| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2012 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: [DCHAS-L] Lab Safety Institute's 24-hour Lab Safety Course at Cornell University on July 23rd-26th. Date: June 27, 2012 2:52:42 PM EDT Author: Ralph B Stuart |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] High performance hoods Date: June 27, 2012 8:13:56 PM EDT Author: Robert Haugen |
Several years ago when I was considering specifying low-flow ventilated
balance safety enclosures (VBSE) for the handling of highly potent compounds
vs. glove boxes. From experience I knew the problems of proper containment
while properly decontaminating a glove box and the inherent dangers of the
loss of containment due to operator (mal)practices within a negative airflow
containment system. I expected the potential for loss of containment would
be similar (if not higher) when the total exhausted volume of air was
significantly reduced in a low-flow hood vs. those seen within a fume hood.
I requested Flow Sciences develop a training program for the proper use of a
low-flow VBSE, they provided a good video which became a basic training
requirement for everyone who was going use a VBSE. If you are considering a
Flow Sciences hood, request the employee training program information.
Additionally, Flow Sciences provided a video on how to provide full
containment during a bag-in/bag-out filter changing procedure. Just food
for thought...
BruceV
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of
Michael E. Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:40 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Toxic dust handling
Ralph:
Flow Sciences in Leland, NC provides enclosures for just this type
of application among others. We have test data from our own testing and
third party certifiers that prove the enclosures work to protect product and
personnel.
Take a look at this link:
http://www.flowsciences.com/brPilotPlantbrManufacturing/BagInBagOutTopMounte
dBulkPowder/tabid/171/Default.aspx
V/R,
Mike Richardson
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of
Ralph B Stuart
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:42 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Toxic dust handling
A question has arisen here about the best practices for handling dusts known
to be unusually toxic, such as teratogens or mutagens. It appears from
google searches that many academic Standard Operating Procedures recommend
using these dusts in a fume hood. This seems counter-intuitive to me, as
strong air flows around these dusts would seem to create a housekeeping
challenge by dispersing the dust around the use area. This could lead to
unnecessary contamination of someone's hands as they work with the material.
In addition, the ergonomics of performing delicate operations, such as
handling dusts, in a hood can be a challenge due to their one size fits all
nature.
Prudent Practices indicates that highly toxic dusts should be used in a
hood, but that seems to be rolled up in the same recommendation as for
handling gases and vapors. It seems to me that dusts present distinct
hygiene challenges from gases and vapors. I wonder if anyone has addressed
this issue with specific rules that distinguish between these kinds of
chemicals?
Thanks for any information about this.
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart CIH
Laboratory Ventilation Specialist
Department of Environmental Health and Safety Cornell University
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post