See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324516920

Measues to alleviate fume hood noise

Article  in  American Laboratory · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 66

3 authors, including:

Kang Chen W. J. Zhang

Merck University of Saskatchewan
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    410 PUBLICATIONS   7,203 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy and Environmental Sustainability Solutions for Megacities View project

Application of Model Predictive controller (MPC) in Linear Time Varying systems (LPVs) with Input-Output framework View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kang Chen on 15 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


AL
Measures to Alleviate Fume Hood Noise
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is a growing concern, increasing the
need for indoor health and safety monitoring.1-3 Previous studies on IEQ
covered a wide range of indoor determinants such as thermal, visual,
acoustic, and chemical.4-7 Elevated noise levels in the laboratory can result
in noise pollution, can have an adverse effect on normal communication
among operators, and can lead to potential health issues.8 Even if noise in
the workplace is not loud enough to cause hearing loss, a poor acoustic
environment can contribute to voice strain and vocal cord problems, while
annoying or distracting noise has been associated with stress-related
health effects and complaints about noise pollution.9,10 There is evidence
that noise pollution leads to increased stress, adversely affecting worker
safety, health, and efficiency. Positive correlation between acoustic com-
fort and occupant productivity in commercial buildings has received much
attention.11-13 With the increasing amount of time workers stay indoors and
are exposed to ototoxic chemicals in the laboratory, the problems associ-
ated with noise exposure are exacerbated.14-16
Acoustic issues in the laboratory may emanate from indoor equipment
noise, structure- or airborne noise from nearby sources, and outdoor
noise. 17 Laboratory equipment that typically generate considerable
noise include chemical fume hoods, biosafety cabinets (BSCs), electro-
magnetic stirrers, ventilation blowers, and refrigerators.
Despite being recognized as an important parameter in IEQ, noise pro-
duced by the laboratory fume hood is not considered a high priority,
because in most cases it is well below the threshold set by OSHA. 18
Nevertheless, even when the time-weighted average (TWA) value is only
about 55 dB (A), excess noise can still significantly affect an operator’s
cognition and ability to communicate.19
Combined exposure: noise and ototoxic chemicals
The complex interactions between noise and ototoxic chemicals in the
laboratory environment have been studied.20-24 Findings show that expo-
sure to ototoxic chemicals—organic solvents (e.g., carbon disulfide and
xylene), metals (e.g., lead, mercury, and manganese), asphyxiants (e.g.,
carbon monoxide and acrylonitrile), and pesticides and herbicides (e.g.,
organophosphates and paraquat)—is detrimental to hearing capacity.8,25
Single exposure to a particular chemical in a quiet environment may not
elicit a toxic response, yet the same exposure in a noisy environment can
create the potential for hearing loss.26 These studies suggest that the risk
of hearing loss is much greater for groups exposed to ototoxic chemicals.
It is difficult to establish a standard for combined exposure to noise and
ototoxic substances, mainly because the dose-response relationships
are unclear.27 It is impossible to completely avoid exposure to ototoxic
chemicals; sometimes the lower capture efficiency or containment
performance of local exhaust ventilation (LEV) equipment such as fume
hoods may lead to severe leakage of chemical vapors in the laboratory.
AMERICAN LABORATORY
Chen_April2018.indd 1
by Kang Chen, Hongbo Zhang, Wenjun Zhang
Therefore, noise-abatement measures are warranted even at relatively
low levels (e.g., noise generated from fume hoods) in an ototoxic chemi-
cal exposure environment.
Some recommendations in regard to noise and ototoxic chemical ex-
posure have been adopted worldwide. The Australian National Code
of Practice mandates that periodic audiometric testing be conducted
for workers exposed to ototoxic chemicals at a concentration greater
than 50% of the occupational exposure limits (OELs), regardless of noise
exposure level.28 Similar actions are recommended by the American Con-
ference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), which requires a
periodic audiometry report for potential combined exposure.8,29
Other recommended standards have been established to create a
healthy indoor acoustic environment. For example, as specified by the
China State Bureau of Technical Supervision (CSBTS) and OSHA, respec-
tively,19,30 the TWA value should be lower than 50 dB(A) and 55 dB(A).
Sufficient evidence has demonstrated that annoyance is induced when
the eight-hour averaged noise level is higher than 55 dB (A) in an office
environment.31 Too high a noise level in the laboratory can make it dif-
ficult for operators to hear critical information such as safety instructions
and emergency alarms.
While previous studies reported the importance of controlling chemical
exposure, this paper presents a noise reduction study for a typical fume
hood using an experimental approach. The purpose of the study was
to investigate a potential noise-abatement solution and its ability to
improve laboratory indoor environmental quality and protect operator
health and safety. Noise-abatement solutions were reviewed based on
the currently available noise-control technologies, after which proper
acoustic absorbent materials were determined. Finally, noise spectrum
analysis was done to demonstrate improved noise control.
Fume hood noise abatement
Recognized sources of noise from a chemical fume hood include sound
that is generated aerodynamically by airflow friction with untreated
solid walls, turbulence caused by improper treatment of duct turns and
partially closed built-in dampers, and assorted debris left in the duct
line during construction. 32 The latter two are classified as preventive
maintenance issues or beyond the design of the hood, and thus were not
considered in this study.
Excessive fume hood noise can be reduced by treating the source (fume
hood), sound transmission path, receiver (laboratory staff), or any com-
bination of these. Making modifications to the blower or ductwork for
noise abatement after fume hoods are in service is expensive and is thus
not a viable solution. Similarly, moving noise-producing equipment such
as fume hoods from the laboratory to an equipment room, or simply
wearing hearing protection devices is not always practical and effective.
1 APRIL 2018
3/7/18 10:25 AM
 FUME HOOD NOISE continued
Reducing aerodynamically generated fume hood noise is investigated in
this paper.
Previous computational fluid dynamics (k-εturbulent with BNS model-
ing) simulation and physical measurement suggest that the inside wall
of the fume hood is primarily responsible for high aerodynamic noise
generation. 15 The sampling point of sound pressure level (SPL) mea-
surement was 15 cm away from the center of the hood sash and 1.10
m above the floor to simulate the location of an operator’s ear when
performing experiments while seated. Noise spectrum analysis was
performed following National Occupational Health Code GBZ/T 189.8-
2007 Measurement of Noise in a Workplace. 33 The average noise level
monitored using a calibrated noise spectrum analyzer was 69.3 dB (A),
much higher than the 55 dB (A) or 50 dB (A) recommended by OSHA and
CSBTS, respectively.
Noise absorption has proven effective for controlling noise. The main
principle of noise absorption is to control the sound propagation path
and reduce the buildup of sound in the reverberant field where sound
waves reflect off untreated hard surfaces, such as inside the walls of the
fume hood.34 Key to the success of this method is proper selection of the
sound-absorbing materials (SAMs) and verification of noise attenuation
effectiveness. Upon reaching the hood’s inside walls, some sound waves
are reflected to their surroundings, while the rest penetrate through
sound-absorbing materials.35 Incident sound energy is partly transferred
to heat via vibration and friction with SAMs, reducing the total noise
level at the receiver. Moreover, the incident sound waves are reflected
multiple times via chain reactions inside the SAMs.
In this study, fiberglass (Owens Corning, Toledo, OH) was selected as
the sound-absorbing material because it is more durable and safer than
mineral wool and foamed plastic materials. The density and thickness of
the fiberglass was 48 kg/m3 and 50 mm, respectively; diameter was 5~6
μm and large-length scale of the single fiber stem was 15~20 cm. Sound
absorption coefficients at different frequencies are shown in Figure 1.
Because water or solvent vapor can be generated in the fume hood
during operation, fiberglass with a film cover was used. This can prevent
Figure 1 – Sound absorption coefficient of acoustic fiberglass at 100 to ~5
kHz.
AMERICAN LABORATORY
Chen_April2018.indd 2
AL
pores inside sound-absorbing material from blockage by fine droplets,
and maintain its ability to absorb noise in moist environments. Further,
fiberglass with a film cover significantly reduces potential chemical ac-
cumulation on its surface.
Installation of the hollow interlayer on the inside wall of the fume hood
is not considered in this study because it is difficult and impractical to
make significant modifications to the internal structure of the hood.
However, an air interlayer structure of inside walls of the hood integrated
with SAMs was expected not only to reduce material consumption, but
also improve the total noise attenuation capability, especially at me-
dium and high frequencies.34 Hence, it is recommended that fume hood
manufacturers consider this during the design and production phase to
make products intrinsically quieter. A fume hood with sound-absorbing
materials installed is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the process of on-site fume hood noise monitoring. The
spectrum analyzer was recalibrated with a 1-kHz calibrator tone, nominal
level 94 dB (A) ± 1 dB. While the sampling location and instrumentation
remained the same, the monitored noise level dropped down from 69.3
dB (A) to 64.8 dB (A) after acoustic fiberglass was installed inside the
hood. Noise level at the receiver was reduced dramatically.
The majority of medium- and high-frequency noises were reduced suc-
cessfully (Figure 4), important because human ear sensitivity is greatest
from 2000 to 5000 Hz.35 As for the higher-frequency bands from 400 to
4 kHz, the sound pressure level was reduced even more than 5 dB (A) at
each band center frequency. The amount of noise reduction reached its
peak value as 7.5 dB (A) at 4-kHz center frequency, which is the frequency
band most sensitive to workers. The human ear can clearly distinguish a
Figure 2 – Laboratory fume hood with acoustic fiberglass placed inside.
2 APRIL 2018
3/7/18 10:25 AM
 FUME HOOD NOISE continued
Figure 3 – Demonstration of on-site fume hood noise monitoring in the
laboratory.
Figure 4 – Noise spectrum before and after fume hood was insulated with
acoustic fiberglass.
sound pressure level change of about 5 decibels.36 Therefore, use of
acoustic fiberglass is an effective method to reduce fume hood noise.
This has been concluded not only by theoretical analysis, but also by
subjective responses. While overwhelming evidence has verified that
cognitive impairment is induced by laboratory noise, the improvement
in this study, to some extent, avoids disturbance to laboratory operators
and enhances laboratory indoor environmental quality.
Conclusion
The following challenges in the present study will be addressed in
future work:
1. Aerodynamically generated noise from fume hood and blower noise
may interact. The focus of this study was to reduce aerodynamic noise
generated from the fume hood itself, which, from an engineering
AMERICAN LABORATORY
Chen_April2018.indd 3
AL
standpoint, is a relatively convenient and effective way to control
fume hood noise. It may not be cost-effective to make significant
improvements to blowers, fans, or ductwork, although they, too, are
related to the overall noise level, especially when laboratory ventilation
systems are in use. Nevertheless, analyzing and evaluating duct-borne
exhaust fan noise can be beneficial at the initial phase of lab ventilation
system design.
2. It may be useful to explore low-frequency (LF) noise reduction since
LF noise is proven to generate whole-body vibration.8 Some bands
of low-frequency sounds at 50~60 Hz in the chest resonance are the
main cause of whole-body vibration. This effect can lead to negative
physiological and/or psychological effects such as hypertension,
annoyance, and discomfort. Although in some circumstances it may
be possible to reduce this noise by moving the dominant sound
energy to lower-frequency bands,35 the sound pressure level at those
bands should be reduced until symptoms disappear or are as low as
reasonably practical (ALARP).
3. Finally, excessive noise levels in the laboratory can pose a risk if safety
information is misheard.
References
1. Giulia, V.; Da Pos, O. et al. Build Environ. 2012, 56, 335–45.
2. Bluyssen, P.M.; Janssen, S. et al. Build Environ. 2011, 46(12), 2632–40.
3. Yousef Al horr, Y.; Arif, M. et al. Int. J. Sust. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 1–11.
4. Fields, J.M. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993, 93(5), 2753–63.
5. Daisey, J.M.; Angell, W.J. et al. Indoor Air 2003, 13(1), 53–64.
6. Altomonte, S.; Rutherford, P. et al. Reference Module in Earth Systems
and Environmental Sciences, 2016.
7. Gómez Alvareza, E.; Sörgelb, M. et al. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 95, 391–9.
8. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents &
Biological Exposure Indices, ACGIH, 2016.
9. Persson, K. and Rylander, R. J. Sound Vib. 1988, 121, 339–45.
10. Persson, K.; Björkman, M. et al. J. Low Freq. Noise Vib. 1990, 9, 32–45.
11. Grameza, A. and Boubeniderb, F. Appl. Acoust. 2017, 118, 39–49.
12. Landsbeger, B.J.; Tan, L. et al. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 120(5), 3186.
13. Mahbob, N.S.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N. et al. A Correlation Study of Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEQ) Towards Productive Workplace. 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Environmental Science and Technology; IPCBEE,
vol. 6 (2011); IACSIT Press: Singapore.
14. ASHRAE Guideline 10-2016: Interactions Affecting the Achievement of
Acceptable Indoor Environments; 2016.
15. Chen, K.; Yang, J. et al. JCHAS 2017, 24(1), 2–7.
16. Klepeis, N.E.; Nelson, W.C. et al. J. Expo Anal. Env. Epid. 2001, 11, 231–52.
17. 2013 ASHRAE Handbook- Fundamentals, Chapter 8. Sound and Vibra-
tion. Owen, M.S., Ed.; 2016.
18. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR Part 1910.95, Occupational
Noise Exposure.
19. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/laboratory/OSHAfactsheet-
laboratory-safety-noise.pdf
20. Nies, E. Arh. Hig. Rada. Toksiko 2012, 63(2), 147–52.
21. Hoet, P.; Lison, D. et al. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2008, 38(2), 127–70.
22. Fechter, L.D. and Rao, D.B. Noise Health 2000, 3(9), 11–21.
3 APRIL 2018
3/7/18 10:25 AM
 FUME HOOD NOISE continued
AL

23. Chang, S.-J.; Chen, C.-J. et al. Environ. Health Persp. 2006, 114(8), 1283–
86.
24. Vyskocil, A.; Truchon, G. et al. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2012, 28(9), 796–819.
25. Choi, Y.-H.; Kim, K. PLOS One 2014, 9(5), e97538.
26. Morata, T.C. and Johnson, A.C. Effects of exposure to chemicals on
noise-induced hearing loss. In: Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: Scientific
Advances, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 40; Le Prell C.G.,
et al., Eds.; Springer Science+Business Media, LLC: Berlin, 2012; pp.
223–54.
27. Fuente, A. and McPherson, B. Occupational Chemical-Induced Hearing
Loss. Naz, S., Ed. InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012.
28. Safe Work Australia, Code of Practice. Managing Noise and Preventing
Hearing Loss at Work, 2011.
29. ACGIH. Noise Control, 3rd Ed. Knowles, III, E.E., Ed., 2003.
30. China State Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision (CSBTS): GB/T
17249.1-1998 Acoustics Guidelines for the Design of Low-Noise Work-
places; Noise Control Strategies, 1998.
31. Passchier-Vermeer, W. and Passchier, W.F. Environ. Health Persp. 2000,
108(Suppl 1), 123–31.
32. Thomas Saunders, G. Laboratory Fume Hoods: A User’s Manual. Wiley-
Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, 1993.
33. Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China (MOH): GBZ/T
189.8-2007 Measurement of Noise in the Workplace, 2007.
34. https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/
35. https://www.ohlearning.com/Files/Student/JC22%20v1-0%20
09Apr10%20W503%20Student%20Manual1.pdf
36. Noise Control, 2nd ed. Brüel & Kjær: Nærum, Denmark, 1986.

Additional reading
1. Noise Control Design Guide, Owens Corning Corp., 2004.
2. Brown, J.J.; Brummett, R.E. et al. Arch. Otolaryngology 1980, 106(12),
744–50.

The authors are with the School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, East
China University of Science and Technology, 200237, Shanghai, China; e-mail:
wjz485@mail.usask.ca; http://www.ecust.edu.cn/. The authors thank Ideal
Industries, Inc.; Owens Corning Corp.; ALS Global; and ESIS, Inc., for providing
technical guidance and for supplying the fume hood, sound-absorbing mate-
rial, and other testing equipment.

AMERICAN LABORATORY 4 APRIL 2018

Chen_April2018.indd
View publication stats 4 3/7/18 10:25 AM