From: 8524828hau**At_Symbol_Here**COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Any experience with the "Continuous Access Port" for a hood??
Date: June 9, 2012 5:59:28 PM EDT
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <006301cd451b$b1c5b490$0201a8c0**At_Symbol_Here**ZavonHP>

I once observed the unfavorable consequences of using a similar homemade device made of plywood.   The device greatly changed the aerodynamics in the hood, causing formation of vortices/tubulence (because of the high flow rates) instead of the intended front to rear nearly laminar flow.  The investigators were using dispersible radioactive material in the hood.   The turbulence caused the microparticulates to be deposited on their sleeves.  Furthermore, each time the users withdrew their arms, a bolus of swirling air escaped the enclosure.  The result was (a) considerable contamination of lab coat sleeves, (b) deposition of radioactive material on the floor in front of the the hood, and (c) shoe contamination/tracking of the radioactive particulates.  After decontamination, smoke tests by professional industrial hygienists (who were not previously consulted as per policy)_demonstrated the (a) vortices/turbulence in the hood, and (b) the escape of smoke from the hood when the users even partially withdrew their arms.  

David Haugen

From: "Peter Zavon" <pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**ROCHESTER..RR.COM>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 9:09:06 PM
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Any experience with the "Continuous Access Port" for a hood??

Today a colleague asked for my opinion of the fume hood related device described at  This is an insert that roughly converts a standard chemical fume hood to a glove box - but with no glove in, or intended to be in, the gauntlet openings. This reduces the face opening and permits substantial reduction in ventilation volume.
The concept is intriguing and I wanted to ask if there is anyone on this list who has actual experience with this device, and, if so, what that experience might be.
My first thoughts about possible drawbacks were about combustibility (not just flame spread) and susceptibility to puncture or tearing when new or as it ages.  I also wonder about the possibility of accumulation of airborne contaminants in the work volume as a result of the lower ventilation rates this makes.
I would appreciate you insights based on actual experience with this or something similar.

Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY


Previous post   |  Top of Page  

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.