In this insightful interview, David Oliva, General Manager of Organomation, sits down with Dr. David Hanigan, Associate Professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, to discuss cutting-edge PFAS research. Dr. Hanigan sheds light on efforts to break the "forever cycle" of PFAS by exploring thermal destruction processes and the challenges of ensuring complete elimination rather than creating more volatile forms. The conversation also touches on the standardized EPA methods, including EPA 1633, and the role of LC-MS in analyzing PFAS across various environmental matrices. Learn how this research aims to improve air and water quality through innovative environmental engineering approaches.<h3>Video Transcription</h3><h5>Interviewer: David, could you introduce yourself and your research focus?</h5>David Hanigan: I’m an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. I’m trained as an environmental engineer, and today most of my work is aquatic and environmental chemistry. A big area is PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Across drinking water, wastewater, and other media, we’re pretty good at separating and concentrating PFAS, but then what? You’ve created a concentrate and now need destruction. A major focus in my lab is understanding thermal processes—what happens during incineration and how to ensure PFAS aren’t simply transformed into smaller, more volatile PFAS and released. If they are formed, can air-pollution control devices capture and control those releases?<h5>Interviewer: Is your work tied to standardized EPA methodologies?</h5>Dr. Hanigan: We use EPA Method 1633 frequently—though not for gas-phase PFAS. 1633 is designed for aqueous, soil, and solid matrices. For gas-phase work, our setups are closer to OTM-45 and OTM-50 (Other Test Methods). That said, for most gas-phase experiments we measure online: rather than collecting with a canister as in OTM workflows, we route the furnace outlet directly to an FTIR and quantify in real time.<h5>Interviewer: My background is drinking-water methods (533, 537, 1633). How do matrices affect method choice and prep?</h5>Dr. Hanigan: EPA 537 is drinking water only—EPA really doesn’t intend it to be “modified 537 for wastewater.” Methods are matrix-specific. 1633 is broader and explicitly covers multiple matrices (e.g., wastewater and solids), so we use that when applicable.<h5>Interviewer: You recently installed a new LC-MS. How’s it going, and how will you prep samples?</h5>Dr. Hanigan: Good! We brought on a part-time technician/research scientist with extensive LC-MS experience; he’s been going through manufacturer training. It’s great having a new instrument under warranty and service contract. For most PFAS work that falls within a defined method, we expect to use EPA 1633. We also analyze short-chain PFAS combustion byproducts—those may fall outside current EPA methods, so we’ll tailor workflows accordingly.<h5>Interviewer: Anything you’d like readers to keep in mind about PFAS and destruction research?</h5>Dr. Hanigan: Think beyond removal. Concentration without destruction just moves PFAS around. We need to validate that thermal destruction actually minimizes formation of undesirable gas-phase PFAS and that downstream controls capture what’s produced. Our online FTIR approach helps reveal what’s really happening in the stack in real time.<h4>Key takeaways</h4><ul><li>Removal isn’t enough: Concentrated PFAS require verified destruction pathways.</li><li>Thermal processes under scrutiny: Incineration must avoid forming/releasing more volatile PFAS; air-pollution controls are critical.</li><li>Method matters: EPA 537 = drinking water only; EPA 1633 = broader matrices (aqueous/soil/solids). OTM-45/50 guide gas-phase sampling—but Hanigan’s team often measures online via FTIR.</li><li>LC-MS readiness: New platform supports EPA 1633 workflows and exploratory analysis of combustion byproducts outside current methods.</li></ul><blockquote>This text has been automatically transcribed from a video presentation using AI technology. It may contain inaccuracies and is not guaranteed to be 100% correct.</blockquote><blockquote><h4>Concentrating on Chromatography Podcast</h4>Dive into the frontiers of chromatography, mass spectrometry, and sample preparation with host David Oliva. Each episode features candid conversations with leading researchers, industry innovators, and passionate scientists who are shaping the future of analytical chemistry. From decoding PFAS detection challenges to exploring the latest in AI-assisted liquid chromatography, this show uncovers practical workflows, sustainability breakthroughs, and the real-world impact of separation science. Whether you’re a chromatographer, lab professional, or researcher you'll discover inspiring content!You can find Concentrating on Chromatography Podcast in podcast apps:<ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/1wZg67rCjoGju4yhqxI3tL">Spotify</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/tz/podcast/concentrating-on-chromatography/id1788429185">Apple podcast</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://podscan.fm/podcasts/concentrating-on-chromatography">podscan</a></li></ul>and on <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.youtube.com/@ChromatographyTalk/videos">YouTube channel</a></blockquote>

Breaking the Forever Cycle: PFAS Destruction & EPA Methodologies with Dr. David Hanigan

Traditional ducted fume hoods remain the gold standard for chemical containment in most laboratories, but several innovative alternatives can provide effective protection while offering unique advantages. These alternatives include glove boxes, snorkel systems, and specialized containment units that address specific laboratory needs while potentially reducing energy consumption and installation complexity.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Organomation_Alternatives_to_Traditional_Fume_Hoods_A_Comprehensive_Guide_to_Laboratory_Containment_Solutions_9c39f814df.jpg" alt="Organomation: Alternatives to Traditional Fume Hoods: A Comprehensive Guide to Laboratory Containment Solutions" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Organomation_Alternatives_to_Traditional_Fume_Hoods_A_Comprehensive_Guide_to_Laboratory_Containment_Solutions_9c39f814df.jpg 208w," sizes="100vw" width="2016" height="1512"><h3>Glove Boxes: Maximum Containment for High-Risk Materials</h3>Glove boxes, also known as isolation enclosures, represent the highest level of containment available for laboratory operations. These fully enclosed systems create a complete physical barrier between operators and hazardous materials while maintaining precise environmental control.<h4>Key Features and Applications</h4>Glove boxes consist of hermetically sealed stainless steel or transparent enclosures equipped with integrated gloves that allow manipulation without breaking containment. Modern systems include sophisticated transfer airlocks, sensors, regulators, and automatic safety flow systems that compensate for pressure drops or accidental containment breaches.These systems excel in applications requiring extremely low occupational exposure limits (OELs). For materials classified as OEB 4 (1-50 μg/m³) or OEB 5 (&lt;1 μg/m³), glove boxes provide containment levels as low as 0.1 μg/m³ or even 0.01 μg/m³. This makes them essential for handling highly potent pharmaceutical compounds, radioactive materials, and other extremely hazardous substances.<h4>Specialized Configurations</h4>The versatility of glove box technology extends to numerous specialized applications. Compounding Aseptic Isolators (CAI) create positive pressure environments for sterile pharmaceutical compounding, meeting USP 797 requirements. Conversely, Compounding Aseptic Containment Isolators (CACI) operate under negative pressure for handling hazardous drugs per USP 800 guidelines.Inert atmosphere glove boxes utilize nitrogen or argon purging to create oxygen-free environments essential for moisture-sensitive materials and anaerobic research. These systems feature automated purge cycles and one-touch operation for seamless anaerobic transitions.<h4>Construction Materials and Performance</h4>Stainless steel construction (316L grade) provides optimal chemical resistance and durability, with continuous seam welds and wide radius corners facilitating easy decontamination. Leak rates typically specification below 0.05% chamber volume per hour, verified through pressure decay testing. Advanced systems incorporate built-in sterilization capabilities using vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) generators for thorough decontamination between uses.<h4>Advantages and Limitations</h4>Glove boxes offer unparalleled containment performance with complete environmental isolation, precise atmospheric control, and robust decontamination capabilities. The closed design eliminates airflow disturbances that can compromise containment in open-front systems.However, glove boxes require larger footprints, higher initial investment, and more complex maintenance compared to open containment systems. The enclosed design may limit accessibility for larger equipment or rapid material transfers, and extended use can cause operator fatigue due to the ergonomic constraints of glove manipulation.<h3>Snorkel Systems: Localized Fume Extraction</h3>Snorkel systems, also known as articulating extraction arms or fume extraction arms, provide targeted fume capture at the source while maintaining workspace flexibility.<h4>Design and Operation</h4>These systems feature flexible, articulating arms typically 3-8 inches in diameter with working radii ranging from 3-14 feet. The arms incorporate three adjustable joints allowing 360-degree rotation and positioning flexibility. Standard configurations handle airflow rates from 30-1000 CFM depending on arm diameter and application requirements.Multiple specialized configurations address specific laboratory needs. The Original model provides general-purpose fume extraction for standard laboratory applications. ESD/EX models incorporate conductive materials to eliminate electrostatic discharge risks in electronic environments. CHEM models feature double anodized aluminum construction for enhanced corrosion resistance in aggressive chemical environments.<h4>Installation and Integration</h4>Snorkel systems mount to walls, ceilings, workbenches, or specialized support structures. They integrate with facility HVAC systems or standalone filtration units depending on application requirements. Mobile configurations with integrated collectors provide complete portability for applications requiring frequent repositioning.Advanced mounting systems include swing boom configurations for extended reach applications (18-35 feet) and rail-mounted trolley systems for linear positioning along extended work areas. These systems require minimal operator force for positioning and repositioning.<h4>Hood Options and Customization</h4>Extraction hoods vary based on application requirements. Transparent dome hoods optimize visibility for precision work while providing effective capture for high-dispersion particles. Metal hoods offer enhanced durability and chemical resistance for aggressive environments. Specialized hood geometries optimize capture efficiency for specific processes like chromatography or analytical instrumentation.<h4>Performance and Applications</h4>Snorkel systems excel in applications requiring localized fume extraction from specific equipment like chromatographs, analytical instruments, or small-scale chemical processes. They provide effective capture distances of 12-20 inches from the source with capture areas up to 20 inches in diameter.These systems prove particularly valuable in laboratories with limited space, flexible furniture arrangements, or applications where full fume hood installation is impractical. Educational laboratories benefit from their overhead mounting that preserves floor space while providing necessary ventilation.<h4>Energy Efficiency Considerations</h4>Snorkel systems typically require lower airflow rates than full-sized fume hoods, reducing energy consumption and HVAC demands. When integrated with variable speed controls and demand-based operation, they provide energy-efficient alternatives to constant-volume hood operation.<h3>Ductless Fume Hoods: Energy-Efficient Alternatives</h3>Ductless fume hoods represent a growing alternative to traditional ducted systems, offering significant energy savings and installation flexibility while maintaining safety standards.<h4>Energy Performance Advantages</h4>Ductless systems achieve remarkable energy efficiency improvements over traditional ducted hoods. Studies indicate energy efficiency improvements of 18-25 times compared to total exhaust systems, primarily through air recirculation rather than continuous exhaust of conditioned air. This translates to substantial reductions in HVAC loads and operational costs.A comparative analysis of a hypothetical 30-hood facility demonstrated that ductless systems consume only 2.4 kBTU per square foot annually compared to 127.5 kBTU for constant volume hoods and 74.1 kBTU for VAV systems. Carbon dioxide emissions similarly decrease from 873 tons annually for constant volume systems to just 55 tons for ductless alternatives.<h4>Filtration Technology and Safety</h4>Modern ductless hoods employ sophisticated multi-stage filtration systems combining carbon, HEPA, and specialized chemical filters. Advanced monitoring systems continuously assess filter performance and provide alerts when replacement is required. These systems maintain face velocities of 100 feet per minute, meeting OSHA recommendations while achieving ASHRAE 110 certification standards.Filter replacement costs range from $350-2,000 annually, representing significant savings compared to ongoing HVAC operational costs of ducted systems. Filter life varies based on application but typically extends 6-12 months under normal laboratory conditions.<h4>Installation and Flexibility Benefits</h4>Ductless hoods arrive fully certified and ready for immediate use without requiring building modifications or HVAC integration. This eliminates lengthy installation timelines and coordination requirements associated with ducted systems. Mobile configurations provide additional flexibility for laboratories requiring equipment relocation.The plug-and-play nature of ductless systems allows rapid deployment and adaptation to changing laboratory needs without facility downtime or infrastructure modifications.<h4>Application Limitations and Considerations</h4>Ductless systems prove most effective for applications involving naturally evaporating chemicals in limited volumes. They are not suitable for heated chemicals, highly volatile solvents, or applications generating large volumes of hazardous vapors. Regular filter monitoring and replacement are essential to maintain protection effectiveness.<h3>Specialized Containment Solutions</h3>Beyond traditional glove boxes and snorkel systems, several specialized containment solutions address specific laboratory needs.<h4>Downflow Booths</h4>Downflow booths utilize unidirectional airflow to carry contaminants away from operator breathing zones into low-level exhaust systems. These systems prove effective for powder handling operations requiring containment levels of 50-100 μg/m³.Recirculatory configurations suit powder operations while single-pass designs handle applications involving solvents or vapor generation. HEPA filtration and controlled airflow patterns (typically 90 FPM) provide effective containment while maintaining operator accessibility.<h4>Mobile Fume Extractors</h4>Portable fume extraction units combine the benefits of source capture with complete mobility. These self-contained systems feature integrated filtration, typically 3-stage systems with aluminum mesh pre-filters, MERV 15 cartridge filters, and activated carbon after-filters.Units range from 750-1200 CFM capacity with 6-8 inch diameter extraction arms in lengths from 7-14 feet. Advanced models incorporate pulse-cleaning systems extending filter life 6-7 times beyond traditional reverse-pulse systems.<h4>Biosafety Cabinets and Biological Containment</h4>While primarily designed for biological applications, Class III biosafety cabinets function as glove box systems for maximum biological containment. These systems provide complete enclosure with HEPA filtration for handling BSL-3 and BSL-4 materials.Class II biosafety cabinets offer open-front operation with HEPA filtration for lower-risk biological materials while providing some chemical containment capabilities for limited applications.<h3>Selection Criteria and Implementation Considerations</h3><h4>Material Hazard Assessment</h4>The selection of appropriate fume hood alternatives depends primarily on the occupational exposure limits and toxicological properties of materials being handled. OEB classifications provide guidance for containment requirements:<ul><li>OEB 1-2 (100-5000 μg/m³): Standard downflow booths with minimal additional controls</li><li>OEB 3 (10-100 μg/m³): Enhanced downflow booths or limited containment systems</li><li>OEB 4 (1-10 μg/m³): Specialized containment or glove box systems recommended</li><li>OEB 5 (&lt;1 μg/m³): Full isolation systems required</li></ul><h4>Economic Considerations</h4>Initial investment costs vary significantly among alternatives. Ductless hoods typically require lower upfront investment due to eliminated infrastructure requirements. Glove boxes represent higher initial costs but provide superior long-term containment assurance for high-risk materials.Operational costs favor ductless systems through reduced energy consumption, while glove boxes may require higher maintenance but offer lower risk exposure costs.<h4>Laboratory Design Integration</h4>Space constraints and laboratory layout significantly influence alternative selection. Snorkel systems optimize overhead space utilization while maintaining floor accessibility. Ductless hoods provide location flexibility without ducting constraints. Glove boxes require dedicated space but offer maximum containment assurance.Future laboratory needs and potential application changes should inform selection decisions, with modular and mobile solutions providing greater adaptability.The landscape of fume hood alternatives continues expanding with advancing filtration technology, improved energy efficiency, and enhanced safety monitoring systems. Each alternative offers distinct advantages addressing specific laboratory requirements while potentially providing economic and operational benefits over traditional ducted systems. Proper selection requires careful assessment of material hazards, operational requirements, and facility constraints to ensure both safety and efficiency objectives are met.

Alternatives to Traditional Fume Hoods: A Comprehensive Guide to Laboratory Containment Solutions

Article

Product

Events

Webinars

Application

Academy

Video

Poster

Scientists

Plastics

Environment

Food

Water

Health

Presentation

Scientific article

Interview

Toxicology

Popularization

Science and research

Software

Covid-19

Career

Laboratories

Various

Zaměření

Type of News

Focus

Organomation, founded in 1959, designs and manufactures high-quality nitrogen evaporators and extraction systems. Known for innovation and durability, their lab instruments are used globally for efficient sample preparation with strong customer support.

Organomation

LECO Training Course AC-600

LECO Online Training AC600 Lift Motor Troubleshooting

Integrated Analytical Workflows for Better Performance

MALDI Imaging Becomes IR-resistible: Going Multimodal for Advanced Biomedical Insights

Moisture and LOI Determination in Cement, Fly Ash, Gypsum, and Lime

FTIR microscopy: Practical guidance for effective sample analysis