Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: Pro Haze Fluid

Pro Haze Fluid

From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc<-at->
Date: Friday, December 7, 2012
Kjersti Ellewsen <kjersti.ellewsen [at] ra__no> writes

>I have had a question from a church about Pro Haze Fluid, also
>called Techno-Haze Fluid, manufactured by Jem. A TV-company wants to
>use the synthetic smoke when recording a concert in a listed church
>with valuable church art.
>The smoke contains food grade glycols and polyglycols in
>de-mineralised water. Being of low volatility, I wonder if any of
>the substances will deposit on the fragile decorated surfaces.

Now you are in *my* church.  I'm on the working group that set
standards for theatrical fogs, smokes, and haze, have done expert
witness in lawsuits brought by injured performers and audience
members, and have been writing on the subject since the middle

Your first concern should be with the volume they use.  If they use
too much it will not only be bad for the people who inhale it, it
will be depositing on stuff as you suggest.  There is an ANSI
standard you should be asking them to follow:

    ANSI E1-23-2010.  Entertainment Technology - Design and
    Execution of Theatrical Fog Effects.

This standard offers guidance on planning and carrying out fog
effects so that recognized exposure levels are not exceeded, fire
and egress hazards are not created, false alarms don't summon the
fire brigade, and fog effects are executed as they are designed,
performance after performance.  The standard address use of the
following chemicals:

        Fog chemical (synonyms)             Chemical Abstract
        (synonyms)                          Service Number

        triethylene glycol                  112-27-6

        monopropylene glycol
        (propylene glycol
        1,2-propanediol)                    57-55-6

        dipropylene glycol                  25265-71-8,

        1,2-butylene glycol
        (1,2-butanediol)                    584-03-2

        1,3-butylene glycol
        (1,3-butanediol)                    107-88-0

        1,2,3-propanetriol)                 56-81-5

        white mineral oil, medicinal
        or food grade                       8042-47-5

        water                               07732-18-5

        nitrogen, liquefied
        (LN2, L_N2-7727-37-9

        oxygen, liquefied
        (LOC)                               80937-33-3

        carbon dioxide, liquified
        (LCO2, L-CO2-124-38-9

        vehicles in aerosols used as carriers: oxygen, nitrogen,
        argon 7440-37-1) and carbon dioxide.

I list all these because you say the stuff also contains a
"polyglycol" and I think you need a more accurate name/definition of
this chemical.  If "poly"  means a di- or tri-propylene glycol or
di- or tri-ethylene glycol that's covered.  But if they mean a
polyethylene glycol or polypropylene glycol, that's a no-no.  These
low molecular weight polymers were used for a while and rejected by
the committee.  They are not likely to disappear in a timely fashion
from either the environment or your lungs.

As for what even the approved chemicals do to artifacts, hell we
don't even know really know what it does to us.  Most of these
chemicals have no inhalation data at all, and yet the industry has
set standard, go figure.  You are pretty much on you own.

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A.,
industrial hygienist
Arts, Crafts and Theater Safety, Inc. and Safety Officer
United Scenic Artist's, Local USA829
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes (IATSE)
181 Thompson St., #23
New York NY 10012-2586

                  Conservation DistList Instance 26:29
                 Distributed: Monday, December 10, 2012
                       Message Id: cdl-26-29-003
Received on Friday, 7 December, 2012

[Search all CoOL documents]

Timestamp: Sunday, 12-Jun-2016 11:50:37 PDT
Retrieved: Sunday, 19-Jan-2020 17:01:16 GMT