Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:57:59 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu>
From: ILPI <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Subject: Re: There is no "new" ANSI minimum hood flow rate
Given the different capabilities/equipment/procedures/training/goals/quantities/budgets/chemicals/infrastructure from lab to lab, a comprehensive document that would address all laboratories or even just synthetic chemistry operations would probably resemble the US tax code. And yet, most of us could probably make a gut determination in a few seconds. I wonder that the iPhone 4S would say....
I presume that for operations that are more narrowly defined (biosafety or routine production operations, for example) and/or are amenable to control banding there must be such protocols and we'll hear some responses along those lines.
Ultimately, the chemical safety expert system I have previously described here (and that several of us are now trying to get off the ground) should be able to fit that need, recommending PPE, procedures etc. when working with certain chemicals or performing certain kinds of operations.
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Russell Vernon wrote:
I had to comment on you term "no potential for exposure".
There are materials and operations for which even a properly functioning fume hood will not achieve "no exposure"
I would love to find criteria that could be reasonably applied to help the prudent person decide when to work in a lab fume hood and when to work in a glove box...
Anyone know of one?
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post