From: Jeffrey Lewin <jclewin**At_Symbol_Here**MTU.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume Hoods
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:53:40 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: CAEwQnqhGu+xhyHhb-e4FR8QDB+MHedvr=CmWuzSkwO7szxHAtQ**At_Symbol_Here**

Al brought up my thoughts on the difference between processing dry vs. wet nanoparticles.

The following link, which I'm sure I got from this group, discusses engineering controls of Carbon Nano Tubes and Carbon Nano Fibers. See page 59 for the chart discussing various options room air dilution, hoods, cabinets and down drafts among others; the fume hood recommendation is for the standard 80-120fpm:

Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers


On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Allen Niemi <anniemi**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:
I think some people are confusing containment issues with sample prep issues. I fully agree with those that have compared containment of nonoparticles to containment of gas molecules. A properly designed fume hood should contain both quite nicely. The problem with hoods designed to operate in the 80 - 100 fpm range is that you may lose most of your sample if it is dry and outside of a matrix. The problem with low flow hoods is that they become ineffective when the environment creates challenges (open doors and windows, poorly designed air supply systems, poorly trained operators, cooling fans, etc.) that overpower the finely tuned capture capabilities of the hood. The proper containment device for dry nanoparticles may not be a fume hood at all but rather some form of glove box -- not unlike working with friable asbestos in a glove bag.


On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM, David C. Finster <dfinster**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:
Debbie, and others,

This makes (some) sense to me; I understand that nanoparticles that are not in some matrix are prone to easy dispersal. What puzzles me is: if these tiny particles can "blow around" easily, surely they don't "blow around" more easily than some gas (NO2, H2S, etc) - do they? Could they? Seems to me that tiny molecules and tiny nanoparticles would behave about the same in this regard. Thus, if a "high" flow rate of 100 fpm is inappropriate for nanoparticles due to "excess turbulence" (I'd guess) then why would this not also apply to "regular" gases?

If we empirically KNOW that the lower flow rate for nanoparticles is appropriate then this a good guideline, of course. It just doesn't make intuitive sense to me.


David C. Finster
Professor, Department of Chemistry
University Chemical Hygiene Officer
Wittenberg University

Allen Niemi, PhD
Occupational Safety and Health Services
Room 322 Lakeshore Center
Michigan Technological University
Phone: 906-487-2118
Fax: 906-487-3048

Jeff Lewin
Departmental Laboratory Supervisor
Biological Sciences
Michigan Technological University

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.