One of the scariest things I have learned in my career, going all the way back to my days as a FF, was the when I learned about the "correction factor" that atmospheric monitors come with. I had used these devices for years, even entering some PRCS for "recovery" (sorry not many actual rescues as a FF - we usually show up too late!). But I have to give credit to Jeff Steen, my boss at Murray State University's Physical Plant EHS Department and one hell of a HAZMAT instructor. It had to be 1990-91 and MSU received a NIOSH grant to establish a regional OSH training center. I was in the maiden PRCS Rescue Course (being a student and FF in a small town has its perks) for the center and Jeff brought in all types of monitors and began training us on their uses and LIMITATIONS and I about fell out of my chair that day. But now, it seems as technology has advanced, the span of the "correction calculation" (a dated term to use in 2018/19) seems to be growing by leaps and bounds! What does this mean, well Xylene is no longer the champion for the greatest correction factor at 2.7. This month I was doing my final 40-hr HAZMAT course for a client and they broke out their new toys and among them was a brand new atm meter (I will not call out the manufacturer here). This brand new model 4-gas meter had all the bells and whistles you could put on a meter, but that meant absolutely nothing. And yes, this meter had been lying to them in a BIG WAY.

This new meter, as all its friends do, has a LEL sensor and this sensor comes with a HUGE limitation - it is DUMB AS A ROCK as it has no idea what it is actually "sniffing". This is where we, the human, comes into play when using these devices! We, the user, MUST know a couple of key factors BEFORE we can safely rely on our LEL meter. These are:

  1. The flammable gas/vapor
  2. The flammable gas used in our calibration gas
  3. The "correction factor" for our meter based on #1 and #2

You see, even with the newer catalytic bead LEL sensors, they are still DUMB as a rock! When we lower our sample tube into the atmosphere, the meter will have NO WAY of knowing which flammable gas/vapor is present. It will recognize the presence of the flammable gas/vapor, but it will not be able to distinguish toluene from ethanol. This means the LEL% reading on the face of the meter will in most cases NOT be accurate. The only way the LEL% reading will be close to being accurate is when the gas/vapor we are measuring is the same gas that was present in the calibration/bump test gas.

With that said, the two (2) most common flammable gases used in Calibration/Bump gases are Methane and Pentane. Depending on which one of these flammables is in our calibration/bump gas, the reading(s) on our LEL meter can vary greatly. Using the actual data (see table below) from one of the top sellers of 4-gas meters, we can see first hand the wide variation we can have when reading a flammable atmosphere. Keeping in mind that OSHA has established a 10% LEL for the flammable gas/vapor within a CS/PRCS. Once the atmosphere reaches (or has the potential to reach) 10% of the LEL for the flammable gas/vapor, the atm inside the space is deemed Hazardous.

You have no rights to post comments

 
View 's profile on LinkedIn

 

 LinkedIn Group Button

facebookIcon

 

Partner Organizations

 Chlroine Institute Logo 100 years

I am proud to announce that

The Chlorine Institute and SAFTENG

have extended our"Partners in Safety" agreement

for another year (2024)

CI Members, send me an e-mail

to request your FREE SAFTENG membership

 

RCECHILL BW

  

kemkey logo

OHS Solutions logoCEMANE power association logo

 EIT LOGO

 

Member Associations

ASME logo

 

Screen Shot 2018 05 28 at 10.25.35 PM

aiche logo cmyk highres

Chlorine institute

 nfpa logo.5942a119dcb25

 

TOCAS

 

BLR Logo 2018

 

 

 

 

safteng man copy

 

 organdonor