Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:33:27 -0700
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Frank Demer <demer**At_Symbol_Here**EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Chemical Fume Hood Monitors - Ohio
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5Ov-1ERMqVzKvJPxMyunvsNRtm0Vcy0G_bCyc**At_Symbol_Here**>

This is an inexpensive and very easy to install retrofit hood monitor:  (~$300)

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary Ellen A Scott
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:34 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Fume Hood Monitors - Ohio

 We have a large number of fume hoods that need monitors and our facilities reported that the bill would run in the $20-$30,000 dollar range to have a contractor retrofit just one building.   Also, once we set president to retro-fitting these older hoods with monitors,  we will be expected to do them all and and this number can get way out of control.

 For all our new hood installations we put monitors on them but to retro-fit old hoods is not an easy task and a lot of them have asbestos panels that would also require a specialist to do all the drilling adding more cost.

Would anyone know the current legal obligation regarding fume hood monitors  before I request special funding to create a project for this or see if they can be grandfathered in to another project?  Ideally, I would hope every hood has a airflow monitor that alarms, but the cost needs to be justified and even in this day of litigation.  

I have found that the even with  the most up to date, state of the art monitors, unless they are maintained, they can cause more havoc, indicating green or safe when there is no airflow in the hood. So I like the kimwipe more and more and mandatory instruction on safe hood use (which we do).

From my research and previous comments on this site, CA is the only state that requires all fume hoods have monitors and the old kimwipe is not acceptable anymore.

Vaneometers cost only 5.00 and we can install them inside the hood at little cost, if that would not compromise the hood in any way.   I am not sure of the regulations on this kind of installation.   And another consideration, these do not have alarms if the flow fails.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Here is what I have learned regarding the regulations:



Regulations regarding airflow monitors have been revised and now require air flow monitors on all hoods not just those newly installed or remodeled.


Enforceable Standard:

This section is from the OSHA Laboratory Standard Appendix A.  Appendix A is “Non Mandatory” but has been cited in conjunction with the general duty clause as a basis for actionable litigation by OSHA.


CFR 1910.1450:         Each hood should have a continuous monitoring device to allow convenient confirmation of adequate hood performance before use.


Enforceable by Reference Incorporation:

ANSI Standards are used as the basis for rule making by OSHA and are thus incorporated by reference in to the 29CFR1910 standards.


ANSI Z9.5-2003:        All hoods shall be equipped with a flow indicator, flow alarm or face velocity alarm to alert users to improper exhaust flow.


ANSI/AIHA Z9.5:     The measuring device for hood airflow shall be permanently installed device and shall provide constant indication to the hood user of adequate or inadequate hood airflow.


ASHRAE -2003:        Includes NFPA-45 -2000 regulation


Non Enforceable Standard:

NFPA # 45-2000:        A measuring device for hood airflow shall be provided on each laboratory hood.


FFPA # 49- 2002        Audible and visual alarms shall be required to indicate 20% loss of exhaust volume within 30 seconds.


SEFA 1.2 2002           All hoods shall have some type of monitor for indicating face velocity or exhaust flow verification.  A ribbon taped to the bottom of the sash is not acceptable.

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.