Chromatography Forum

We have a need to contain MP supply and waste so that no organic vapour is released at any time. We have a VapLock system from Cobert, but the build quality is poor and it leaks not only vapour buy also liquid. I wonder if anyone else has experience of running LC with these vapour containment requirements. The need arises from County fire regulations.
Thanks.
J

Are these the same regulations that apply to your local gas stations?

Worst case: Put the LC near a hood, put MP & waste containers in hood.

The requirement for city petrol stations is environmental (smog). We have 30 LCs, so hoods would not be practical. Thanks for your reply though.
J

Are you sure that the regulations require this? Are you running normal phase LC with highly flammable solvents like hexane?

Most mobile phases that we use here are no more flammable than the liquors that people drink at the local tavern.

I just visited the Vaplock www site. That has to be the ugliest bit of laboratory hardware I've seen in a while. I assume each system is standalone, in which case I'd go for a much simpler system, especially on the waste side.

However, there is one fundamental rule, any system must not create safety hazards ( eg if it's cumbersome or requires moving akwardly shaped large containers, mixes incompatible chemicals, etc. ), or compromise the instrument manufacturer's design requirements. If there are site/local/national rules about total volume of containers, and type of containers, you should work through those first. Sadly, being ugly equipment isn't a safety issue - but it should be .

I use the same 4 liter glass bottle the solvents come in ( with label removed - defacing's not acceptable these days ) with a screw cap with 1/16 PTFE capillary vent on wastes and solvent reservoirs, all sitting on the floor inside plastic pails for easy lifting ( and the mandatory warning on the laboratory door hazard board stating the pails contain containers with solvents ).

If necessary, the vents could be run to a carbon trap, but I'd argue that mixing vapours is far more hazardous than the diffusion through a few inches of 20 thou tubing.

If the instrument waste tubing is PTFE, there's not much advantage in having stainless lines and metal receivers - especially if acid buffers, TFA etc are used, but safety and rationality are often not closely linked in some regulators' minds. Keep it simple, small, and pretty .

Look in the Upchurch catalog, search the www, and talk to your team, so you all consider options that will work. Talk to your HPLC suppliers to find out what other victims are doing. 30 HPLCs suggests that you will have some bikkies to play with, so buy what will work for you and your team. Take ownership and identify systems that will work for you.

Make it easy and practical, and talk to the regulator who's doing the insisting on total containment, and explain why you want to use the system you've come up with. If you can get their buy-in, there will be less future hassles. Good luck, you will need some.

Bruce Hamilton

A suprisingly low concentration of organic is deemed to support combustion. About port or sherry strength, for those who like tavern analogies.
J

With some short circuited brains near the open bottle?

Seriously - I too work nr. StL. I hope these bone-headed requirements don't seriously apply. Could you please cite the source?

John, I noticed your comment about the VapLock system you bought from Cobert. I work with the manufacturer of VapLock (Western Fluids Engineering). I’m sorry you had problems with the product. What was the specific issue: what happened and with which product number? We hadn’t heard of any “leaksâ€

Yes we ran hexane through a system that was sold to as as being resistant to hexane and every other MP we run. Blame your customers Jeff, that'll get you a long way.