Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


mco1175084204.pdf (822.29 KB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Advantages of Using the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 Tracer Gas Test Method Versus the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-1992 Face Velocity Test Method for Chemical Laboratory Hood Certification

Fahim, Mahdi H.
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=mco1175084204

Abstract Details

2007, Master of Science in Occupational Health (MSOH), University of Toledo, College of Health Sciences.
A total of 484 tests were performed on chemical laboratory Hoods (chemical hoods), using the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-1992 (American National Standard Institute / American Industrial Hygiene Association, Laboratory Ventilation Standard) test method (ANSI-1992). Same numbers of the tests were performed on same chemical hoods, using the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 (American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods) test method (ASHRAE 110). The three types of chemical hoods available for this study were Constant Air Volume (CAV), Variable Air Volume (VAV), and Low Flow. Overall, CAV hoods had the highest passing rate for the ASHRAE 110 (83%) followed by VAV hoods (82%) and low flow hoods (68%). The X2 test for homogeneity found a statistically significant difference between the test outcomes (pass/fail) of the ASHRAE 110 and the ANSI-1992 methods (X2 = 4.248, P=0.038) for VAV hoods only. Overall, 18% of the CAV and VAV chemical hoods tested in the 80-120 feet per minute (fpm) average face velocities, failed to meet the ASHRAE 110 test criteria. If the ANSI-1992 test method was performed alone, 18% of the chemical hoods would be certified while they were not able to meet the ASHRAE 110 criteria. Logistic regression analysis for VAV and CAV chemical hoods revealed that for VAV chemical hoods, the ASHRAE = Velocity model and for CAV chemical hoods, the multi variable regression model ASHRAE = ANSI + Velocity were appeared to be the best model for the ASHRAE 110 test outcome prediction.
Sheryl Milz (Advisor)
72 p.
ASHRAE 110; Chemical Hood; ZNSI Z9.5

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Fahim, M. H. (2007). Advantages of Using the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 Tracer Gas Test Method Versus the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-1992 Face Velocity Test Method for Chemical Laboratory Hood Certification [Master's thesis, University of Toledo]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=mco1175084204

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Fahim, Mahdi. Advantages of Using the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 Tracer Gas Test Method Versus the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-1992 Face Velocity Test Method for Chemical Laboratory Hood Certification. 2007. University of Toledo, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=mco1175084204.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Fahim, Mahdi. "Advantages of Using the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 Tracer Gas Test Method Versus the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-1992 Face Velocity Test Method for Chemical Laboratory Hood Certification." Master's thesis, University of Toledo, 2007. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=mco1175084204

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

mco1175084204
1,567
© 2006, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by University of Toledo Health Science Campus and OhioLINK.