Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By S.Alder
Hello all,
Has anyone out there used this system for general condition testing and how good is it ? Am considering purchasing a COSHH starter kit for my own test purposes and would appreciate any information from someone other than the unit sales people.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Hi S?
It depends entirely what you need it for, how it's going to be used and the competence of the person using it.
What do you mean by "general condition testing"?
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte
Is this the tube system, by which you pull a know quantity of air through a chemical tube and this then changes colour up to a level, then you read off the supposed concentration.
If they are good for general use and detecting the presence of gases/vapors have used in the past but detection range is limited to moderatly high levels and can get interferences so read instructions carefully, fairly simple to use, but interpreting the actual concentraion can be none too precise.
If its the tubes, I my opinion I feel its a cheap alternative for gas testing general concentraions and presences of gases, if you want something more accurate and reliable maybe best to go with an electronic type device which gives a digital display result (less subject to misinterpretation) though more expensive. Dont get me wrong gastec are useful depends on the gas and concentration and reliability you require.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S.Alder
Sorry , should have been more descriptive. Basically i just want to conduct local atmospheric testing on some of our production processes. I already have environmental monitoring performed by an external company on a bi annual basis. This is the tube based system and i just want to be able to check the existing control measures on a quarterly basis to make sure everything is ok. i personally think the system must be pretty good as the external provider uses a gastec for some testing. I was just looking for feedback from anyone else familiar with this piece of kit.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IanD
Not used Gastec - but have used Drager for a similar purpose to which you refer to i.e. local atmospheric test, test before confined space entry etc. In my opinion they offer a good spot check and can read to very low concentrations 0.05ppm was one MEL I was working to
You must ensure you follow the guidelines such as Number of stokes. Last time I looked at Gastec the range of tubes available was the problem
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fred Pratley
Shane,
depending on what you are testing for, there is a whole range of passive badge systems where all you do is get people to wear the badge for a given time. This gives a better idea of exposures than either the Gastec or dreagar tube system, both of which are simple to use, but are only intended to give a snapshot at the time of testing.
Presuming that you are maintaining control of exposures using some form of extraction, I find it far better to spend money on things that confirm your extraction kit is working as well as it was on the day your outside people tested. you then only have to watch for changes in the way the process is operated.
However, I'm curious to know what makes you feel you need to increase testing intervals.
Regards Fred
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S.Alder
Just want to be able to check out problems when operators raise an issue over a particular piece of kit. Have used passive dose tubes before but some employees like to place these in extraction slots so they go off the scale. And with all honesty i cannot "babysit" all of them whilst using dositubes.
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stephen D. Clarke
Hi,
I've used both Gastec and Draeger in the past nothing really to choose between them both give a quick snapshot of the concentration. When I've used them it has been to see if I have a problem. Typically I would define that as any concentration greater than quarter of the WEL but it will of course depend upon the toxicity and health effects of the substance you are measuring. It is as well to remember that these devices are not very accurate I think something like 25-30% accuracy also its only a spot check so air movements, convection currents etc could easily give a unrepresentative result, you'll probably need to use several tubes to get an true idea of precision. Accuracy figures are often quoted with the tube leaflet as are interferences from other chemical vapours. I think you also need to allow for differences in air pressure and temperature. A bit of chemical knowledge will help to make a sensible judgement on chemical interferences which could alter the reading up or down. If a problem is identified then more accurate measurement will be needed with for example absorption tubes with subsequent gc or gc/ms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jay2005
I feel the Gastec range are better than Drager. As the volumetric hand pump is more accurate than the drager pump. Which is very easy to pump different amounts of air. They are cheaper and have TWA colour change tubes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.