Page:Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Downstream Handling Processes.pdf/74



Several methodologies are available to evaluate local exhaust systems and other exposure controls. These techniques include indirect approaches, such as the measurement of capture velocity, slot velocities, hood static pressure, and other system performance parameters [Goodfellow and Tahti 2001]. Often these measures are compared with design guidance or standards from organizations such as ASHRAE, ANSI, AIHA, and ACGIH. In general, these tests provide a method of checking system performance without the requirement for expensive instrumentation or a high level of operator experience.

Because these measures do not directly assess system performance, it is often a good idea to use methods that are more specialized than these indirect methods. One method commonly used to evaluate the capture efficiency of the LEV system is the quantitative capture test. Tracer gas release and measurement is a method used to quantitatively estimate the efficiency of industrial exhaust ventilation hoods [Hampl 1984; Hampl et al. 1986; Marzal et al. 2003b]. This method typically involves using a surrogate for the process-generated contaminant and requires the use of special measurement and dispersion equipment to conduct the test. A variety of tracers have been used, including oil mist aerosols, polystyrene latex spheres, and gases [Beamer et al. 2004; Ellenbecker et al. 1983; Hampl 1984].

In addition to the quantitative capture method, qualitative methods, such as smoke release or dry ice tests, are often used to evaluate air movement. Smoke generation and capture is a method often used to qualitatively evaluate the performance of ventilation controls [Marzal et al. 2003a; Woods and Mckarns 1995]. With this method, a source is used to introduce smoke in and around the hood. This allows the researcher to better understand the performance of the hood and evaluate the effect of cross currents on the capture of contaminants. These tests not only give the experimenter a sense of the system performance but provide invaluable information on where other measurements, such as air velocities and tracer gas experiments, should be concentrated. This testing is often conducted while workers are not in the production area, either after the work shift or while workers are on break.

4.3.1 Standard Containment Test Methods for Ventilated Enclosures

Some standard test methods (Table 5) to evaluate fume hoods have been developed: Invent-UK method, DIN 12924, BS 7258, EN 14175:2003, and ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995. One major difference between ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 and other standard test methods is that only one sampling probe is used to detect the test gas concentration near the worker’s breathing zone. Other test methods adopt multiple sampling probes connected to a manifold to obtain the area concentration near the fume hood opening. The test methods of DIN 12924 and ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 use a manikin to test the containment effectiveness of fume hoods. Dynamic test conditions are specified in the test methods of EN 14175:2003 and ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995. The purpose of the dynamic test is to evaluate the hood during typical maneuvers such as raising or lowering the sash and simulating the airflow disturbance related to a person walking in front of the hood.

During field evaluations, ventilated enclosures should also be tested during normal-use conditions. Collecting samples both inside and outside the containment opening and in the worker’s breathing zone is recommended to assess control effectiveness when workers are performing standard tasks.

Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Downstream Handling Processes

59