Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.

257±267, 1999
# 1999 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain.
PII: S0003-4878(99)00025-3 0003±4878/99/$20.00 + 0.00

Theoretical and Practical Comparison of the

Potassium Iodide Tracer Method (KI±Discus) for
Assessing the Containment Eciency of Fume
Cupboards with the Gas Tracer Method Described in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019

BS 7258: 1994: Part 4
GRAHAM P. NICHOLSON,* RAYMOND P. CLARK and
MERVYN L. dE CALCINA-GOFF
University of Westminster, School of Communication, Design and Media, Watford Road,
Northwick Park, Harrow, HA1 3TP, UK

Attempts have been made by manufacturing groups, health and safety legislators and national
and international standards bodies to standardise containment testing strategies for open
fronted containment systems. It is important that all the strategies and testing methods used
should yield comparable results. However, there are a number of test methodologies that have
not been standardised or correlated, and the results between them cannot be compared.
Manufacturers of contamination control equipment have the expense of testing by varying
methods in di€erent countries where standards apply. Ultimately, it is hoped that there will be
either one standard method for testing all open fronted containment facilities, or, if there are
di€erent methods, that they yield results which can be compared. In this paper a theoretical and
practical comparison is made of the KI±Discus test method for assessing fume cupboard
performance and the tracer gas method recommended in BS 7258, 1994: Part 4. Comparison of
these two methods for testing fume cupboards was found not to be practicable due to
fundamental di€erences in 1) the philosophy of the tests, 2) the tracers used, 3) their method of
generation, 4) the disposition of equipment and 5) the sampling methods. It is demonstrated
that the KI method is more sensitive than the gas method and that the philosophy of the KI
method is to detect actual leakage whereas, the gas method detects potential leakage (viz.
contamination reaching the plane of the aperture). # 1999 British Occupational Hygiene
Society Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: fume cupboard; gas tracer; KI±discus; containment; contamination control

INTRODUCTION described which although using di€erent tracers and

The most common types of open fronted contain-
ment systems found in laboratories are fume cup-
boards and microbiological safety cabinets.
Assessment methods for microbiological safety cabi-
nets are laid down in British Standard 5726, 1992,
which other countries have also followed. Within
this standard two quantitative methods are
Received 21 November 1998; in ®nal form 28 January
1999.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed:
Centre for Disability Research & Innovation, University
College London, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, HA7 4LP. Tel.:
+44 (0) 181 954 2300; Fax: +44 (0) 181 385 7151.
257
methods of generation have been correlated to give
comparable results in terms of operator protection
(Clark et al., 1981; Matthews, 1985). For fume cup-
boards no such attempt at standardisation has been
made and di€erent strategies and test methods have
been written into national standards which have not
been systematically and comprehensively compared
(BS 7258, 1994; ASHRAE 110, 1995; DIN 12 924,
1991). Fume cupboard and microbiological safety
cabinet test methods follow di€erent philosophies.
There is no reason why ultimately a common
strategy should not be used for testing all types of
open fronted containment systems and with
methods that yield comparable results. Historically,
258 G. P. Nicholson et al.
the recommended approach for assessing their per-
formance was to measure the face velocity and its
variation across the plane of the front opening; a
variation from the average within 220% was con-
sidered acceptable. Flow visualisation using smoke
was also recommended for identifying zones of air
disturbance and for determining the e€ects of exter-
nal disturbances on performance. These methods
were used to demonstrate performance de®ciencies
and therefore could assist the user in determining
the limitations of a particular facility.
However, the development of quantitative con-
tainment tests was di€erent for fume cupboards and
microbiological safety cabinets. Containment testing
progressed quickly for safety cabinets but there was
a much slower and di€erent development of test
methods for fume cupboards. It appeared that the
intended usage of the facility and occupational
health perspectives had much to do with this. For
safety cabinets, the risk of infection and subsequent
illness during the early years of research into micro-
organisms and disease demanded the need for con-
tainment and subsequently for facilities whose per-
formance could be validated. Some diseases did not
occur outside the research laboratory and this
brought about a real need for work discipline par-
ticularly when the number of organisms required to
initiate a disease were as few as 5, for Venezuelan
equine encephalitis (VEE) virus for example.
However with fume cupboards there was often no
immediately identi®able health risk and so it could
be argued that less care was needed. Fume cup-
boards were used to dilute the potential exposure
hazard and little was known about levels of toxicity,
particularly any e€ects that may not produce clinical
signs for many years. In such cases the toxic sub-
stance could be stored in the body until a threshold
was reached which may result in harm (Vincent,
1990). Nowadays, the signi®cant risk of litigation on
the part of employees who have greater awareness
of the toxicity of chemicals, amongst other things,
has led to the need for the development of quanti-
tative functional tests for containment systems.
Early tests that emerged divided into two distinct
types. In some the tracer was representative of the
substances which the facility was designed to con-
tain (aerosols for safety cabinets and gases/vapours
for fume cupboards). For fume cupboards release
patterns of gas tracer were to represent those which
may occur during commonly occurring activities.
For safety cabinets the test was to show a measur-
able level of containment performance of 99.999%;
the challenge was signi®cantly greater than that pro-
duced by common activities. Universal national and
international standards for testing a wide range of
di€erent types of contamination control equipment
were not achieved.
The use of particle tracers for assessing fume cup-
boards was considered possible if they were within
the size range which constituted a respirable hazard
and also remained suspended in the air¯ow long
enough to be a realistic containment challenge.
When development of a quantitative test method for
incorporation into BS 7258, 1994 was considered,
the KI±Discus test system, being used routinely for
testing safety cabinet performance according to BS
5726, 1992, was put forward as a method (Clark et
al., 1981). Despite its apparent applicability, the BS
committee preferred a gas tracer method instead,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019
but the KI test method is still widely used for asses-
sing fume cupboard performance as part of com-
mercial service contracts.
Conversely, using BS 7258, 1994: Part 4 for asses-
sing safety cabinet performance is limited to cabi-
nets ducted to the outside and would be impossible
to use for assessing those cabinets which were
designed to recirculate exhaust air back into the
room as the exhaust ®ltration system would not pre-
vent gas penetration.
In the UK, at present (ahead of anticipated
European Standardisation) a quantitative contain-
ment test method for assessing general purpose lab-
oratory fume cupboard performance is not a
mandatory requirement of BS 7258, 1994, but there
is a recommended method in Part 4 for those who
require such a test. In addition, the potassium iodide
(KI) method (KI±Discus, Containment Technology;
Clark and Go€, 1981) laid down in BS 5726, 1992
for assessing microbiological safety cabinets has
been used to assess the containment of fume cup-
boards.
Fume cupboards and Class I microbiological
safety cabinets have many functional features in
common and this has enabled a theoretical and
practical comparison of the KI method (KI±Discus)
and the gas method recommended in BS 7258, 1994:
Part 4 to be made in this paper.
THEORETICAL COMPARISON OF THE KI TEST
METHOD (BS 5726, 1992: PART 1) WITH THE GAS
TEST METHOD FOR FUME CUPBOARDS (BS 7258,
1994: PART 4)
The maximum sampling sensitivity for the gas tra-
cer is 1  10ÿ3 ppm (using a calibrated Miran infra-
red gas analyser and ignoring the instrument noise).
As an example, the release rate of 10%SF6/90%N2
gas for a 1.2 m wide cupboard is 2.4 l/min (4 
10ÿ6 m3/s). The release rate of SF6 is therefore
0.24 l/min and during a test period of 10 min, a total
volume of 2.4 l (2.4  10ÿ3 m3) of SF6 is released
within the cupboard. The volume of air sampled is
2 l/min (3.33  10ÿ5 m3/s) and the total volume for
the test is 2104 ml (0.02 m3).
The maximum sensitivity for the BS 5726, 1992:
Part 1 KI method is achieved when 1 particle is
recovered. If the e€ective diameter of a single KI
particle after evaporation of the initial droplet spun
 Theoretical and practical comparison of the potassium iodide tracer method
from the edge of the spinning disc is 7 mm, assuming
the particle to be spherical, then the e€ective volume
is 1.8  10ÿ16 m3 (1.8  10ÿ10 ml). During a test, 2 
10ÿ5 m3 (20 ml) of solution are aerosolised which is
equivalent to 6108 particles. After evaporation, the
total volume of particles is 1.0810ÿ7 m3 (0.108 ml).
The volume of air sampled is 100 l/min and the dur-
ation of the test is 10 min, the total volume of air
sampled is 1.0 m3. If one particle is sampled during
a test (the maximum sensitivity) then the equivalent
concentration (Volume particle/Volume of air
sampled; 1.810ÿ10 ml/1.0 m3) is 1.810ÿ10 ppm.
The containment eciency is the ratio of the con-
centration of tracer inside a fume cupboard to that
outside it. The theoretical containment eciency for
the gas method (CEgas) is:
  
Co Q
CEgas ˆ 1 ÿ  100%, …1†
r
where r is the release rate of tracer gas inside the
fume cupboard (ml/s), Co is the concentration of
tracer gas detected outside the fume cupboard, aver-
aged over space and time (ml/m3, or ppm), and Q is
the volume ¯ow rate through the cupboard (m3/s).
Equation (1) approximates to {1ÿ(Co/Ci)} 
100%, where Ci is the concentration of the gas tra-
cer inside the cupboard.
The equivalent containment eciency for a par-
ticle tracer (CEparticle) is:
  
nQ
CEparticle ˆ 1 ÿ  100%, …2†
NS
where N is the number of particles liberated (dro-
plets/s), n is the number of particles sampled, Q is
the volume ¯ow rate through the cupboard (m3/s)
and S is the volume of air sampled (m3).
Applying this containment eciency to both the
results of the BS 7258, 1994: Part 4 method and the
BS 5726, 1992: Part 1 KI methods at their most sen-
sitive level for a facility with a ¯ow rate of 0.3 m3/s
it can be seen that the use of a particle is much
more sensitive than a gas tracer allowing measure-
ment of performances of 99.99997% eciency
whereas for gas only 99.993% eciency is possible
(Table 1).
This can also be shown when using the operator
protection factor (OPF) as an indicator of perform-
ance (Table 2) as used in BS 5726, 1992: Part 1.
The OPF is the ratio of transfer indices (Lidwell,
1960) for the open bench and the cabinet giving an
Table 1. Sensitivity and eciency of tracer gas and KI methods
Test Quantity released Max. sensitivity Containment eciency
ÿ3
Gas 4 ml/s 110 ppm 99.993%
KI 1.0106 particles/s 1 particle 99.99997%
* Bicen, 1993.
$ BS 5726, 1992.
259
Table 2. Operator protection factors (OPF) achievable
using the gas and KI methods
Test Max. sensitivity OPF
ÿ3
Gas tracer 110 ppm 2.4104
Particle tracer 1 particle 6.0106
operator protection factor (OPF) which can be used
to compare cabinets:
NS
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019
OPF ˆ , …3†
vn
where v is the rate of the supply of ventilating air to
the laboratory (m3/min) (standard 10 m3/min), N is
the quantity of tracer liberated (number of par-
ticles), n is the number of particles sampled and S is
the sampling rate (m3/min).
For gases, this may be rewritten as:
…Vsource S †
OPFgas ˆ , …4†
…Vsampled v†
where Vsource is the total volume of tracer gas
released in a test (ml) and Vsampled is the total
volume of tracer gas sampled (ml). The term
Vsampled/S is, in practice, the concentration of tracer
gas sampled (ppm) averaged over the test period.
For a complete test, Table 2 shows that the maxi-
mum containment performance in terms of OPF
that can be demonstrated using the KI method is
two orders of magnitude greater than by the gas
method.
PRACTICAL COMPARISON OF THE KI METHOD
WITH THE GAS METHOD FOR FUME CUPBOARDS
(BS 7258, 1994: PART 4)
Methods (general)
For all tests, an aerodynamic fume cupboard
(Fumair Ltd., Hertford) was used with an aperture
width of 1200 mm and an aperture height, measured
from the lower edge of the sash handle to the upper
edge of the lipfoil of 500 mm. This was installed in a
test room built according to BS 7258, 1994. The
tests, unless speci®ed otherwise, were carried out
with a cupboard face velocity of 0.5 m/s.
For all SF6 gas tests the protocol used was as
written in BS 7258, 1994: Part 4. For all KI tests the
arrangement of the equipment was as written in this
paper and the protocol used was as written in BS
5726, 1992: Part 1. For analysis of the results using
Recommended limits* Containment eciency
ÿ1
210 ppm* 98.5%
60 particles$ 99.998%
260 G. P. Nicholson et al.
the KI method, only the poorest containment results
were used.
Method for inducing leakage from the fume cupboard
In order to disrupt the fume cupboard contain-
ment, a jet of nitrogen gas was released within the
work space to induce leakage of the tracer out into
the test room. This was achieved using a copper
welding nozzle with internal diameter of 3 mm
which was held in a clamp directed at the aperture
so that the tip was 250 mm from the aperture plane.
The nozzle height could be adjusted. For all heights
a ¯ow of nitrogen gas from a pressurised cylinder at
a rate of 10 l/min (nozzle 23.6 m/s) was used.
Leakage was veri®ed using the gas method with the
tracer sampling grid in the plane of the sash and at
a distance 150 mm from the aperture plane.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Veri®cation of the fume cupboard performance using
the gas method (BS 7258, 1994: Part 4)
No tracer gas was detected in the plane of the
aperture within the sensitivity of the method at a
face velocity of 0.5 m/s.
Using KI±Discus for assessing fume cupboard per-
formance
The e€ect of vertical placement of the KI±Discus
equipment.
Arrangement of equipment as in BS 5726, 1992: Part
1. The KI±Discus equipment was arranged as for
assessing class I safety cabinets to BS 5726 and the
aperture was challenged using a forced leakage
Fig. 1. Arrangement of the KI±Discus equipment (speci®ed in BS 5726, 1992: Part 1 for class I cabinets) for assessing
fume cupboards and the use of a nitrogen jet for inducing leakage from the cupboard and assessing the applicability of
the method.
from the aerodynamic cupboard as mentioned
above. The jet nozzle was positioned at three
heights within the cupboard shown in Fig. 1. Na
was level with the top samplers, Nb centreline of
the aperture and Nc level with the lower samplers.
Results. With the jet in position Nc, above the arti-
®cial arm, substantial numbers of KI particles were
sampled 150 mm from the aperture plane (Fig. 2).
However, with the jet at positions Na and Nb no
leakage from the cupboard was demonstrated. This
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019
proved that tracer did not challenge the whole aper-
ture and it was concluded that the position of the
KI±Discus equipment as speci®ed in BS 5726, 1992
was not suitable for assessing aerodynamic fume
cupboards. The arti®cial arm was not required as it
was considered not to have a measurable e€ect on
disturbance due to the size of the aperture (Barkley,
1972). The following modi®ed arrangement was
adopted.
Modi®ed arrangement of KI±Discus equipment. The
spinning disc generator and samplers were posi-
tioned at 3 heights (Fig. 3). Three samplers were
placed 150 mm from the plane of the sash in the
centre line of the aperture level with the lower edge
of the sash foil (A), in the vertical centre line of the
working aperture (B), level with the upper edge of
the lipfoil (C). The spinning disc was placed
100 mm from the plane of the sash level with sam-
pler A (Pa), level with sampler B (Pb), and at a
level 15 mm above the upper edge of the lipfoil
(Pc). The nitrogen jet was directed past the edge of
the spinning disc. The nitrogen jet was placed
250 mm from the plane of the sash 15 mm below
the sashfoil (Na), level with sampler B (Nb), 15 mm
above the lipfoil (Nc).
 Theoretical and practical comparison of the potassium iodide tracer method 261

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019

Fig. 2. The operator protection factor of the fume cupboard, when challenged with a nitrogen gas jet to induce leakage,
assessed using the BS 5726, 1992: Part 1 class I safety cabinet (KI±Discus) method. The positions of the nitrogen jet,
samplers and spinning disc are described in Fig. 1.

Results. The position of the spinning disc was
shown to be critical in the challenge to the face of
the aerodynamic fume cupboard (Fig. 4). With the
spinning disc in the positions level with the lipfoil
or the underside of the sash foil, a jet induced in
the furthest position was not sampled. However,
with the spinning disc in the centre of the working
aperture, leakage was detected for all positions of
the nitrogen jet. For testing purposes the spinning
disc generator and samplers should be placed in all
three positions.
The e€ect of horizontal placement of the KI±Discus
equipment through the aperture plane.
Arrangement of equipment. TheBS 7258, 1994: Part
4. Tests were performed at three di€erent horizontal
con®gurations of sampler and spinning disc (refer
to Fig. 3). A sampler was placed 150 mm from the
plane of the sash in the test room level with the
spinning disc in position B. The spinning disc was
placed (position Pb) 100 mm from the plane of the
sash in the vertical centre line of the working aper-
ture (Layout a). The sampler inlet was then placed

Fig. 3. Arrangment of the KI±Discus equipment and a nitrogen jet for the assessment of leakages from cupboards.
262 G. P. Nicholson et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019

Fig. 4. The number of KI particles sampled in front of the cupboard with the modi®ed KI±Discus test. Where the num-
bers are 10000, this indicates saturation of the disc. The positions of the nitrogen jet, samplers and spinning disc are
described in Fig. 3.

in the plane of the sash level with the spinning disc
(Layout b). The spinning disc was then placed
150 mm from the plane of the sash (Layout c).
Results. From the results in Fig. 5, the centripetal
samplers in the plane of the aperture were saturated
with particles. This was due to the momentum of
the particles and meant that samplers in the aper-
ture plane do not give useable results.
Comparison of the tracer generation methods
The containment of the aerodynamic fume cup-
board was assessed at di€erent face velocities using
both the modi®ed KI method and the gas method
(BS 7258, 1994). For the gas test only two source
positions were used, both at the centre of the cup-
board width, 150 mm behind the plane of the aper-
ture but with the top of the source 150 mm above

Fig. 5. The number of KI particles sampled in front of the cupboard (a) with the samplers 150 mm and the spinning disc
100 mm from the aperture plane (b) with the samplers in the aperture plane and the spinning disc 100 mm from the
plane and (c) as (b) but with the spinning disc 150 mm from the aperture plane. Where the numbers are 10000, this indi-
cates saturation of the disc.
 Theoretical and practical comparison of the potassium iodide tracer method
the work surface (P2) or 150 mm below the lower
edge of the sash handle (P5).
For the modi®ed KI method the face velocities
were 0.25, 0.37, 0.54, 0.68 and 0.78 m/s. At face vel-
ocities above 0.37 m/s, the operator protection fac-
tor was above 105 (Fig. 6). At a face velocity of
0.25 m/s, the protection factor decreased by 3 orders
of magnitude as the particles were thrown at the
aperture and the lower face velocity was insucient
to prevent many escaping from the cupboard
(Nicholson, 1997).
For the gas method, the face velocities were 0.25,
0.55, 0.68, 0.80 and 0.87 m/s. SF6 was only detected
when the face velocity was 0.87 m/s and when tracer
was released from position P2 (Fig. 7).
Comparison of the sampling methods
Arrangement of equipment.
The performance of the sampling systems as rec-
ommended in BS 7258, 1994: Part 4 and speci®ed in
BS 5726, 1992: Part 1 were compared for a common
tracer discharge. The source, a Collison re¯ux blast
nebulizer, used a compressed gas to form an aerosol
(this nebulizer is recommended in BS 5726, 1992:
Part 1 for the dispersal of bacterial spores using a
carrier gas, usually oxygen or nitrogen).
SF6 was used as the carrier gas and the solution
was 1.5% KI in absolute ethanol. The ¯ow rate
through the Collison was adjusted to 3 l/min and
the face velocity of the fume cupboard was 0.25 m/s
in order for the discharge velocity from the nozzle
to be greater than the face velocity and to induce
leakage. At 3 l/min, the discharge velocity at the
nozzle was 0.85 m/s. The Collison was loaded with
75 ml of KI solution. The discharge rate of ¯uid was
00.8 ml/min during each test of 2 min and an esti-
mated 1.5  107 particles were released, assuming a
mean particle size of 2 mm. However, due to the
Fig. 6. Change in operator protection factor for an aerodynamic fume cupboard with mean face velocity.
263
polydisperse nature of the aerosol generated from a
Collison nebuliser, this particle size was a very ap-
proximate ®gure; 0.006 m3 of the test gas was
released during each test.
The sampling system used allowed the sampling
of particles and gas tracer simultaneously (Fig. 8). A
mixing chamber was included in the KI±Discus
sampling system downstream of the centripetal sam-
plers from which air could be sampled using a single
BS 7258, 1994: Part 4 sample probe.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019
SF6 sampling method (BS 7258, 1994: Part 4).
A single sample probe (recommended in BS 7258,
1994: Part 4) was placed at increasing distances (0,
50 and 100 mm) away from the front of the dis-
charge nozzle on the same axis. The sampling ¯ow
rate was 6.8 l/min, which gave a calculated suction
velocity of 5.77 m/s (01.1 m/s measured near to the
probe using a thermistor anemometer, Air¯ow
developments Ltd.).
Only when the sampling probe was in the plane of
the sash was any SF6 detected (Fig. 9).
The eciency of the centripetal sampler for cap-
turing SF6 was assessed by inserting a BS 7258
probe into the mixing chamber and drawing air
through the gas analyser. SF6 was sampled from
positions of the centripetal sampler 50, 100 and
150 mm from the aperture plane on the same axis as
the Collison nebuliser nozzle (Fig. 10).
KI sampling method.
A single centripetal air sampler was placed at
increasing distances (50, 100 and 150 mm) away
from the front of the discharge nozzle on the same
axis. The sampling ¯ow rate was 100 l/min, which
gave a calculated suction velocity of 14.7 m/s (08 m/
s measured near to the sampler using a thermistor
anemometer, Air¯ow developments Ltd.).
264 G. P. Nicholson et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019

Fig. 7. E€ect of face velocity on the concentration of SF6 measured in the plane of the sash. Gas tracer was released
from positions P2 and P5, and sampled according to BS 7258, 1994: Part 4.

Fig. 8. Arrangement of the equipment for sampling SF6 in the KI±Discus sampling system.

Table 3. Number of KI particles sampled simultaneously with SF6

Distance of equipment from

plane of aperture (mm)

nebuliser sampler No. spots Comments on spot size and background colour

100 50 TNC* Light brown background

100 100 539 Varied sizes, dark brown background
100 150 14 Dots bigger

* TNC=to numerous to count.

 Theoretical and practical comparison of the potassium iodide tracer method 265

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019

Fig. 9. The release of SF6 from a Collison nebuliser placed in the fume cupboard at 3 l/min (discharge velocity 0.85 m/s)
100 mm from the sash plane and measured at increasing distance from the plane using a single gas sampling probe (BS
7258, 1994) in line with the Collison jet. Cupboard face velocity: 0.25 m/s.

KI particles were detected at all three measure-
ment positions from the plane of the sash (Table 3).
The particles collected on the ®lter disc varied in
size, all were very much smaller than those released
from a spinning disc generator.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a theoretical comparison of the sen-
sitivities of the gas and KI methods show that the
KI method is much more sensitive than the gas
method. In terms of containment eciency, the gas
method is 98.5% and the KI method 99.998%. In
terms of operator protection factor, the maximum
value indicated by the gas method is 2.4  104 and
for the KI method, 6106.
These factors suggest that the results from the
two di€erent test methods are indeed comparable.
However, this is dependant on similar fundamental
principles for each method and the relative positions
of source and sampling equipment. The KI method
(BS 5726) challenges the weakest point for contain-

Fig. 10. Measurement of SF6 concentration in air sampled by centripetal samplers (100 l/min) at increasing distance from
the aperture plane. SF6 released from a Collison nebuliser 100 mm from the plane at 510ÿ5 m3/s (3 l/min) (discharge
velocity: 0.8 m/s) as a carrier gas for KI nebulisation. Cupboard face velocity 00.25 m/s.
266 G. P. Nicholson et al.
ment in the plane of the aperture. For a class I cabi-
net, the weakest point is considered to be the lower
edge of the aperture (Newsom, 1974). An arti®cial
arm is used to disturb the air¯ow. The gas method
does not challenge the weakest point of a fume cup-
board but seeds the working volume of the fume
cupboard with tracer and samples the potential pas-
sive escape of contaminant.
The position of the tracer source and air samplers
di€ers between the two methods. The KI source is
®xed 100 mm from the plane of the aperture in one
position. In the BS 7258 test, the source is posi-
tioned 150 mm from the aperture plane and moved
to six positions around the aperture. The KI centri-
petal samplers have a high sampling ¯ow rate and
are positioned 150±160 mm in front of the aperture
plane. The gas probes have a lower sampling ¯ow
rate and are positioned in a grid in the aperture
plane itself. Thus, the KI method samples actual
leakage and the gas method samples both potential
and actual leakage without distinction between
them.
Ignoring the e€ects of tracer generation and
sampling, the results from the two methods can be
compared and correlated making the assumptions
that
1. the generation of tracer has no e€ect,
2. the KI particles di€use and disperse as a gas, and
3. whatever amount of tracer is sampled at a ®xed
distance away from the aperture by the KI
method will be proportionately sampled in the
plane of the sash using the gas method.
Bicen (1993) extrapolated the results of several
containment test methods from the sash plane to the
samplers. This assumed the dilution of tracer from
the sash plane to the sampler a ®xed distance from
the aperture plane and that concentration levels
measured at 150 mm away from the aperture were
lower by at least 100 times than those measured in
the aperture plane itself. According to this, at the
maximum sensitivities of the tests, if one particle of
KI were sampled 150 mm away from the aperture
plane giving a performance eciency of 99.99997%
then the interpolated eciency at the aperture plane
is 99.997%. This value is in excess of the maximum
sensitivity of tests using gas tracer.
This raises the question that if tracer is sampled
in the aperture plane, will it also leak out to 150 mm
distance? If there is a leak, a gas would be expected
to disperse by turbulent and molecular di€usion and
be diluted by the time it reached the sampling pos-
ition 150 mm away (assuming complete mixing). An
aerosol of particles will initially disperse like a gas,
but the ®nal challenge particles have signi®cant
dimensions, and so an individual particle would not
disperse further at the molecular level. Also, a single
particle leak can be detected whereas, for an equiv-
alent volume of gas leakage, this would be expected
to disperse at the molecular level and be diluted
below the sensitivity of the measuring device before
reaching the samplers and so not be detected. Also,
if one particle is sampled, this does not mean that
the result can be interpolated back to the aperture
plane to indicate an enormous number of particles
leaking.
The KI method actively propels droplets/particles
towards the aperture so challenging containment,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019
which is a fundamental philosophy of the test
method. Particles may then be present in the aper-
ture plane but not actually leak out. The gas test is
passive and requires the movement of air within the
cupboard to bring tracer to the aperture plane.
Thus, comparing results by interpolation or extra-
polation can be misleading in terms of the testing
philosophies.
Comparisons between the two test methods were
made practically. Initially, the vertical position of
the KI±Discus equipment for testing fume cup-
boards was assessed. As the working aperture of a
fume cupboard was substantially larger than those
of safety cabinets, the arti®cial arm was considered
to provide an insigni®cant extra containment chal-
lenge and not used (Barkley, 1972; Newsom, 1974).
The position of the test equipment was shown to be
important. Having the KI source at the work sur-
face did not identify induced leakages near to the
sash and vice versa. This showed that there were
inadequacies in using the KI method according to
BS 5726, 1992: Part 1 for testing class I microbiolo-
gical safety cabinets when testing fume cupboards.
It was decided that the KI challenge should come
from the work surface, the mid-aperture and the
region of the sash foil and that the air be sampled at
three heights level with the lipfoil, at mid height and
level with the sash foil. Ultimately, for larger aper-
tures this should be repeated at the left and right
sides or with two samplers at each height. This was
similar to the lateral disposition of the BS 7258
equipment and was similar to that method described
by Clark et al. (1987).
Adopting the philosophy of BS 7258, 1994: Part 4
for the horizontal position of the KI±Discus equip-
ment, i.e. sampling in the aperture plane, was not
possible due to the saturation of the centripetal sam-
plers with KI particles.
It was shown that the tracer generation methods
a€ect the results. Reducing the face velocity of the
aerodynamic fume cupboard in the test room gave
very di€erent containment results between the gas
method and the modi®ed KI method. At a face vel-
ocity of 0.25 m/s, there was a substantial leakage of
KI particles whereas there was no gas tracer
measured in the plane of the aperture. This showed
that for the fume cupboard, which was operating in
a stable test room environment, there was no chal-
lenge of containment by the gas method but the
 Theoretical and practical comparison of the potassium iodide tracer method
plane of the aperture was actively challenged by par-
ticles being thrown out of it. The low face velocity
would be vulnerable to environmental disturbances
and, although the gas method indicated some
measure of the stability of the cupboard in the test
room environment, the KI method demonstrated
how fragile this could be. In BS 7258, there is no
requirement for a minimum face velocity and using
the KI method could indicate poor performance
when the gas method would not. For higher vel-
ocities, the in¯ow of air was sucient to prevent the
particles from being thrown out of the cupboard but
brought gas contaminated air below the sash handle
so that gas tracer was detected there.
It was also shown that there was a great disparity
in the tracer sampling methods. It appeared that the
KI samplers were much more ecient at sampling
the tracer gas than a single BS 7258 probe.
From this work, it is concluded that the contain-
ment testing philosophies of BS 7258, 1994 contain-
ment test method and the BS 5726, 1992 KI method
are fundamentally di€erent in terms of sensitivity,
equipment position, tracer generation and sampling
methods and that the theoretical assumptions made
earlier in this paper are not sustainable in practice.
Correlation of the results is therefore not possible.
The work in this paper still justi®es the applica-
bility of the KI method for assessing fume cupboard
performance to operator protection factors >106
and containment eciencies of 99.997%. Due to the
di€erent philosophies of the DIN 12 924 and
ASHRAE 110 methods, which are similar to the BS
5726 method, i.e. sampling actual leakage, the
results of these tests may be comparable to the KI
method. Ultimately, it is hoped that in the future
there will be either one standard method for testing
all open fronted containment facilities or, if there
are di€erent methods, that they will yield compar-
able results.
The limitation of the modi®ed KI method
described in this paper is the number of replicate
tests to be conducted at each position according to
BS 5726, 1992. If this were done at each height, then
15 tests would be required for each position across
the aperture, making a possible 45 tests in all if the
aperture was >1.2 m wide (approximately 450 min
in total); this would be impractical except for `type'
tests. Work is being carried out on modifying the
number and duration of tests and observing the
e€ects on containment results. Further work is also
being carried out on the position of the KI±Discus
equipment for assessing fume cupboards. The equip-
ment could be arranged by placing 4 centripetal
samplers at ®xed distances around the spinning disc
267
generator and in the same positions relative to the
aperture plane as in BS 5726, 1992. If only one test
was assumed at each position, then the spinning disc
and samplers could be moved around the aperture
in the 6 positions as for the BS 7258 test making six
tests in total.
AcknowledgementsÐThe authors wish to thank John &
Kay Clarke (Fumair Ltd.) for their sponsorship of this
work and the use of their test room facilities.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/43/4/257/141323 by guest on 01 April 2019
REFERENCES
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (1995) ASHRAE 110: Method
of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Cupboards.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
British Standards Institution (1992) BS 5726:
Microbiological Safety Cabinets, Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
British Standards Institution, London, England.
British Standards Institution (1994) BS 7258: Laboratory
Fume Cupboards, Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. British Standards
Institution, London, England.
Barkley, W. E. (1972) Evaluation and development of
controlled air ¯ow systems for environmental safety
in biomedical research. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Minnesota, U.S.A.
Bicen, A. F. (1993) Test methodologies and requirements
for BS 7258 and comparisons of national standards. In
A Short Course on Fume Cupboard Standards. Imperial
College, London, England.
Clark, R. P., Elliott, C. J. and Lister, P. A. (1981) A com-
parison of methods to measure operator protection fac-
tors in open-fronted microbiological safety cabinets.
Journal of Applied Bacteriology 51, 461±473.
Clark, R. P. and Go€, M. R. (1981) The potassium iodide
method for determining protection factors in open-
fronted microbiological safety cabinets. Journal of
Applied Bacteriology 51, 439±460.
Clark, R. P., Grover, F. and Wright, I. M. (1987) Cabinet
Reshu‚e. Laboratory Practice 36(10), 15±17.
German Institute for Standardisation (1991) DIN 12 924:
Part 1. Laboratory Furniture; Fume Cupboards; General
Purpose Fume Cupboards; Types, Main Dimensions,
Requirements and Testing. German Institute for
Standardisation, Berlin, West Germany.
Lidwell, O. M. (1960) The evaluation of ventilation.
Journal of Hygiene, Cambridge 58, 297±305.
Matthews, J. A. (1985) An evaluation of test methods
for microbiological safety cabinets. M.Phil. Thesis,
Cambridge College of Arts and Technology, Cambridge,
England.
Newsom, S. W. B. (1974) A test system for the biological
safety cabinet. Journal of Clinical Pathology 27, 585±
589.
Nicholson, G. P. (1997) Studies on the performance of
open fronted containment and `ultra-clean' ventilation
systems. Ph.D. Thesis, King's College, University of
London, U.K.
Vincent, J. H. (1990) The fate of inhaled aerosols: A
review of observed trends and some generalizations.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 34, 623±637.