or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › Cera F Turbo overlays... good to go each run, back-to-back?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cera F Turbo overlays... good to go each run, back-to-back? - Page 2

post #31 of 61
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanos K View Post"I must admit to not always using a respirator if i am waxing a pair of skis with hydrocarbon, but when I am the family sherpa (two pair of skis and two snowboards), or I am using a fluorinated wax the respirator is being fully amortized. Here is what the experts found:

[...]

Five minutes after waxing began, hydrocarbon wax vapor concentration in the waxroom exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Act limit of 2mg/m3. (OSHA is the US agency that monitors workplace safety).  In cases where the OSHA limit is exceeded, use of a respirator is mandated.

[...]

These results clearly show a reduction in lung function after exposure to ski wax vapor.  All five technicians monitored in the study showed a 10 - 25 percent decrease in lung function after five days of waxing.

[...]


I wonder why ski waxing with hydrocarbon is more dangerous than having lighted candles in the house.  (Or perhaps candles are dangerous too?)  Could it be because of the large surface area of warmed wax on the ski base, that causes more fumes than a moderate number of candles would?  As for the temperature, I would expect a candle flame to be hotter than a wax iron.

 

P.S.  On re-reading my comment, it occurs to me that it sounds rather sarcastic/facetious, but I really do not mean it that way at all.  I'm just curious. smile.gif

 

post #32 of 61
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post



There's at least  two different phenomena that you're lumping into 1 here.

 

Vaporization  where the gas is the same chemical composition as the solid.     Every solid or liquid  has some vapor escape below the boiling point - the boiling point is just the point where it all becomes vapor.   You see this every day when you line dry clothes - the water never boils but the clothes do dry out and the water escapes as vapor.     This is what's going on in the waxing shack study above.    And they wax far more skis per week than you will over a season.

 

Thermal breakdown of the heated compound - the gas is of a different composition than the solid-liquid.     This is what you're reading about if you're reading about gases from heated Teflon, for example.   There are thousands of compounds that are prone to thermal breakdown before they reach a boiling point.



With respect to the first point, a solid wax is going to have such a low vapor pressure, I don't get how it can vaporize at 150 F.  I don't understand how those long-chained CH alkane chains can exist in the atmosphere at room temp if it is not burned.  I clearly don't understand much here. Oh well.  I've worn those bad-ass respirators opening organic waste drums... I guess I'll have to add them for waxing skis.

 

Now thermal breakdown I understand.  But I wasn't aware that heating an alkane chain broke it down so easily.

post #33 of 61



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post



With respect to the first point, a solid wax is going to have such a low vapor pressure, I don't get how it can vaporize at 150 F.  I don't understand how those long-chained CH alkane chains can exist in the atmosphere at room temp if it is not burned.


Actually, believe it or not, /liquid/ compounds like those used in Zardoz have some of the lowest vapor pressures known - which is why they're used as lubricants in high-vacuum pumps.

 

And as to why vapor pressure exists at all - if you look at the energies of individual molecules of wax at 150F, they are not all the same but rather have a statistical distribution centered around the average energy corresponding to 150F.     The high energy outliers are the ones that create the vapor pressure.   The energy of those outlier molecules is greater than the cohesion of the wax - and they're off.

 

Once those outliers leave the surface of the wax by zooming off and get far enough away from the ski to not feel the heat -  brownian motion of the air itself can keep them suspended as an aerosol.     They become wax-dust, smaller than drywall dust.

 

post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by renenkel View Post


I wonder why ski waxing with hydrocarbon is more dangerous than having lighted candles in the house.  (Or perhaps candles are dangerous too?)  Could it be because of the large surface area of warmed wax on the ski base, that causes more fumes than a moderate number of candles would?  As for the temperature, I would expect a candle flame to be hotter than a wax iron.



I think at least part of your answer is bureaucratic - OSHA hasn't gotten around to regulating catholic churches yet.   ;-)

post #35 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by renenkel View Post

Is wearing a respirator for fluorocarbon hot waxing a substitute for having a ventilation system exhausted to the outdoors?  Even though it would protect your lungs during the waxing, what happens to the wax fumes that are generated?  If you wax in your unventilated basement, do they eventually spread throughout your house, where you/others breathe them in later?  Or by that time would they be diluted enough not to pose a threat?  Or do they fall and condense on the walls/floor?  Any literature/studies/opinions on this?


You are a thinking man, I have noticed a practical mind in this and other posts. Here is another one from the archives:

 

DOMINATOR’s first wax manual, published in August of 1994 and entitled “Rocket Science, A Guide to Fast Skis” which contained a chapter on “Safe Wax Application”, excerpted below:

…To protect yourself and others while waxing, we strongly recommend that you do the following:

  • Always wear a respirator (gas mask), while waxing  (regardless of type of wax in use), while near someone who is waxing, and while repairing skis with a flame or welder. Your respirator should be equipped with cartridges suitable for organic vapor, hydrochloric acid and sulfur dioxide. Cartridges should be replaced after about 60 hours of use or as recommended by the manufacturer.
  • Never expose waxes to an open flame, smoke while waxing is in progress, or wax near space heaters.
  • Wear a dust mask (particle mask) while scraping and brushing, especially if you are using rotary brush attachments for drills.
  • Wear safety glasses during waxing, since vapor generated during ironing of wax and powder and particles generated during brushing may cause eye irritation.
  • Air out the wax room or trailer frequently.
  • Get some fresh air after waxing two or three pair of skis, even if you are taking all of the precautions suggested above.  (Most ski technicians voice complaints after travel waxing, when ten or more pair of skis are waxed at one time.)

…To some our recommendations may seem excessive, but as chemists we are particularly aware of the safety issue.  All products are potentially hazardous, however safe they may be considered. 

… even the most hazardous substances can be used without adverse effects if the proper precautions are taken.  We advise you to be smart about this issue and err on the side of caution.  The protective equipment we recommend you use is readily available, lightweight, convenient to use and very affordable...We know you’ll be safer, and probably healthier.  Think about it, and pass the word.

 

 


 

 

post #36 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post



With respect to the first point, a solid wax is going to have such a low vapor pressure, I don't get how it can vaporize at 150 F.  I don't understand how those long-chained CH alkane chains can exist in the atmosphere at room temp if it is not burned.  I clearly don't understand much here. Oh well.  I've worn those bad-ass respirators opening organic waste drums... I guess I'll have to add them for waxing skis.

 

Now thermal breakdown I understand.  But I wasn't aware that heating an alkane chain broke it down so easily.


Vitamin Ski, contrary to your statement, you do understand a lot of what is going on, but some things are counterintuitive.Water vapor exists in the air at temperatures much below the boiling point of water.  Hydrocarbons can vaporize below their boiling point. There is also another phenomenon called sublimation: going from the solid to the vapor state without going through the liquid state.  This is very common with fluorocarbons, the stars you see when you iron a fluoro powder are the result of the solid subliming, then solidifying. A hydrocarbon wax may vaporize for a short time during ironing, then condense as a mist again. Unfortunately, the waxer's nose is too close to that mist. As for the alkanes, they are quite stable, they are vaporized, not broken down to smaller chain lengths. But the end result is that you decided to protect yourself, so all is well that ends well.
 

 

post #37 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by renenkel View Post


I wonder why ski waxing with hydrocarbon is more dangerous than having lighted candles in the house. 


When you light a candle you have (mostly) combustion, the hydrocarbon reacts with the available oxygen to produce CO2 and water.

 


 

 

post #38 of 61
Thanos, I love your products. Have been using your Zoom Universal and Universal Graphite almost exclusively for years. Also use Momentium at times.

I recently picked up some Toko to supplement the Dominator.

Mike Disantis turned me on to your products - can't get a better recommendation then his!
post #39 of 61
Just ordered a respirator from Amazon for $25 based on your recommendation Thanos. Thanks.

I tune in my garage and have an exhaust fan, but as you say, why not? Usually only tune 2 skis at a time and thus would only have to wear the mask for a short period of time.
post #40 of 61
Thread Starter 

I'd also like to thank Thanos for his safety recommendations.  I'm going to go to Home Depot and get a vapor respirator.  I'm probably still gonna do it in my basement, but figure dissipation to the rest of the house will send the vapors well below their harmful exposure concentration.

post #41 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Thanos,..Mike Disantis turned me on to your products - can't get a better recommendation then his!


I couldn't agree more! Mike is a good friend and has contributed a lot of insight to our product development. We met him back in the mid 90's Hillary Lindh days, when we had just started DOMINATOR and we spent most of our time testing with the world cup techs. It does not take long for a trained scientist to figure out who has the fastest skis, so we focused on Mike as a somebody who could give our products a sound evaluation. Mike does not suffer fools easily and is not afraid to voice his opinion, but he is direct, sincere and accessible. As a product designer I paid close attention to his comments and they were always on target (center of target!). I don't see Mike as often any more, but I still consider him a good friend and I am grateful for the help he provided to us and our sponsored athletes over the years. 
 

 

post #42 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanos K View Post

You are a thinking man, I have noticed a practical mind in this and other posts.

Thanks, I try....rolleyes.gif  And thanks for the interesting, informative postings.icon14.gif

post #43 of 61

I also wear a respirator when I roto brush.  The tiny particles that these brushes throw into the air is huge.

 

 

post #44 of 61

What??? But, should I wear protection?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor D View Post


All racewax.com waxes are safe to apply indoors.
 



 



 

post #45 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianskier View Post

I also wear a respirator when I roto brush.  The tiny particles that these brushes throw into the air is huge.

 

 



This is clever, at the very least you should wear a particle mask. Try spraying some water on the base before rotobrushing. It makes a bit of a mess in that you will have to dry the water later if you do it indoors, but it improves the air quality and the base gets from 0.5 to 2% faster depending on the type of wax and the snow. It works best with wet snow and fluoro waxes and overlays.

 

post #46 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianskier View PostI also wear a respirator when I roto brush.  The tiny particles that these brushes throw into the air is huge.


Yeah, that reminds me of a previous post in which I wondered if anyone had built a gizmo to attach a vacuum cleaner hose to their rotobrush shield.  I may try to do something like that when I get my set of rotobrushes that I ordered from SlideWright the other day smile.gif

 

post #47 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanos K View Post


The fluorocarbon reduces the ability of the base to absorb wax.  Furthermore, if you have residual fluoro in your base and the snow gets cold and dry the base will be slow.  It's good to start fresh every time so you can properly wax for the conditions.  And yes, you ski a lot of the fluoro off, but there is still plenty of residue.
 

 


You might want to check a thread last season where Prickly posted.  He waxes for the world cup I believe, and said that has turned out not to be the case with fluoros and the buildup making them slow.

 

post #48 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post


You might want to check a thread last season where Prickly posted.  He waxes for the world cup I believe, and said that has turned out not to be the case with fluoros and the buildup making them slow.

 


I did recall that thread for various reasons, it was a post by PRIMOZ ( the name rings a bell, but somehow with a cross country association), so I went back and looked for it. The main reason I recalled it was the safety aspect, the second was the fluoro question (I see you posted it) and the third was a reference to Val Vardena. If you read his post carefully, what he says is that the bases treated with fluoro powders ran fine. BUT, in all likelhood there was no fluoro build-up on the base: Keep in mind that in the world cup the first thing that they do when the skis come back and are up to room temperature is to hot-scrape them to remove the dirt and old wax. This automatically removes a good portion of the fluoro powder, even if you use a low fluoro (or even a high fluoro if you are that prosperous) to hot scrape.

 

It is hard to argue with numbers, Tog, there is a ton of data indicating that having a lot of fluoro on dry snow will make the bases slower. Clearly there are exceptions and you also have to remember that the snow is quite different in WC downhill race courses, more humid and less aggressive than expected because of the constant grooming and packing (even hosing down).

Many years ago we were in Val Gardena for the downhill, beautiful sunny day, old bully snow at -18C. Our Italian tech was Ghedina's friend and former roomate and was testing with his wax tech, their fastest wax tested was our extreme cold high fluoro wax. I was very surprised  and thought he had made a mistake, then Edi Waldberger, Daron's wax tech at the time, came to me asking for a bar of the exact same thing.  I was in Val Gardena January 12-15th of this year and we were expecting lots of new warm snow and I waxed with a soft, high fluoro graphite.  The snow stopped 20 miles north and the we were left with cold scratchy stuff. I thought I would have a problem, surprisingly I did not until the end of the day when we got to the bottom.  There is a long (7 mile) trail and as we were getting lower I could feel the wax get progressively more scratchy, a sign that there was way too much fluoro for the conditions. The fact that I had waxed around 5 degrees too warm did not seem to matter any time during that day.  My point is that there will be times that a high fluoro wax will run on dry snow (I have seen it in Val Gardena and occasionally Whistler) or NOT run on wet snow (Nagano 98, we waxed the Japanese jumpers with hard hydrocarbon in the rain and they walked away with most of the medals) but these are the exceptions. For reliable results you wax high fluoro when you can make a snowboall and it stays together, mid fluoro if the snowball cannot stay together and low fluoro or hydrocarbon if you can not make a snowball. Gloves must be worn when making the snowball or the heat from your hands will influence the results. And clearly you have to remove the old wax before you wax for the conditions otherwise you will get a mixture containing some of the old and some of the new wax, not exactly what the wax charts call for.
 

 

post #49 of 61

Yes, Primoz it was and he is more assoc with cross country but I believe he does both? Or maybe he just talks to his fellow waxers.

Anyway, very good info you're giving, thanks for the posts.  You clearly have a lot of exp. waxing at the highest levels of competition.

post #50 of 61

I was around a bit too much lately to be able to follow this thread, but since I got mentioned... :) First things first. Yes most of my work (and whole racing career) was in xc skiing, which, to be honest, depends on good waxing even more then any alpine skiing. Second, I'm out of this business for some 10+ years now, so my information are not first hand anymore. I'm still around WC nowadays, but as photographer only, and this way, even when I talk with my old waxing buddies, I don't need all info, even though I'm still interesting in these things. But it's never same as when you are chasing hundredths of a second yourself. So most likely my info are still better then majority of others, but they mostly likely they are not 100% correct. Ok enough of disclaimer biggrin.gif

One thing Thanos is 100% correct is how skis are treated on WC. Once you get them off track, they get layer of transport wax. If you have money, this wax is normally HF wax, but one thing is fluoro powder, the other are HF waxes. No matter what, I would still say using HF waxes as transport/storage wax is overkill for recreational skiers or even Sunday racers. WC is different thing, and spending few more kg of expensive wax won't make much of difference compared to all other expenses WC team has.
One more thing I wanted to say is protection. This might be myth or not. I have no idea and to be honest, I don't know who to believe. Really good friend of mine was for last 15 years chief tech for men WC for one of top wax companies. He told me, they were regularly tested them and nothing ever showed even though he was never using gas masks. On the other side, I personally saw one of our coaches walking in our wax room with cigarette in his hand, when we were waxing powders/HF combinations, and we carried him out unconscious. Officially, fluor waxes aren't harmful until you keep temperature under 300c (if I remember number right), and normally you wax between 120c (hard waxes) and 180c (powders). But in my mind, and personally I was using gas mask all these years when I was in WC, using mask doesn't cost anything. Maybe it doesn't do anything, but maybe it does. So why to risk :)

post #51 of 61

Your disclaimers are certainly not necessary!

 

Ok, so the upshot is that to really know they test the wax as close to possible in the conditions?

The old snowball test holds up generally? (Use gloves)

Fluoro build up will make skis slower?

 

Thanos, what's the current company? Different than Dominator?

I used to use the Zoom all temp for junior race skis for almost all conditions unless very cold.

post #52 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanos K View Post

There are several relevant articles, Google is your friend in this case. But perhaps it even relates to your own experience.   I recalled reading a post by you so I went back and looked for it:

 

"I found the teflon ironing pads. .. With the teflon pad, 100% of the stuff you rub on, melts into the ski. There's absolutely no waste...."

 

As you correctly stated, the Teflon pads do not absorb any of the wax so it all gets absorbed by the polyethylene base.  Teflon, like the fluoropowders, is a fluorocarbon, the difference being the size of the molecule. Both Teflon and fluoro powders are made up of fluorocarbon building blocks, but the powders contain around 20 building blocks whereas Teflon contains hundreds or even thousands. What you observed is based on Teflon's property to repel wax, imagine now a thin film (or even isolated patches) of a teflon-like material (the fluoro powder) covering your base: wax absorption would be lower.

 

Regarding this comment,

 

"At the very least, I wouldn't expect a difference detectable by anyone other than WC skeers."

 

I can only offer a personal opinion: There is a cost (and not only financial) attached to using fluoro waxes.  There is a certain dilligence required (prepare the base with a lower cost wax, crayon the fluoro and iron, hot-scrape to remove after use, etc), that is just not necessary if you just throw on a layer of all-temp wax. So why not do it properly and maximize the return on your investment?
 

 


Thanos,

 

Good info.  The Teflon argument makes a lot of sense.  You've convinced me that it does make sense to clean the bases after High-Fluoro wax.  I don't use powder, but occasionally use Maplus P-3 wax.  I just looked at it, and noticed that it is not a transluscent solid as other waxes, but has a crystalline look - clearly the fluorocarbon is not mixing well with the base.

 

I'm not convinced that it's necessary to use a solvent or hot-scrape to clean the bases from low-F wax, after a weekend of skiing.  Between the snow abrasion, and a low initial concentration of FC, I don't think it'll form enough of a barrier to prevent HC wax from soaking the bases.  But, at the very least, I'll be on the look out for this effect.

 

post #53 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Thanos, what's the current company? Different than Dominator?

I used to use the Zoom all temp for junior race skis for almost all conditions unless very cold.

Still, with Dominator, Tog.  This is one company I will never sell, I love the lifestyle: my office is the mountain, and the athletes are my colleagues. And you are correct, at the recreational level we use Zoom (or Graphite Zoom) for normal snow, Bullet for very cold snow. For competition we switch to Race Zoom and Race Bullet.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by incognito View Post

Thanos,

... You've convinced me that it does make sense to clean the bases after High-Fluoro wax. ...I'm not convinced that it's necessary to use a solvent or hot-scrape to clean the bases from low-F wax, after a weekend of skiing. Between the snow abrasion, and a low initial concentration of FC, I don't think it'll form enough of a barrier to prevent HC wax from soaking the bases. But, at the very least, I'll be on the look out for this effect.

 

I think we have to make a very important distinction here, and this is between fluorocarbons and fluorinated wax additives. As Primoz alluded to earlier, they are two very different things. The original thread topic (and my point on the need to remove by hot-scraping) was on fluorocarbon overlays.  These are very different chemically than the fluorinated additives found in the fluoro hot waxes. Fluorocarbons do not dissolve in hydrocarbon waxes and do not penetrate into the base, they just adhere to the surface. They also repel melted hydrocarbons having what some would call a sealing effect on the base. The fluorinated additives that are used to make fluoro waxes are quite different in this respect: They are hybrid compounds that contain a hydrocarbon segment and a fluorocarbon segment and they mix readily with hydrocarbon waxes. The fluorinated additive has partial penetration into the base, not as deep as hydrocarbons but deeper than fluorocarbons.  This is not the type of fluoro I was referring to in my original post, but be that as it may it may be a good idea to look for fluorinated additive build-up as well. It is usually evidenced by whitish patches on the base and it it will make it slower on dry snow. These patches are generally removed by hot scraping, stonegrinding will take care of a more extensive problem. As for your final comment: Using a base cleaner will dry your base completely, competition bases are only cleaned by hot-scraping. Putting fresh wax on top of old wax is like changing the oil in your car without changing the filter: you contaminate the new oil with old dirty oil. If the iron is fired up already, a quick hot scrape with hydrocarbon adds insignificant time and expense to the process but keeps your base fast and in pristine condition. The other point is that if you wax for slush one day and for cold snow the next time you wax, you have a very soft old wax mixing with a very hard new wax giving you an intermediate wax which will not work according to plan.

 


Edited by Thanos K - 1/31/12 at 1:12am
post #54 of 61



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post

...Really good friend of mine was for last 15 years chief tech for men WC for one of top wax companies. He told me, they were regularly tested them and nothing ever showed even though he was never using gas masks. ....But in my mind, and personally I was using gas mask all these years when I was in WC, using mask doesn't cost anything. Maybe it doesn't do anything, but maybe it does. So why to risk :)


Three hour layover in the Munich airport, a good time to catch up! :-)

You are a clever man to protect yourself, Primoz.  There is enough risk in our lives and we enjoy it (fast skis, fast cars, motorcycles, etc) but a health risk is a stupid one, we have to manage risk whenever it's potentially damaging. I may know who you are talking about, is he a countryman of yours whose name starts with an M? Or is he from the xc side? Anyway, it is a stretch to say that medical test shows no problem, so it is safe to go without protection. I wish all the unprotected waxers the best of luck, but  blood panel and lung function testing will not reveal all potential problems. So I truly hope that your friend enjoys the best of health for the rest of his life, but this statement is like saying "I have been smoking five packs a day for 20 years and don't have lung cancer, so no smoker will develop lung cancer". Here is another one from our recent files:

A group of Swedish scientists headed by H. Nilsson has published two comprehensive articles: Inhalation Exposure to Fluorotelomer Alcohols Yield Perfluorocarboxylates in Human Blood? Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44 (19), pp 7717–7722, followed up in 2011 by Human Exposure to Fluorinated Ski Wax. The contents of these articles can be difficult for non-chemists to fully comprehend, but here is a very simplified summary:

 

  • Perfluorooctanoic acid (abbreviated PFOA) is a synthetic chemical found in the blood of the general population. There are theories as to how it got there and it is suspected to be hazardous to human health, but there is no concrete evidence at this time.

 

  • A number of professional cross-country wax technicians examined showed much higher PFOA content in their blood, around 20 times higher on the average than the general population. This was very surprising because PFOA is not contained in ski waxes in appreciable levels.
  • A group of wax technicians working for the Swedish and US national cross country teams were monitored during the 2007-2008 World Cup season. Their average workload involved 30 hours of waxing per week.
  • The waxroom air quality was monitored. The levels of PFOA were very low, but high levels of 2-pefluorooctylethanol (abbreviated FTOH) were found. FTOH, a suspected health hazard, is a high boiling liquid that is expected to volatilize during ironing.
  • There was no report on the origin of FTOH, it could be an impurity in the fluoro wax, or formed from other wax ingredients during the ironing process.
  • The levels of PFOA in the technicians’ blood kept increasing even after the season was over, a time when there was no exposure to wax. This led the researchers to conclude that after being inhaled, the FTOH was slowly changing into PFOA in the technicians’ body through a process called biotransformation.

The levels of PFOA reached a maximum shortly after the season was over then started to decrease, but there was no report about the levels before the start of the following season so long term effects are not known.

 

The consensus seems to be that  A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD IS PRESENT WHILE IRONING SOME FLUORO SKI WAXES AND A RESPIRATOR MUST BE WORN TO REDUCE VAPOR INHALATION IF THERE IS FREQUENT EXPOSURE.

 

For do-it-yourselfers, H. Nilsson, the primary author of the latest articles, advises: “Make sure that the room is ventilated. A [respirator] with a proper filter is also recommended.” She added, “There is no need to worry too much if one only intends to wax the occasional one or two pair.” Concerns are greatest for professionals like those in the studies, waxing as many as 20 pairs of skis a day.

 

DOMINATOR's  remains that precautions must be taken regardless of the brand used, the chemical industry has a long and guilty history of introducing compounds as safe, only to recall them years later after they have been proven dangerous and damaging to health. Unintentially, for sure, but damaging nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #55 of 61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanos K View Post
I may know who you are talking about, is he a countryman of yours whose name starts with an M?

Yes it's him :)
 

 

post #56 of 61
Is this the correct type of filter to use?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009363G/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details

Thanks for all your fantastic info Thanos and primoz.
post #57 of 61

To be honest, I don't know much about filters, but reading your link, I have feeling US markings are different then those we have over here in Europe. But no matter what, you should be looking for mask protecting you from gases not from dust. Based on very few info on your link, I would say this particular mask is more or less for dust.
Filters I use and I have been using have protection from following gases (based on European standard EN 141) A2, B2, E2, K1 and filter should be class P3. For example something like this. I'm really sorry, but I have really no idea about US classification, but I guess it won't be too hard to find some table to "transform" EU standards to US ones.

post #58 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Is this the correct type of filter to use?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009363G/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details
 



 According to the manufacturer's specs, it is a suitable mask as the cartridges protect against organic vapor and gaseous acids.

http://www.safetyworks.com/catalog/product1127.html

post #59 of 61

Well I found this.

Frankly, he confuses things at the end with the fume talk.

The Hepa filter alone does not do gases and vapors like the one primoz posted.

 

Quote:  Matthew T. Pauli

http://www.skiwax.ca/tp/waxroom1.php

All respirators leak. Some less than others, but this must be stressed. Selection of respiratory protection is not by happenstance. Facepieces are all different, faces are all different. Do not purchase a respirator because it is the "most popular on the World Cup Circuit!" This was found in a catalog of a reputable ski shop in Utah. That claim no longer exists in the catalog but they continue to sell respirators. In addition, different respirators exist including half-face, full-face, powered air-purifying, supplied air; the list goes on. All respirator facepieces must be fit tested. The respirator must be donned (put on) and doffed (taken off) properly. A clean shaven face is a must! If you have beard, you are only kidding yourself that you are properly protected.

 

Cartridge selection is important. I have seen recommendations anywhere from organic vapor cartridges to combination cartridges; attempting protection for every conceivable contaminant. A short primer in aerosol science is necessary here. Ski wax is heated. The solid is transformed into a liquid and quickly cools to a solid. The wax has sublimated, similar to a welding operation. The liquid in turn has evaporated slightly to become a vapor. This vapor quickly condenses to a fume particle that makes up the constituent of the smoke generated by the melting process. A vapor is not a fume but they are both aerosols. Next time you here someone say, "I really like the smell of gas fumes when I am filling my car's gas tank!" Correct them and say that they enjoy the "vapor."

 

A wax fume particle is one (1) micron ((m)(Dahlqvist, et al, 1992), one-millionth of a meter, one-hundredth the width of a human hair which becomes airborne. This inhalable particle makes up a portion of the respirable fraction with a 97 % chance of being transported to the deep lung (ACGIH, 2001).

What would be the reaction if this happened? As an inhalable particle, irritation of the entire respiratory tract including the naso-pharyngeal (nose-mouth), thoracic (lung-airways), and deep lung (gas-exchange) regions could occur. The irritation would stem from the hydrocarbon constituents and, if heated to decomposition, the decomposed fluorine. Flourine reacts with water and becomes hydrofluoric acid. The respiratory system is indeed a moist environment. While exposures from ski waxing would be acute and more than likely not lead to degradation of tissue, the resultant irritation is a combination of the moist environment of the respiratory system and the contaminant.

 

So, what type of cartridge? An MSDS from SWIX indicated a "P3." Since the MSDS was written for European application, this recommendation is based on the European standards. The U.S. equivalent would be based on a cartridge certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH is the only agency that certifies respiratory protection for use in this country. If you just happened to pick up a respirator in Europe and it is not on the Certified Equipment List compiled by NIOSH, the respirator is not certified for use in this country.

 

The equivalent cartridge to the P3 in this country would be a P100 or "High-Efficiency Particulate Air" (HEPA) cartridge. A P100 removes fume and particulates through diffusion and attraction down to .3 (m in diameter with a 99.97 % efficiency. For those physicists out there, the force of attraction is VanderWaals force (Revoir and Bien, 1997) A combination organic vapor/P100 cartridge can be used, but the major concern would still be the wax fume generated when the aerosol condensed to form the fume particle. Gases and vapors are removed by absorption and adsorption. Filter medium for particulates are substantially different than what would be required for organic vapors

 

post #60 of 61
Great, and it does say P100 on the one I ordered from Amazon.

Arriving today, will be hot scraping then waxing with it in a short while.

Having access to info from someone like you Thanos is a blessing.
Edited by SkiMangoJazz - 1/31/12 at 10:13am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › Cera F Turbo overlays... good to go each run, back-to-back?