A Review of Published Quantitative Experimental Studies on Factors Affecting Laboratory Fume Hood Performance

Abstract

This study attempted to identify the important factors that affect the performance of a laboratory fume hood and the relationship between the factors and hood performance under various conditions by analyzing and generalizing the results from other studies that quantitatively investigated fume hood performance. A literature search identified 43 studies that were published from 1966 to 2006. For each of those studies, information on the type of test methods used, the factors investigated, and the findings were recorded and summarized. Among the 43 quantitative experimental studies, 21 comparable studies were selected, and then a meta-analysis of the comparable studies was conducted. The exposure concentration variable from the resulting 617 independent test conditions was dichotomized into acceptable or unacceptable using the control level of 0.1 ppm tracer gas. Regression analysis using Cox proportional hazards models provided hood failure ratios for potential exposure determinants. The variables that were found to be statistically significant were the presence of a mannequin/human subject, the distance between a source and breathing zone, and the height of sash opening. In summary, performance of laboratory fume hoods was affected mainly by the presence of a mannequin/human subject, distance between a source and breathing zone, and height of sash opening. Presence of a mannequin/human subject in front of the hood adversely affects hood performance. Worker exposures to air contaminants can be greatly reduced by increasing the distance between the contaminant source and breathing zone and by reducing the height of sash opening. Many other factors can also affect hood performance. Checking face velocity by itself is unlikely to be sufficient in evaluating hood performance properly. An evaluation of the performance of a laboratory fume hood should be performed with a human subject or a mannequin in front of the hood and should address the effects of the activities performed by a hood user.

Keywords:

• fume cupboard
• laboratory fume hood
• laboratory fume hood performance
• laboratory health and safety
• laboratory ventilation
• meta-analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank Rebecca J. Gore, University of Massachusetts Lowell, for her kind guidance and suggestions in the statistical analyses.

Notes

^A There was one observation at 1.03 m/sec (203 ft/min) outside the specified range.

^A Not enough observations to perform regression analysis.

^B There might be a potential statistical relationship, but it was not statistically significant.

^c Consistency among the study results was not determined because there was only one study.