Balancing Safety and Energy Efficiency from Lab Design
Through Operation
Scott Reynolds, CAES, A Division of
BCK
Fred M. Turco, Pfizer
Key topics of this presentation will include:
- Important aspects of fume hood design and usage.
- Surprising factors that can cause a loss of containment.
- First-time-ever transient modeling of a fume hood walk-by.
Labs21 Connection:
Even the best fume hood designs can experience a containment loss
under certain adverse conditions. As engineers, architects, and
safety professionals, we have the responsibility to provide the
safest possible environment for the people who use our laboratories
while simultaneously designing labs that are energy efficient and
sustainable. While these two goals may conflict with one another,
there are a number of items that may be addressed to achieve a suitable
medium.
Many manufacturers have developed low flow, high efficiency hoods
capable of lowering energy consumption significantly. When conventional
containment tests are exercised, these hoods and their energy-intensive
cousins generally contain very well. However, there are other potential
conditions that are a greater challenge and are more likely to produce
a spill. Various conventional tests such as the ASHRAE standard
110, smoke testing, and face velocity tests can give a false sense
of security because they often do not address many real-life conditions
that may exist in any lab. Some of these conditions may include
poor loading of the hood, carelessly leaving the sashes of the hoods
wide open, rapidly opening the sashes, or walking by wide open hoods.
There are also conditions where the containment may be adequately
maintained to very slow flow rates, but the hood may reach an explosive
limit due to the concentration of flammable vapors inside. It is
often difficult or impossible for the hood manufacturers to anticipate
every aspect of poor lab usage; so, what can be done to improve
safety?
Each of the cases listed above have been modeled using CFD in
an effort to define proper hood usage protocol. The results of the
study will be shared in this presentation. In addition, some recent
strategies employed by Pfizer to lower designed fume hood air loading
as well as minimize fume hood operational impact will be shared.
Biographies:
Scott Reynolds has a BS in Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering from Clarkson University, an MS in Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering from the University of Rochester, and is a registered
professional engineer in the states of New York and New Jersey.
He has worked for General Electric, Xerox, and IBM before founding
CAES in 1992, an engineering consulting firm specializing in numerical
analysis using CFD and FEA methods. CAES became a division of Bearsch
Compeau Knudson Architects and Engineers, PC in 1999. Scott has
over 20 years experience in the engineering field.
Mr. Reynolds is currently involved in the use of Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to predict air currents, the transport of airborne
contamination, temperature stratification and particulate movement
on both the inside and outside of buildings. The particular focus
of his work applies CFD to understanding airflow in research facilities,
labs, fume hoods, electronics enclosures and in the wind wakes around
buildings. He has completed analyses on nearly 200 animal holding
rooms for medical and pharmaceutical research as well as many studies
of chemical labs and various designs of fume hoods. Scott has presented
nearly 30 seminars, workshops, poster sessions and university level
classes on the application of CFD on buildings and equipment. He
has also published 15 trade journal or magazine articles and holds
8 US patents.
Fred M. Turco has a BS
in Marine Engineering from Mass Maritime Academy and is currently
an MS in Environmental Management candidate at the Harvard School
of Public Health. Fred is a Certified Hazardous Material Manager
and Environmental Compliance Manager. Fred has over 10 years of
EHS experience and 5 years with Pfizer. Some of Fred's accomplishments
include: managing the EHS compliance for a manufacturing plant;
designing a wastewater treatment facility; responding to over 100
HAZMAT emergency responses without an incident; saving Pfizer over
$10 million through facility design changes; and, recently leading
the development of a Pfizer internal green building standard.
Fred is primarily responsible for reviewing and endorsing all
major (more than $1 million) capital projects for Pfizer's R&D
division. In this capacity, Fred works with the research sites on
significant EHS issues, coordinates engineering control verification
and develops EHS design standards and benchmark data for inclusion
in capital projects.
Back to the Agenda
|
