Technology Report

February, 2004

Fume Hood Face Velocity

Can it Ensure Safe Containment?
This paper examines the controversy that
sometimes arises regarding whether fume hood face
velocity is indicative of safe fume containment.

Face Velocity Requirements

For many years, fume hood manufacturers,
laboratory safety standards 1 and safety
professionals have maintained that a face velocity of
about 100 fpm was generally required for adequate
fume containment and thus safe fume hood use.
The California State Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (CAL-OSHA) mandated 100 fpm as
the minimum average face velocity with a minimum
of 70 fpm at any point in the sash opening. The U.S.
Federal OSHA is less stringent and recommends a
face velocity from 60 through 100 fpm. In short,
there are many references as to what a fume hoods
face velocity should be.
More recently, many experienced and renowned
fume hood safety professionals have stated that
having the recommended fume hood face velocity is
no guarantee that a given fume hood will provide
adequate fume containment and user safety. And,
newer editions of laboratory safety standards
contain extensive warnings against using face
velocity as the sole criteria for safe fume hood
2
operation. Individuals who have wide-ranging
experience in fume hood containment testing,
especially with the ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test, will
frequently cite their own test results as evidence

against equating adequate face velocity with

adequate fume containment.

The Designers Dilemma

If fume hood face velocity cannot be used as a
criterion for safety, how can a laboratory facility
ventilation system be designed to ensure a safe
work environment for laboratory users? Experienced
designers know that a laboratory ventilation system
design must accommodate the room and fume hood
airflow requirements. Designers often say that a
laboratory rooms ventilation requirements are
primarily driven by the air consumption of the rooms
fume hoods. Since fume hood air consumption is
directly related to face velocity, it follows that the
laboratory ventilation system design is then driven
by the face velocity of the fume hoods.

Face Velocity Controversy

If a fume hood manufacturer has determined what
level of face velocity provides good containment as
a result of properly conducted ASHRAE 110 tracer
gas containment tests, why cant that face velocity
be indicative of proper fume containment? The
answer is that while a fume hood manufacturer may
have conscientiously performed ASHRAE 110 tests,
the test conditions will invariably not be the same as
the actual laboratory room conditions where the
fume hood is ultimately used. These include:

1.

American National Standard for Laboratory Ventilation

ANSI/AIHA Z9.5, 3.3.1: Design face velocities for laboratory
chemical hoods in the range of 80100 fpm (0.410.51m/s)
will provide adequate face velocity for a majority of chemical
hoods.

2.

American National Standard for Laboratory Ventilation

ANSI/AIHA Z9.5, 3.3.1: In one published study,
approximately 17% of the hoods tested using the method
(ASHRAE 110 test method) had "acceptable" face velocities
in the range of 80120 fpm, but failed the tracer gas
containment and exceeded the ACGIH recommended
control level of 0.1 ppm. (Smith and Crooks, 1996).

Siemens Industry, Inc.

Document No. 149-989

Room AirflowLaboratory rooms are subject to

high makeup airflow rates, especially if the room
has multiple fume hoods. And, high room airflow
rates can often result in appreciable air currents
within the rooms. Research has established that
room air currents (termed cross currents) can be
very detrimental to effective fume hood
containment. Even relatively low air currents
passing in front of a fume hood with an open
sash, can draw fumes out from the hood interior.
Thus, horizontal, vertical, or even angular room
air currents all pose the potential for
Page 1 of 6

compromising effective fume hood containment.

Figure 1 illustrates this phenomenon.

and positioned in a way that adversely affects

the internal airflow pattern that is necessary for
optimum fume containment. Experiments or
chemical processes may give off substantially
greater amounts of fumes than the quantity of
tracer gas used in the ASHRAE 110 test. 5 Also,
the actual chemical fumes generated may be of
much different buoyancy than sulfur hexafluoride
tracer gas and, therefore, behave differently.
Heaters and electrical equipment within a fume
hoods interior generate convection air currents.
All of these factorseither individually or
combinedusually have an adverse effect on
fume containment especially in comparison to a
nearly empty fume hood 6 tested under optimum
room conditions.

Face VelocityCause and Effect

Figure 1. Room Air Currents Can Draw Fumes

Out from Fume Hood Interior when Sash Open.
ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 states that room air cross
currents should be less than one-half and
preferably less than one-third of the fume hood
face velocity. 3 NFPA 45 also states that room air
currents should ideally be less than 30% of the
fume hood face velocity. 4 Some laboratory
rooms have many fume hoods and, therefore,
require a correspondingly large supply makeup
airflow. This can result in unavoidable room
cross currents that are substantially higher than
recommended by the aforementioned standards.

3.

4.

Fume Hood UsageManufacturers normally

test their fume hoods without chemicals or
laboratory equipment inside the hood (except for
the tracer gas ejector). In actual use, a fume
hood is likely to contain all sorts of apparatus
and equipment, including: support racks,
beakers, hoses, heaters, chemical containers,
analyzers, etc. Some items may be quite large
American National Standard for Laboratory Ventilation
ANSI/AIHA Z9.5, 5.2.2: Supply air distribution shall be
designed to keep air jet velocities less than half, and
preferably less than one-third of the capture velocity or the
face velocity of the laboratory chemical hoods at their face
opening.
National Fire Protection Association, Standard NFPA 45: A6-3.5: Room air current velocities in the vicinity of fume
hoods should be as low as possible, ideally less than 30% of
the face velocity of the fume hood.

Page 2 of 6

Lets consider how fume hood face velocity relates

to fume hood containment. It should be noted that
what primarily keeps fumes within the interior of a
fume hood is the pressure difference that exists
between the fume hood interior and exterior (the
laboratory room). The laws of physics do not allow
fumes or air to flow from an area of lower static
pressure to an area at a higher static pressure. Thus
by applying a constant exhaust to the fume hood, an
area of lower pressure is created within the fume
hood interior and this establishes the basis for fume
containment.
As a result of the pressure difference between the
room and the fume hood interior, room air flows into
the fume hood. The greater the pressure difference
the greater the inward airflow face velocity will be.
Since fume hood face velocity is more easily
detected and measured than the small pressure
difference 7 between the room and fume hood
interior, face velocity has become, by default, a
means to quantify the existence of a pressure
difference. It is also important to note that using face
velocity as a means to quantify the hood pressure
differential requires that the face velocity
measurement be the average face velocity.
A fume hoods face velocity, like that of any air
current, will vary throughout its cross section with the
5.

The ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test requires a release rate of

4.0 liters per minute of sulfur hexafluoride.

6.

The ASHRAE 110 test tracer gas ejector occupies far less
space than the equipment and apparatus typically found in
actual laboratory fume hoods.

7.

A face velocity of 100 fpm results from a pressure difference

of just 0.000623 in. WC.
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Document No. 149-989

highest velocity occurring near the center. The

lowest air velocity will normally occur at the
periphery (outer boundary) of an air current. 8
Obtaining the average fume hood face velocity
requires that a measurement traverse be made in
the plane of the sash opening. An alternate
procedure consists of mathematically calculating
average face velocity based upon a measurement of
the total fume hood exhaust rate and the total fume
hood open area. 9

Challenges to Containment
As stated, the laws of physics do not allow fumes to
flow from an area of lower static pressure to an area
of higher static pressure. Why then can fumes flow
out from a fume hood interior that is (presumably) at
a lower static pressure as evidenced by a proper
face velocity? Note that room air currents (like any
airflow) have a lower static pressure than room air
that is essentially at rest. And, as a room air current
passes an open sash, the pressure difference
between the fume hood interior and the static
pressure at the periphery of the air current can be
considerably less than the pressure difference
between the fume hood interior and room air that is
essentially at rest.
Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the
static pressure (lower value) and the total pressure
(higher value) of an air current. The higher value of
total pressure is always in the direction of travel
while the lower static pressure is always
perpendicular to the direction of travel. As the
velocity of an air current increases even more, its
total pressure also increases while its static pressure
becomes even lower. Thus, as higher velocity air
currents pass crosswise to an open fume hood sash,
the reduced static pressure difference between the
fume hood interior and the periphery of the air
current creates a tendency for fumes to flow out from
the hood interior. This is especially true if air currents
within the fume hood travel toward the sash

8.

A traverse consists of taking a series of individual air velocity

measurement at defined locations throughout a crosssection of the full airflow area. The larger the airflow area the
more individual measurements are required.

9.

The total fume hood open area consists of the sash opening
plus all additional openings, including the airfoil slot and the
bypass opening.

Siemens Industry, Inc.

Document No. 149-989

opening, 10 since they then have a higher total

pressure in the direction of travel.
To overcome the effect of room air currents, the
static pressure difference between the fume hood
interior and the room must usually be increased by
increasing the fume hood exhaust airflow. Increasing
the exhaust airflow will be manifested by a higher
inward airflow and thus a higher average face
velocity. In other words, the face velocity must often
be increased to overcome the effects of higher
velocity room air currents.

AIR CURRENT

TOTAL
PRESSURE
(HIGHER)

STATIC
PRESSURE
(LOWER)

T
S
Figure 2. Static Pressure is Lower for Air in Motion.

10. Air currents or turbulence within a fume hood interior are

caused by multiple factors including the geometry of the
fume hood interior, local convection, fume generation, and
even excessive face velocity.
Page 3 of 6

Establishing the Proper Average

Face Velocity
Once a fume hood is installed and set up in an
actual laboratory room, it is recommended that
tracer gas containment tests 11 be conducted to
determine the appropriate face velocity necessary to
maintain a desirable level of containment. Once the
average face velocity that will provide the desired
containment level is determined, that face velocity
can serve as a reasonable benchmark for safe fume
hood operation. This assumes that the room
conditions essentially remain as they were when the
fume hood was tested and that the fume hood users
follow safe fume hood working practices.
Note that since a fume hood is not an airtight
enclosure, perfect or 100% containment is not
generally attainable or even necessary. The level of
containment that is necessary should be established
by facility personnel who are responsible for worker
safety in consideration of the hazard level posed by
the chemicals. If the chemicals or substances that
will be present are so toxic or hazardous that 100%
or near 100% containment is required, than an air
tight glove box should be utilized rather than a fume
hood.
Although it can be time consuming and costly to
conduct fume hood containment tests, the actual
quantity of individual tests may be reduced in
consideration of the following factors:

Fume hoods that are of the same size and type

and in the exact same location in multiple
identical laboratory rooms need not all be tested
if the laboratory rooms have the same airflow
characteristics. This would include ventilation
system configuration, airflow quantities and
airflow components including the air diffusers
and diffuser locations. Thus, if a facility has
many laboratory rooms that are duplicates of
each other and the room airflows have been
closely set to the same parameters or
specifications, a sampling of fume hoods may be
tested (termed a sample group) rather than
testing each and every fume hood.

11. ASHRAE 110 defines two types of on-site containment tests:

AI (as installed) and AU (as used). The AI test conditions
include the room parameters (air currents, etc.) while the AU
tests also include the actual fume hood contents. AIHA Z9.5
lists ASHRAE 100 tracer gas pass criteria of no greater than
0.10 ppm for AI tests.
Page 4 of 6

To qualify as part of a sample group the fume

hoods must all be in the exact same location in
each of the identical laboratory rooms. If a
room has multiple fume hoods, each different
fume hood location then establishes a separate
sample group. (Thus, if a room has four fume
hoods, each of the four fume hoods would be in
one of four different sample groups.)

All room ventilation parameters must be

adjusted and balanced before the fume hood
containment tests so there will be no
appreciable airflow difference from room to
room. This especially applies to the supply
make-up air, room general exhaust, and any
other room airflow elements such as specialized
exhausts. If any room must be set up different
than the other rooms, its fume hoods cannot be
considered part of the other rooms sample
groups.

It is recommended that 10% (with a minimum of

3) of the fume hoods from each sample group
be individually tested. More fume hoods should
be tested if the test results of a sample group
are not appreciably similar. Perhaps a variation
of more than 25% in test results would justify
additional testing.

The safety standards advise that periodic retesting to verify fume hood containment should
still be done on an annual basis, or whenever
changes are made to the ventilation system.
Using the above sampling approach could reduce
the time and expense of testing in new facilities. 12
For example, if a facility had 100 laboratory rooms
and each room had two fume hoods of the same
size and type, the containment testing could possibly
be conducted on only two sample groups having 10
fume hoods per group. Then rather than 200
separate fume hood containment tests, perhaps only
20 fume hood tests would suffice.

12. Due to the inevitable changes that occur over time in

laboratory rooms and their ventilation systems the sample
group fume hood testing approach is not always applicable
in existing facilities.
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Document No. 149-989

Designer Responsibility

Conclusion

The ventilation system designer must ensure that

the individual fume hood exhaust provision, as well
as the supply make-up airflow for each laboratory
room, can provide somewhat greater airflow if a
fume hoods face velocity must be increased beyond
what was originally anticipated. On average, a 10%
safety factor over the design conditions 13 should
usually suffice for this purpose.

Most laboratory safety professionals hold the

position that even if a fume hoods face velocity is
within safety standard recommendations, it will not
serve as a guarantee of safe fume containment.
Although one cannot argue against this position, it is
somewhat similar to saying that a good braking
system will not serve as a guarantee of vehicle
safety. As in many situations, ensuring total safety is
a more complex task and requires addressing
multiple issues.

VAV Advantage
VAV fume hoods will typically allow greater flexibility
in establishing the necessary average face velocity
for a particular fume hood due to the diversity factor
associated with VAV systems. 14 In other words if a
particular fume hood requires a higher than
anticipated average face velocity, it can usually be
attained without adding to the overall exhaust
system capacity. Also, the fume hood working height
for vertical sash fume hoods can usually be
restricted to 18 inches 15 by implementing a sash
stop. This reduces the sash opening to about 65% of
the normal full open sash height. As a result, the
average face velocity could then be increased by up
to 35% if necessary, based upon the exhaust airflow
rate for a fully open sash.

If the necessary fume hood average face velocities

are determined by on-site fume hood containment
testing, then the face velocity should serve as a
benchmark for safe containment if other important
aspects - particularly the room ventilation attributes remain unchanged and safe work practices are
followed. Periodic re-testing of fume hood
containment on an annual basis is still advised.
Ventilation system designers should allow some
extra capacity in exhaust and supply makeup air
systems in case individual fume hood exhaust
airflows must be increased above a manufacturers
recommendation to attain the average face velocity
required for acceptable fume containment.

13. Fume hood design airflow should be based upon either the
owners stated face velocity requirements or the fume hood
manufacturers as manufactured (AM) test data.
14. Fume hoods that have their sashes closed enable the
exhaust air capacity (and the room makeup air) to be used
where more airflow is needed.
15. A typical maximum fume hood vertical sash opening is at
least 28 inches.
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Document No. 149-989

Page 5 of 6

Product or company names mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners. 2009 Siemens Industry, Inc.
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Building Technologies Division
1000 Deerfield Parkway
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513
USA

Printed in the USA

Document No. 149-989
Page 6 of 6