AM testing demonstrates what the hood is capable of doing under controlled
conditions. The report shall verify that all laboratory fume hood types specified
R
have been tested to ASHRAE 110-1995 (or most current edition) procedures and
have achieved AM 0.05.
D
AM 0.05 can be achieved with a properly designed laboratory fume hood. It shall
not be implied that this exposure level is safe. Safe exposure levels are applica-
tion specific and should be evaluated by properly trained personnel.
The ASHRAE 110 Standard includes procedures for:

● Inspection of the Hood;
● Evaluation of Laboratory Conditions;
● Airflow Visualization;
● Airflow Velocity Measurements; and
● Tracer Gas Containment Tests.
Face velocity is no longer recommended for fume hood safety; use ASHRAE 110 testing. The issue now
is what ASHRAE fume hood rating level can be used since SEFA will no longer stand behind any tracer
gas spillage rating even if published in an ANSI standard or ACGIH handbook. The only tracer gas rating
is zero spills.
Following OSHA Law, the proper specification rating for a fume hood is:
The desired fume hood rating is 4.0 AM 0.0 or the ‘Maximum Achievable and
Affordable Control’ the fume hood manufacturer can supply.
The above rating specification makes the fume hood manufacturer responsible to inform the architect and
others on what their products maximum achievable safety control rating level is so the OSHA’s mandated
“Chemical Safety Plan” can be developed.

CHAPTER 1
OSHA & NIOSH HISTORY TIMELINE
OSHA has defined a fume hood as a four-sided exhausted enclosure with a front opening for worker arm
penetration. Until January 31, 1990, OSHA required 100 to 125 fpm face velocity for all fume hoods. On
that date, OSHA published in the Federal Register 29 CFR Part 1910 regulation on Occupational Expo-
sures to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories, final rule. OSHA no longer recommended a given face
velocity in feet per minute (fpm) as a reference to worker protection for lab research fume hoods, but it
T
still required a 100 fpm face velocity for production fume hoods. Why the change? OSHA sited the above
F
normal morbidity, cancer and infertility rates among research lab workers as the reasons for change.
A
OSHA now defines a safe fume hood as one where worker exposure levels are below the permissible ex-
R
posure limits (PELS) accepted by government and private occupational health research agencies, includ-
ing the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). OSHA’s position, since the early
D
1990’s, is if an employer discovers, through routine sample exposure monitoring representing different
size workers and/or employee feedback, that fume hoods are not effectively reducing employee exposures,
it is the employer’s responsibility to make hood adjustments or replace hoods as necessary.
Fume hood performance testing prior to OSHA’s 1990 Laboratory Worker Regulation was based on
smoke visualization and face velocity measurement. Smoke bombs or sticks were placed within the fume
hood’s enclosure and as long as the smoke was not seen exiting the fume hood sash opening plane, it was
assumed safe to use at the design face velocity. In the early 1990’s, the ANSI/ASHRAE-110 standardized
performance tracer gas analysis test was beginning to be used more often to measure quantitatively fume
hood performance in actual spillage rates in parts per million (ppm). The results have a relationship to
PEL’s as determined by NIOSH. The fume hood tracer gas testing also began to be used in class action
lawsuits to address medical studies linking increased birth defects and cancer rates among fume hood
workers.
OSHA’s shift from past prescriptive face velocity as the criteria for fume hood safety created new code
and conformance standard language. The problem is there is no mechanism to educate the employer,
and other industry professionals on these important changes. Compounding this problem is the fact that
most codes and conformance standards were written for those with considerable experience in laboratory
ventilation design and operation. Without this background experience, many have difficulty understand-
ing the intent of these new laboratory safety laws, codes and compliance standards, in part because there
is a movement away from the past prescriptive directive method of “to do this or that” to only perfor-
mance goals. Another problem is the often used Industrial Hygienists college textbook Prudent Practice
in Laboratories never stated OSHA’s regulation mandate change from fume hood face velocity measure-
ment to a routine performance-monitoring program accommodating of various heights.

CHAPTER 1

Even though OSHA requires fume hood tracer gas testing, many industry professionals still to this day
refuse to believe this fact and may quote dated standards, research papers and handbooks to support their
argument. Some may fear that changing from face velocity to performance based tracer gas testing could
reveal that the fume hoods were not working as well as reported to management and/or workers, which
could land one in legal suits or cause a person to lose their job.
NIOSH represents the medical side of OSHA, and its mission is to provide national and world leadership
to prevent work-related illness and injury. In 2000, NIOSH published their position on fume hoods, stating
that fume hood’s face velocity is not an adequate predictor of fume hood spillage and that tracer gas fume
T
hood studies indicate between 28% and 38% of the existing stock pile of 1,300,000 to 1,400,000 hoods in
F
the United States fail to meet minimum worker protection, even after attempts to adjust the fume hoods to
improve performance.
R A
Conclusion
D
The history and timeline is only presented to the CT to help them understand why their may be resistance
or confusion when testing results do not confirm previously held assumptions. It is not the job of the CT to
educate lab managers or other industry professionals on these issues. Do not attempt to explain why fume
hoods pass or fail, simply report the results and refer questions to your supervisor.

CHAPTER 1
Practice Questions Chapter 1
1.) The earliest fume hoods used _____________ to test for proper draft.
a) Horse hair
b) Sheeps hair
c) Tobacco smoke
d) Candles
FT
2.) The test standard for fume hoods that CT’s taking this training will follow was developed
A
by ______________ .
R
a) AIHA
b) OSHA
D
c) SMACNA
d) ASHRAE
3.) Historically fume hood performance testing focused on _________ __________ which
is only one of the test methods used by Certified Technologists today.
a) flow visualization
b) face velocity
c) smoke testing
d) tracer gas

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
Objectives:
FUME HOOD STYLES
● Identify the 5 basic types of fume hood styles
● Differentiate between bypass and non-bypass style fume hoods
● Determine what types of fume hoods should not be tested using the ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 110 method
● Identify the type of fume hoods that can be tested using the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 110
method
T
● Appraise what types of fume hoods present unique health and safety issues for CT’s
F
performing fume hood testing
A
R
ecognizing different fume hood styles is vital for the Certified Technician providing Chemical
R
Fume Hood testing services. The generic term “fume hood” is used to describe all five
D
categories of exhaust systems outline below and described in this chapter. Fume Hood testing as
detailed in this course manual can only be performed on specific types of fume hoods. The CT must be
able to differentiate between styles, determine what style is in use and only perform testing in
accordance with applicable regulations, standards and guidelines.
A. Bench Style Vertical, Combination and Horizontal Sash

• Bypass and Non-Bypass • Distillation
• Auxiliary Air • Ductless
B. Floor Mounted (Walk-In)
C. California, Teaching and Vented Enclosures
D. Specialty
• Perchoric Acid • Radioisotope
E. Local Exhaust Systems

• Extraction Arm “Snorkels” • Canopy
• Slot Hoods
Bypass and Non-Bypass Bench Hood
The typical standard bypass or non-bypass bench fume hoods are the most common style hoods and are
sold by length, from 3′ up to 12′ long. The 6′ long fume hood is the most common and the smallest length
fume hood that meets OSHA’s recommendation for two researchers working in a hood with a minimum
2-1/2 linear feet of work surface per person. All shorter hoods are for only one worker.

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
R AFT
D Figure 1
Auxiliary Make-Up Air Fume Hood
Per ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5, vertical operating sash auxiliary make-up air supplied hoods are not recommended
unless special energy conditions or design circum-
stances exist. They first appeared on the market
as an energy saving device, but they provide poor
protection of the lab worker. The rationale for using
auxiliary supplied air hoods is that auxiliary air need
not be conditioned (i.e., temperature, humidity) as
much as room supply air, so energy cost savings
may offset the increased cost of installation, opera-
tion, and maintenance. However, if all the air from
the auxiliary plenum is not captured at the hood face,
the anticipated energy savings is not realized. With
Figure 2

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT

respect to temperature and humidity, workers may experience discomfort, and the unconditioned air may
interfere with the results of their experiments.
Distillation Hood
The distillation style hood is similar to the bench

hood except that the work surface is closer to the
floor to allow more vertical space inside the hood for
T
a tall apparatus, such as distillation columns.
DR AF
Figure 3
Ductless Fume Hoods
Ductless fume hoods are non-bypass ventilated enclosures that have their own internal blower, which
draws air thru the vertical sash opening, through filters that ultimately dumps the fume hood’s exhaust
discharge back into the laboratory space. Ductless fume hoods are plagued with problems associated with
“breakthrough” and with desorption of vapors from the absorbent. National Institutes of Health (NIH),
pharmaceutical and chemical industries and major universities do not permit the use of ductless fume
hoods because of codes and exposure risk.
The major market for ductless fume hoods consists of
primary and secondary schools, since many people
incorrectly believe these are low risk chemical exposure
applications. The end user will also be responsible for
the cost to replace the filters and disposal of the expend-
ed filters, which may be classified as hazardous waste.
Estimated costs for just proper filter disposal will be at
least $100 per change. Depending upon the amount of
use, annual maintenance costs could exceed hundreds of
dollars per year. The ANSI/NFPA 45 standard has been
adopted by local authorities into their respective codes
in most areas of the country to be followed to protect lab
Figure 3 workers. This standard limits ductless fume hoods use
to applications involving only “nuisance vapors and
dusts that do not present a fire or toxicity hazard.”
Figure 4

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
What are “nuisance vapors and dusts”?
● Solids such as those from processing minerals, coal, iron ore, cotton, and flour.
● Liquids or oil based particles from sprays that will not emit any harmful vapors.
● Metal fumes produced from welding, brazing, cutting and other operations involving heating
of metals.
● Ozone, acid gases such as sulfur dioxide and/or chlorine.
● Organic vapors that are not flammable, with release rates that do not exceed OSHA regulatory
T
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL).
R AF
Floor Mounted (Walk-in) Hoods
D
A walk-in hood stands on the floor of the laboratory and is
used for a very tall or large apparatus. The sash type can
be either horizontal or vertical (double-hung or triple-
hung). These hoods are also usually of the non-bypass
type. The word “walk-in” is really a misnomer. A lab
worker should never actually walk into a fume hood when
it is operating and contains hazardous chemicals. This is
why the fume hood manufactures are trying to change
Figure 5
the name of this hood to “floor mounted.” Once past the
plane of the sash, the lab worker is inside the hood with the chemicals. If the lab worker is required to
enter the hood during operations where hazardous chemicals are present, personal protective equipment
appropriate for the hazard should be worn. This may include respirators, goggles, rubber gloves, boots,
suits, and self-contained breathing apparatus. This hood style is very turbulent and does not protect the
worker unless completely designed differently. It is more like a ventilated enclosure than a hood. There is
no ASHRAE tracer gas testing consensus standard for this style fume hood. Its performance cannot be
corrected with a field conversion as bench hood can.
California and Teaching Hoods and Ventilated Enclosures
The California and teaching fume hoods are ventilated enclosures with a movable sash on one or more
than one side. These hoods usually can be accessed through a vertical or horizontal sliding sash from the
front and rear. They may also have a sash on either side. Their configuration many times precludes the
use of baffles.

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT

A ventilated enclosure is any site-fabricated hood designed primarily for containing processes such as
scale-up or pilot plant equipment. Most do not have baffles or airfoils, and the designs have not had the
rigorous testing and refinement that the standard bench fume hood has gone through. The ventilated en-
closures are designed primarily to exhaust most of the fumes, but not contain fumes like a conventional
bench fume hood. Working at the opening of any of these devices, even when the plane of the opening
has not been broken, will expose the lab worker to higher concentrations of hazardous materials. There is
no protocol to test ventilated enclosures.
T
Perchoric Acid Fume Hoods
AF
A Perchoric acid fume hood looks like any other bench stainless steel lined fume hood except that there
is drain catch pan located at the work surface beneath the baffle. The catch pan is there to collect the
R
wash-down water sprayed into the ductwork from the exhaust fan, duct and baffle plenum. Why? When
D
Perchoric acid dries, it becomes very explosive and unstable nitroglycerin crystals. Disturbing ductwork
that had not been adequately flushed has killed sheet metal workers. The CT must take caution when test-
ing this style fume hood. The CT must ask the CHO when the fume hood was last used with Perchoric
acid and must flush the system as a precaution before testing.
The following cautions can be found in the ACGIH handbook on Perchoric hoods:
“Perchoric acid is extremely dangerous because it is a very strong oxidizer. When
the acid reacts with organic material, an explosive reaction product may be formed.
Do not use Perchoric acid in a hood designed for other purposes. Identify Perchoric
acid hoods with large warning signs. Provide exhaust ventilation and room supply
air with minimal challenge to the hood. Utilize local exhaust ventilation within
the hood to minimize condensation of vapors inside the hood. Locate all util-
ity controls outside the hood. Materials of construction for this type of hood and
duct must be noncreative, and acid resistant, and relatively impervious. AVOID
ORGANIC MATERIALS unless known to be safe. Stainless steel type 316 with
welded joints is preferred. Un-plasticized polyvinyl chloride or an inorganic ce-
ramic coating, such as porcelain, is acceptable. Ease of cleanliness is paramount.
Use stainless steel within accessible rounded corners and all-welded construction.
The work surface should be watertight with a minimum of 0.5 inch dished front
and sides and an integral trough at the rear to collect the wash-down water. Design
wash-down facilities into the hood and duct. Use daily or more often to thoroughly
clean Perchoric acid from the exhaust system surfaces. Each Perchoric acid hood
should have an individual exhaust system. Slope horizontal runs to drain. Avoid
sharp turns. Construct the hood and duct to allow easy visual inspection. Where
required, use a high-efficiency (greater than 80%) wet collector constructed for
Perchoric acid service. Locate as close to the hood as possible to minimize the ac-
cumulation of Perchoric acid in the exhaust duct.”

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
Radioisotope Hoods
Bench style hoods used for radioactive sources or material can be bypass or non-bypass but must be
designed so that they can be decontaminated completely on a regular basis. A usual feature is a one-piece,
stainless steel, welded liner with smooth, coved corners, which can be cleaned easily and completely. The
superstructure of radioisotope hoods is usually made stronger than that of a conventional hood in order to
support lead bricks and other shielding that may be required in the hood. Special treatment of the exhaust
from radioisotope hoods is required by local government and Federal EPA agencies to prevent the release
T
of radioactive material into the environment. This usually involves the use of high-efficiency particulate
F
air (HEPA) filters with “bag-in” and “bag-out” provisions.
A
The CT must check with the CHO on the half-life of the radioactive material used in the fume hood
R
before fume hood testing. If there is any concern, the CT should request that CHO conduct a scintillation
D
counter radioactive emission test on the fume hood.
Local Exhaust Systems
There are many types of laboratory equipment and apparatus that generate vapors and gases but may not
be located in a fume hood but on a work bench. Some examples are gas chromatographs, atomic absorp-
tion spectrophotometers, mixers, vacuum pumps, and ovens. If the vapors or gases emitted by this type
of equipment are hazardous, or if it is undesirable to release them into the laboratory because of odor or
heat, then they must be contained and removed using local exhaust equipment. Local capture exhaust and
systems should be designed only by an engineer following the ACGIH Ventilation Handbook.

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
Extraction Arm “Snorkels”
An extraction arm “snorkels” or “elephant

trunks” can be as simple as a piece of flexible
duct or articulating duct assembly connected
to an exhaust system. They cannot effectively
capture contaminants that are farther than
T
about one-half a diameter from the end of the
pick-up. Snorkels are particularly effective for
F
capturing discharges from gas chromato-
A
graphs, pipe nipples, and pieces of tubing if
the hose is placed directly on top of the
R
discharge with the end of the discharge
protruding to the pickup funnel. In this case,
D
the volume flow rate of the hose must be at
least 110 to 150% of the flow rate of the
discharge.
The capture velocity is approximately 8.5% of

the face velocity at a distance equal to the di-
ameter of the local exhaust opening. A 3-inch-
diameter snorkel or elephant trunk balanced at
150 fpm will have a capture velocity of only 11
fpm at a distance of 3 inches from the opening.
Because the air movement velocity is typically
Figure 6
at least 20 fpm, capture of vapors emitted at
3 inches from the snorkel will be incomplete.
However, vapors emitted at distances 2 inches or less from the snorkel opening may be captured com-
pletely under these conditions.

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
Slot Hoods
Slot hoods are specially designed industrial

ventilation hoods intended to capture contami-
nants generated according to a specific rate,
distance in front of the hood, and release veloc-
ity for specific ambient airflow. In general, if
designed properly following the ACGIH Hand-
T
book, these slot hoods can be more effective
F
and use less air than either snorkels or canopy
hoods. In order to be effective, however, the
A
geometry and flow rate, must be correct. Each
R
type has different capture characteristics and
Figure 7 applications.
D
Canopy Hoods
The capture range of a canopy hood is extremely

limited, and a large volume of air usually bal-
anced at 100 fpm velocity is needed for it to
operate effectively. A canopy hood only works if
placed directly over ovens or other heat produc-
ing equipment where thermal or buoyant forces
exist that will move the contaminant up to the
canopies hood capture zone, a few inches below
the opening. If a canopy hood exists in a labora-
tory, it can only be used for nonhazardous ser-
vice, such as capturing heated air or water vapor.
Figure 8

CHAPTER 2
Fume Hood Styles CT
1.) Of the 5 different styles of fume hoods outlined in this manual which is most
commonly found in chemistry laboratories?
a) Local Exhaust Systems
b) Vented Enclosures
T
c) Floor Mounted (Walk –In)
F
d) Bench Style
R A
2.) The _________________________style fume hood is designed with baffles at
the top of the sash that open when the sash closes to help ensure face velocity
D
stays the same as sash position changes.
a) Bench Hood Vertical Sash Bypass
b) Bench Style with Auxiliary Make-Up Air
c) California Fume Hood
d) Radioisotope Fume Hood
3.) What Specialty style of fume hood could present an explosion hazard and must
be flushed as a precaution before fume hood testing?
a) Bench Style Vertical
b) Specialty Radioisotope
c) Specialty Perchoric Acid
d) Local Exhaust System Canopy

CHAPTER 3
How Do Fume Hoods Work? CT
Objectives:
● Describe the anatomy of a fume hood
● Identify the components of a fume hood
● List the factors that may cause a fume hood to fail
● Summarize how air flows in a fume hood
● Assess why tracer gas testing is important for testing fume hoods
FT
Introduction
A
I
n its simplest form, a fume hood is nothing more than a box with an exhaust duct out the top and
R
a window in the front. In fact, a window sash is equivalent to a fume hood sash in that it is the
D
movable element – it can be fully opened, fully closed, or set to a position between the two. Like
a window sash, a fume hood sash is also a transparent element. It’s set into the face of the fume hood
and provides access to the inside of the hood for set-up procedures. The sash is also a protective element,
reducing contact with hazardous materials and their effluents (e.g., mists, vapors and fumes).
All fume hoods share some common components, and

operate in the same fundamental way. First, a suffi-
cient quantity of air must be pulled upward through
the hood, creating a flow of air inward through the
open sash. The speed of this air as it passes through
the sash opening is called the face velocity, and in the
U.S., is typically measured in feet per minute (FPM).
To maintain a desired face velocity, a certain volume
of air must be exhausted from the top of the hood. The
rate at which this volume of air is pulled from the hood
is measured in cubic feet per minute (CFM).
In an attempt to increase the overall effectiveness

of the hood, the bottom of the sash opening is typi-
cally equipped with a feature that attempts to smooth
the pattern of the entering airstream. This device is
called an airfoil, and its function is to reduce turbu-
lent wakes and eddies at the edge of the sash opening.
Some fume hoods will also include airfoils along the
Figure 1.
Graphic courtesy of: Thermo Scientific Hamilton sides, in addition to the bottom of the sash opening.
Laboratory Furniture & Fume Hoods

CHAPTER 3
You’ll also find baffles across the back of a fume hood. Their job is to pull the
exhaust air from across the entire hood, and to do so in a more uniform manner
than the single connection at the top of the hood. The baffles are commonly
installed to form two or more slotted openings through which the exhaust air
must pass. All true fume hoods will include a top and bottom baffle slot, and
some also feature a middle baffle slot, formed where the upper and lower baffle
panels meet. The baffle positions may be fixed in place in some hoods, or they
may be adjusted by a control located on the outside of the hood’s corner post.
FT
Note: Figure 2 illustrates the conventional laminar flow assumption, but
A
it is one that is not supported by current understanding of fume hood flow
patterns.
R
Figure 2. Schematic of Baffles and Airfoil.
D
Courtesy of: Thermo Scientific Hamilton Laboratory Furniture & Fume Hoods
What Might Cause a Fume Hood to Fail?
As discussed in Chapter 1: History of Fume Hoods, even today’s fume hoods bear a remarkable resem-
blance to a fireplace. A discussion on the ways in which a fireplace might fail to contain smoke from the
burning wood provides a useful comparison.

When a fireplace fails to “contain” smoke, the smoke will typically “roll out” at the lintel (top of the
opening) and then retract back into the firebox. These cyclic “roll out” patterns are produced by distur-
bances within the air flow patterns at the top of the firebox. This is very similar to what can happen when
a fume hood fails.

If you carefully look inside a burning fireplace, you’ll observe a “smoke roll” within the upper chamber
of the firebox. This roll is formally called a vortex, and the top section of the firebox is the vortex cham-
ber. The same type of vortex will form within a fume hood. In both cases the vortex can become unstable
and collapse. When the vortex collapses, the fireplace fails to contain the smoke, and it spills outward at
the top of the firebox opening. When the vortex stabilizes, the smoke gets pulled back into the fireplace.
This episodic pattern of containment and loss is the same for a fume hood because a fireplace and a
fume hood work in essentially the same way. What makes a poorly designed fireplace fail will also make
a poorly designed fume hood fail. A poorly designed fireplace is sensitive to the same environmental
upsets as a fume hood. These include excessive equipment loading, cross-currents, changes in space
pressure (e.g. from building door and fume hood sash opening and closing), the influence of lab person-
nel walking by the hood, and the effect of the wind at the top of the discharge stack. All of these envi-

CHAPTER 3

ronmental effects produce flow disturbances that will cause
a weakly formed vortex to collapse, then re-establish, only to
collapse yet again.
Why Does a Fume Hood Spill?
Just like a fireplace, a bench fume hood will rarely spill in a

predictable way or at a constant rate. Tracer gas testing per
T
ASHRAE Standard 110 shows that the spills happen episodi-
F
cally, and at no predictable rate. For several minutes during
tracer gas testing, there can be little or no spillage, and then a
A
large spill will occur.
R
To understand this phenomenon, we need to discuss certain
D
characteristics of the vortex in a bit more detail. Specifically,
let’s review the factors that might interfere with a stable vortex.
Creating a fume hood with a vortex that remains stable is not

a simple matter. There are two distinct zones in a fume hood:
the upper vortex chamber and the lower sash opening chamber.
As the sash is closed, the size of the vortex chamber expands,
and the vortex must also expand (see Figure 3). The opposite
happens as the sash is raised and the vortex chamber becomes
smaller. The vortex must contract and still remain stable. All
other factors remaining the same, a larger vortex produces less
turbulence, and is therefore, inherently more stable.
The Reynolds number (Re) for both zones inside the fume hood
will be different and will vary with sash movement. Both zones
will always remain in the turbulent region; but depending on
how the bypass air is introduced into the hood, the design of
the work surface airfoil and design and location of the rear
baffle slots will determine how robust the stable vortex will
become and how well the fume hood will “work.”
Figure 3. Fume Hood Vortex at Three Sash Openings

CHAPTER 3
The following figures illustrate how and when of a fume hood spills.
R AFT
DFigure 4
An unstable vortex, at some sash opening levels is one of the reasons many hoods do poorly during the
ASHRAE 110 sash movement testing; the other is the airfoil design. A lot is happening with sash move-
ment. This also explains why balancing a fume hood at a reduced vertical sash opening causes the fume
hood to appear to “work” better. The expanded upper vortex chamber increased equivalent diameter
reduces the Re number and creates an environment where the vortex may become more stable.
There are constant volume (CVC) standard fume hoods where all the exhausted air enters thru the sash
opening, and there are CVC bypass fume hoods in which some of the room air is exhausted through a
grill above the sash opening as the sash is closed. As the sash is closed on a CVC standard fume hood
with a 100 to 125 fpm face velocity, increasing the face velocity will cause increased turbulence at the
work surface. The fume hood manufacturers came up with the idea of a CVC bypass hood that allowed
some exhaust air to bypass the sash opening and enter into the top vortex chamber of the hood as the sash
was closed less than 18″. This was an attempt to maintain a more uniform face velocity with sash closure.
This was a mistake. The bypass grills efficiency is at best 60% and the free open area less than 50%. The
incoming airflow will go to the path of least resistance, and the bypass grill represents a tortuous path for
the airflow. What it did achieve was to produce face velocity anemometer pitch error readings that made
it appear that the face velocity was more uniform. The only thing the bypass achieved was to make the
fume hood internal vortex pattern completely chaotic when the sash was lowered more than 18″, which is

CHAPTER 3

why the CVC bypass fume hood works so poorly during ASHRAE 110 tracer gas sash movement testing.
If the bypass opening remains covered by the sash, reducing the sash opening will make the hood appear
to work better; if the bypass is uncovered it will not.
The problem described in the previous paragraph are also why a well-designed variable air volume (VAV)
controlled standard hood without a bypass performs better than a CVC bypass hood during sash move-
ment tracer gas testing. Figure 5 shows the internal airflow patterns for a CVC bypass hood as the sash
is lowered beyond an 18″ opening; this is the only reason why vertical sash stops are normally set at
18″ height. There is nothing magical about the 18″ vertical stop, and it does not protect the worker from
T
splash or explosion; but it is the most likely sash opening that can support a stable vortex. If the sash is
F
lowered, the bypass will cause chaos within the vortex chamber; if the sash is raised higher, the vortex
A
chamber becomes smaller, increasing the Re number until the vortex no longer remains stable. The 18″
opening was “sort of” backed into by the fact it was the only opening that appeared to “work.” The claim
R
that the reduced 18″ sash opening is for splash and explosion protection does not hold up!
D
The latest style of safer operating “high
performance low airflow hoods” have no
front bypass grill. Some fume hood
manufacturers are using a constant air
volume ceiling bypass that will introduce
some make-up air into the top front of
their high performance low airflow
hoods. The constant air volume ceiling
bypass airflow helps to stabilize the
vortex, but the fume hoods require 10%
to 20% added exhaust volume. They refer
to this new constant air volume-ceiling
bypass as a “dynamic barrier” bypass.
Unfortunately, the make-up air is from
above the ceiling plenum. This is a fire
Figure 5. Airflow Patterns as Sash is Lowered code violation of ANSI/NFPA-45, which
OSHA requires be met. There can be no
openings from the fume hood into the
drop ceiling plenum.

CHAPTER 3
How to Control the Vortex
If a fume hood testing CT is requested to test any fume

hood without some style of rear baffle, the fume hood au-
tomatically fails. Discussion of the fume hood stable vortex
and how to adjust the baffle rear slots for the best results is
not new. The rear baffle slots were adjusted for either the
T
density or heat of the experiment. The way the fume hood
industry explains the baffle slot adjustment, even to this
F
day, is you open the bottom baffle slot for “heavier than
A
air” gases and open the top baffle slot for hot temperature
experiments. This theory was based on the fume hood be-
R
ing laminar, which was never true.
D
All fumes and vapors are completely distributed through-
out the fume hood when the vortex collapses, but when the
vortex is very stable, the fumes are completely distributed
throughout the hood except within the stable vortex area.
The greater the vortex stability the less will the fumes
enter into the vortex. The more stable the vortex, the more
resistant will be the fume hood to energy pressure wave
Figure 6. Dynamic Barrier Upper Bypass
environmental challenges. When the fume hood experi-
ment runs “hot” it will increase the Re number making the fume hoods vortex chamber even more turbu-
lent. One of the major errors using large volume smoke testing is it can not help the observer differentiate
the smoke patterns from where the harmful chemical vapors actually appear within a fume hood. Using
smoke to empirically develop a fume hood is an imperfect method but is what was used to develop all
fume hoods until Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling became affordable in the late 1990’s.
The best way to study these issues is thru using CFD studies.
CFD is a computer technique that dices a domain such as a laboratory space with or without a fume
hood, or even a lab-building roof exhaust system, into many thousands or millions of imaginary set of
cells called a mesh. Each cell is described by a set of complex partial differential equations relating flow
momentum to turbulence, energy, species and the influence on the surrounding cells. The combination
behavior of all the cells provide an accurate 3D simulation of the behavior of the contiguous domain such
as the room, hood etc.

CHAPTER 3
Why the Work Surface Airfoil
All fume hoods require some style of work surface airfoil; even a poorly designed airfoil is better than
nothing! If the fume hood has no airfoil, the fume hood testing CT must automatically fail the hood.

There are two design functions for the fume hoods work surface airfoil; one function when the sash is
open and the other when the sash is closed. When the sash is opened, the airfoil needs to precondition
T
the incoming air being “pulled” into the open face from the floor area. The airfoil must be able to reject
the turbulence caused from the square edge of the work surface and recessed storage cabinets below the
F
fume hood.
R A
When the CT follows the ASHRAE
D
110 required localized smoke test on
the airfoil, they may experience smoke
failure because, for esthetic reasons,
the fume hoods benches are set in line,
even with the other lab benches creat-
ing the work surface to over-hang the
cabinet.
Figure 7. How the Standard Airfoil Actually Works

CHAPTER 3
R AFT
D
Figure 8. Airfoil Design
The other purpose of the airfoil is to introduce air into the fume hood as the sash closes without creating
dynamic losses and turbulence and not to sweep air across the work surface. Introducing makeup air non-
turbulently into a space is very similar to a requirement that follows the Law of Conservation of Momen-
tum. The standard airfoil design does not follow the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The standard
airfoil fails to introduce the bypass air into the fume hood in a non-turbulent fashion. This explains why
when performing ASHRAE 110 tracer gas testing for sash movement, the “as installed” testing will pass
and the “as used” testing will fail.

Newton’s first law of motion states that a body will maintain its state of rest or uniform motion (at con-
stant velocity) along a straight line unless compelled by some unbalanced force to change that state. The
momentum of a body is the product of its mass and its velocity and will tend to be conserved. Momen-
tum is a vector quantity that follows the direction of its velocity so that an unbalanced force must cause
a change of direction. Conservation of momentum concepts in fluids are used to calculate the dynamic
forces exerted by moving fluids on fixed obstructions in their path. This is not a concern in most HVAC
applications, but it is important that the law of conservation of momentum be followed where dynamic
losses will affect the performance such as the design of a fume hoods work surface airfoil.
The principle of conservation of momentum has not been one of the concepts considered by most of the
design engineers during fume hood exhaust duct design, but it is important in the proper design of most
duct fittings and duct configurations (think of the fume hood as a complicated fitting). The resultant duct
losses have profound effects on fume hood performance. This is why it is important to follow all SMAC-
MA standards for duct design and installation; if you don’t the dynamic duct losses will become the lead-
ing source of both unstable airflow direction and face velocities. These instabilities will cause poor fume
hood performance.

CHAPTER 3
Conclusion
The design and construction of fume hoods is undergoing another cycle as new simulation procedures help
us understand what is happening in the flow process into, within and out of the hoods. Some existing hoods
are usually stable and seldom spill; many others are often unstable when: the sash position is changed;
an operator is standing close to the entrance; the fume hood is loaded or overloaded; or when building air
flow conditions change. There is usually little a CT can do to correct the flow problems of some of these
T
hoods; they require a rebuild of the airfoil and internal baffle arrangements, plus a modified sash. Kits of
the airfoil, baffles and sash are available for some designs and can be installed by SMACMA contractors
F
who have been appropriately trained. They should then be retested, of course. Some hoods may not be
A
made stable and safe because of what we now understand to be design and construction deficiencies.
R
Some fume hoods get into trouble because they are not correctly placed on cabinets and the flow into the
D
airfoil is disturbed before it can even get into the fume hood. Repositioning the fume hood on the cabinet
may produce better inlet flow conditions and help keep the flow conditions stable enough to produce stable
performance.

CHAPTER 3
1.) Which fume hood component is designed similar to the windows in a house?
a) Bypass
b) Sash
c) Baffles
T
d) Foils
AF
2.) What component of a fume hood is located at the back wall and assists with
R
removing fumes from the hood?
a.) Baffles
D
b.) Sash
c.) Bypass
d.) Smoke alarm
3.) What term best describes the airflow pattern in a fume hood?
a.) Laminar
b.) Counter clockwise
c.) Vortex
d.) Vertical

CHAPTER 4
Laws, Codes & Standards CT
Objectives:
● Identify the differences between Laws, Codes and Standards
● Describe what activities, actions, topics or hazards are covered by the Laws, Codes and
Standards related to fume hood testing
● Identify what OSHA Law covers fume hoods and explain what general category of activities
it covers
● Identify what NFPA Code covers fume hoods and explain what types of hazards it covers
T
● Identify what ANSI/AIHA standard is related to fume hoods and what actions it requires
F
● Identify what activities and actions the ACGIH Z9.5 Laboratory Standard covers
● Identify what activities and actions the ANSI/ASHRAE 111-1998 standard covers
A
● Identify the Standard developed specifically to formalize the Method for Testing
R
Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods
D
Introduction
F
ederal OSHA requires laboratory designers and those responsible for laboratory worker safety to
incorporate American ANSI Conformance Standards, American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) handbooks to
address OSHA regulations for laboratory worker safety. The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health is responsible for the safety of our nation’s workers and are members of the AIHA Z9.5 com-
mittee to assist in laboratory worker safety.
One of the most important areas the CT Fume Hood Performance Tester must have knowledge in is
laboratory laws, codes and standards. Every phase of the CT’s work will be governed by what the OSHA
specified documents require for laboratory worker safety. This knowledge is part of what separates the
non-certified from the certified fume hood performance tester.
A legal pecking order dictates the codes and standards to be used for worker protection.

CHAPTER 4

LAWS
● OSHA Federal
● OSHA State
● EPA Federal
● EPA State
● NRC Federal
● ADA Federal
CODES
T
● NFPA (Fire)
F
● International Building Code (IBC), International Mechanical Code (IMC)
A
● ASME, JIC, NEC, Etc.
R
STANDARDS
● ASHRAE Standard 110-1995. Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods
D
● ANSI/ AIHA Z9.5 - 2003 Laboratory Ventilation
● ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 111-2008 Measurement, Testing, Adjusting and Balancing of Building
Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning Systems
● ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1-2007 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality
● ACGIH - Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 25th Edition
● SEFA -1 Fume Hoods Recommended Practice (PDF file)
● National Research Council. 2000. Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Disposal of
Chemicals, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 1 edition
Federal OSHA, EPA and NRC regulations (Laws) are published in the Federal Register but only after
they can demonstrate to Congress that there is a critical need. You cannot use any Code or standard to
circumvent a Federal Regulation. Today, OSHA regulations are performance directed versus the past
simple prescriptive to do lists. Codes are generally more prescriptive giving directions to follow but they
too are moving in a performance direction. If there is a conflict between Codes, then the most restric-
tive directive takes precedence. Example, the International Building Code (IBC) does not permit a floor
manifold fume hood exhaust to be again manifold from different floors with-in a chase. The IBC code re-
quires the floor’s manifold fume hood exhaust be a “home run” to outside the building. The National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Chapter 45 Code allows manifold fume hood floor exhaust to be again
manifold with-in a chase. The more restrictive IBC Codes must be followed. You cannot use any standard
or recommended practice to circumvent a Code.
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) standards are used for laboratory design, specification,
testing and developing the lab’s Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) to address OSHA’s Laboratory regulation.
NIOSH is on the ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 Committee to influence laboratory worker safety in our country. All
ANSI standards, AIHA Z 9.5 and ACGIH handbook information that pertain to fume hoods and fume

CHAPTER 4

hood testing should become part of the CT’s basic knowledge. These standards also provides prescriptive
directions on how often a fume hood requires testing and the instrumentation required for data collection.
“For detailed information on (fume hood) industrial ventilation guidelines and best
practices there are several resources available to you. They include, but are not
limited to, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the American Indus-
trial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).” From OSHA letter October16, 2000.
T
“The ANSI Z9.5 Laboratory Ventilation standard assists employers in meeting their
F
responsibilities by detailing prudent procedures to ensure safe and efficient opera-
A
tion of laboratory ventilation systems. NIOSH supports the ANSI Z9.5 standard
and, through our representative to the ANSI Z9 committee, voted to support a
R
proposed revision of the Z9.5 standard.” From NIOSH letter May 3, 2001.
D
The most important CT references to understand are:
● 29 CFR 1910.1450 – Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories

● NFPA 45: Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals, 2004 Edition
● ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 110-1995 – Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods
● ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 111-2008 – Measurement, Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing of Building
HVAC Systems
● ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-2003 Laboratory Ventilation
● ACGIH. Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 25th Edition
OSHA 29 CFR Part 1910.1450 “Occupational Exposure to Hazardous

Chemicals in Laboratories” Final Rule – January 31, 1990
The following excerpts are from the January 31, 1990 Federal Register OSHA Regulation and OSHA
letters referenced in the Appendix that clarifies OSHA’s requirements. It is important to read the entire
regulation as published in the Federal Register. The CT may learn during fume hood testing that their
customer, lab design professional and those responsible for laboratory worker safety may not be aware of,
read or understood the requirements of the OSHA Laboratory regulation. Federal OSHA is a regulatory
agency and never ever inspects laboratories for violations unless requested by the employer to investigate
an OSHA reportable accident, event or worker complaint to OSHA. The laboratory worker may not be
aware rights of their rights under the Law.

CHAPTER 4

“If an employee believes that he or she is routinely overexposed to hazardous
substances while working in or around fume hoods, he or she may want to file a
formal complaint with the local OSHA Area Office. This is a confidential process
and may result in an OSHA inspection. An employee or employer can find infor-
mation about the nearest OSHA office on our website at http://www.osha.gov or by
phone at 1-800-321-OSHA.”
From OSHA letter April 4, 2001.
OSHA cannot cause a burden on any industry with worker protection regulations unless they can prove
T
to Congress the industry workers are being harmed and are not already covered by existing worker safety
F
regulations:
A
“After OSHA has determined that a significant risk exists and that such risk can
R
be reduced or eliminated by the proposed standard, it must set the standard which
most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available ev-
D
idence, that no employee will suffer a material impairment of health. The Supreme
Court has interpreted this section to mean that OSHA must enact the most protec-
tive standard possible to eliminate a significant risk of material health impairment,
subject to the constraints of technological and economic feasibility (maximum
achievable and affordable safety control).
OSHA’s significant risk finding for this standard is based on the following fac-
tors: Epidemiological information relating to disease and mortality rates among
chemists; evidence from other OSHA rulemaking proceedings which show signifi-
cant risks for specific substances which are used in the laboratory workplace; the
general recognition by the regulated community that safe work practices are neces-
sary to prevent adverse health effects; case report information about adverse health
effects resulting from exposures to substances commonly used in laboratories; and
relevant policy considerations.
In the absence of safe work practices, exposure to hazardous chemicals in the
laboratory presents a significant risk of material health impairment. None of the
comments submitted to the record indicates that hazardous chemicals do not pose
a risk to laboratory workers. If OSHA’s health standards that now apply to labora-
tories were withdrawn it is clear that the risk would increase. OSHA’s intent in this
standard is to reduce significant risk by at least as much as current standards do,
while regulating in a manner more appropriate to laboratories. Because the work-
ing conditions and exposures are of a different nature than those in general indus-
try, the hazards should be regulated in a different way.”

CHAPTER 4

There is a natural tendency by any industry affected by new OSHA’s worker safety regulations to deny
any past wrongdoing and that is also the case with laboratory workers. This was the first time Laboratory
workers were recognized for increase health risk while using existing safety controls that now required
change. The regulation defined the risks and procedures to be followed.
OSHA & Fume Hood Face Velocity
OSHA’s 1990 regulation made it clear that face velocity was no longer the performance method to
T
validate fume hood safety performance but many were confused on what performance testing was now
F
required.
A
“Plan measures to assure the proper functioning of (safety controls) fume hoods
R
and other protective equipment. As in the proposed standard, the final standard
does not specify face velocities for fume hoods. OSHA’s rationale for this approach
D
was explained in the preamble to the proposed standard. In brief, the preamble
stated “OSHA recognized that there was considerable debate over what optimum
velocities should be in light of differences in hood design and methods of operation.
Moreover, it was felt that requiring specific face velocities was not consistent with
the performance orientation of the standard.
There are some comments in the record, which suggest a need for OSHA to
specify face velocities for fume hoods in the final rule. However, these comments
offered little or no substantive information to persuade OSHA to abandon the per-
formance approach which allows the employer to determine the appropriate face
velocities on the basis of design, use patterns and other factors which influence the
effectiveness and proper functioning of the fume hood.”
During the 70’s and 80’s OSHA recommended the manufacturer’s fume hoods classification based on
face velocity. The 1990 regulation abandoned face velocity as the criteria for fume hood safety per-
formance. If the worker is believed to be overexposed then an OSHA defined emergency has occurred
requiring medical attention and even perhaps OSHA notification.
“Medical attention is provided by this standard under the following circumstances:

(1) Whenever an employee develops signs or symptoms associated with exposure
to a hazardous chemical; (2) in the event of an occurrence such as a leak, spill or
explosion resulting in the likelihood of a significant exposure; or (3) whenever an
action level (or in the absence of an action level the PEL) for an OSHA regulated
substance for which there are exposure monitoring or medical surveillance require-
ments is routinely exceeded. In this case the medical provisions of the standard
must be complied with until the exposures are reduced below the action level.
Whenever an event takes place in the work area such as a spill, leak, explosion or

CHAPTER 4

other occurrence resulting in the likelihood of a hazardous exposure, the affected
employee shall be provided an opportunity for a medical consultation. Such con-
sultation shall be for the purpose of determining the need for a medical examina-
tion.
“Emergency” means any occurrence such as, but not limited to, equipment fail-
ure, rupture of containers or failure of control equipment that results in an uncon-
trolled release of a hazardous chemical into the workplace.
Therefore, in the final standard the Agency incorporates the term hazardous
chemical that is defined as any substance that meets the definition of health hazard
T
under the Hazard Communication Standard.
F
Reproductive toxins may manifest themselves in lethal effects on the fertilized
A
egg, developing embryo or fetus or teratogenic (malformation) effects in the fetus.
In addition, certain, reproductive toxins may cause infertility in females and males.
R
OSHA’s position was further clarified by their April 4,2001 letter which also appears in the ANSI/AIHA
D
Z 9.5 2003 Laboratory standard.
“Please be aware that the employer is responsible for ensuring that fume hoods are
functioning properly and implementing feasible control (safety) measures to reduce
employee exposures if the exposures exceed the PELs. If an employer discovers,
through routine monitoring and/or employee feedback, that fume hoods are not ef-
fectively reducing employee exposures, it is the employer’s responsibility to adjust
controls (safety device) or replace hoods as necessary. OSHA does not promulgate
specific fume hood testing protocols.”
There is no pass or fail tracer gas evaluation in the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 fume hood testing standard. For
new laboratory construction, the evaluation on pass or fail level “as installed” (AI) tracer gas should be
found in the fume hood specification sections 10 or 11. If the contract documents do not provide an “AI”
pass or fail level, then a request for this information (RFI) from the primary licensee holder (Architect
or Engineer) on the project is required by ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 2003 (2.4.2). For laboratories already in use,
the CHO must be asked for the pass or fail “as used” (AU) tracer gas level for fume hood’s evaluation.
It is not uncommon that the Architect, Engineer or CHO do not know what is the recommended pass
or fail tracer gas value. The ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 1992 included this important information but the ANSI/
AIHA Z 9.5 2003 standard now made it the Architects, Engineers and CHO responsibility.
The ANSI/AIHA Z 9.2 1992 defines a class “A” hood as manufactured” (AM) 0.05 parts per million
(ppm) tracer gas pass or fail average value and an “AI” and “AU” tracer gas pass or fail 0.1 ppm average
value. These same values will be found in the ACGIH handbook. Whatever average pass or fail tracer gas
value is decided, the level of pass or fail and the individual that supplied this information must be noted

CHAPTER 4

in the CT’s final fume hood test report. The CT may be requested to select the pass or fail tracer gas test-
ing value and in these cases a zero spill level (AI 0.00 or AU 0.00) should always be used since it would
represents OSHA’s maximum achievable and affordable control requirements.
OSHA’s Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP)
The OSHA regulation also requires the laboratory employer to have on staff a “Chemical Hygiene
Officer”(CHO). To help develop the required Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP).
FT
“Chemical Hygiene Officer” is a Even those with
Employee who is designated by the advance degrees is not necessarily
A
Employer, and who is qualified by trained in the safety and health aspects
R
Training or experience, to provide associated with chemical exposures.
Technical guidance in the development OSHA also agrees with the
D
and implementation of the employer’s recommendations in the record that
Chemical Hygiene Plan. Use of this term laboratory employees should have the
is not intended to place any limitations benefit of training in physical hazards.
on the job title or position description Physical hazards are often responsible
which the designated individual shall forr subsequent adverse health effects,
hold within the employer’s organization. e.g., explosions and fire could lead to
Consequently, the term “Chemical the release of toxic fumes and vapors to
Hygiene Officer” may apply to another which employees may be exposed.
job title provided that the designated Moreover, the failure to require training
employee is technically competent to concerning the potential physical
fulfill the responsibilities of developing hazards posed might encourage a false
and administering the employer’s sense of security concerning the range of
Chemical Hygiene Plan. hazards presented.
At the end of laboratory regulation, OSHA supplied a sample CHP. The sample CHP is the same pub-
lished in the textbook “Prudent Practices in Laboratories”. Some consider the “Prudent Practice” CHP a
basic plan and Cal-OSHA included this plan in their Title 8 Code. It is very important that as a Labora-
tory visitor, the CT review with the laboratory CHO their safety plan on what personal safety protection
provisions will be required of the CT. The CT must remember they are a guest and must abide by all
laboratory rules. At minimum the following from the sample OSHA CHP should always be followed.
(d) Avoid eating, drinking, smoking, gum chewing, or application of cosmetics in

areas where laboratory chemicals are present; wash hands before conducting
these activities.
Avoid storage, handling or consumption of food or beverages in storage
areas, refrigerators, glassware or utensils, which are also used for laboratory

CHAPTER 4

operations.
(f) Exiting: Wash areas of exposed skin well before leaving the laboratory.
(g). Horseplay: Avoid practical jokes or other behavior, which might confuse,
startle or distract another worker.
(i) Personal apparel: Confine long hair and loose clothing. Wear shoes at all
times in the laboratory but do not wear sandals, Perforated shoes or sneakers.
(j) Use any other protective and emergency apparel and equipment as appropri-
ate.
Avoid use of contact lenses in the laboratory unless necessary; if they are
T
used, inform supervisor so special precautions can be taken remove labora-
F
tory coats immediately on significant Contamination
A
(k) Personal protection: Assure that all persons, including visitors, where chemi-
cals are stored or handled, wear appropriate eye protection. Wear appropriate
R
gloves when the potential for contact with toxic materials exists; inspect the
gloves before each use, wash them before removal, and replace them periodi-
D
cally.
The sample OSHA CHP plan also has provisions that impact what may be considered a safe laboratory
and fume hood operation. OSHA’s sample CHP limits the number of workers in a hood, minimum work-
ing conditions, face velocity and room air change rates per hour (ACH). These values are important since
there is sometimes confusion in what should be followed.
4. Ventilation—
(a) General laboratory ventilation. This system should: Provide a source of air for
breathing and for input to local ventilation devices; it should not be relied on
for protection from toxic substances released into the laboratory; ensure that
laboratory air is continually replaced, preventing increase of air concentrations
of toxic substances during the working day; direct airflow into the laboratory
from non-laboratory areas and out to the exterior of the building.
(b) Hoods. A laboratory hood with 2.5 linear feet of hood space per person should
be provided for every 2 workers if they spend most of their time working with
Chemicals(3, 4 & 5 ft hoods are single worker hoods); each hood should have
continuous monitoring device to allow convenient confirmation of adequate
hood performance before use. If this is not, possible, work with substances of
unknown toxicity should be avoided or other type of local ventilation devices
should be provided.
(c) Other local ventilation devices. Ventilated storage cabinets, canopy hoods,
snorkels, etc. should be provided as needed. Each canopy hood and snorkel
should have a separate exhaust duct.
(d) Special ventilation areas. Exhaust. Air from glove boxes and isolation rooms
should be passed through scrubbers or other treatment before release into the

CHAPTER 4

regular exhaust system. Cold rooms and warm rooms should have provisions
for rapid escape and for escape in the event of electrical failure.
(e) Modifications. Any alteration of the ventilation system should be made only if
thorough testing indicates that worker protection from airborne toxic substanc-
es will continue to be adequate.
(f) Performance. Rate: 4-12 room air changes/hour is normally adequate general
ventilation if local exhaust systems such as hoods are used as the primary
method of control.
(g) Quality. General airflow should not be turbulent and should be relatively uni-
T
form throughout the laboratory, with no high velocity or static areas; airflow
F
into and within the hood should not be excessively turbulent; hood face
A
velocity should be adequate typically 60-100 fpm.
(h) Evaluation. Quality and quantity of ventilation should be evaluated on installa-
R
tion, regularly monitored (at least every 3 months), and reevaluated whenever
a change in local ventilation devices is made. See pp. 195-198 for methods of
D
evaluation and for calculation of estimated airborne contaminant concentra-
tions.
(i) Personal protection: Assure that all persons, including visitors, where chemi-
cals are stored or handled, wear appropriate eye protection.
Wear appropriate gloves when the potential for contact with toxic materials
exists; inspect the gloves before each - use, wash them before removal, and
replace them periodically.
Use appropriate respiratory equipment when air contaminant concentrations
are not sufficiently restricted by engineering controls, inspecting the respirator
before use.
Use any other protective and emergency apparel and equipment as
appropriate.
Avoid use of contact lenses in the laboratory unless necessary; if they are
used, inform supervisor so special precautions can be taken.
Remove laboratory coats immediately on significant contamination,
(j) Planning: Seek information and advice about hazards, plan appropriate protec-
tive procedures, - and plan, positioning of equipment before beginning any
new operation. .
(k) Unattended operations: Leave lights on, place an appropriate sign on the door,
and provide for containment of toxic substances in the event of failure of a util-
ity service (such as cooling water) to an unattended operation.
(l) Use of hood: Use the hood for operations, which might result in release of toxic
chemical vapors or dust,
As a rule of thumb, use a hood or other local ventilation device when work-
ing with any appreciably volatile substance with a TLV of less than 5 ppm
Confirm adequate hood performance before use; keep hood closed at all

CHAPTER 4

times except when adjustments within the hood are being made; keep materi-
als stored in hoods to a minimum and do not allow them to block vents or air
flow.
Leave the hood “on” when it is not in active use if toxic substances are stored
in it or if it is uncertain whether adequate general laboratory ventilation will
be maintained when off.
T
When Did OSHA’s Regulation Take Effect?
And Is It Required In All States?
AF
Every state was required to adopt a comparable regulation to Federal OSHA’s Regulation by May 1,1990
and Laboratory employers shall have developed and implemented a written CHP no later than January 31,
R
1991.
D
“In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational safety and health
for employees exposed to hazardous chemicals in laboratories. Those States which
have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH Act would not be preempt-
ed by this regulation and would be able to deal with special, local conditions within
the framework provided by this performance-oriented standard while ensuring that
their standards are at least as effective as the Federal standard.
The 25 States with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health
plans must adopt a comparable standard within six months of publication of a
final rule. The States are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut Hawaii, In-
diana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Washington, Wyoming. For New York and
Connecticut, plans cover only state and local government employees. Until such
time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide interim en-
forcement assistance, as appropriate, in these States.”
California was the only State that did not follow the Federal OSHA mandate for routine performance
base monitoring. California OSHA (Cal-OSHA) never abandons their 100 fpm fume hood face velocity
mandate and their agency will do un-announced laboratory inspection but only enforces face velocity
measurement. The public petitioned Cal-OSHA to correct their Title 8 Code. Cal-OSHA formed a com-
mittee to study the issue. Cal-OSHA rejected the committee’s opinions on fume hood testing and elected
instead to modify the American Conformance ASHRAE -110 tracer gas test that eliminated the manikin
from the test and only sample the fume hood spillage far away from the fume hood face opening. The
non-American conformance tracer gas test without manikin is limited to only when the laboratory is un-
occupied for energy reduction considerations. Cal-OSHA’s position on fume hood worker safety and their

CHAPTER 4

refusal to improve on worker safety may be the reason California leads the nation in fume hood class
action worker lawsuits and worker injuries.
National Fire Code NFPA Chapter 45 & American ANSI Conformance Standard On
Laboratories Using Chemicals
ANSI/NFPA 45 is a important standard as it is often incorporated into local or state codes.
T
Origin and Development of NFPA 45
F
“The first edition of NFPA 45 was developed by the Technical Committee on
A
Chemistry Laboratories. It was tentatively adopted at the 1974 NFPA Annual
R
Meeting and was officially adopted at the 1975 NFPA Fall Meeting. After the docu-
ment had been in use for two years, the technical committee began an exhaustive
D
review of the text; amendments were adopted for the 1982, 1986, and 1991 editions.
The 1996 edition of NFPA 45 included clarification on the scope and application
of the standard as it applied to various types of educational, industrial, and medical
laboratory facilities. Clarification of objectives was made to ensure a fire is con-
tained to the room of origin. The requirements for maximum quantities of flam-
mable and combustible liquids, construction, and fire protection in laboratory units
were separated into two tables, one for sprinklered laboratory units and the other
for nonsprinklered laboratory units. In addition, the committee revised the fire
hazard classifications to recognize that clinical laboratories were using this stan-
dard as directed by NFPA 99, Standard for Health Care Facilities, and to identify
that NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, no longer addresses laboratory occupancies.”
The ANSI/NFPA 45 has two parts. The first part is numbered by section from 1 thru 13 and the second
part is appendixes with letters “A” thru “F” preceding a number that gives an insight on the correspond-
ing standard section. The appendixes are not part of the ANSI approved standard and reflect non-confor-
mance standard background information on the topic.
1.2 Purpose.
1.2.1. The purpose of this standard shall be to provide basic requirements for
the protection of life and property through prevention and control of
fires and explosions involving the use of chemicals in laboratory-scale
operations.
1.2.2. This standard is designed to control hazards and protect personnel from
the toxic, corrosive, or other harmful effects of chemicals to which per-
sonnel might be exposed as a result of fire or explosion.

CHAPTER 4

1.2.3. The goal of this standard shall be to achieve a comprehensive laboratory
fire prevention and protection program to prevent injury or death to oc-
cupants and emergency response personnel.
1.2.4 the objectives of this standard shall be as follows:
(1) Limit injury to the occupants at the point of fire origin
(2) Limit injury to emergency response personnel
(3) Limit property loss to a maximum of a single laboratory unit
1.2.5 it is not the objective of this standard to address financial losses such as
business interruption or property loss when the loss of a laboratory unit
T
is unacceptable.
F
1.1 Scope.
A
1.1.1 This standard shall apply to laboratory buildings, laboratory units, and
laboratory work areas whether located above or below grade in which
R
chemicals, as defined are handled or stored.
D
FUME HOOD TRACER GAS TESTING & MINIMUM EXHAUST
One of the first questions asked is, “Does ANSI/NFPA 45 requires ASHRAE fume hood tracer gas test-
ing?” The answer is “yes.” This same fume hood-testing requirement is also required by ANSI/AIHA Z
9.5 and ACGIH handbooks.
8.4.7* The hood shall provide containment of the possible hazards and protection
for personnel at all times when chemicals are present in the hood
A.8.4.7 Laboratory fume hood containment can be evaluated using the procedures
contained in ASHRAE 110, Method of Testing Performance of Laborato-
ry Fume Hoods. Face velocities of 0.4 m/sec to 0.6 m/sec (80 ft/min to 120
ft/ min) generally provide containment if the hood location requirements
and laboratory ventilation criteria of this standard are met.
Laboratory Fume Hoods. In addition to maintaining fume hood face velocity,
fume hoods that reduce the exhaust volume as the sash opening is reduced should
maintain a minimum exhaust volume to ensure that contaminants are diluted and
exhausted from a hood. The chemical fume hood exhaust airflow should not be
reduced to less than 127 L/ sec/m2 (25 ft3/min/ft2) of internal hood work surface
even when the sash is fully closed except where a written hazard characterization
indicates otherwise. This characterization should be performed in accordance with
ASHRAE 110, Method of Testing Performance of Fume Hoods.

CHAPTER 4

The standard also recommends minimum fume hood exhaust airflow, which is around 50 CFM per linear
foot of hood. ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 requires the same minimum fume hood exhaust volume. This minimum
fume hood exhaust airflow includes the NFPA code Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) safety factor. The
performance standard language would have required a calculation for LEL and the appendix directive
simplified the requirement by providing this information. This minimum exhaust airflow also applies
to all fume hoods not only VAV controlled fume hoods. This includes today’s “High Performance Low
Airflow” fume hoods. The ACGHI handbook states that the best accuracy that can be achieved in airflow
balancing at these velocities is ± 15%. It may be wise to set the minimum exhaust airflow volume with a
tolerance of + 15% - 0% to be sure the lower LEL is never compromised.
AFT
Does NFPA 45 Have a Position on the Frequency for ASHRAE 110 Testing? YES
R
All new fume hood installations require “AI” and all old and new hoods required “AU” testing. The ques-
tion is when would an “as used” fume hood require re-tracer gas testing or is once good enough for a life-
D
time. A better question should be what could alter a fume hoods performance after initial “AU” testing?
The following is a computer generated ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test using Computational Fluid Dynamic
(CFD) modeling. The simulated ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test illustrates how minor changes in loading
and equipment location can dramatically degrade some fume hood performances.

CHAPTER 4
R AFT
D Figure 1. ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test using Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) modeling
The left color bar represents the concentration of SF6 tracer gas. In some style hoods just slight equip-
ment loading changes effect fume hood performance.
The NFPA code language is very clear on fume hood testing, inspection and maintenance. At least annu-
ally, the fume hood’s face velocity is measured, airflow volume controls and alarms calibrated and smoke
tested to verify inward flow. Visual inspection of the hoods conditions including changes in the hoods
loading that may affect hood performance is evaluated. As part of the CT’s initial tracer gas fume hood
evaluation, either a detailed written description of the As Used (AU) loading condition of the hood or a
picture of the initial conditions of the hood tracer gas tested is required as a part of their report. If there
is a significant change of hood loading then re-tracer gas testing is required. The Code is clear that a re-
tracer gas performance failure either restricts the hoods use or it cannot be used until its performance is
corrected.

CHAPTER 4
8.13 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance.

8.13.1* When installed or modified and at least annually thereafter, chemi-
cal fume hoods, chemical fume hood exhaust systems, and laboratory
special exhaust systems shall be inspected and tested as applicable, as
follows:
(1) Visual inspection of the physical condition of the hood interior, sash,
and ductwork
(2) Measuring device for hood airflow
T
(3) Low airflow and loss-of-airflow alarms at each alarm location
F
(4) Face velocity
A
(5) Verification of inward airflow over the entire hood face
(6) Changes in work area conditions that might affect hood performance
R
8.13.2 Deficiencies in hood performance shall be corrected or one of the follow-
ing shall apply:
D
(1) The activity within the hood shall be restricted to the capability of
the hood.
(2) The hood shall not be used.
8.13.3 Chemical fume hood face velocity profile or hood exhaust air quantity
shall be checked after any adjustment to the ventilation system balance.
8.13.4 Detectors and Alarms.
8.13.4.1. Air system flow detectors, if installed, shall be inspected and tested an-
nually.
8.13.4.2. Where potentially corrosive or obstructive conditions exist, the inspec-
tion and test frequency shall be increased.
8.13.5 Fans and Motors.
8.13.5.1* Air supply and exhaust fans, motors, and components shall be inspected
at least annually.
8.13.5.2. Where airflow detectors are not provided or airflow-rate tests are not
made, fan belts shall be inspected quarterly; double sheaves and belts
shall be permitted to be inspected semiannually.
8.13.5.3. Frayed or broken belts shall be replaced promptly.
13.6. Fixed fire extinguishing systems protecting filters shall be inspected
quarterly for accumulation of deposits on nozzles and cleaned as neces-
sary.

CHAPTER 4
Which Fume Hoods Require Tracer Gas Testing
The NFPA Codes restricts which styles of fume hoods can be used to protect workers from fire, explosion
or toxic hazard. Laminar flow cabinets cannot be used in lieu of a chemical hood and ACGIH will not
allow them at all for worker protection. The Code restricts ductless fume hoods for only harmless vapors
and dusts. That means no solvents or toxic vapors and materials. The code language eliminates ductless
fume hoods from being used in any laboratory handling chemicals. Neither laminar flow cabinets nor
ductless fume hoods require ASHRAE 110 tracer gas testing since neither style hoods can be used for
T
worker protection and testing them may lead a worker to believe they could be safe to use.
AF
8.4.1* Air exhausted from chemical fume hoods and other special local exhaust
systems shall not be recirculated. (See also 8.3.1.)
R
8.3.1 Laboratory ventilation systems shall be designed to ensure that chemicals
originating from the laboratory shall not be recirculated.
D
A.8.4.1 Ductless chemical fume hoods that pass air from the hood interior through
an absorption filter and then discharge the air into the laboratory are only
applicable for use with nuisance vapors and dusts that do not present a fire
or toxicity hazard.
8.4.2.2 Devices that could result in recirculation of exhaust air or exhausted con-
taminants shall not be used unless designed in accordance with Section
4:10.1, “Non-laboratory Air,” and Section 4:10.2, “General Room Exhaust,”
of ANSI/AIHAZ9.5, Laboratory Ventilation.
4:10.1 Non-laboratory air (ANSI/AIHA Z9.5)
Air from building areas adjacent to the laboratory may be used as part of
the supply air to the laboratory if its quality is adequate.
NOTE - In many laboratory settings, the laboratory is purposely kept at
a slight negative differential pressure with respect to adjacent building
spaces. In this situation, air flows from the adjacent spaces into the labora-
tory through building cracks and doorways, at least when open. This flow
can be reduced, but not completely eliminated, by use of double-door air
lock vestibules, with corresponding consumption of interior space and
some hindrance to traffic.
4:10.2 General rooms exhaust (ANSI/AIHA Z9.5)
Air exhausted from the general laboratory space (as distinguished from
exhaust hoods) shall not be recirculated unless one of the following sets of
criteria is met:
1) Criteria A
There are no extremely dangerous or life-threatening materials used in the
laboratory;

CHAPTER 4

1. The concentration of air contaminants generated by the maxi-
mum credible accident will be lower than short-term exposure
limits required by 4.3;
2. The system serving the exhaust hoods is provided with installed
spares, emergency power, and other reliability features as neces-
sary.
2) Criteria B
1. Recirculated air is treated to reduce contaminant concentrations
to those specified in 4.3;
T
2. Recirculated air is monitored continuously for contaminant
F
concentrations or provided with a secondary backup air cleaning
A
device that also serves as a monitor (i.e., a HEPA filter in a series
with a less efficient filter, for particulate contamination only);
R
3. Air cleaning and monitoring equipment is maintained and cali-
brated under a preventive maintenance program;
D
4. A bypass to divert the recirculated air to atmosphere is provided.
NOTE - Many laboratories, especially those handling high-hazard materi-
als, have a sufficient number of exhaust hoods so that the entire flow of
supply air to the room necessary for air conditioning is removed through
exhaust hoods (in other words, there is no surplus supply to be exhausted
or recirculated.)
8.4.11 Laminar flow cabinets shall not be used in lieu of chemical fume hoods

CHAPTER 4
R AFT
D
Figure 2. Vertical Laminar Flow Clean Bench
Courtesy of American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

CHAPTER 4
DUCT CONVEYANCE VELOCITY
The duct conveyance velocity has to be high enough to transport the fumes produced within the hood
to the exhaust fans inlet. At one time high duct velocity (up to 2000 fpm or 22 MPH wind) was recom-
mended but over time common sense prevailed where it was recognized that the fumes, dust and vapors
are being transported from the fume hood at low 1 MPH wind speed velocity. There is now a trend to go
away from constant velocity design ductwork to constant static gain design ductwork. The constant static
gain design ductwork reduces noise, saves energy and is easier to balance and maintain airflows. Where
T
the NFPA code requires high velocities is at the fume hood fan exhaust discharge to prevent fume vapors
F
from reentering the building thru entrainment.
A
8.4.6 Chemical fume hood face velocities and exhaust volumes shall be suffi-
R
cient to contain contaminants generated within the hood and exhaust them
outside of the laboratory building.
D
CHAPTER 4
FUME HOOD TRACER GAS TESTING AND FUMES RE-ENTERING THE BUILDING
During tracer gas testing the CT will be testing the fume hood but also the efficiency of the exhaust sys-
tems to eject fumes out side the lab buildings envelope. The following from the ACGIH Handbook helps
illustrates the fume hood exhaust entrainment re-entry problem.
R AFT
D
Figure 3. Fume Re-entering building
Courtesy of American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

CHAPTER 4
During tracer gas testing the analyzer will report spillage but it will require the CT to make a determina-
tion if the spill is being generated from the fume hood face or is it the build up of tracer gas re-entering
the building. Tracer gas spills from the fume hood face are episodic peaks and a steady background build
up over time is indicating fumes re-entering back into the lab space, usually from fume exhaust entrain-
ment but also from exhaust fans located in the mechanical space. To confirm that the fume background
is being brought back thru the lab supply make-up system as entrainment, close the fume hood sash and
then reposition the analyzer pick-up to measure the lab supply make-up diffuser as the source. If the sup-
T
ply make-up is contaminated all hood testing is stopped and the building fails per NFPA Code.
F
8.3.1 Laboratory ventilation systems shall be designed to ensure that chemi-
A
cals originating from the laboratory shall not be recirculated.
R
8.4.12* Air exhausted from chemical fume hoods and special exhaust systems
shall be discharged above the roof at a location, height, and velocity
D
sufficient to prevent re-entry of chemicals and to prevent exposures to
personnel.
8.3.3* The location and configuration of fresh air intakes shall be chosen so
as to avoid drawing in chemicals or products of combustion coming
either from the laboratory building itself or from other structures and
devices.
A.8.3.3 Special studies such as air-dispersion modeling might be necessary to
determine the location of air intakes for laboratories away from the
influence of laboratory exhaust and other local point source emissions.

CHAPTER 4
The following illustrates air-dispersion studies using CFD modeling.
R AFT
D Figure 4. Air-dispersion studies using CFD modeling.
NFPA has diprectives on how fume hood ductwork must be designed to prevent fume re-entry.
8.4.4 Air from laboratory units and laboratory work areas in which chemicals are
present shall be continuously discharged through duct systems maintained at
a negative pressure relative to the pressure of normally occupied areas of the
building.
8.4.5 Positive pressure portions of the lab hood exhaust systems (e.g., fans, coils,
flexible connections, and ductwork) located within the laboratory building
shall be sealed airtight or located in a continuously mechanically ventilated
room.
CHAPTER 4
LAB SPACE ENVIRONMENT, LAYOUT, & OPERATING CONDITIONS
Part of the CT’s responsibility in ASHRAE 110 testing will be to sketch the fume hoods location in
respects to layout, furniture, supply diffuser and general exhaust as part of their report. The CT will
also report on their observations which will includes any issues that impact fume hood performance and
safety. NFPA standard helps the CT in this area since it delineates acceptable and not acceptable condi-
tions, which should be noted in their report.
T
FUME HOOD LOCATION AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
F
8.9.1 Chemical fume hoods shall be located in areas of minimum air turbulence.
A
8.3.5 The location of air supply diffusion devices shall be chosen so as to avoid
air currents that would adversely affect the performance of chemical fume
R
hoods, exhaust systems, and fire detection or extinguishing systems.
A.8.3.5 Room air current velocities in the vicinity of fume hoods should be as low
D
as possible, ideally less than 30 percent of the face velocity of the fume
hood. Ail* supply diffusion devices should be as far away from fume
hoods as possible and have low exit velocities.
8.9.2 Chemical fume hoods shall not be located adjacent to a single means of
access to an exit
or to high-traffic areas.
5.4.1 A second means of access to an exit shall be provided from a laboratory
work area if any of the following situations exist:
A hood in a laboratory work area is located adjacent to the primary means
of exit access.
LAB OPERATING CONDITIONS

8.3.4 The air pressure in the laboratory work areas shall be negative with re-
spect to corridors
8.4.3 Air exhausted from laboratory work areas shall not pass unducted through
other areas
FUME HOOD ALARMS

8.8.7.1 A measuring device for hood airflow shall be provided on each chemical
fume hood.
7.2. The measuring device for hood airflow shall be a permanently installed
device and shall provide constant indication to the hood user of adequate
or inadequate hood airflow.
FUME HOODS WITH INTERNAL BYPASS TO CEILING PLENUM

8.10.7 Chemical fume hoods shall be installed in a manner that prevents

CHAPTER 4

fire or smoke from a fire in the chemical fume hood from spreading into the voids
above the ceiling.
NO EQUIPMENT CART CAN BE USED SUPPORTING A MANIKIN
OR TEST EQUIPMENT IN FRONT OF A HOOD DURING FUME
HOOD TESTING
9.3. Workstations not directly related to the chemical fume hood activity shall
not be located directly in front of chemical fume hood openings.
FUME HOOD ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
T
All electrical installations, including wiring and appurtenances, apparatus, light-
F
ing, signal systems, alarm systems, remote control systems, or parts thereof, shall
comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
A
5.6.1 Electrical receptacles, switches, and controls shall be located so as not to
R
be subject to liquid spills.
5.6.2 Laboratory work areas, laboratory units, and chemical fume hood interiors
D
shall be considered as unclassified electrically with respect to Article 500
of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. In installations where services and
controls are within the hood, additional electrical disconnects shall be
located within 15m (50 ft) of the hood and shall be accessible and clearly
marked.
8.8.4.1 If electrical receptacles are located external to the hood, no additional
electrical disconnect shall be required.
A.8.2.3 Hoods having explosion proof electrical devices are sometimes referred to
as explosion proof hoods. This term does not imply that they will contain
an explosion (or protect a worker from explosion), only that the electrical
equipment will not provide a source of ignition.
NFPA STANDARD REQUIRES (SPLASH) EXPLOSION (BLAST) RESISTANT FUME

HOODS WITH HORIZONTAL SASHES FOR WORKER PROTECTION
NFPA requires explosion resistant hoods for worker protection. Portable safety shields are no longer sold
since they are a safety hazard per NFPA. In recent lawsuits involving worker explosion injury, the fume
hood manufacturers cite NFPA standard requirement that fume hoods need to be designed for explosion
resistant construction even for solvent use. The fume hood manufacturers SEFA standard and prudent
practice both recommend horizontal sash window operating hoods for splash and explosion worker pro-
tection. The NFPA standard states conventional vertical sash hoods do not protect the worker for (splash)
explosion and recommend panels for protection.
4.3.1 A laboratory work area shall be considered to contain an explosion hazard
if an explosion of quantities or concentrations of materials, including but
not limited to those listed in 4.3.1(1) through 4.3.1(6), could result in seri-
ous or fatal injuries to personnel within that laboratory work area.

CHAPTER 4

(1) Storage of materials with a instability hazard rating of 4
(2) Use or formation of materials with a instability hazard rating of 4
(3) Presence of highly exothermic reactions such as polymerizations,
oxidations, nitrations, peroxidations, hydrogenations, or
organo-metallic reactions
Use or formation of materials whose chemical structures indicate a
potential hazard, but whose properties have not been established, such as
triple bonds, epoxy radicals, nitro and nitro so compounds, and peroxides
(4) Presence of high-pressure reactions
T
(5) Other explosion hazards as determined by a qualified person
F
4.3.2 A laboratory unit shall not be considered to contain an explosion hazard
unless a laboratory work area within that unit contains an explosion haz-
A
ard great enough to cause major property damage or serious injury outside
R
that laboratory work area.
8 2 3* Chemical fume hoods shall not be relied upon to provide explosion (blast)
D
protection unless specifically designed to do so. (See also C.5.4 and C. 5.5
for further information on explosion-resistant hoods and shields.)
A.3.3.9 Chemical Fume Hood. For further information on descriptions of types
of chemical fume hoods and exhaust ventilation devices, see ANSI/AIHA
Z9.5, Laboratory Ventilation. The following are types of chemical fume
hoods:
(1) Conventional hood. A square-post hood without an airfoil directional
vane across the bottom of the hood face, and in most cases without provi-
sion for a bypass. As the sash is lowered (vertical sash) in hoods without
an air bypass, the face velocity increases rapidly. The square-post design
and absence of a deflector vane have been known to create turbulence at
the hood face. The turbulence at the hood face can bring fumes from the
hood interior out to the hood face, where they are easily drawn out into
the room by the air turbulence caused by a person working at the hood,
persons passing the hood, or minor room cross drafts. If hoods are not
equipped with a bypass, face velocities could become objectionably high
as the sash is closed, and with the sash completely closed, airflow can be
insufficient to carry vapors away.
C.5.4.1 Conventional laboratory hoods are not designed to provide explosion pro-
tection.
A.8.2.3 Hoods having explosion proof electrical devices are sometimes referred to
as explosion proof hoods. This term does not imply that they will contain
an explosion, only that the electrical equipment will not provide a source
of ignition.
C.4.3 The likelihood of an explosion is estimated by considering such factors as
the properties of the reactants; history of the reaction based on literature

CHAPTER 4

search, and so forth; possible intermediates and reaction products; pres-
sure, volume, stored energy, design integrity, and safety factors of reaction
vessels; pressure relief provisions, in the case of pressure vessels; and ex-
plosive limits, quantities, oxygen enrichment, and so forth, of flammable
gases or vapors. The term likelihood, rather than probability, is used to
describe an estimated event frequency based on experience, knowledge, or
intuitive reasoning, rather than on statistical data. In general, there will be
insufficient data to develop mathematical probabilities.
C.5.4.5 When transparent shields are necessary for viewing purposes, the most
T
common materials used are safety glass, wire-reinforced glass, and
F
acrylic or polycarbonate plastic. Each of these materials, although provid-
A
ing some missile penetration resistance, has a distinct failure mode.
Glass shields tend to fragment into shards and to spall on the side away
R
from the explosion. Plastics tend to fail by cracking and breaking into
distinct pieces. Also, plastics can lose strength with age, exposure to
D
reactants, or mechanical action. Polycarbonates exhibit superior toughness
compared to acrylics.
Glass panels and plastic composite panels (safety glass backed with poly-
carbonate, with the safety glass toward the explosion hazard) have been
suggested as an improved shield design. The glass blunts sharp missiles,
and the polycarbonate contains any glass shards and provides additional
resistance to the impulse load.
ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 Laboratory Standard
The ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 standard is endorsed by NIOSH. There are no conflicts between the AIHA Z9.5
standard and ANSI/NFPA 45 standard. The AIHA Z 9.5 standard does expand on important fume testing
requirements and reporting. The AIHA Z9.5 standard has two easy to understand columns. One column
for “Shall,” and another for background. The following reviews the “Shall” directives, which require little
interpretation. The AIHA Z9.5 standard addresses all the fume hood testing values and correct proce-
dures that are missing in the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 fume hood testing standard.
Laboratory Design Professional and Responsible Person
The standard clearly defines who is responsible to supply the pass/fail tracer gas values. The “as manu-
factured” (AM) and “as installed” (AI) tracer gas testing evaluation is the primary licensed design pro-
fessional and the “as used” (AU) tracer gas testing pass evaluation is the laboratories “responsible person.”

CHAPTER 4

2.2 Chemical Hygiene Plan
The laboratory shall develop a Chemical Hygiene Plan according to the
OSHA Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450). The plan shall address the
laboratory operations and procedures that might generate air contamination
in excess of the requirements of Section 2.1.1. These operations shall be
performed inside a hood adequate to attain compliance.
2.3 Responsible Person
In each operation using laboratory ventilation systems, the user shall desig-
nate a “responsible person.”
T
2.4.2 “Programming” and Control Objectives for New Construction, Renova-
F
tion, or Program Evaluation
A
• Tracer gas containment “pass” criteria (e.g., Al 0.5, Al 0.1, Al 0.05, etc.);
• AMYY and AIYY by Design Professional in agreement with respon-
R
sible person (2.3);
• AU YYY by responsible person (2.3);
D
The primary design professional license holder (architect and/or engi-
neer) with the laboratory standard duty of care responsibilities cannot
delegate any of their liability to others. For example, the sealing license
holders cannot delegate responsibility or liability on to laboratory plan-
ner, industrial hygienist, and/or commissioning agent even if licensed or
certified.
Fume Hood Styles
The AIHA Z9.5 defines the different style hoods. The AIHA Z 9.5 also eliminates laboratory benches
from being used when there is a possibility of vapor contaminants. All work requires fume hoods, and
they must work the same as OSHA’s position.
2.1.1 Laboratory Chemical Hoods

Adequate laboratory chemical hoods, special purpose hoods, or other
engineering controls shall be used when there is a possibility of employee
overexposure to air contaminants generated by a laboratory activity.
The containment and capture of a laboratory hood shall be considered ad-
equate if, in combination with prudent practice, laboratory worker chemi-
cal exposure levels are maintained below applicable in-house exposure
limits as recommended in 2.1.1. When these containment sources are not
adequate, the laboratory shall conduct a hazard determination to evaluate
the situation.
3.2 Hood Types
3.2.1 Bypass Hood

CHAPTER 4
Bypass hoods are laboratory hoods with either vertical or horizontal

moving sashes that shall meet the requirements in Section 3.3. The hood
exhaust volume shall remain essentially unchanged (<5% change) when
the sash is fully closed.
3.2.2 Conventional Hoods
Conventional hoods shall meet the requirements in Section 3.3. The hood
exhaust volume shall remain unchanged with the sash in full open or in
the design open position. As the sash is lowered, the face velocity will
T
increase. In the fully closed position, airflow would be through the airfoil
only.
F
3.2.3 Auxiliary Supplied Air Hoods
A
Auxiliary air hoods are laboratory hoods that meet the requirements in
Section 3.3.
R
The supply plenum shall be located externally and above the top of the
D
hood face; moreover,
the auxiliary air shall be released outside the hood.
The supply jet shall be distributed so as not to affect containment.
The auxiliary air shall not disrupt hood containment or increase poten-
tial for escape.
3.1.1.1 Vertical Sashes
Vertical sashes shall be designed and operated so as not to be opened
more than the design opening when hazardous materials are being used
within the hood. Where the design sash opening area is less than the
maximum sash opening area, the hood shall be equipped with a mechani-
cal sash stop and alarm to indicate openings in excess of the design sash
opening area.
3.1.1.2 Horizontal Sashes
Horizontal sashes shall be designed so as not to be opened more than the
design opening width when hazardous materials are being generated in
the hood. (Maximum width 15″ to accommodate the less than average
height worker as full body shield for splash and explosion protection.)

CHAPTER 4
Fume Hood Exhaust Airflow Balancing
The AIHA Z 9.5 gives a clear directive separating the difference between fume hood airflow balancing
and fume hood face velocity testing measurement. A fume hood exhaust airflow balance shall not use a
face velocity multiple point average reading but must use a duct airflow traverse. There is an important
reason for this directive since there will be more often than not, a different exhaust airflow volume value
T
using a duct airflow traverse versus an average fume hood face velocity reading. The average fume hood
face velocity reading will always indicate a lower total exhaust airflow volume since face velocity in feet
F
per minute readings are always negatively influenced by yaw and pitch angular airflow direction. These
A
yaw and pitch errors are always caused by poor environmental operating conditions such as crosscur-
rents and lab furniture locations. The difference between the fume hood exhaust airflow value versus the
R
face velocity value is important since it will help the CT to trouble shoot and explain why there is a fume
hood performance testing failure. Too often, there is a lack of knowledge on why there are two different
D
exhaust airflow values. This causes an unnecessary conflict between the balancing contractor and the CT
fume hood tester. One of the problems is the balancer may not have enough straight run for an accurate
duct traverse. A multiple sensor hole airflow probe installed in the neck of the fume hood solves this
problem.
6.3.1 Exhaust Flow Measurement

The volumetric flow exhausted from a laboratory chemical hood shall be
determined by measuring the flow in the exhaust duct using industry-ap-
proved methods.
6.6 Laboratory Chemical Hoods
If practical, the exhaust flow-rate from hoods shall be tested by measuring
the flow in the duct by the hood throat suction method or by flow meter.
If flow measurement in the duct is not practical (see duct airflow probe), ve-
locity at the hood face or opening shall be measured at a sufficient number
of points to obtain a realistic average velocity, and multiplied by the open
area in the Plane of the velocity measurements to obtain the flow-rate. If the
flow-rate is more than 10% different from design, corrective action shall be
taken.

CHAPTER 4
Fume Hood Face Velocity
The AIHA Z 9.5 standard provides fume hood face velocity parameters that are missing in the ASHRAE
110 fume hood testing standard. Only a “hotwire” style anemometer can be used for face velocity mea-
surement. This is the same requirement found in ANSI/ASHRAE 111 standard. A fixed “ring stand”
device must be used to hold different positions, not handheld. The AIHA Z 9.5 also details how auxiliary
make up style fume hoods face velocities shall be measured.
T
3.3.1 Face Velocity
F
The average face velocity of the hood shall produce sufficient capture and
A
containment of hazardous chemicals generated under as-used conditions.
An adequate face velocity is necessary but is not the only criterion to
R
achieve acceptable performance and shall not be used as the only perfor-
mance indicator.
D
6.3.3 Face Velocity Tests
The average face velocity shall be determined by the method described in
the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 Method of Testing Performance of Labora-
tory Fume Hoods. Face velocity measurements shall be made by dividing
the hood opening into equal area grids with sides measuring no more than
12 in. (30, 5 cm). The tip of the probe shall be positioned in the plane of the
sash opening and fixed (not handheld) at the approximate center of each
grid. Grid measurements around the perimeter of the & hood opening shall
be made at a distance of approximately 6 in, (15.2 cm) from the top, bottom,
and sides of the opening enclosure,
The average face velocity shall be the average of the grid velocity mea-
surements. Each grid velocity shall be the average of at least 10 measure-
ments made over at least 10 seconds.
The plane of the sash shall be located at the mid-point of the sash frame
depth.
6.3.4 Auxiliary Air Velocity Tests
For auxiliary air hoods, the face velocity shall be measured with the auxil-
iary air turned off unless room pressurization would change significantly to
affect exhaust flow. Where exhaust flow would be affected by turning off the
auxiliary airflow, auxiliary air must be redirected from the hood opening so
as not to interfere with flow into the hood while conducting the face velocity
traverse.
The velocity of the auxiliary air exiting the auxiliary air plenum shall be
measured to determine the magnitude and distribution of air supplied above
the hood opening. The average auxiliary air velocity shall be determined
from the average of grid velocities measured across the plenum outlet.

CHAPTER 4
Fume Hood Alarms and Exhaust Airflow Measuring Devices
ANSI/NFPA Standard, AHIA Z 9.5

and even Cal OSHA all require some
style of fume hood alarm that must be
calibrated by the CT annually. The CT
should supply and install these fume
T
hood alarms if they are missing or re-
F
place those that no longer function. All
A
standard fume hood alarms are based
on monitoring and alarming on either
R
duct static pressure or fume hood static
pressure. There is fume hood alarm
D
technology that monitors the fume
hoods turbulence and alarms on actual
loss of containment because of adverse
fume hood loading and environmen-
tal challenges. Even these state of the
art devices are very affordable. The
Figure 5. Exhaust Airflow Probe
CT should not supply any alarm that
may confuse the fume hood user. For
example, do not supply fume hood alarms with face velocity values numerically displayed. This requires
teaching the fume hood user what face velocity may mean in safety when all the industry standards state
face velocity is not a measurement of safe performance of a flow hood.. Only supply simple fume hood
alarms with common understandable red, yellow and green lights with an audible alarm. The CT may
also want to supply and install an exhaust airflow equal averaging velocity pressure duct probe at the
fume hoods exhaust connection. These style airflow probes offer accurate and repeatable total exhaust
volume readings when appropriate flow coefficients are applied and can be used as a reference point for
the required annual fume hood testing and calibration. These airflow probes can also solve the balancer
problem in not having enough straight run available for an accurate airflow duct traverse. The following
are examples of typical products on the market.

CHAPTER 4
Crosscurrent, Duct and Hood Static Pressure Measurements
The two leading causes of fume hood tracer gas and smoke testing failure are unacceptable duct static
pressure fluctuations and excessive space crosscurrent drafts. Duct static pressure fluctuations are caused
primarily from uncontrollable ductwork dynamic losses, such as the use of “bull head” tees, high pres-
sure drop dampers, or valves and exhaust fans operating in unstable ranges. Measuring the exhaust
stability is a part of the ASHRAE 110 fume hood test. NFPA 45 and AIHA Z 9.5 standards require both
crosscurrent and hood static pressure measurement and evaluation as a part of a fume hood performance
T
testing. Space crosscurrent drafts must be less than 30% of design face velocity. The fume hood manu-
F
facturers recommend even less (20%) crosscurrent drafts. Both the engineer and architect share the mis-
A
takes made in laboratory design. The only fool proof solution to adverse crosscurrent drafts is converting
conventional vertical sash operating hoods into horizontal sash operating hoods. This is why the ACGIH
R
handbook requires horizontal sash operating hoods in adverse crosscurrent drafty operating conditions.
D
100 fpm face velocity = max. 30 fpm crosscurrent
5.2.2 Supply Air Distribution

Supply air distribution shall be designed to keep air jet velocities less than
half, preferably less than one-third of the capture velocity or the face ve-
locity of the laboratory chemical hoods at their face opening.
6.3.5 Cross-Draft Velocity Tests
Cross-draft velocity measurements shall be made with the sashes open and
the velocity probe positioned at several locations near the hood opening
to detect potentially interfering room air currents (cross drafts). Record
measurement locations.
Over a period of 10-30 sec, cross-draft velocities shall be recorded ap-
proximately 1 reading per second using a thermal anemometer with an
accuracy of ±5% at 50 fpm (0.25 m/s).
The average and maximum cross-draft velocities at each location shall
be recorded and not be sufficient to cause escape from the hood. Cross
draft velocities shall not be of such magnitude and direction as to nega-
tively affect containment.
6.3.2 Hood Static Pressure
The hood static pressure shall be measured above the outlet collar of the
hood at the flows required to achieve the design average face velocity.

CHAPTER 4
Fume Hood Smoke Testing
Both the AHIA Z 9.5 and ASHRAE 110 standards agree on smoke testing evaluation and the 6-inch inter-
nal position of the smoke generation equipment.
6.3.6 Airflow Visualization Tests
Airflow visualization tests shall be conducted as described in the ANSI/
ASHRAE 110-1995, Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume
Hoods.
T
The tests shall consist of small-volume generation and large-volume
F
generation smoke to identify areas of reverse flow, stagnation zones, vortex
A
regions, escape, and clearance. Visible smoke escaping beyond the plane of
the sash when smoke is generated 6 in. (15.2 cm) into the hood shall consti-
R
tute a failure during the visualization performance test.
D
Fume Hood Tracer Gas Testing
The AIHA Z 9.5 standard requires fume hood tracer gas testing at the manufacturer, as installed and as
used. The AIHA Z 9.5 expands on the ASHRAE 110 fume hood testing requirements to include exhaust
flow, hood static pressure and crosscurrent draft velocity measurements. The AIHA standard also recom-
mends the pass/fail tracer gas value for as manufactured to be 4 AM 0.05 and the as installed and as used
to be 4 AI 0.1 and 4 AU 0.1 unless changed by the design professional or responsible person.
6.3 Laboratory Chemical Hood Specification and “As Manufactured”

ANSI/ASHRAE 110 Defined Performance Test Data
Specification and procurement of laboratory chemical hoods shall be
based on tests conducted on the hood (or prototype hood) that demonstrate
adequate hood containment.
The containment tests shall include:
• Exhaust Flow Measurements
• Hood Static Pressure Measurement
• Face Velocity Tests
• Auxiliary Air Velocity Tests (if applicable)
• Cross Drafts Velocity Tests
• Airflow Visualization Tests
• Tracer Gas Containment Tests
The tests shall be conducted under constant volume conditions where ex-
haust and air supply flow are stable and exhibit no more than 5% variation
from set point.

CHAPTER 4

6.3.7 Tracer Gas Containment Tests
The tracer gas containment tests shall be conducted as described in the
ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995, Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory
Fume Hoods or by a test recognized to be equivalent.
A control level for 5-minute average tests at each location conducted at a
generation rate of 4 L/m shall be no greater than 0.05 ppm for “as manufac-
tured” tests and 0.10 ppm for “as installed” (AM 0.05, Al 0.1).
Escape more than the control levels stated above shall be acceptable at
the discretion of the design professional in agreement with the responsible
T
person (2.4.2). The “as used” 0.10 ppm level or more is at the discretion of
F
the responsible person (2.3).
R A
Testing and Monitoring Instruments
D
The AIHA Z 9.5 covers in detail the instrument accuracy and methods that shall be used by the CT for
face velocity, cross current, duct static pressure and exhaust airflow measurements. This information is
the same as required by ASHRAE 111 and is missing in ASHRAE 110 fume hood performance standard.
8.6 Testing and Monitoring Instruments

8.6.1 Air Velocity, Air Pressure, Temperature and Humidity Measurements
Pressure instrumentation and measurement shall be in compliance with
ANSI/ASHRAE 41.3-1989. Temperature instruments and measurement
techniques shall be in compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1-1986 (RA
01). All instruments using electrical, electronic, or mechanical components
shall be calibrated no longer than 12 months before use or after any pos-
sible damage (including impacts with no apparent damage) since the last
calibration. The accuracy of a scale used for a given parameter shall meet
the following requirements:
Velocity-fpm Accuracy
Below 100 fpm (0.51 m/s) 5 fpm (0.025 m/s)
100 fpm (0.51 m/s) and higher 5% of signal
Pressure- in. wg Accuracy

0.1 in.wg (25 Pa) 10% of signal
0.5 in.wg (125 Pa) and higher 5% of signal

Pitot-static tube measurements shall be in accordance with ANSI/
ASHRAE’s Method of Test Measurement of Flow of Gas, 41.7-1984 (RA
00). Inclined manometers shall be selected so that the nominal value of the
measured parameter is at least 5% of full scale. U-tube manometers shall

CHAPTER 4

not be used for pressures less than 0.5 in.wg (125 Pa). Pitot tubes other
than standard shall be calibrated.
Temperature measurement instrumentation shall have an accuracy of
±0.5°F or ±1°C over the entire measurement range.
Humidity measurement instrumentation shall have an accuracy of ±3.0%
relative humidity over the entire measurement range.
8.6.2.1 Tolerance of Test Results
Allowable variance from design conditions, or conditions determined oth-
erwise satisfactory, shall be:
T
For air velocity, +10%;
F
For ventilation air pressure or differential pressure, +20%;
A
For pneumatic control system air pressure, <5%; and
For electronic control system, ±2% of full-scale values.
DR
Routine Fume Hood Testing
Both NFPA 45 standard and AIHA Z 9.5 share the same requirement when a fume hood must be re-tracer
gas tested, if a significant change has been made to the operational characteristics of the hood system. For
a fume hood, that would mean if the original “as used” (AU) tracer gas hood loading has been signifi-
cantly changed. It is important that the CT either provide a detail description of the fume hood loading in
their report or a picture to compare too during the required annual inspection of the hood. Both NFPA 45
and AIHA Z 9.5 require face velocity, exhaust airflow, instrument and alarm calibration on a annual bases.
The ANSI/NFPA 45 is easier to use document on this important subject since it is coved in one location
(8.13) versus in different locations in the AIHA Z 9.5 laboratory standard.
6.4
Ongoing or Routine Hood and System Tests
Routine performance tests shall be conducted at least annually or whenever
a significant change has been made to the operational characteristics of the
hood system.
A hood that is found to be operating with an average face velocity more
than 10% below the designated average face velocity shall be labeled as out
of service or restricted use and corrective actions shall be taken to increase
flow.
Each hood shall be posted with a notice giving the date of the routine
performance test, and the measured average face velocity. If it is taken out
of service it shall be posted with a restricted use or out- of-service notice.
The restricted use notice shall state the requisite precautions concerning
the type of materials permitted or prohibited for use in the hood.

CHAPTER 4

3.3.2 Periodic Face Velocity Measurement
Once adequate performance (see 2.1.1) has been established for a particu-
lar hood at a given benchmark face velocity using the methods described
above, that benchmark face velocity shall be used as a periodic check for
continued performance as long as no substantive changes have occurred to
the hood.
Face velocity measurements shall be made with the sash in the Design
Sash Position. The Design Sash Position is the maximum opening or con-
figuration allowed by user standards, SOPs, or the Chemical Hygiene Plan,
T
whichever is applicable, and used in the design of the exhaust system to
F
which the hood is connected. The sash position at which benchmark face
A
velocity is measured shall be recorded with the face velocity measurement
and reproduced each time measurements are taken.
R
A decrease in the average face velocity below 90% of the benchmark ve-
locity shall be corrected prior to continued hood use. Face velocity increas-
D
es exceeding 20% of the benchmark shall be corrected prior to continued
use.
8.5 Records
Records shall be maintained for all inspections and maintenance. If test-
ing involves quantitative values (such as hood throat suction) the observed
values shall be recorded. Inspection forms designed for the several catego-
ries of testing shall be provided and shall include the normal values for the
parameters tested.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Handbook
Ventilation systems in the 1940’s had to be designed with information taken in tidbits from dozens of
books. While good publications were available, none provided a single source for design information. In
an effort to resolve this problem, a team of engineers from the Bureau of Industrial Health, Michigan
Department of Health, undertook the task of creating a single handbook, which gathered all of the infor-
mation necessary to design a ventilation system. This handbook was completed in 1948. In 1951 the first
edition of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice was published under the sponsor-
ship of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Every two to three
years a new revised addition is published.
The ACGIH Ventilation Manual is also used as a teaching tool. It was first used in 1952 as a text in a ven-
tilation conference at Michigan State University. Since then it has also been used as a text at many other
universities ventilation courses and various other short courses.
The focus of the Ventilation Manual from its first to its latest edition has been to present practical infor-

CHAPTER 4

mation in a user-friendly format. The handbook covers important areas that will help the CT in fume
hood testing, measuring and ventilation trouble-shooting.
The ACGIH organization was the first to recognize the importance of the ASHRAE 110 fume hood
performance testing protocol in their 1982, 17th edition and the first to acknowledge that fume hood face
velocity selection should be based of tracer gas testing.
The following areas covered in the ACGIH handbook will be helpful in the CT’s work.
FT
Laboratory Hoods
A
In most cases, laboratory hoods will be purchased from manufacturers specializing in the design and
R
construction of laboratory hoods. The most important aspect of the hood is the aerodynamic entry char-
acteristics. For the hood to adequately control contaminants, the entry must be smooth. This is usually
D
achieved with an airfoil sill at the leading edge of the workbench. Often, beveled jambs at the sidewall
entry will improve the airflow.
In most cases, good performance correlates with uniform face velocity. To achieve a uniform face veloc-
ity, many hood manufacturers provide adjustable slots in the plenum at the back of the hood. Although
the adjustment will allow for unusual conditions such as large hot plates for sample digestions, inappro-
priate adjustment of the slots can have a detrimental effect on hood performance.
Supply Air Distribution
The following language has been in the ACGIH manual since 1982. Their recommendations were correct
then as they are correct know but have been generally ignored by laboratory design professionals. Poorly
designed make-up airflow distribution systems are the leading cause why fume hoods fail field tracer gas
testing.
“For typical operation of a laboratory hood, the worker stands at the face of the
hood and manipulates the apparatus in the hood. The in draft at the hood face
creates eddy currents around the worker’s body that can drag contaminants in the
hood along the worker’s body and up to the breathing zone. The higher the face
velocity, the greater the eddy currents. For this reason, higher face velocities do not
result in greater protection as might be supposed.
Room air currents have a large effect on the performance of the hood. Thus, the
design of the room air supply distribution system is as important in securing good
hood performance, as is the face velocity of the hood. American Society of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning (ASHRAE) research project RP-70 results,

CHAPTER 4

reported by Caplan and Knutson, conclude in part:
1. Lower breathing zone concentrations can be attained at 50 cfm/ft2 (50
fpm) face velocities with good air supply distribution than at 150 cfm/ft2
(150 fpm) with poor air distribution. With a good air supply system and
tracer gas released at 8 liters per minute inside the hood, breathing zone
concentrations can be kept below 0.1 ppm and usually below 0.05 ppm.
2. The terminal throw velocity of supply air jets should be no more than one-
half the hood face velocity; such terminal throw velocities are far less than
conventional practice.
T
3. Perforated ceiling panels provide a better supply system than grilles or
F
ceiling diffusers in that the system design criteria are simpler and easier to
A
apply and precise adjustment of the fixtures is not required.
For the reasons described, an increased hood face velocity may be self-defeating
R
because the increased air volume handled through the room makes the low-velocity
distribution of supply air more difficult.”
D Figure 6.

CHAPTER 4
Selection of Fume Hood Face Velocity
R AFT
D Figure 7.
Practices for Measurement, Testing, Adjusting, ANSI/ASHRAE 111-1998 & Balancing
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 111-2008 is also referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 Fume hood-testing
standard since the measuring, testing and balancing information directly impacts best practices that will
affect measuring the performance of a fume hood. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 111-2008 is also important
since it clears up confusion on what style instrument is best suited to measure both lab space crosscur-
rents and fume hood face velocity. The ANSI/NFPA 45 standard directs that crosscurrents cannot be over
30% of face velocities. This information provides the CT with the fume hood and lab space measurement
parameters. The following table lists the maximum crosscurrent velocities that will need to be accurately
measured at different face velocities.
Fume hood FV versus maximum acceptable Crosscurrent
120 fpm = 36 fpm ± 5 fpm

100 fpm = 30 fpm ± 5 fpm
80 fpm = 24 fpm ± 5 fpm
60 fpm = 18 fpm ± 5 fpm

CHAPTER 4
The crosscurrent velocity measurement will require accurate and repeatable velocity measurements down
to 18 fpm. Both face velocity and crosscurrent measurements require air direction sensitivity since the
air yaw and pitch direction is important information to the CT. The air direction crosscurrent informa-
tion or lower average face velocity traverse reading versus exhaust airflow balance help to determine
why a fume hood may be failing either smoke and or tracer gas testing. Face velocity measurement can
no longer be used as a measurement of fume hood safety. Fume hood exhaust volume balancing should
not use face velocity measurement but must follow ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 standard to measure fume hood
exhaust airflow by a duct traverse. Environmental conditions such as style and location of supply diffuser,
T
ceiling height versus hood density, and furniture location in the lab space will always influence the face
F
velocity readings, these inaccuracies will produce inaccurate fume hood exhaust airflow balancing. The
A
problem may be, that the balancer may not have sufficient straight run for an accurate exhaust airflow
duct traverse and will use face velocity measurement as a last resort and who would question this logic.
R
The correct alternate methods are not a fume hood face velocity traverse but either installing a multiple
sampling airflow probe at the fume hood neck connection with the correct airflow coefficient or obtain
D
from the fume hood manufacturer the duct static pressure required at the neck of the hood at design sash
opening that supports the required face velocity.
Some non-certified fume hood testers and balancers may even attempt to use the measuring grid instru-
ment from their supply diffuser balancing “cone” to measure face velocity. The “grid” measuring instru-
ment is based on velocity pressure measurement technique and will be influenced by airflow yaw and
pitch direction. Yaw and pitch errors is what the fume hood industry calls crosscurrents. Taking multiple
fume hood face velocity readings with the “grid” will not compensate for these errors. The converging
fabric cone assembly and wall drag coefficient minimizes these incoming airflow yaw and pitch angle er-
rors entering the “grid” instrument. Too many times, the non-certified balancer and hood tester are more
interested in obtaining any measurement value for a report and the uninformed client does not know what
they are buying. This is why the need for CT fumes hood testers. The following four anemometer instru-
ments and their limitations are reviewed in the ANSI/ASHRAE 111 standard.
Anemometer—Swinging Vane
a. Description: The swinging vane anemometer consists of a pivoted vane en-
closed in a case. Air exerts a pressure upon the vane as it passes through the
instrument from an upstream to a downstream opening. A hairspring resists
the movement of the vane. The instrument gives instantaneous readings of
directional velocities on an indicating scale. The instrument is supplied with
various types of remote and direct connected measuring tips, or jets.
b. Recommended Uses:
3. This instrument may be used for proportioning of air quantities through
both
supply and return air terminals using the proper jet and the proper air
terminal AK factor (effective area) for the airflow calculation.

CHAPTER 4

4. The instrument may also be used for indicating some lower velocities
(100-300 fpm, 0.5-1.5 m/s) where the instrument case itself with appropriate
probe attached is placed in the airstreams as for a hood or booth.
c. Limitations: Instrument should not be used in extremely hot, cold, or contami-
nated air. The instrument is affected by static electricity, and is only applicable
to total pressure readings (where TP = VP + SP, not in housings) the instrument
has a 50 to 10,000 fpm (0.25 to 50 m/s) range. The instrument’s duct probe is
sensitive to the presence and proximity of duct walls, and tends to read high on
the suction side and low on the discharge side of a fan. Accuracy is affected by
T
position.
F
Note: Terminal AK factors are a function of duct and damper conditions and
A
velocity immediately before the terminal. Using this instrument with AK factor
conditions, not identical to manufacturers tests, produces measurement error.
R
d. Accuracy of Field Measurement: Accuracy is within
±10% when the instrument is in calibration and is used in accordance with the
D
manufacturer’s recommendations. The instrument should not be used for criti-
cal measurements of system capacity.
e. Calibration Required: A calibration test should occur dependent upon the us-
age. Check against recently calibrated instrument on each project.
Anemometer-Rotating Vane or Propeller Mechanical Type

a. Description: The propeller or rotating vane anemometer consists of a light wind
driven wheel connected through a gear train to a set of recording dials that read
the linear feet of air passing through the wheel in a measured length of time.
The instrument is made in various sizes: 3 in.,
4 in., and 5 in. (75 mm, 100 mm, and 125 mm) sizes being the most common.
Each instrument requires individual calibration.
At low velocities, the friction drag of the mechanism is considerable. In order
to compensate for this, a gear train that over speeds is commonly used. For this
reason, the correction is often additive at the lower range and subtractive at the
upper range, with the least correction in the middle of the range. Most of these
instruments are not sensitive enough for use below 200 fpm (1.0 m/s) although
ball bearing models claim ranges down to 30 fpm (0.15 m/s). Their useful range
is from 200 to 2000 fpm (1.0 to 10.0 m/s). The required instrument accuracy of
calibration is 1-3% of scale (using a corrective chart).
5. Measurement of supply, returns, and exhausts air quantities at registers and
grilles.

CHAPTER 4

6. Measurement of air quantities at the faces of return air dampers or openings,
total air across the filter or coil face areas, etc.
7. Continuously moving the instrument across a coil or opening to obtain an “av-
erage” reading is not accurate. Each time-averaged reading shall be taken with
instrument in one position. Readings for several positions shall be averaged to
determine air velocity.
c. Limitations:
5. Its calibration chart must correct each reading from this instrument.
6. The air terminal manufacturer’s specified A factor (effective area) for this
T
instrument must be used in computing air quantities.
F
7. Total inlet area of instrument must be in measured air stream.
A
8. It is unsuited for measurement in ducts as it has too large a finite area.
9. It is fragile and cannot be used in dusty or corrosive air.
R
10. Since the instrument has a turbine type wheel of very low inertia, caution is
advised as to reliability of readings in nonuniform, turbulent, or stratified
D
airstreams. 1 This is likely to occur downstream of dampers, face and bypass
coils, or any device which causes turbulence in the airstreams being measured.
11. Instrument is not direct reading and must be timed manually.
d. Accuracy of Field Measurement:
1. Smooth flow ±5% of reading above 200 fpm (1.0 m/s). Not recommended for
velocities below 200 fpm (1.0 m/s).
2. Nonuniform flow ±30%.
e. Calibration Required: By the manufacturer or other agency every six (6)
months depending on usage. Check against recently calibrated instrument on
each project.
Electronic Type - Direct Reading

a. Description: This instrument is the same as the mechanical in most respects
except that it uses a powered electronic circuit to convert a pulse generated by
the rotating vane (without drag) into a small electric current to give a meter
reading calibrated directly in air velocity units.
8. Measurement of supply, returns, and exhausts air quantities at registers and
grilles.
9. Measurement of air quantities at the faces of return air dampers or openings,
total air across the filter or coil face areas, etc.
10. Continuously moving the instrument across a coil or opening to obtain an “av-
erage” reading is not accurate. Each time-averaged reading shall be taken with
instrument in one position. Readings for several positions shall be averaged to
determine air velocity.
c. Limitations: Same as mechanical type except timing is automatic.
d. Accuracy of Field Measurement:
CHAPTER 4

12. Smooth Flow ±5% of reading above 200 fpm (1.0 m/s). Smooth Flow ±70016
below 200 fpm (1.0 m/s).
3. Non-uniform flow +30%.
e. Calibration Required: By the manufacturer or other agency every six (6)
months depending on usage. Check against recently calibrated instrument on
each project.
Anemometer - Hot Wire

a. Description: The operation of this instrument depends on the fact that the
T
resistance of a heated wire will change with its temperature. Incorporated with
F
the instrument is a probe, which is provided with a special type of wire element,
A
which is energized by batteries contained in the instrument case. As air flows
over the element in the probe, the temperature of the element is changed from
R
that which exists in still air, and the resistance change is indicated as a veloc-
ity on the indicating scale of the instrument. Similar instruments are available
D
using a heated thermocouple or heated thermistor instead of a hot wire. They
have similar characteristics regarding uses, limitations, and accuracy.
Some instruments are also provided with temperature scales that can be
utilized simply by setting the proper selector button. Static pressures can be
measured if the proper cap is placed over the probe.
11. Used to measure very low air velocities, such as room air currents and airflow
in hoods (10 to 600 fpm, 0.05 to 3.0 m/s).
12. It is used for measurements at grilles and diffusers.
13. Range is 10 to 8000 fpm (0.05 to 40 m/s).
c. Limitations:
13. The probe that is used with this instrument is very directional for velocity read-
ings and must be located at the exact point on the diffuser or grille as specified
by the manufacturer.
14. Probes subject to fouling by dust and corrosive air.
15. The instrument probe must be used in the direction of calibration.
16. Shall not be used in flammable or explosive atmosphere.
d. Accuracy of Field Measurement: Accuracy is +10%
above 100 fpm (0.5 m/s).
e. Calibration Required: By the manufacturer or other agency every 6 months.
Check against recently calibrated instrument on each project. When in use,
frequently check zero or the calibration point setting.
Any anemometer based on Swinging Vane, Rotating Vane or Propeller and Electronic Direct Reading
do not have the resolution, range ability or accuracy to be used to measure face velocity and crosscur-

CHAPTER 4

rents. None of these instruments can determine air direction. If any of these style instruments are used
to measure fume hood face velocity or crosscurrents non-repeatable errors will be introduced in to the
fume hood testing. Instrument manufactures promises cannot be used to substitute an American ANSI
standard directive required to be followed by OSHA. Only a recently calibrated “Hot Wire” anemometer
in the lower range of fume hood face velocity and crosscurrent measurement can be used to measure and
report this data. The use of a “hot wire” anemometer for face velocity measurement is also required by
ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5.
T
ASHRAE Standard 110-1995. Method of Testing Performance of
F
Laboratory Fume Hoods
A
You cannot pass or fail the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test. The standard provides only a repeatable
R
method to collect the tracer gas average spillage value over a five minute running test with a rating for
As Manufactured “AM” or As Installed “AI” or As Used “AU.” The pass or fail evaluation determination
D
will be found in the ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5 and ACGIH Handbook.
The specification takes the form

xx AM YYY or xx AI YYY or xx AU YYY
Where:
xx = tracer release rate in hood using the specified diffuser apparatus.
Rates are as follows:
1 liters/minute approximates pouring volatile solvents back and forth from one
beaker to another.
4 liters/minute is an intermediate rate between 1 1pm and 8 1pm.
8 liters/minute approximates violently boiling water on a 500-watt hotplate.
(Other release rates can be specified for special cases).
YYY = control level, ppm, at the breathing zone of the worker.
AU = “as used” in the laboratory. AI = “as installed” in the laboratory “AM”
would indicate “as manufactured” presumably tested in the manufacturer’s
test room.

CHAPTER 4
What is required for Laboratory Fume Hood Testing?
The ASHRAE Standard 110-1995 reviews some of the various areas to be addressed but not in sufficient
details to be useful as a teaching tool. All of these areas are covered in detail in the study guide.
1. Test Instrumentation
T
2. Pre-testing Laboratory Conditions
F
a) Room evaluation
A
1) Dimensions and ACH
2) Code compliance configuration
R
3) Space pressure
4) Crosscurrents
D
b) HVAC system evaluation
1) Airflow balance
2) CVC stability
3) VAV stability
c) Fume hood evaluation
d) Face velocity measurement
3. Smoke testing
a) Small volume visualization
b) Large volume visualization
4. Tracer Gas Testing

a) 3-position vertical sash
b) 3-position horizontal sash
c) CVC/VAV sash movement
1) Vertical
2) Horizontal
d) Perimeter vertical sash
5. Report Findings

CHAPTER 4
1.) Laboratories follow laws, codes and standards to protect workers and develop
Standard Operating Procedures. Which of the three is the most legally binding?
a) Standards
b) Codes
T
c) Laws
d) They are all equal
AF
2.) What law covers fire and explosion hazards for laboratory workers using fume
R
hoods?
a) OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in
D
Laboratories; Final Rule 1-31-90
b) NFPA 45: Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals,
2004 Edition
c) ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-2003 Laboratory Ventilation
d) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 110-1995 – Method of Testing Performance of
3.) What law requires that laboratories have a chemical hygiene plan?
a) 29 CFR 1910 Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories
b) NFPA 45: Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals,
2004 Edition
c) ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-2003 Laboratory Ventilation
d) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 110-1995 Method of Testing Performance of

CHAPTER 5
ANSI/ASHRAE-110 Test Equipment CT
Objectives:
● Describe the equipment used to perform flow visualization tests per ASHRAE 110
● Classify the type of air velocity anemometer specified by ANSI/ASHRAE 110
● Determine what the function of the leak tester is
● Explain what the Infrared Analyzer Detector is used for during fume hood testing
● Evaluate why SF6 is used as the tracer gas when performing ANSI/ASHRAE 110
R AFT
Introduction
D
rior to performing fume hood testing certified technologists must have a basic understanding of
how the equipment they will use works and its limitations. Most of the equipment used during
fume hood testing is common or specialty industrial hygiene sampling equipment that can be
used for various types of industrial hygiene sampling. Industrial hygiene is defined as the art and science
dedicated to the Anticipation, Recognition, Evaluation, Communication and Control of environmental
stressors in, or arising from, the work place that may result in injury, illness, impairment, or affect the
well being of workers and members of the community. We will review the equipment used on these proj-
ects in a similar order to how they are used during the fume hood testing protocol described in ASHRAE
110. Following are the types of equipment that will be discussed in more detail in this chapter:
■ Local Smoke Visualization (Smoke Stick/Tube/Bottle)

■ Large Volume Smoke Generator Machine
■ “Hot Wire” Air Velocity Anemometer
■ “Hot Wire” Air Velocity Stand
■ Manikin
■ SF6 Tracer Gas Cylinder
■ Tracer Gas Supply Gage Assembly
■ Tracer Gas Ejector
■ Tracer Gas Analyzer or Leak Detector
■ Data recorder

CHAPTER 5
Local Smoke Visualization Generator
Local visualization testing requires a hand held device that

produces small volume smoke generation at almost the same
density of air. The object is to observe true air movement without
the complication of having to allow for the natural rise and fall of
the smoke. The particle size should be 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers
T
(microns). Titanium Tetrachloride (TiCl4) is widely used for this
testing; however, caution should be used because Tetrachloride is
F
very corrosive and a known irritant. Caution must be used to
A
avoid skin contact or inhalation. Tetrachloride will also corrode
stainless steel and other unprotected surfaces.
DR
Figure 1. Courtesy Regin HVAC Products, Inc.
Large Volume Smoke Generator
A theatrical smoke-producing machine is the most commonly used device for fume hood large volume
smoke testing. Unlike flammable smoke candles that can produce toxic vapors or trigger building smoke
alarm systems, theatrical smoke’s Material Safety Data (MSD) sheets will indicate it is generally safe.
The fog fluid is made from a mixture of organically based glycols and water. The vapor produced may be
an irritant to some people with allergenic sensitivity and or asthma.

Most theatrical smoke machines can easily overwhelm the containment capabilities of any fume hood.
You will never require more than 1000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) output. The 8 L/min tracer gas
release rate equivalent to a boiling experiment produces less than 1 CFM. A theatrical smoke machine
producing 2000 CFM output is equivalent to over 1000 boiling experiments. Therefore, smoke machine
should have an adjustable volume output.

The smoke machine should be small enough to place inside the hood during testing. If the smoke ma-
chine is placed outside the hood, then the smokes discharge flexible hose passing through the face open-
ing will interfere with the true fume hoods performance, particularly with hoses over 3 inches in diam-
eter. There are smoke machines available with 1-½ inch diameter output connections that can use either a
vacuum cleaner hose or flexible swimming pool hoses.

CHAPTER 5
“Hot Wire” Air Velocity Anemometer
A portable thermal digital display anemometer will be required for fume hood face velocity, crosscur-
rent and space pressure measurements. These thermal “hot wire” instruments use two resistance thermal
devices (RTD’s) made from Platinum alloys or positive/negative thermistors. RTD based anemometers
are preferred.
The principal of operation is as airflow cools the “hot” velocity-measuring sensor; a constant current DC
T
bridge maintains a constant sensor temperature by increasing voltage to the “hot” RTD. The change in
bridge voltage indicates an air velocity change. The voltage change is then scaled to represent airflow ve-
F
locity readings. A second RTD ambient space temperature sensor compensates for the influence of vary-
A
ing space temperature conditions. It is important that the anemometer is at ambient space temperature
before it is used or inaccurate readings will be reported. Varying space crosscurrents or supply make-up
R
air temperatures will cause a sudden drop in velocity readings until either the temperature compensation
D
circuit has the time to correct or cool air crosscurrent airflow patterns change back to ambient tempera-
ture conditions.
The Thermal anemometer will require a selectable sample rate from 1 second to a maximum 5 seconds.
The time constant represents an averaging period used to dampen the real time display hunting. Low
airflow velocity will never be stable and 100 fpm fume hood face velocity is roughly only 1 MPH wind
speed. The numerical digital display can be difficult to read in real time. For example if the sample rate is
5 seconds then the averaging display update is every 5 seconds. For fume hood face velocity, crosscurrent
and space pressure measurement 5-second sample rate is acceptable but never more since reading hunt-
ing may be indicating that the lab conditions are unacceptable. Increasing rate sampling will camouflage
these problem conditions and prevent efficient problem evaluation. VAV response testing will require
sample rate of 1 second or real time analog DC voltage output.
A data logging function is also helpful. At minimum, the anemometer

should be capable of storing multiple fume hood face velocity traverse
readings. Some anemometers only offer down load retrieve thru a UBS
port. Other anemometer can offer both data logging running display and
download retrieve thru a RS 232 port. If the anemometer can offer an
analogue output, it saves from purchasing a separate dedicated anemom-
eter for trending required in trouble shooting problems.
Because the anemometer is a laboratory contrived device and not a true

primary Newtonian instrument; it requires at a minimum a yearly re-
calibration on a NIST traceable airflow test stand. Anemometers have
good repeatability and the calibration certificate will indicate repeatabil-
Figure 2. Hot Wire Air Velocity
ity of +/- 3% of reading or 3 fpm whichever is greater. The tertiary NIST
Anemometer traceable airflow test stand accuracy is +/- 9% over 6000 to 30 fpm range
Courtesy of Kanomax USA Inc.

CHAPTER 5

using three orifice plates or nozzles for range ability. The calibrations results are corrected to standard
conditions and if the actual space density conditions where the measurement are taken vary from stan-
dard then a correction will be necessary.
“Hot Wire” Air Velocity Anemometer Fixed Position Stand
Face velocity, crosscurrent and VAV speed of response testing will require a method to fix the anemome-
ter sensor in a given location. It is never recommended to hold the anemometer when collecting final data.
T
A handheld position anemometer can be used for preliminary measurements to determine only gross
F
conditions. A height adjustable tripod camera stand can be modified using fume hood distillation clamps.
A
Some manikin systems have an adjustable manikin stand that can double as a fixed position stand.

R
VAV speed of response testing requires velocity measurement of the fume hood rear baffle slot. A bench
top test-tube stand and test tube clamps work very well for this application. These products can be bought
D
used at substantial savings and can be purchased using the Internet.
Manikin
The fume hood three-position vertical/horizontal sash opening and sash

movement effect tracer gas testing requires a manikin. A three-dimensional
height adjustable, 67-inch tall torso with 16-inch shoulders clothing store
manikin is required. The manikin is dressed in a lab smock, coveralls or other
suitable clothing.

The manikin’s head will require considerable modification to mount a leak
detector’s pistol shaped sensor pick-up, see Figure 9 in ASHRAE-110 standard.
The IR analyzer requires minimum manikin modification, see Figure 8 in
ASHRAE-110.
Figure 3. Manikin
Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer Gas
A cylinder of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 99.8% chemically pure gas is required. 100% purity instrument
grade SF6 gas is not required. The chemically pure SF6 gas can be purchased in both full Compressed
Gas Association (CGA) “K” size or smaller “G” size cylinders. There is an advantage in using a smaller
CGA 590 “G” size cylinder for testing. The “G” size cylinder is 22 inches high and weighs 29 lbs empty
and 37 lbs full. The “G” size gas cylinder, regulator and gage assembly can easily be stored inside the

CHAPTER 5

fume hood before and during testing. By always storing the SF6 cylinder inside a hood will eliminate the
possibility of leaking tracer gas into the lab producing false failures and wasted time. The added benefit
is the smaller “G” size cylinder can be gravity filled from a full size “K” cylinder. It is more economical
to purchase SF6 gas in the large “K” cylinder. SF6 is a very heavy gas with a 146.3-mol weight versus air
having a 28.96-mol weight. Under pressure SF6 is in a liquid state. A full “K” size cylinder of SF6 weighs
over 430 lbs.
A full “K” cylinder of SF6 holds around 300 lbs of liquefied gas. The standard five-minute tracer gas
running time at 4 L/min release rate uses 4.25 ounces of SF6 gas. A full “K” size cylinder is capable of
T
supplying 1,130 five minute tracer gas tests. Unfortunately, more SF6 gas is generally used during set-up
F
time and re-runs. A combination vertical sash and horizontal sash hood, depending on project fume hood
A
testing specifications, could require up to 18 five minute test runs requiring 5 lbs of SF6 gas.
R
Tracer Gas Supply Gage Assembly
D
A single stage Compressed Gas Association (CGA) cylinder
regulator, 0-60 psig gage and shutoff valves will be required
to control SF6 tracer gas to ejector per Figure 1 ASHRAE
drawing 110-83M. The ejector’s orifice plates are sized for
approximately 4 L/m or 8 L/m flow rate at 30-psi pressures.
This is a coarse adjustment. Before tracer gas testing is started
each day, the ejector gage assembly and ejectors flow rates are
verified.

There are two methods available for tracer gas flow validation.
A bubble meter can be used to daily check the ejector assembly
flow rate and then note in the final report at what actual gage
Figure 4. Tracer Gas Supply Gage Assembly
Courtesy of Kanomax USA Inc. pressure the flow rate was obtained. The other method is to
use a permanently installed inline variable area rotameter for
continuous tracer gas flow monitoring. The advantage is the inline rotameter can validate actual tracer
gas flow rates on a running time bases. Both instruments are available NIST traceable.
Tracer Gas Ejector/Diffuser
The tracer gas ejector/diffuser design using a 4 L/min critical orifice is detailed in ANSI/
ASHRAE-110-1995 standard drawing 110-83M. The 1 L/min and 8 L/min critical orifices design details
are in the ANSI/ASHRAE-110-1985 standard Drawings figure 6. The ejector and critical orifices can be
purchased or custom manufactured using these drawings.

CHAPTER 5

When the first ANSI approved ASHRAE-110 standard was published
in 1985, there were three tracer gas release rates to choose from. 1 L/
min represented the amount of solvent vapor released while pouring
Acetone, Chloroform or Toluene from one beaker to another. An 8 L/
min release rate represented a 500-watt hotplate boiling vapor release
rate. The 4 L/min release rate specified in the 1995 110 standard is the
medium between 1 L/min and 8L/min. The lower the tracer gas release
rate, the more favorable will be the test result and fume hood rating;
T
this mathematical fact has been proven to be true through independent
F
and Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) studies.
A

It is recommended to have both the 4 L/min and 8 L/min critical
R
Figure 5. Tracer Gas Ejector/Diffuser orifice manufactured since there is a trend to test hoods to failure
Courtesy of Kanomax USA Inc. versus the past to test hoods to pass. By testing hoods to failure, actual
D
operating limitations as well as where to set the alarm settings can be
determined.

OSHA’s 1990 Laboratory Worker Regulation requires a Chemical Safety Plan (CHP). OSHA’s sample
Laboratory Prudent Practice Safety CHP limits two research workers in a hood with a minimum 2.5
feet linear bench work surface per worker. Five foot and smaller length research bench hoods are single
worker hoods. Six foot and longer length research fume hoods are two worker hoods. Teaching labora-
tories, as defined and operated using ANSI/NFPA-45 criteria are exempt from the number of students
sharing a hood. There may be requests to use two ejector/diffusers to simulate two workers as part of the
trend to evaluate fume hoods closer to real working conditions.
Tracer Gas Infrared Analyzer/Detector
ASHRAE does not recommend or approve of any specific Infrared (IR) analyzer or leak detector prod-
ucts used to collect and report fume hood tracer gas results. Leak detector manufacturers may state that
their products are “approved for ASHRAE-110” but that is not true. The ASHRAE-110 does provide
an extremely broad IR analyzer/detector specification. The IR analyzer/detector is the most expensive
instrument investment made by a Certified Fume Hood Evaluation Technician and requires knowledge to
make the right investment.
An IR analyzer or leak detector must be able to sense low levels of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas
that may escape from the hood. Both the IR analyzer and leak detectors are capable to detect low levels
(0.01 ppm) of SF6. The spillage data is reported over a 5 minute running average and may be interpreted
as a worker’s exposure level. A properly designed and calibrated IR analyzer can accomplish this task,
but a leak detector cannot without modifying the data.

CHAPTER 5

To estimate real-time exposure data collection, the sample should be taken at the average breathing rate.
The average human lung has a capacity of about 6 liters of air (vital capacity), but only a small amount of
this capacity is used in normal breathing. The smaller breath volume is called “Tidal Volume,” which can
be multiplied by respiration rate in breaths per minute to calculate “Minute Volume.” Depending on body
weight and fitness, a seated person’s minute volume is 5 to 8 L/min. For someone standing in front of the
fume hood, it is 7 to 13 L/min, averaging 10 L/min.

The ASHRAE-110 standard specifies only a maximum 50 L/min sample rate but not a minimum. Because
the hood evaluation rating is based on the 5-minute running average and not peak spillage values, the
T
sample rate becomes critical in obtaining an accurate fume hood rating. Fume hood spills come as epi-
F
sodic puffs. Too low a sample rate may not pick up the true exposure within the worker’s breathing zone,
A
since crosscurrents could interfere with sample collection. An average 10 L/min sample rate creates a 17
fpm pickup velocity within a 2″ diameter breathing zone. Leak detectors have very low sample rates that
R
only produce a 0.1 fpm pickup velocity within a 2″ diameter breathing zone.

D
A leak detector has a very rapid rise when it detects SF6
tracer gas and then takes several seconds for recovery. It is
ideally suited for finding very small flange leaks, which it
was designed to find. When leak detectors were first used in
ASHRAE-110 testing the erratic rapid rise and fall output
would require special software in the data logger to correct
for a true worker running exposure average. It is never
advisable to modify life safety data for any reason. Leak
detector manufacturers include warnings and disclaimers on
Figure 6. Tracer Gas Infrared Analyzer/Detector any errors due to flow (sample) rate conversion and conver-
sion volume. When using a leak detector, a note in the report
should include that the rapid rises and falls in data may not reflect the true values and fume hood perfor-
mance.
The leak detector’s advantage is that it has a fast response, and running data can be collected using an RS
232 port; in contrast, an IR analyzer downloads data using a UBS port. The earlier IR analyzers required
large cell volumes that increased response time. Over time, the cell volumes have decreased and have 1 to
5 second response times. The leak detector is extremely pressure sensitive, and care must be used during
span calibration using any method other than that recommended by the leak detector manufacturer. The
IR analyzer uses an infrared light source and is prone to zero drift unless the primary optical lens is oc-
casionally cleaned, similarly to why we wipe clean eyeglasses.
Daily calibration before and after fume hood tracer gas testing is required. A leak detector requires argon
gas to burn off sensor contaminates for zeroing and a specialty analyzer certified 0.1 parts/million (ppm)
SF6 span gas cylinder. The IR analyzer uses ambient space conditions for zeroing and creates its span gas
using the same SF6 gas used in the testing and a standard micro-liter syringe following standard laborato-

CHAPTER 5

ry analyzer calibration procedures. The advantage is any span gas can be created, so that midpoint ranges
can be verified for linearity.

Data retrieval is important. A fume hood’s average running spills will be in a range from 0.01 (minimum
IR analyzer and leak detectors detectable range) to 0.15 ppm. A leak detector has the advantage of a run-
ning digital data trending but its analog 0 to 2 Vdc output is for a fixed 0.1 to 60 ppm range and unusable
for the typical fume hood running averages. The IR analyzers detection digital output requires down
loading, but the IR analyzer’s span is fully adjustable from 0 to 2 ppm to 100 ppm and its analog output is
easily trend recorded.
F
There is an after market for used rebuilt and warranted IR analyzers that will cost 50% to 70% less than
A
new instruments. There is no great market for used leak detectors.

R
Data Recorder
D
Face velocity, crosscurrents, VAV response, space pressure, and tracer gas testing results are collected
and become parts of the final report. The laboratory responsible person as defined in ANSI/AIHA Z9.5
laboratory standard uses the fume hood’s report to determine the level of worker safety. Even though
recording running digital data stream through a RS 232 port and displaying the results on a computer
will shorten the final reporting process, the data will probably not be admissible in court, without using a
scientific data benchmarking method or using an ink chart strip data recorder. Data collected and re-
ported by a computer has no legal value without the computer hard disk. It is very easy to manipulate the
computer-generated results in software.
If a computer running time result will be used in the final fume hood report, then as the data is being dig-
itally created in the computer, a page numbered and sewn binder composition notebook will be required
to record in ink this same data at appropriate intervals as backup. Face velocity and crosscurrents results
should be recorded before each new position. VAV response and tracer gas data should be manually noted
every 10 seconds. An ink chart strip recorder will record all test results in real time and can be directly
incorporated in the final report without the added composition notebook backup.

CHAPTER 5
1.) What is the best type of testing equipment to measure face velocity during fume hood
testing?
a) Mass flow meter
b) Magnehilic Gauge
T
c) Pitot tubes
d) Hot wire anemometer
AF
2.) Which of the following instruments is used to analyze for SF6 tracer gas?
R
a) GC Mass Spectrometer
D
b) Infrared Analyzer
c) Data recorder
d) Fluorescence Detector
3.) What is the chemical symbol for the most commonly used fume hood testing tracer gas?
a) TiCl4
b) TICl2
c) Sf6
d) Sf2

CHAPTER 6
Fume Hood Testing CT
Objectives:
● Name the standard CT’s follow to test fume hoods
● List the three tests performed by CT’s when performing fume hood testing
● Differentiate between AM, AI and AU fume hood testing
● Perform flow visualization testing
● Perform face velocity testing
● Perform tracer gas testing
T
● Diagram a lab space including the required components from ANSI/ASHRAE 110
F
● Determine what should and should not be included in the CT’s final paperwork
DR A
Introduction
For most people, testing a laboratory fume hood means nothing more than measuring the velocity of the
air flowing through the sash opening. Within the context of becoming a NEMI Certified Technologist,
however, fume hood testing becomes a well defined series of tasks – it means following the procedures of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 110-1995 to test fume hoods that have been installed and are ready for use.
With that in mind, let’s quickly review the “Title, Purpose and Scope” of Standard 110.
Title
Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods
Purpose
The purpose of this standard is to specify a quantitative and qualitative test
method for evaluating the fume containment of a laboratory fume hood.
Scope
This method of testing applies to conventional, bypass, auxiliary air, and VAV
laboratory fume hoods.
-and-
This method of testing is intended primarily for laboratory and factory testing but
may be used as an aid in evaluating installed performance.

CHAPTER 6
Let’s take a look at that last sentence again: “This

method is intended primarily for laboratory and factory
testing…[of fume hoods].” This means that the ASHRAE
committee responsible for creating Standard 110 was
largely focused on procedures that a fume hood manufac-
turer could use in laboratory development of their hoods,
and to test hood performance as they were manufactured
(i.e., before being shipped to a jobsite).
FT
But the second half of that last sentence is of particular
A
interest within this training manual: “This method of
testing… may be used as an aid in evaluating installed
R
Figure 1. Courtesy of Thermo Scientific Hamilton
Laboratory Furniture & Fume Hoods performance.” As a Certified Technologist, you’ll be
testing fume hoods that have been installed and are ready
D
for use, and to do so, you’ll use Standard 110 to aid in
that task.
This statement highlights the fact that ASHRAE Standard 110 is not a detailed, step-by-step guide for
getting the job done; for that, you’ll need your own Standard Operating Procedures (more on SOPs later
in this chapter).
ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory

Fume Hoods
What Does Standard 110 Cover?
According to the Foreword of Standard 110,

This standard defines a reproducible method of testing laboratory fume hoods.
This means that a fume hood could be tested today, tomorrow, and next week (all other factors being
equal), and the results should be the same. By combining technical rigor and a bit of common sense,
Standard 110 outlines a series of tests that will ensure an adequate level of protection for a person work-
ing in front of that hood.
In general, Standard 110 describes three different and complementary methods to test the performance of
a fume hood. Those three methods are:
1. Flow visualization
2. Face velocity measurements
3. Tracer gas containment

CHAPTER 6

The first test is qualitative (pass/fail), while the second and third are quantitative – they produce a nu-
merical result that you’ll need to record.
Finally, the test procedures described in Standard 110 do anticipate one ‘dynamic’ variable: the position
of the sash. The standard includes procedures that test hood performance when the sash position changes.
What Does Standard 110 Not Cover?
As rigorous and complicated as Standard 110 might seem, it does have its limitations. The following is a
T
brief list of factors and considerations that are not addressed by the standard.
AF
• Cross-drafts from the ventilating system, open windows or doors, or people walking by the hood.
• Work procedures, specifically, the need to keep all work away from the face of the hood.
R
• Internal obstructions, such as extra lab equipment within the hood.
• Procedures performed in the hood, the intrinsic hazards of which can vary tremendously.
D
• Thermal challenges, where heat is produced or released within the hood and the effects of buoy-
ancy can interfere with hood performance.
• Rate of response, especially to a rapid change in sash position.
In light of these limitations, it must be clear that the activities described in Standard 110 are not intended
to constitute an engineering analysis of unacceptable hood performance, or an analysis of the ways in
which hood performance might be improved. Although the methods of Standard 110 may be used as part
of an engineering analysis, it was not the intent of the standard development committee to prescribe the
means and methods for performing such an analysis.
Finally, Standard 110 is a test method, not a performance specification. The level of performance re-
quired for the hood you may be asked to test was determined when the engineering specifications were
written. As the Certified Technologist, your job will typically be to determine the actual, installed
performance of the hood so that its performance can be compared to the specifications reflected in the
construction documents.
Testing Fume Hoods As Manufactured, As Installed, Or As Used
This is a good point to review the terms “As Manufactured” (AM), “As Installed” (AI), and “As Used”
(AU) as defined in ASHRAE Standard 110.
The difference between these terms may seem obvious, but tests performed under these varying condi-
tions are described in the Forward of the Standard this way:
as manufactured (AM)
A test conducted at the fume hood manufacturer’s location, intended to test the design of the hood
separate from the laboratory environment.

CHAPTER 6
as installed (AI)
A test performed in a newly constructed or renovated laboratory after testing and balancing is
complete, but before the user has occupied the lab.
as used (AU)
A test that seeks to demonstrate acceptable performance not only of the hood and the laboratory
setting in which it’s been installed, but also accepts lab equipment within the hood, thermal chal-
T
lenges, user adjustments to the baffles, and all other factors.
F
Again as a NEMI CT, your task will generally be to test fume hoods in their As Installed (AI) state.
A
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
DR
As noted above, ASHRAE Standard 110 describes three types of tests: flow visualization, face velocity,
and tracer gas. The standard also includes extremely detailed specifications on some of the test apparatus
(e.g., the tracer gas ejector). But the standard does not specifically describe how to safely use your equip-
ment and your personnel to perform these tests. To reflect the details of your procedures, each company
employing a NEMI Certified Technologist must have its own set of written Standard Operating Proce-
dures (SOPs).
In brief, an SOP is a written document prepared by each company that provides specific guidance on
safety considerations leading up to and during the tests, and step-by-step details that describe exactly
how to perform each of the three tests using certain types of equipment. In some cases, a separate SOP
may also be prepared by the Owner to address their particular safety concerns, or to describe acceptance
criteria for hood performance.
It is not uncommon for a Standard Operating Procedure to include verbatim excerpts from Standard 110,
or for the SOP to refer users to specific sections or pages of the standard. However, once properly writ-
ten, each SOP will be distinctly your own.

CHAPTER 6
Test Conditions per ASHRAE 110
Before Smoke or Tracer Gas Testing Begins
ASHRAE FUME HOOD TESTING “AS INSTALLED” REQUIRED CONDITION BEFORE

TESTING STARTS
Essentially, the ASHRAE testing should be performed when the area is “ready to use” just
T
before occupancy!
AF
The following summary information is intended to assist with the planning and scheduling for the ASHRAE
testing on your laboratory fume hood project.
R
1. The lab designer shall provide their protocol for ASHRAE testing at least two days before scheduled
D
testing. If the designer does not have a testing protocol, recommend “As Installed” (AI) ASHRAE
testing (4AI 0.1) which is required by ANSI/AIHA Z 9.5
2. Testing needs to be performed in a “ready to use” condition. All trades must be completed with con-
struction related activities. Any other activities in the room should be limited to “same as” when the
room will be “in use.”
3. The primary electrical power feed to the hood must be connected and turned on.
4. All fume hoods and surrounding areas must be broom/wet mopped cleaned prior to testing. Dust/dirt
will adversely effect the instrumentation and testing process.
5. Exhaust fans must not be started before dust is cleaned from the fume hoods, so any air flow probe
located in the hood outlet is not contaminated.
6. All supply and exhaust systems must be air balanced and placed into normal operation. A copy of the
air balance report must be furnished one week prior to starting the ASHRAE testing. System operation
should reflect, “ready to use”. The proper pressure balance is necessary for testing; therefore all doors,
glazing etc must be installed.
7. ASHRAE testing uses sensitive instrumentation and is subject to background interference from vari-
ous outside sources. Examples of potential problem items/conditions are; Cell phones, 2 way radios,
painting, and cleaning chemicals. These are limited examples.
8. The ASHRAE testing process uses SF6 as a tracer gas. If you require additional information such as
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSD’s) on the tracer gas contact tracer gas supplier.

CHAPTER 6
9. The end user should provide tagging on the fume hoods prior to testing. The tester will then identify
the fume hood by its tag number on the test report; i.e. FH-101-1.
10. At the time of the ASHRAE testing check that the fume hood controls and alarm monitor was factory
calibrated.
11. Temperature conditions in the testing area should be 60° F - 80° F.
T
12. The normal time to complete the testing is estimated at an average of 2- 4 hoods per day dependant
F
upon various site/system conditions and testing protocol. After the first tests, you can normally pro-
A
vide a better estimate for the duration of testing.
R
13. If the customer/end user plans to witness any or all of the testing please coordinate and schedule with
you prior to testing. Witnesses slow down the process.
D
14. Customer/end user to provide any safety, security and other site specific regulations we need to
comply a minimum one week prior to testing.
15. Customer to provide a secured (lockable) storage area with 50 FT2 for storage for testing equipment.
16. Customer to provide name and address for delivery of SF6 gas cylinder at testing site at least two
weeks prior to the scheduled testing. If customer supplied, verification of the gas at site a minimum
one week prior to testing.
17. Scheduling must be made at least three weeks prior to start of testing. Any rescheduling will require at
least three weeks.
ROOM VENTILATION
Per ASHRAE 110 Clause 5iTest Conditions, Sub-Clause 5.1 Room Ventilation, ventilations systems shall
be in full normal operation, and the laboratory shall be properly commissioned.
This includes calibration of airflow controls, calibration of automatic temperature

controls, balance of supply air, conduct of a duct traverse on the exhaust duct and,
if used, on the auxiliary air duct, and balance of the total exhaust flow.
HOOD CONDITION
Per ASHRAE 110 Clause 5 Test Conditions, Sub-Clause 5.2 Hood Condition, the following requirements
shall be utilized doing testing

CHAPTER 6

5.2.1 Sash Position The sash or sashes shall be located in the design position or
positions.
5.2.2 Auxiliary Air Hoods If the hood has an auxiliary supply, the supply shall
be in operation. If the supply is capable of convenient adjustment by laboratory
personnel, the adjustments shall be as specified.
Preliminary Data Collection per ASHRAE 110
Following are the requirements for ASHRAE 110 for preliminary data collection
T
5.51 A sketch of the room shall be prepared indicating the location of signifi-
F
cant equipment. Minimum data shall include a general layout of the room and
A
location(s) of the test hood and other hoods.
5.5.2 A sketch of the air supply system indicating the type of supply fixture (grilles,
R
registers, ceiling diffusers, perforated ceiling, other) shall be made. Other activi-
ties in the room shall be indicated. Information on the number of other fume hoods
D
and their condition of operation is required.
5.5.3 The hood type and size, sash configurations, presence of an airfoil, beveled
entries, sash stops, and position of baffles shall be noted.
5.54 The location of material storage and the amount of work surface space oc-
cupied by materials within the hood shall be noted.
5.5.5 The tracer gas detector and the sample rate shall be identified.
Flow Visualization Test per ASHRAE 110
There are two smoke visualization tests. One referred to as local and the other large volume. The smoke
visualization results are a observed and noted by the CT. An example form for documenting this part of
the test procedure will be included in the handouts for this course.
Local Visualization Challenge
With the sash at the full open position absent the manikin, the following three tests are conducted.
1. While holding a smoke tube or stick, move the smoke slowly beneath the bottom of the work surface
airfoil.
Smoke should be exhausted smoothly into the hood and not be entrained in the
vortex at the top of the hood.
Observe and record airflow patterns.
2. Discharge a stream of smoke along both walls and the work surface of the hood in a line parallel to the
hood face and 6 in. (150 mm) behind the face of the hood and along the top of the face opening. Look

CHAPTER 6

for reverse flow movements towards the opening of the hood. Observe and record airflow patterns.

3. Discharged a stream of smoke in an 8 in. (200 mm) diameter circle on the back of the hood.
Air movement toward the face of the hood shall be defined as reverse airflow, and
lack of air movement shall be defined as dead air space.
Generate smoke on the work surface of the hood and along all equipment in the hood. All the smoke
should be carried to the back of the hood and exhausted. This will indicate if the equipment loading is
a problem. Observe and record airflow patterns.

T
4. All the smoke testing observations are noted in the final report.
F
If there is visible smoke flowing out of the front of the hood, the hood fails this
A
portion of the test and will receive no rating.
R
Large-Volume Visualization Challenge
D
The large-volume smoke/fog test will be conducted in absence of the mannequin using a theatrical smoke
generator releasing a large volume of smoke/fog using a diffuser located in the center of the sash opening
on the work surface 6 in. (150 mm) inside the rear edge of the work surface airfoil.
Some smoke sources generate a jet of smoke that produces an unacceptably high
directional component to the challenge to the hood (see A-6.1.2 for acceptable
methods). Care is required to ensure that the generator does not disrupt the hood
performance, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Containment is best observed from the side of the hood. A steady and visible release of smoke/fog past
the plane of fume hood face and captured in to the space is an indication of failure. There is always some
smoke/fog circulation at the sash handle from entrance conditions but these patterns may not entrain fume
hood vapors. Only tracer gas testing can establish if these patterns are contaminated with vapors.
Equipment in the hood, such as heating devices and agitators, shall operate during
a test to determine if it contributes to leakage.
Observe and record airflow patterns.
Face Velocity Measurement per ASHRAE 110
A recently calibrated anemometer will be required for fume hood face velocity, cross draft, CVC or VAV
stability and space pressure measurements. ASHRAE 110 describes generally face velocity methods as
well for Variable-Air-Volume (VAV) fume hoods including what is referred to as the VAV Response Test.

CHAPTER 6
How To Measure Fume Hood Face Velocity
To measure face velocity, divide the face opening for both reduced and full sash areas into a grid, with
the first lines set 6″ away from the edges, and all other grid lines no further than 12″ apart. If a distance
of less than 12″ is encountered, the remaining area shall be treated as if it were 12″; but no measurement
can be taken closer than 3″ from any edge. It may prove helpful to place removable tape along the edges
and to mark the grid lines on the tape. Take face velocity measurements perpendicular to the open sash
plane area using a fixed tripod (never hold the anemometer) and establish the average face velocity with
T
the sash at its vertical stop and full sash opening and the center opening for horizontal sashes. Record face
F
velocity data for each sash opening.
A
Figure 2. Yaw & Pitch Angle
DR
According to ASHRAE 110 “the anemometer
shall be held in the plane of the hood sash and
perpendicular to the opening.”
Your instructor will discuss and demonstrate

how to avoid Yaw & Pitch Angle Error.
4.7 Face Velocity Measuring Instruments

Face velocity measurements shall be made with a recently mechanical or electri-
cal anemometer. Refer to ANSI/ASHRAE 111-1988, Practices for Measurement,
Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing of Building Heating Ventilation, Air-Con-
ditioning, and Refrigeration Systems.2 The anemometer shall be capable of
measuring in the range of 50 to 400 fpm (0.25 m/s to 2.0 m/s with an accuracy of
±5% of the reading.

CHAPTER 6
R AFT
D
Figure 3. Face Velocity Grid

CHAPTER 6
R AFT
D
Figure 4. Example Face Velocity Measurement Form
VAV Test Method Variables
First verify that VAV controls have been calibrated as designed by the manufacturers. When performing
face velocity testing on VAV fume hoods the measurements should be taken with the sash in three sepa-
rate positions. Start with the sash open 25%, record your data, proceed to testing at 50% open, record you
data and finally test at the full design hood opening, record your data. Before and after each test you must
allow time for velocity to stabilize.
6.3.5 Average face velocities for all sash positions shall be compared with design
specifications.
The VAV Response Test

The VAV Response Test requires the use of a anemometer with a display update frequency with at least
one second and internal time constant of .3 seconds or less.
Follow the requirement of ASHRAE 110 6.4.2 and 6.4.3. Your instructor will review the test method and
demonstrate how to perform it.

CHAPTER 6

Figure 5. Example Cross Draft Measurement Form
R AFT
D
Figure 6. Cross Draft Velocity Measurement Showing Location & Orientation of Probe

CHAPTER 6
Tracer Gas Testing

Tracer gas testing is fairly well defined within the ANSI/ASHRAE 110 standard. But there are preparation
procedures that will make testing easier. Steps 1 through 5 should be completed with all issues resolved
before tracer gas testing is started. The lab space has to be at normal operating temperature and configura-
tion conditions. All instruments, which will be required for the tracer gas test, should stabilize at the lab
temperature.

T
One important first step is to calibrate the tracer gas analyzer or leak detector before the day testing is
F
started and at the end of the day. The ASHRAE Standard 110 requires that the analyzer or detector be
A
calibrated 24 hours before and after use. It makes no sense to start testing and later learn all the test results
will need to be repeated because the detector was not working properly.
DR
The ASHRAE/ANSI-110 test rates fume hood spillage
in parts per million (PPM) so it can be related to permis-
sible exposure limits (PEL) and action levels as man-
dated by OSHA. A safe hood is no longer deemed safe
in terms of a given face velocity, but rather in terms of
proven containment at a given face velocity, in a given
environment. The test responds to the impact of environ-
mental changes such as hood loading, cross drafts, space
pressure fluctuations from door opening/closing, make
up air temperature fluctuations, building stack effect and
exhaust fluctuations.
The performance method for testing and evaluating the

efficiency of a fume hood is through the precise release
(1) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas at 4.0 LPM
from a cylinder (2) thru a standardized gas ejector (3)
which produces a tracer gas cloud (4) within the fume
Critical Dimensions: hood.
A. Mannequin to Plane of Sash; 3 in/ 76mm
B. Ejector Front to Plane of Sash: 6 in/ 152mm
A mannequin simulating human proportions is critically
Figure 7. Tracer Gas Testing Sequence
positioned at predetermined locations in front of the gas
ejector as if it were working at the fume hood. A detector pick up probe (5) is attached to a gas analyzer
(6). The instrument range is calibrated for 0 to 0.15 PPM SF6 gas and measures the concentration of gas
that may escape from the fume hood. The spillage amount is monitored in real time by a meter on the
instrument, and a recorder (7) synchronized with the analyzer output.

CHAPTER 6

The static portion of the tracer gas test requires the mannequin and gas ejector to be positioned left,
center, and right with the sash 100% open. The dynamic portion of the tracer gas test incorporates sash
movements (SME) to maximum opening every two-minutes.
Three Position, Sash Movement and Perimeter Tracer Gas Testing
The following tracer gas testing is for both standard and bypass bench fume hoods. There is no Ameri-
can conformance (ANSI) standard approved covering any other style fume hood. The test applies to both
T
vertical and horizontal sash bench fume hoods. If a combination vertical and horizontal sash hood is sup-
F
plied, then both the vertical and horizontal sash configurations are tested in all three positions.
A
If a vertical sash stop is supplied, the fume hood is tested at the vertical stop; but if the stop can be defeat-
R
ed in any way, the fume hood is also tested at the full abuse sash opening even when the exhaust airflow is
designed for only a partial sash opening. The fume hood is a personal life safety device covered by federal
D
laws and by law must be tested even if and when the sash stop is defeated. Never can any personal life
safety device be tested in such a fashion as to cover-up a possible life safety design operating deficiency.

The manikin must be free standing and meet requirements as specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 110-
1995 Section 4.6.

The ejector flow rate was changed in 1995 standard to only 4 liters per minute SF6 tracer gas rate that
represents an average experiment vapor release.
7. Three Position Tracer Gas Test Procedure

7.1 The analyzer or detector shall be turned on and allowed time to equilibrate,
and room background shall be determined. If the background is excessive (see 5.4),
corrective procedures shall be implemented.
7.2 Immediately before each test, the detector function shall be checked by sub-
jecting the detector to a low concentration of tracer gas. If the detector does not
respond properly, the hood test shall not be performed until the defect has been
corrected. The detector shall at all times be operated in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instruction.
7.3 The ejector shall be installed at a test position. For typical bench-type hoods,
three positions are required: left, center, and right as seen looking into the hood.
The left position is with the ejector centerline 12″ (300mm) from the left inside wall
of the hood, center position is equidistant from the inside side walls, and right is
12″ (300mm) from the right inside wall. All positions are with the front of the ejec-
tor body 6″ (50mm) from the hood face.
7.4 The probe shall be positioned in the breathing zone of the manikin, with the
breathing zone of the manikin 3 in. (75 mm) from the plane of the sash.

CHAPTER 6
R AFT
D Figure 8. Tracer Gas Test Manikin Position
Figure 9. Detector Probe Position
7.5 The detector probe shall be fixed in a position touching the face of the mani-
kin in the region of the breathing zone, with the center of the probe 26” (660mm),

CHAPTER 6

above the work surface and 3″ (75mm) in front of the sash. The detector probe shall
be attached to the manikin or fixed on a typical laboratory ring stand and clamp.
Care shall be taken to ensure that any method of attaching the detector probe in
the breathing zone of the manikin does not interfere with the flow patterns around
the manikin or probe.
7.6 The SF6 tracer gas block valve shall be opened.
7.7 Manually or by recorder, the detector readings shall be observed and recorded
for 5 minutes with a reading taken at least every 10 seconds. The positional control
level is the average of the tracer gas concentrations during the five-minute test.
T
7.8 The ejector and manikin shall be relocated to another test position and the
F
measurements shall be repeated for each test position.
A
7.9 The final control rating for the hood is the maximum of any of the recorded
control ratings for the three test positions.
R
7.10 The performance rating of the hood will be recorded as either “As Used” AU
yyy, “As Installed” AI yyy, or “As Manufactured” AM yyy, where yyy equals the
D
average control level, ppm.
7.12. Sash Movement Effect for both CVC and VAV Fume Hoods
7.12.1 With the manikin and ejector located at the center test position with the
sash fully opened, the SF6 tracer gas block valve is then opened and the sash is
closed. After two minutes, a background level with the sash closed is determined. If
tracer gas is detected with the sash closed, the test is terminated until the source of
leakage is determined and eliminated. The sash shall be fully opened in a smooth
motion at a velocity between 1.0 foot/second to 1.5 feet/second while tracer gas is
released and the tracer gas concentration is being recorded. The peak spill level
is noted. After the system has stabilized (i.e., the VAV controlled face velocity has
reached and maintained the design face velocity within 10%), for a minimum of two
minutes after opening the sash, the sash will be closed at a rate between 1.0 foot/
second to 1.5 feet/second while continuing to record the tracer gas concentration.
The cycle is repeated three times.
7.12.2 The sash movement effect (SME) is the maximum peak tracer gas concentra-
tion recorded for the three cycles. The sash movement performance rating of the
hood is recorded as SME-AU yyy, SME-AI yyy, or SME-AM yyy, where yyy equals
sash movement effect, ppm.
The Analyzer or Detector Results

The analyzer or detector results can be manually or automatically collected. If the instruments results
were recorded the results can be included in the report. The following presentation can be used. The ben-
efit is a picture is included that illustrates the fume hoods loading.

CHAPTER 6
R AFT
D
Figure 10. Manikin Center Position
Figure 11. Manikin Left Position

CHAPTER 6
R AFT
D
Figure 12. Manikin Right Position

CHAPTER 6
Record Keeping and Report Writing
PRECONDITION ASHRAE TESTING CHECK LIST
Date:_ __________________________________
Project Number___________________________ Project Name_ __________________________
T
No of Hoods to be Tested_ __________________ Beginning Test Date:______________________
F
YES NO
1. Owner has provided “as installed” test protocol at least
A
Two days prior to testing. _____ _____
R
2. All trades are complete with construction related activities. _____ _____
D
3. The electrical power to the hoods is turned on. _____ _____
4. All fume hoods and surrounding areas are broom/wet mopped clean. _____ _____
5. All supply and exhaust systems have been balanced (see item 7 hood testing
parameters) and a copy of the air balance report has been Furnished. _____ _____
6. All fume hoods to be tested have tag numbers for identification in test report. _____ _____
7. Temperature conditions in the test area are between 60° - 80°F. _____ _____
8. Customer has provided name and address for delivery of SF6 _____ _____
two weeks prior to testing.
9. Customer has secured storage area with 50 FT2. _____ _____
I certify that all of the above items answered are correct by personal
observation and/or from information supplied by:
□ Mechanical/Balancing or General Contractor

□ Owner
ASHRAE TESTING IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED BY:
Firm: _______________________________________ DESIGN ENGINEERING OR OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE
Name:_ _____________________________________ Firm:_ _____________________________________
Title:________________________________________ ______________________________________
___________________________________________ Date:_ _____________________________________

(Signature)
Date:_ ______________________________________
IMPORTANT: Please be aware that any return visit to above job site due to incomplete or incorrect information
given, that causes a delay in testing will be billed above already quoted costs.

CHAPTER 6

Step 1: Start the Report
The first page of the report is the cover sheet. The following information should be included in the reports
cover followed by a brief description of the testing.
FUME HOOD & LABORATORY PERFORMANCE TEST
FT
I. Project:
R A
II. Fume Hood Manufacturer:
D
III. Architect:
IV. Consulting Engineer:
V. Chemical Hygiene Officer (CHO)
VI. Certified Technologists:
Certification Number:
VII. Witnesses:
VIII. Fume Hood Designation:

CHAPTER 6

Step 2: Sketch the Lab Space and Calculate the ACH
Part of the ASHRAE testing procedure and final report requires that a sketch be made of the laboratory
space where the hood will be tested. Note where all doors are located. The lab sketch must locate all the
ceiling diffusers, their purpose, style, air discharge directions and any unusual conditions such as lab
furniture blocking the diffuser.
R AFT
D
CHAPTER 6

Step 3: Fume Hood Data Survey Form
The following “Fume Hood Data” form must be filled out complete for every fume hood before testing.
Fume Hood Data
Fume Hood Designation__________ Exhaust Fan or System _______
1. Stable Vortex □ High Performance Low Airflow □ Nitric Acid □

Radio Isotope □ (filter- Yes or No) Perchoric Acid □
T
2. Standard Floor Mounted (Walk-In) □
F
(face velocity measurement only, no smoke or tracer gas: hood is not safe) □
A
3. Bench Hood: Standard □ By-Pass □ Auxiliary Air □
4. Vertical Sash (NFPA 45 code violation) □ Horizontal Sash □ Combination (vert & hoz) □
R
5. Sash Ceiling Pocket: Yes No
D
6. Sash Stop Yes, Height ____ inches No
7. Air Foil: Yes No ( hood fails-no rating)
8. Liner Material: Asbestos Non-Ferrous S. Steel
9. Liner Condition: Good Fair Poor
10. Baffle Yes No (hood fails- no rating)
11. Adjustable Baffle Top _____inch open Center_____ inch open Bottom ______inch open
Auto VFV Slots
12. Cup Sink& Faucet Yes VAC: Breaker In or VAC: Breaker Out No VAC Breaker
13. Asbestos Work Yes No Surface:
14. Work surface Good Fair Poor Condition:
15. UL 1805 Rated: Yes No (hood may not meet fire code)
16. Fire Suppression Yes Type _________________ No
17. Fume Hood Alarm Yes No
18. Type of Alarm Duct Press. Duct Airflow Hood Static Press Hood Vortex Press.
19. Fume Hood Controls: VFV VAV CVC Manual Balanced
20. Storage Cabinets: Flammable Acid Standard
21. Storage Cabinet Yes Exh. Duct Into Hood No Vented:
22. Hood Vented Storage

Cabinet: To Work Surface To Baffle, Height_____
23. Hood Loading (Picture) Good Fair Poor New
24. General Housekeeping Good Fair Poor New

CHAPTER 6
Fume Hood and Laboratory Testing CT
1.) What are the three tests performed by CT’s during fume hood testing?
a) smoke visualization test, face velocity test, tracer gas test
b) testing adjustment and balancing, smoke testing, face velocity test
c) face velocity test, sash movement test, manikin position test
d) face velocity test, tracer gas test, computational fluid dynamics test
FT
2.) How many types of flow visualization testing are performed during fume hood
A
testing?
R
a) 1
b) 2
D
c) 3
d) 4
3.) At what rate is SF6 gas released during fume hood performance testing?
a) 1 LPM
b) 2 LPM
c) 3 LPM
d) 4 LPM

appendix a
Fume Hood Myths ct

Fume Hood Myths
by
Thomas E. Wilson, P.E. edited and formatted November 2009 by
Wilson Engineered Systems, Inc. Purvis Mount Jackson, MAPW
11497 Columbia Park Drive West, Suite #2 1308 Sterling St.
Jacksonville, FL 32258 Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2727
T
Many, if not most, people have strong misconceptions concerning fume hoods. These misconceptions are
best corrected based on what I consider new information, new performance capabilities of engineered
F
hoods, heightened liability concerns due to high visibility lawsuits, and more recent focus on laboratory
A
codes and safety. Most lab owners and designers have relied on information obtained through lab furni-
ture manufacturers and associated lab planners, rather than relying directly on codes and standards.
R
While discussing lab safety with various owners and designers over the last few years, many of the myths
D
appeared not only widespread, but almost universal. The purpose of this discussion is to provide basic
source information to assist in correcting the misconceptions and help owners and designers provide full
safety without risks to employees.
Myth 1: OSHA Requires 100 Feet Per Minute (fpm) Face Velocity
Since January 31, 1990, OSHA has been specific and clear stating that face velocity is not what
determines hood performance, nor is 100 feet per minute a requirement or recommendation. Quite
to the contrary, OSHA specifically discussed this in the Federal Register January 31, 1990 (page 3318)
when publishing the current version of 29 CFR Part 1910:
“As in the proposed standard, the final standard does not specify face velocities for
fume hoods. OSHA’s rationale for this approach was explained in the preamble to
the proposed standard (see 51 FR at 26671). In brief, the preamble stated that OSHA
recognized that there was considerable debate over what optimum velocities should
be in light of differences in hood design and methods requiring specific face veloci-
ties was not consistent with the performance orientation of the standard.”
Most comments agreed with OSHA’s approach in not specifying face velocities for fume hoods...Howev-
er, these comments offered little or no substantive information to persuade OSHA to abandon the per-
formance approach which allows the employer to determine the appropriate face velocities on the basis
of design, use patterns and other factors which influence the effectiveness and proper functioning of the
fume hood.”

appendix a
Fume Hood Myths ct
Myth 2: OSHA Dictates Fume Hood Testing Methods
The Director, Directorate of Compliance Programs of OSHA in responding to a request from Robert H.
Morris in 2001 explained,
“OSHA does not promulgate specific fume hood testing protocols.”
Myth 3: Past Hood Performance Has Been Adequate
FT
The Director, Directorate of Compliance Programs of OSHA wrote again in 2001, to Robert H. Morris,
A
discussing published research on current fume hood effectiveness. He stated,
R
“When ANSI/ASHRAE 110 was used to evaluate hood effectiveness, both studies
demonstrated that a portion of the hoods tested (28% and 38%) did not meet the
D
standard specified in ANSI Z9.5 even after attempts to improve performance.”
“Fume hoods are personal protective equipment (PPE). I believe with a quarter
of existing hoods failing in the field that one must determine that there is a safety
problem of significant magnitude. OSHA wrote in 1991 when publishing the labo-
ratory standard (Federal Register January 31, 1990, page 3326),”
“In short, there is a clear national problem related [to] occupational safety and
health for employees exposed to chemicals in laboratories.”
Since fume hoods are the primary device to protect employees from exposure to chemicals in the labora-
tory, the above statement must be considered to include the fume hood as one [possible] source of the
problem.
Myth 4: Specifying ASHRAE 110 Testing Assures a Safe Hood Installation
ASHRAE 110 is a test procedure. There is no pass/fail criteria. Thus, no hood can fail to meet a Specifi-
cation calling for requiring conformance to ASHRAE 110.
Myth 5: ASHRAE 110 Test Methods as written are Adequate to Provide a

Representative Test Procedure
Workers are to be protected per OSHA’s requirements; but more importantly, it is the right thing to do.
OSHA references ACGIH as a source for information on lab design. The Industrial Ventilation manual

appendix a
Fume Hood Myths ct

of ACGIH explains that tracer gas testing can be done at various test gas release rates with the most
stringent listed as 8 lpm gas release rate as “approximates violently boiling water on a 500 watt hot plate.”
Additionally, the manual lists 1 lpm as “approximates pouring volatile solvents back and forth from one
beaker to another.” The manual also lists “4 lpm is an intermediate rate between 1 and 8 lpm.” As safety
is the goal of installing hoods, it would be improper to test at less than the anticipated worse case.
Unfortunately, ASHRAE 110 calls for 4 lpm gas release rate; however, to protect workers as OSHA has
required, the boiling water approximation, 8 lpm, should be the minimum test release rate, since it is
reasonable to expect that over the life of a hood a boiling or heated experiment may take place. If the
T
project is not to be designed to allow a boiling type experiment, then prudent practice requires that the
F
hood be labeled as a limited use hood, not allowing heated experimentation within the hood. Higher test
A
gas release rates may be justified to provide safety factors.
R
Furthermore, OSHA wrote to Robert H. Morris in reference to specific questions on ensuring safety of
workers of less than average height. OSHA’s Director, Directorate of Compliance Programs stated:
D
“Where the height of the laboratory [worker] falls below that of the “average”
American worker, and therefore, such a worker may not be protected by ventilation
control of the hood, the employer should take measures to ensure that such em-
ployee, in fact all employees, are not adversely exposed to hazardous chemicals.”
ASHRAE 110 addresses testing for a nominal 5′10″ person. As OSHA has required protection of all height
workers, the ASHRAE 110 procedure must be modified to test performance for shorter workers as well.
Myth 6: Factory Testing Is Adequate, Field Testing Is Not Needed
Safety in the field is required to be provided per OSHA. Safety in the hood manufacturer’s factory test
lab is not. All relevant standards, codes and references document that there are many challenges in the
field which affect hood performance. If an exposure ever occurs and performance testing has not been
done on the installation, no claim of having provided safety could be made. As face velocity has been
determined to not be a determinant of safety, the common practice of face velocity testing and marking
the sash at the 100 fpm limit, is meaningless and in fact, misleading employees to suggest safety testing
has been done when in fact it has not been.
Myth 7: The ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 Standard Requires Certain Face Velocities
The standard (ANSI/AIHA Z9.5) bases performance rating of fume hoods specifically on tracer gas test-
ing via ASHRAE 110 test procedures. A “Class A” hood must rate ‘‘4.0 AM 0.05 or better.” Face veloc-

appendix a
Fume Hood Myths ct

ity is not a criteria. Hoods rating below this are Class B. Why would one ever specify a class B safety
device? In section 5.7 the standard states,
“This standard does not establish a standard face velocity because of the impor-
tance ofother parameters and the existence of an applicable performance test
(ANSI/ASHRAE110). Evidence has accumulated indicating that a hood meeting
these standards with a face velocity of 80 to 100 fpm, tested in the manufacturer’s
laboratory under (presumed) ideal conditions, will rate 4 AM 0.05 (0.05 ppm at
the breathing zone with a release rate of 4.0 liters per minute of tracer gas inside
T
the hood). The same hood installed in an operating laboratory that, in general,
F
conforms to this standard will rate 4 AU 0.1.”
A
The standard in other areas references 60 to 100 fpm and 80 to 100 fpm; however, the above is the most
R
detailed explanation of the standard relating to face velocities and, as does OSHA, bases safety on perfor-
mance, i.e. tracer gas testing, not face velocity.
D
Myth 8: Peak Spillage Values Need Not Be Specified When Testing Hoods
Once inhaled, a chemical or other contaminant remains in the lungs for some period of time. The next
breath will not expel all of the contaminant. The ASHRAE 110 test rates peaks for dynamic conditions.
Again, no pass fail criteria is given by ASHRAE. ANSI/AIHAZ9.5 also does not provide a required peak
value. General acceptance has been discussed as allowing perhaps double the average as a limiting ac-
ceptable peak value. The employer must determine the acceptable peak. Some comments have been to
suggest peak values as no higher than the AM 0.05 or AU 0.1 averages in Z9.5. To look for current stan-
dards which specify a peak value, the Invest UK standard for an excellent hood is <0.010 peak.
Myth 9: 100 fpm Face Velocity Still Seems to be A Safe Value to Specify
I bring this up again because most of my meetings with owners and specifiers return to this major mis-
conception repeatedly. 100 fpm is 1.13 mph. 80 fpm is 0.91 mph. If a hood doesn’t work at 0.91 mph, how
can one be convinced in the absence of stringent testing that 1.13 mph is safe? Testing as referenced by
OSHA has found over 25% of existing hoods are failing. Clearly the 100 fpm mistaken assumption
does not provide safety. The reason that face velocity increase or decrease of 0.22 mph doesn’t change
performance is that the interior vessel of the hood, properly designed, has to develop and maintain a bi-
stable vortex to provide containment. It is this internal vortex that develops hood performance and con-
tainment, not face velocity. The vortex development and maintenance is a high level gas dynamics and
fluid flow engineering analysis and design. Properly developing and maintaining this vortex allows for a
range of air volumes for a hood to work to a high performance level. A high performance bi-stable vortex
hood will maintain safety with air volumes as low as half the value traditionally used by hoods.

appendix a
Fume Hood Myths ct

Supporting the elimination of face velocity as a hood performance criteria, OSHA, AIHA, ACGIH,
ASHRAE are all on record that face velocity is not a determining factor for safety in hoods. Reliance on
face velocity specification for safety has no sound basis in fact. To believe so or to be led to believe
so is negligent in lab design.
Myth 10: Specifying a Partial Open Sash Is an Acceptable Safety and Energy
Saving Methodology
T
OSHA states all workers are to be protected from exposure. If a hood can be opened fully, as all chemi-
F
cal fume hoods can be for hood loading and unloading, then safety has to be maintained at full open. The
A
industry and users have set 27″ as full open. Testing needs to be done at this full open sash. ASHRAE
110 calls for this:
R
“‘Since operation of the hood with the sash opened may be beyond the design crite-
D
ria, it is prudent to also conduct the tests with the hood fully open to test potential
conditions of misuse.’ (page 2) . . . ‘To enhance the user’s understanding of the
subject as well as the standard . . .’ ‘The hood should be tested with the sashes full
open to determine the effect of misuse of the hood.’” (page 14 in the Appendix)
What would one do if testing shows the hood to be unsafe in potential uses or misuses, especially if de-
sign can be done to prevent the unsafe condition? Certainly, an owner or prudent specifier would expect
the unsafe condition to be designed out of the system, given the whole purpose and need for a fume hood
is to provide safety.
If harmful exposure ever occurs when a limited sash opening hood is fully opened, the standards and
comments by OSHA are clear that liability would fall to the employer and in turn the designer. An anal-
ogy would be to specify safety glasses without side shields and telling the employee to never turn their
head away from the risk. It is not a proper provision of safety as it is impractical to never turn one’s head.
Similarly, to tell an employee never to fully open the sash, knowing that it must be opened at times, is
negligent. Further, some employees may not be fully aware of all recommended procedures regarding
sash opening, such as maintenance personnel, lab visitors, etc. Some employees may be less knowledge-
able of lab practices and procedures, and some may not be able to read effectively enough to understand
posted warnings regarding technical issues. Remember, all employees are to be protected per OSHA. In
my personal visits to laboratories, I have routinely seen fume hoods with fully open sashes.

appendix a
Fume Hood Myths ct
Summary
The 10 myths discussed above are widely believed. Believing and following a myth often will lead one
down an incorrect path. Research into the various laws, codes and standards must be done throughout
multiple sources to document facts and dispel these myths. The awareness and need for safety in all
pursuits is critical, and particularly so in laboratories. Lab workers, designers, owners, industrial hygien-
ists, engineers, architects and suppliers all should want to ensure the maximum achievable safety possible.
The first step toward this end goal must be to ensure the sound bases for decisions. When myths are held
T
and followed, an industry can find itself off track. This has happened in the fume hood industry. The 100
F
fpm face velocity myth is the perfect example of misdirection. Those who follow this myth, believing it
A
is required and ensures safety, have missed the need entirely. OSHA states specifically a set face velocity
is not required, and multiple sources including OSHA verify face velocity specification does not ensure
R
safety. Thus, the myth misdirects many, even though they may have the best of intentions. Effective test-
ing protocols should be followed to ensure, not assume, worker safety.
D
APPENDIX B
Maintenance CT
ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-2005 Preventive Maintenance
Inspection and maintenance shall follow an Inspection and Maintenance (l&M)

Program developed by the user.
Preventive maintenance shall be performed on a regularly scheduled basis.
T
l&M programs should be “preventive” in nature.
F
The written I&M Program should identify potential hazards and problems associated with laboratory
A
operations and designate appropriate I&M procedures to minimize such hazards and problems. This ap-
proach could include, for examples, routine inspection of fan belts to ensure that hood exhaust ventilation
R
fans are turning at the designed speeds, ensuring that hoods are being cleaned to minimize buildup of
D
hazardous chemicals in the hoods, and so forth.
The written program should identify standard operating procedures to be followed during I&M activities.
The “responsible person” identified in Section 2.3 should be involved in the development and operation of
the I&M program.
Operations During Maintenance Shutdown
● Operations served by equipment being shut down for inspection or maintenance

shall be safely discontinued and secured during such maintenance.
● Lock-out/tag-out procedures shall be implemented.
● Laboratory workers shall be notified in advance of inspection and maintenance
operations.
● “Secured” condition will vary from case to case. It might consist of ceasing
operation, or requiring removal from the premises of all flammable and highly
toxic materials.
● All ventilation equipment should be de-energized and labeled as such with
appropriate signage before starting any repair work.
Housekeeping Before and After Maintenance
● All toxic or otherwise dangerous materials on or in the vicinity of the subject

equipment shall be removed or cleaned up before maintenance.
● Any hazardous materials and any other debris shall be cleaned up before
operations resume.

APPENDIX B
Maintenance CT
If possible, equipment to be removed to the shop should be decontaminated before removal. Also, a pro-
cedure should be established to notify hood users before any maintenance is to be performed so work in
the hood can be halted during maintenance. If the maintenance activities involve contact with potentially
contaminated parts of the system, these parts should be evaluated first by appropriate methods.
Safety for Maintenance Personnel
Maintenance personnel shall be trained and required to use appropriate PPE (such as respirators, goggles
T
or faces shields, gloves, and protective clothing) during parts of the work involving potential hazard.
AF
Work Permits
R
● A written work permit system shall be established whenever the integrity of a
D
potentially contaminated ventilation system is to be breached. Such work per-
mits shall be designed to suit the circumstances, and shall at least address the
following factors: The permit system shall be overseen by a responsible person,
as defined in this standard, and shall be signed by the person(s) to do the work,
his/her supervisor, and any other supervisors affected by the work;
● The nature of the work, and the health and safety precautions, shall be de-
scribed;
● The time and place of the work shall be described;
● The same persons who signed the permit (or their counterparts on a different
shift) shall sign off when the work is complete; and
● Completed work permits shall be filed by an appropriate management function
and retained for a minimum of 3 years or as specified by individual organiza-
tional policy.
Records
Records shall be maintained for all inspections and maintenance. If testing involves quantitative values
(such as hood throat suction), the observed values shall be recorded. Inspection forms designed for the
several categories of testing shall be provided and shall include the normal values for the parameters
tested.
Records should be kept for at least 1 year or until the next required test is performed and recorded.

APPENDIX B
Maintenance CT
Testing and Monitoring Instruments

Air Velocity, Air Pressure, Temperature, and Humidity Measurements
Pressure instrumentation and measurement shall be in compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE 41.3-1989. Tem-
perature instruments and measurement techniques shall be in compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1-1986
(RA 01). All instruments using electrical, electronic, or mechanical components shall be calibrated no
longer than 12 months before use or after any possible damage (including impacts with no apparent dam-
age) since the last calibration. The accuracy of a scale used for a given parameter shall meet the following
T
requirements:
F
Velocity -fpm Accuracy
A
Below 100 fpm (0.51 m/s) 5 fpm (0.025 m/s)
100 fpm (0.51 m/s) and higher 5% of signal
DR
Pressure - in. wg Accuracy
0.1 in.wg (25 Pa) 10% of signal
0.5 in.wg (125 Pa) and higher 5% of signal
Between 25 Pa and 125 Pa, interpolate linearly.
Pitot-static tube measurements shall be in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Method of Test Measurement
of Flow of Gas, 41.7-1984 (RA 00). Inclined manometers shall be selected so that the nominal value of the
measured parameter is at least 5% of full scale. U-tube manometers shall not be used for pressures less
than 0.5 in.wg (125 Pa). Pitot tubes other than standard shall be calibrated.
Temperature measurement instrumentation shall have an accuracy of ±0.5°F or ±1°C over the entire
measurement range.
Humidity measurement instrumentation shall have an accuracy of ±3.0% relative humidity over the entire
measurement range.
Instruments of a “primary standard” nature (i.e., standard pitot tubes, flow tube manometers, draft
gauges, etc.)—If used with fluids for which they are designed and tested for leaks—require no further
calibration.

APPENDIX B
Maintenance CT
Air Contaminant Monitors
Air contaminant monitors shall be tested at least monthly or more often, if experience or manufacturer’s
recommendations so indicate. Such testing shall include the sensing element, zero drift, and actuation of
signals, alarms, or controls. Continuous air monitors shall be calibrated per manufacturer’s specifications
or more frequently if experience dictates.
T
Tolerance of Test Results
AF
Allowable variance from design conditions, or conditions determined otherwise satisfactory, shall be:
R
● For air velocity, +10%;
● For ventilation air pressure or differential pressure, +20%; For pneumatic control
D
system air pressure, <5%; and
● For electronic control system, ±2% of full-scale values.
Other Test Instruments
Other instruments (such as voltmeters and tachometers) shall be checked for function and accuracy
against a “known source” before use and follow manufacturer’s recommendation, when provided,
periodic calibration.
Monitoring Blowers, Motors, and Drives
Visual inspection
Fans, blowers, and drive mechanisms shall be visually inspected weekly. Key problematic observations
are abnormal noise or vibration, bearing noise, excessive temperature of motors, lubricant leaks, etc.
V-belt drives
V-belt drives shall be stopped and inspected monthly for belt tension and signs of belt wear or checking.
This will probably require removing the belt guard.
Lubrication
Blowers, drives, and other critical machine elements shall be lubricated at intervals and with lubricants
recommended by the manufacturer.

APPENDIX B
Maintenance CT
Critical Service Spares
The ventilation system management plan shall address the need of providing for critical service issues and
keeping spare parts on hand.
Preventive maintenance is intended to prevent unplanned breakdowns, but breakdowns will occur. In
some cases, delivery time of replacement parts might be long enough, to inhibit maintenance resulting
T
from periodic inspection. Maintenance supplies and spares should be planned, taking into consideration
the typical factors involved, such as:
AF
● Potential health or safety risk of breakdown;
● Availability of spares or replacements; and
R
● Economic cost of facility out of service
D
APPENDIX C
Management CT
Laboratory Ventilation
Per ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-2003 Management Program
General Requirements
Management shall establish a “Laboratory Ventilation Management Plan” to ensure proper selec-
tion, operation, use, and maintenance of laboratory ventilation equipment.
T
Management participation in the selection, design, and operation of laboratory ventilation systems is
F
important to the overall success of the effort. The program should be written and supported by top man-
A
agement. A sample Table of Contents for Laboratory Ventilation Management Plan is included in Appen-
dix 5. Management should understand that ventilation equipment is not furniture, but rather it is part of
R
installed capital equipment. It must be interfaced to the building ventilation system.
D
Laboratory Chemical Hoods
Adequate laboratory chemical hoods, special purpose hoods, or other engineering controls shall be
used when there is a possibility of employee overexposure to air contaminants generated by a
laboratory activity.
The containment and capture of a laboratory hood shall be considered adequate if, in combination
with prudent practice, laboratory worker chemical exposure levels are maintained below applicable
in-house exposure limits as recommended in their OSHA Chemical Safety Plan. When these
containment sources are not adequate, the laboratory shall conduct a hazard determination to
evaluate the situation.
The performance of a laboratory chemical hood is ultimately determined by its ability to control chemical
exposure to within applicable standards, e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible
Exposure Limits (OSHA PELs), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Recommended
Exposure Limits (NIOSH RELs), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold
limit values (ACGIH TLVs®), American Industrial Hygiene Association Workplace Environmental Ex-
posure Limits (AIHA WEELs), German MAKs, (maximum admissible concentrations) or similar means
of prescribing and/or assessing safe handling. “OSHA’s standards were designed to provide a baseline
or minimum level of safety, one where worker exposure levels are below the permissible exposure limits
(PELs) accepted by government and private occupational health research agencies, including the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These exposure limits are listed in 29 CFR Sub-
part Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances. If exposure limits do not exist for chemicals used in the labora-
tory, the employers should establish comparable in-house guidelines. Qualified industrial hygienists and
toxicologists working in conjunction may be best suited to accomplish this need.

APPENDIX C
Management CT
A Laboratory Design Professional must anticipate that toxic and hazardous substances may be used at
some point during the lifetime use of the facility. Employees are not likely to be overexposed unless the
employer determines, through periodic monitoring, that exposure levels for substances used in laboratory
chemical hoods routinely exceed the action levels (or, in the absence of action levels, the PELs).
Please be aware that the employer is responsible for ensuring that laboratory chemical hoods are func-
tioning properly and implementing feasible control measures to reduce employee exposures if the expo-
sures exceed the PELs. If an employer discovers, through routine monitoring and/or employee feedback,
that laboratory chemical hoods are not effectively reducing employee exposures, it is the employer’s
T
responsibility to adjust controls or replace hoods as necessary. OSHA does not promulgate specific labo-
F
ratory chemical hood testing protocols” (Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate’ of Compliance Programs,
A
OSHA, letter to R. Morris, 4 April 2001).
R
“Overexposure” to chemicals implies a means of being able to define both an unsafe limit and the ana-
lytical means of determining when such limits are exceeded, neither of which may be commonplace nor
D
practical. “Hazard determination,” on the other hand, as defined by 29 CFR 1910.1200, Hazard Commu-
nication Standard, is a regulation.
Volume Flow-rates/Room Ventilation Rate
The specific room ventilation rate shall be established or agreed upon by the owner or his/her
designee.
Since a ventilation system designer cannot know all possible laboratory operations, chemicals to be
utilized, and their potential for release of fumes and other toxic agents, one air exchange rate (air changes
per hour) cannot be specified that will meet all conditions. Furthermore, an air change per hour (ACH) is
not the appropriate concept for designing contaminant control systems. Contaminants should be con-
trolled at the source.
General Ventilation
The general ventilation system shall be designed to replace exhausted air and provide the tempera-
ture, humidity, and air quality required for the laboratory procedures without creating drafts at
laboratory chemical hoods.
Replacement air is part of the general ventilation system. In addition there may be need for general room
exhaust (not through a hood used for contaminant control).

APPENDIX C
Management CT
Dilution Ventilation
Dilution ventilation shall be provided to control the buildup of fugitive emissions and odors in the
laboratory.
Control of hazardous chemicals by dilution alone, in the absence of adequate laboratory chemical hoods,
seldom is effective in protecting laboratory users. Because the exhaust from that type of system must
T
be discharged to the outside or treated intensively before being used as return air, these systems usually
are not economical for controlling exposure to hazardous materials compared with use of local exhaust
F
hoods.
R A
Chemical Hygiene Plan
D
The laboratory shall develop a “Chemical Hygiene Plan” according to the OSHA Laboratory Stan-
dard (29 CFR 1910.1450). The plan shall address the laboratory operations and procedures that
might generate air contamination in excess of the requirements of paragraph Laboratory Chemi-
cal Fume hoods. These operations shall be performed inside a hood adequate to attain compliance.
Although some laboratories do not fall under the OSHA Standard, the Chemical Hygiene Plan or a Labo-
ratory Safety Manual is necessary to establish proper work practices. Persons participating in writing
the plan should be knowledgeable in industrial hygiene, laboratory procedures and chemicals, the design
of the ventilation system, and the system’s maintenance needs. The plan should be disseminated and
become the basis of employee training.
Responsible Person acting as OSHA’s CHO
In each operation using laboratory ventilation systems, the user shall designate a “Responsible
Person.” OSHA Laboratory Standard (29CFR 1910.1450) defines this person as the “Chemical
Hygiene Officer” or CHO. The CHO/Responsible Person may have as duties:
● Ensuring that existing conditions and equipment comply with applicable stan-
dards and codes. Ensuring that testing and monitoring are done on schedule;
● Maintaining adequate records;
● Performing visual checks;
● Training employees; and
● Performing any other related task assigned by the employer.
At a minimum, the responsible person/CHO should coordinate these activities.

APPENDIX C
Management CT
The Role of Hazard Assessment in Laboratory Ventilation Management Programs
General Requirements
Employers shall ensure the existence of an ongoing system for assessing the potential for hazardous
chemical exposure.
Employers shall promote awareness that laboratory hoods are not appropriate control devices for
T
all potential chemical releases in laboratory work.
AF
The practical limits of knowing how each ventilation control is being used in the laboratory shall be
considered when specifying design features and performance criteria (commissioning and routine
R
monitoring). The responsible person/CHO as shall be consulted in making this judgment.
D
Laboratory chemical hoods shall be functioning properly and specific measures shall be taken to
ensure proper and adequate performance.
The employer shall establish criteria for determining and implementing control measures to reduce
employee exposure to hazardous chemicals; particular attention shall be given to the selection of control
measures for chemicals that are known to be extremely hazardous.
Much of this standard addresses a generic approach to exposure control. This is necessary because many
of the chemical hazards in a laboratory are chronic in nature and an employee’s ability to sense overexpo-
sure is subjective.
The employer may recommend that providing standard laboratory hoods tested to the ANSI/ASHRAE 110
standard and an “as installed” Al 0.1 rating are best for the types of chemical hazards and work being
performed at the specific workplace. The assumption that follows is that users are trained to understand
limitations of the hood’s control ability and would not use it for work that, for example, should be per-
formed in a glove box. Alternatively, ensuring all hoods are capable of meeting an AU 0.1 rating may not
be necessary, for example, if the only chemical being handled has an 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA)
- TLV® exposure limit of 250 ppm.
The following briefly describes an approach used within laboratory ventilation management programs in
assigning control measures given the ability (or inability) to assess specific day-to-day chemical exposure
situations.
Hazard assessments in general are geared toward identifying chemicals, their release potential, and their

APPENDIX C
Management CT
possible routes of entry into the body. The first step in the assessment is to identify what chemical^) can
be released including normally uncharacterized byproducts. After characterizing the inherent hazard
potential (largely based on physical properties, toxicity, and routes of entry), the next step is to ascertain
at least qualitatively, the release “picture.” At what points within the “control zone” will chemicals be
evolved and at what release rate? Will the chemical release have velocity? How has the maximum cred-
ible accidental release been accounted for? Finally, how many employees are/could be exposed and what
means are available for emergency response?
T
“Programming” and Control Objectives for New Construction, Renovation,
F
or Program Evaluation
A
The following items shall be considered and decisions made regarding each element’s relevance fol-
R
lowing the hazard assessment process:
D
● Vendor qualification;
● Adequate workspace;
● Design sash opening and sash configuration (e.g., for laboratory chemical
hoods);
● Diversity factor in Variable Air Volume (VAV) controlled laboratory chemical
hood systems;
● Manifold or individual systems;
● Redundancy and emergency power;
● Hood location;
● Face velocity for laboratory chemical hoods;
● The level of formality given to system commissioning;
● Tracer gas containment “pass” criteria (e.g., Al 0.5, Al 0.1, Al 0.05, etc.);
– AMYY and AIYY by Design Professional in agreement with responsible
person/CHO;
– AU YYY by responsible person/CHO;
● Alarm system (local and central monitoring);
● Air cleaning (exhaust pollution controls);
● Exhaust discharge (stack design) and dilution factors;
● Recirculation of potentially contaminated air;
● Differential pressure and airflow between spaces and use of airlocks, etc.;
● Fan selection;
● Frequency of routine performance tests;
● Preventive maintenance; and
● Decommissioning.
Programming is a term commonly used in the context of a construction project whereby the needs of a

APPENDIX C
Management CT
user group are developed chemistry, biology, etc.,” are generically understood by most designers, knowl-
edge of the chemistry and biology and, therefore, potential hazards, are generally beyond the knowledge
base of most designers. The overall goal of providing a safe workspace for the end users can be greatly
enhanced by the use of a hazard assessment and system design team.
Utilizing the most appropriate skills and resources available to an organization enhances quality of sys-
tem design and quality of performance. The Laboratory Ventilation Management Plan should describe
specific responsibilities for each department involved in the design, installation, operation, and use of
ventilation systems.
FT
Laboratories life cycle should be planned for 30-50+ years. Laboratory chemical hood performance can
A
impact life cycle sustainability. (See Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a rating
system from the U.S. Green Building Council.)
R
The primary design professional license holder (architect and/or engineer) with the laboratory stan-
D
dard duty of care responsibilities cannot delegate any of their liability to others. For example, the
sealing license holders cannot delegate responsibility or liability on to laboratory planner, indus-
trial hygienist, and/or commissioning agent even if licensed or certified.
Record Keeping
Complete and permanent records shall be maintained for each laboratory ventilation system.
Records shall include:

● As-built drawings
● Commissioning report
● Testing and Balance reports
● Inspection reports
● Maintenance logs
● Reported problems
Only permanent records will allow a history of the system to be maintained. Records should be main-
tained to establish a performance history of the system that can be used to optimize operation. Records
should be kept for at least the life of the system or until the system is altered.
● System modifications; and

● Equipment replacement or modifications.

Handbook - Fume Hoods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook - Fume Hoods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instructor’s Resource/Handout 1

MYTH: Fume Hoods are a Laminar Air Flow Device

Why We Know Fume Hoods are not Laminar

Re for Airflow Velocity in Pipe or Equivalent Diameter

Density and viscosity at 29. 92” Hg pressure and 68 F.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

The following CFD study illustrates how simple equipment

The CFD study illustrates a fume hood at full sash opening

The CFD study just moved the elevated glassware to within 1″

The CFD study left the glassware within 1″ of sash opening

Because of the difficulty in adjusting the baffle slots to match

The key in measuring and controlling the strength of the rotat-

Consider a rectangular sidewall supply air

Stable Vortex Fume Hood with

History of Fume Hoods CT

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 1

History of Fume Hoods CT

2 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

History of Fume Hoods CT

Horizontal sash panels provide an effective barrier to splashes or explosions, but

Face Velocity History & Timeline

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 3

History of Fume Hoods CT

TABLE 1 - HOOD FACE VELOCITIES*

Low level radio-chemical hood having nominal toxic hazard 75 fpm

4 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

History of Fume Hoods CT

5.2 Face Velocity Guide.

5.2.2 Class B Fume Hoods.

5.2.3 Class C Fume Hoods.

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 5

History of Fume Hoods CT

TABLE 2 - FPM AND DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

4.3 Testing of Laboratory Fume Hoods - As Manufactured

6 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

History of Fume Hoods CT

The ASHRAE 110 Standard includes procedures for:

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 7

History of Fume Hoods CT

OSHA & NIOSH HISTORY TIMELINE

8 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

History of Fume Hoods CT

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 9

History of Fume Hoods CT

Practice Questions Chapter 1

10 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

Fume Hood Styles CT

A. Bench Style Vertical, Combination and Horizontal Sash

B. Floor Mounted (Walk-In)

C. California, Teaching and Vented Enclosures

E. Local Exhaust Systems

Bypass and Non-Bypass Bench Hood

12 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

Fume Hood Styles CT

Auxiliary Make-Up Air Fume Hood

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 13

Fume Hood Styles CT

The distillation style hood is similar to the bench

Ductless Fume Hoods

14 Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing

Fume Hood Styles CT

What are “nuisance vapors and dusts”?

California and Teaching Hoods and Ventilated Enclosures

Certified Technologist: Chemical Fume Hood Testing 15