Airflows In and Around Linear Downflow ‘Safety’ Cabinets

Clark, R. P.; Mullan, B.J.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1978.tb04206.x

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysis of the explainable failings of the class II MSCs in the older laboratory (there were none for the HI/III MSC) shows these were due to three environmental factors: draughts induced by mechanisms disassociated with the MSC; sudden room pressure variations; and rapid movements in and out of, or about the MSC/testing equipment. These types of factors have been discussed elsewhere ( Clark & Mullan 1978; Rake 1978; Clark 1983b; Kennedy 1987; Clark et al . 1990 ; Kruse et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of open‐fronted microbiological safety cabinets: the value of operator protection tests during routine servicing

Osborne

Durkin

Shannon³

et al. 1999

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R . O SB O RN E, T . D UR K IN , H . SH AN N ON , E . DO RN A N A ND C . H UG H ES . 1999.The performance of class I and II microbiological safety cabinets over 7 years, employed in a force-ventilated containment level 3 (CL-3) laboratory, is described. Operator Protection (OP) provided by the cabinets, assessed by still and latterly limited 'in-use' KI-Discus tests, showed no overall deterioration during the review period. Comparisons show that a selected class II unit, but not a second, and a new class II MSC in a recently commissioned, similar CL-3 facility, provide the same order of OP as a class I cabinet. From the experiences described, it is strongly recommended that OP tests (OPTs) should be part of the routine servicing regime to ensure that cabinets meet required performance levels, and additionally to allow detection and rectification of poor containment, particularly where induced by environmental factors. The value of OPTs is discussed with reference to certain national standards.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of open‐fronted microbiological safety cabinets: the value of operator protection tests during routine servicing

Osborne

Durkin

Shannon³

et al. 1999

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the unit had a plenum that carried contaminated air under pressure, and McGarrity and Coriell (1974) described an improved version with the dirty air under negative pressure. Clark and Mullen (1978) visualised the airflows within units with glass walls by Schlieren photography. They noted that air leaked out after movements in and out of the cabinet, and that the use of a gas burner 'pushed' air out.…”

Section: Class II 'Safety Cabinet'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Class II (laminar flow) biological safety cabinet.

Newsom¹

1979

J Clin Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A microbiological survey of the effectiveness of class II (laminar flow) 'safety' cabinets found in the UK in the last six years is recorded. Only two of the nine units tested approached the containment of aerosols achieved by a good class I (exhaust protective) cabinet. The others were potentially hazardous if used with pathogenic material. The National Sanitation Foundation and the British Standards Institute have now laid down adequate specifications based on biological containment, and hopefully the conforming cabinets will be much better; even so, the purchase of a cabinet must be undertaken with care, and the cabinet requires frequent monitoring during use and after servicing.

show abstract

“…1979) to define constructional and performance requirements for these devices. In the period up to the introduction of this Standard a number of investigations indicated that many commercial open-fronted cabinets did not provide adequate protection to the operator (Clark & Mullan 1978;Newsom 1979u, b). Until now it has been customary for manufacturers to evaluate the performance of safety cabinets from the results of airflow and smoke visualization tests alone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potassium Iodide Method for Determining Protection Factors in Open‐fronted Microbiological Safety Cabinets

Clark¹,

Goff²

1981

Journal of Applied Bacteriology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method for determining operator protection factors in Class I and Class II microbiological safety cabinets and for evaluating product protection factors in Class II cabinets, is described. The technique employs an aerosol of potassium iodide droplets produced by a spinning disc generator together with special centripetal air samplers detecting any aerosol escape. The method meets the requirements of British Standard (BS) 5726 and is an alternative to the microbiological technique. The method has been used to evaluate the performance of a number of safety cabinets in relation to the requirements of BS 5726. Working procedures and unsuitable environments have been shown to prejudice the containment performance of open‐fronted cabinets by several orders of magnitude. The relationship between inflow air velocity and protection factors in Class I safety cabinets has confirmed the optimum requirements defined in the British Standard.

show abstract

Airflows In and Around Linear Downflow ‘Safety’ Cabinets

Cited by 12 publications

References 8 publications

Performance of open‐fronted microbiological safety cabinets: the value of operator protection tests during routine servicing

Performance of open‐fronted microbiological safety cabinets: the value of operator protection tests during routine servicing

Class II (laminar flow) biological safety cabinet.

The Potassium Iodide Method for Determining Protection Factors in Open‐fronted Microbiological Safety Cabinets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About