Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:20:37 -0400
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: Don Abramowitz <dabramow**At_Symbol_Here**BRYNMAWR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fume Hoods
In-Reply-To:
<
div style='font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'
>The limitations and benefits of ductless fume hoods have been discussed in
this forum from time to time, and I think there's a way to access those di
scussions. (If anyone can say how exactly, please chime in.)
With the list of materials you've named, and the fact that you are bu
ilding a new lab, I think ducted exhaust is the only way to go in this situ
ation. This is not a group of chemicals you want to blow back into th
e lab should a ductless hood work less than perfectly. I'm not even s
ure if there is a sorbent cartridge available that would capture everything
on your list.
;
;
; Don
Dear colleagues:
< span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-s erif";color:#1F497D">We are in the process of building a new Laborator y and contemplating between using Dustless Fume Hoods vs. Ducted Exhaust Ho ods. We will be using a variety of hazardous chemicals including carbon dis ulfide, acetonitrile, toluene, benzene, some carcinogenic suspect chemicals , hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide gases.
I appreciate sharing your experiences with ductless f ume hoods and whether you recommend these type of hoods for hazardous chemi cal work using the aforementioned chemical examples as well as advantages a nd disadvantages of these hoods vs. the ducted exhaust hoods (safety concer ns, costs, maintenance, etc.)
Thanks,
< /span>
Michael Hojjatie, Ph.D.
R&D direct or, TKI
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post