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
Abstract (Summary)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.
School Location:USA - Ohio
Source Type:Master's Thesis
Keywords:ashrae 110 chemical hood znsi z9 5
Date of Publication:01/01/2007