This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fume hood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Fume hood has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Fume hood appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 July 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Well, here in the States we call 'em "fume hoods", ya see. genevax@yahoo.com
The UK invented them so we can call them what we like. European Standard uses Fume Cupboard. Globally fume cupboard used more.
I don't Think it really matters who invented them or who uses them more...they save lives and isn't that what really matters.....turboefx@yahoo.com
In the UK, "fume cupboard" is definitely more common than "fume hood", is this the case elsewhere.... thinking "redirect" here -- PopUpPirate 23:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Anybody have an idea how much power their fume cupboard fan draws? Nfette ( talk) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody summarize the main differences between a fume hood and a biosafety cabinet? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shudongs ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I edited the introduction but this article needs a lot of work. In particular, references to codes and standards (ANSI Z9.5 in the US for example).
The whole discussion relative to health and safety is very primitive.
I don't care what we call them, hoods or cupboards, and also I don't think it matters.
There is no one answer for how much power a hood draws. It depends entirely upon the exhaust system design, where you are located (vis heating/cooling the make-up air) and local power costs. We could include some examples however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonorom ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states "Fume hoods (fume cupboards) are generally available in 5 different widths; 1000 mm, 1200 mm, 1500 mm, 1800 mm and 2000 mm. The depth varies between 700 mm and 900 mm, and the height between 1900 mm and 2400 mm." Firstly, shouldn't it use centimeters, not millimeters? And also, I think this needs a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.69.120 ( talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The section "Behavioral programs to reduce fume hood energy use" has some nice information about saving energy. It has turned into a list of "me too" programs that is excessive. One or two example programs would be all that is needed for the article. Grantmidnight ( talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqU5bGP0i5I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.96.201 ( talk) 06:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have re-organized the material more logically, added Wikilinks, and reworded some awkward circumlocutions. More cleanup work is still needed. Reify-tech ( talk) 15:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fume hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone's interested in adding material about manufacturing and installation, then this looks like a decent image for the section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fume hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sustainability.utoronto.ca/projects/past/fumehoods/justshutit/justshutitguide.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sustainability.utoronto.ca/projects/past/fumehoods/justshutit/justshutitguide.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Reconrabbit ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: JMF ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article over the next week or so. Feel free to contact me here or at the talk page if you have any queries. Note that I will be creating sections as I go and may subsequently go back and change or delete them. So best not to react until I have completed the first cut.
Low (= good) score. Just one alert: the phrase "is a type of local exhaust ventilation device that is designed to limit exposure to hazardous or toxic fumes, vapors or dusts." is used elsewhere. So best to reword or quote formally, please.
The article is well cited.
The lead is of satisfactory length, though it looks to me like it could maybe do more to summarise the content. The paragraph on energy waste is valid but takes a third of the lead but nothing like that share of the body. How about remote handling mechanisms?
ranging from the handling of perchloric acid and radionuclides to tall floor-mounted models and models equipped with scrubber systems.is not a natural range. It is either "from relatively low-risk high-school systems to advanced systems in professional laboratories that deal with highly volatile poisonous, corrosive or radioactive substances" or "from about 10 cubic feet (0.28 m3) to to tall floor-mounted models" or "simple exhaust at rooftop to full scrubber management". But are radioactive substances really handled in a fume cupboard? I don't think so.
out of the area= out of the enclosure?
what has been calledis WP:WEASEL: who called it that? what qualifications do they have to be taken seriously? And as it doesn't seem to have had a front cover, can it really be called a fume cupboard at all?
Fume hoods were originally manufactured from wood, but during the 1970s and 1980s epoxy powder-coated steel became the norm. During the 1990s, wood pulp derivatives treated with phenolic resin (plastic laminates and solid grade laminates) for chemical resistance and flame spread retardance started to become widely accepted.Both assertions need citations.
This method of airflow control is intended to:None of these statements are cited.
protect the user from inhaling toxic gases (fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, glove boxes). Not just inhalation, but also from skin contact (though maybe that only applies to gloveboxes and biosafety cabinets?)
For exceptionally hazardous materials,: give both types of advanced containment systems, not just one.
"I'll be back" -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The phrase The steel may be substituted for a non-ferrous metal
reads very oddly to me, that the (new) substituting material is steel and the substituted (old) material is non-ferrous. Is this a particularly US expression? Anyway, I suggest "replaced by" as unambiguous.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
15:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In are required by ANSI and EN
, I suggest putting the EN citation at the end of the sentence too.
Up to you, because it faithfully replicates the source, but I would write One EN standard requires that the face of a fume hood be installed such that it is at least 1,000 millimetres (3.3 ft) from any space where there is frequent movement.
as "at least one meter (3.3 ft)" since you summarising the source.
Again, subjective but I would write to ensure consistent functionality;
as "to ensure consistently safe operation". [This is not a GA criterion! The article passes the "well written" test.]
GA criteria met thus far. Next to do: source verification.
In some cases, large-scale upgrades may be required to maintain compliance, especially in older units as new occupational safety regulations come into effect.This is an important assertion that needs a solid foundation.
I'm afraid that I need you to recheck all the citations to verify that they do in fact support the statements made. I checked five and three have failed verification. I will have to mark the GAR as "on hold" until you can assure me that you have done so and resolved any issues arising. That done, I will award GA. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 19:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Several common materials used for the exterior construction of a modern fume hood include. It seems that I copied the wrong citation but I don't see it in the intended ["How To Select The Right Laboratory Hood System" (PDF). University of Nebraska–Lincoln]. What drew my attention to it is that two of the suggested materials are cited in their own right but polypropylene is not. (The list continues but I stopped at that point.)
You don't seem to have added a section on classes of hood? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ✓ Pass | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ✓ Pass | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ✓ Pass | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ✓ Pass | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ✓ Pass | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ✓ Pass | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ✓ Pass | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ✓ Pass | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ✓ Pass | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ✓ Pass | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ✓ Pass | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ✓ Pass | |
7. Overall assessment. | ✓ Pass |
I am pleased to declare that, in my opinion, the article meets the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
JuniperChill
talk
22:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Recon rabbit 13:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fume hood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Fume hood has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Fume hood appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 July 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Well, here in the States we call 'em "fume hoods", ya see. genevax@yahoo.com
The UK invented them so we can call them what we like. European Standard uses Fume Cupboard. Globally fume cupboard used more.
I don't Think it really matters who invented them or who uses them more...they save lives and isn't that what really matters.....turboefx@yahoo.com
In the UK, "fume cupboard" is definitely more common than "fume hood", is this the case elsewhere.... thinking "redirect" here -- PopUpPirate 23:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Anybody have an idea how much power their fume cupboard fan draws? Nfette ( talk) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody summarize the main differences between a fume hood and a biosafety cabinet? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shudongs ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I edited the introduction but this article needs a lot of work. In particular, references to codes and standards (ANSI Z9.5 in the US for example).
The whole discussion relative to health and safety is very primitive.
I don't care what we call them, hoods or cupboards, and also I don't think it matters.
There is no one answer for how much power a hood draws. It depends entirely upon the exhaust system design, where you are located (vis heating/cooling the make-up air) and local power costs. We could include some examples however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonorom ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states "Fume hoods (fume cupboards) are generally available in 5 different widths; 1000 mm, 1200 mm, 1500 mm, 1800 mm and 2000 mm. The depth varies between 700 mm and 900 mm, and the height between 1900 mm and 2400 mm." Firstly, shouldn't it use centimeters, not millimeters? And also, I think this needs a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.69.120 ( talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The section "Behavioral programs to reduce fume hood energy use" has some nice information about saving energy. It has turned into a list of "me too" programs that is excessive. One or two example programs would be all that is needed for the article. Grantmidnight ( talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqU5bGP0i5I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.96.201 ( talk) 06:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have re-organized the material more logically, added Wikilinks, and reworded some awkward circumlocutions. More cleanup work is still needed. Reify-tech ( talk) 15:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fume hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone's interested in adding material about manufacturing and installation, then this looks like a decent image for the section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fume hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.colorado.edu/FacMan/about/conservation/FumeHoods.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sustainability.utoronto.ca/projects/past/fumehoods/justshutit/justshutitguide.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sustainability.utoronto.ca/projects/past/fumehoods/justshutit/justshutitguide.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Reconrabbit ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: JMF ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article over the next week or so. Feel free to contact me here or at the talk page if you have any queries. Note that I will be creating sections as I go and may subsequently go back and change or delete them. So best not to react until I have completed the first cut.
Low (= good) score. Just one alert: the phrase "is a type of local exhaust ventilation device that is designed to limit exposure to hazardous or toxic fumes, vapors or dusts." is used elsewhere. So best to reword or quote formally, please.
The article is well cited.
The lead is of satisfactory length, though it looks to me like it could maybe do more to summarise the content. The paragraph on energy waste is valid but takes a third of the lead but nothing like that share of the body. How about remote handling mechanisms?
ranging from the handling of perchloric acid and radionuclides to tall floor-mounted models and models equipped with scrubber systems.is not a natural range. It is either "from relatively low-risk high-school systems to advanced systems in professional laboratories that deal with highly volatile poisonous, corrosive or radioactive substances" or "from about 10 cubic feet (0.28 m3) to to tall floor-mounted models" or "simple exhaust at rooftop to full scrubber management". But are radioactive substances really handled in a fume cupboard? I don't think so.
out of the area= out of the enclosure?
what has been calledis WP:WEASEL: who called it that? what qualifications do they have to be taken seriously? And as it doesn't seem to have had a front cover, can it really be called a fume cupboard at all?
Fume hoods were originally manufactured from wood, but during the 1970s and 1980s epoxy powder-coated steel became the norm. During the 1990s, wood pulp derivatives treated with phenolic resin (plastic laminates and solid grade laminates) for chemical resistance and flame spread retardance started to become widely accepted.Both assertions need citations.
This method of airflow control is intended to:None of these statements are cited.
protect the user from inhaling toxic gases (fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, glove boxes). Not just inhalation, but also from skin contact (though maybe that only applies to gloveboxes and biosafety cabinets?)
For exceptionally hazardous materials,: give both types of advanced containment systems, not just one.
"I'll be back" -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The phrase The steel may be substituted for a non-ferrous metal
reads very oddly to me, that the (new) substituting material is steel and the substituted (old) material is non-ferrous. Is this a particularly US expression? Anyway, I suggest "replaced by" as unambiguous.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
15:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In are required by ANSI and EN
, I suggest putting the EN citation at the end of the sentence too.
Up to you, because it faithfully replicates the source, but I would write One EN standard requires that the face of a fume hood be installed such that it is at least 1,000 millimetres (3.3 ft) from any space where there is frequent movement.
as "at least one meter (3.3 ft)" since you summarising the source.
Again, subjective but I would write to ensure consistent functionality;
as "to ensure consistently safe operation". [This is not a GA criterion! The article passes the "well written" test.]
GA criteria met thus far. Next to do: source verification.
In some cases, large-scale upgrades may be required to maintain compliance, especially in older units as new occupational safety regulations come into effect.This is an important assertion that needs a solid foundation.
I'm afraid that I need you to recheck all the citations to verify that they do in fact support the statements made. I checked five and three have failed verification. I will have to mark the GAR as "on hold" until you can assure me that you have done so and resolved any issues arising. That done, I will award GA. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 19:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Several common materials used for the exterior construction of a modern fume hood include. It seems that I copied the wrong citation but I don't see it in the intended ["How To Select The Right Laboratory Hood System" (PDF). University of Nebraska–Lincoln]. What drew my attention to it is that two of the suggested materials are cited in their own right but polypropylene is not. (The list continues but I stopped at that point.)
You don't seem to have added a section on classes of hood? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ✓ Pass | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ✓ Pass | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ✓ Pass | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ✓ Pass | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ✓ Pass | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ✓ Pass | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ✓ Pass | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ✓ Pass | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ✓ Pass | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ✓ Pass | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ✓ Pass | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ✓ Pass | |
7. Overall assessment. | ✓ Pass |
I am pleased to declare that, in my opinion, the article meets the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
JuniperChill
talk
22:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Recon rabbit 13:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |