Talk:Cleanroom suit

We may need more than one image to really show the different forms that serve this function.

I have added one basic image showing a typical suit in use. I will leave the image request tag on until those interested parties are satisfied. -Dr Haggis - Talk 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's been eighteen months, so I'm removing the {{Photo requested}} template. If someone feels strongly about having additional photographs of cleanroom suits, please be specific about what you'd like to see by using the of= parameter, i.e. {{Photo requested|clothing|of=a nuclear or biohazard cleanroom suit}}. Tim Pierce 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

good halloween costume for geek, no?

Anyone know why they're called bunny suits? ASWilson 02:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was Intel marketing. The BunnyPeople™ character from Pentium 2 Ads [1]. `a5b (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it is possible to get maternity clean room suits?? User: Open_Research 81.103.235.223 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

bunny suit

Please, delete "bunny suit" from the first line of the articel. It is the marketing term from Intel: [2] `a5b (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is colloquial term for the suit, so you do want it to be found by a websearch. Would be interesting to link to the origin of the term as a marketing term though. DeminJanu (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Intel.com describes the introduction of "bunny people" to their public brand in 1997 and the years following. A google search for "before:1997 bunny suit clean room" turns up sources from the late 1980's to the mid 1990's using the term "bunny suit" to refer to the coveralls worn in controlled contamination environments. AnnieDayToday (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove Soiled suits / indication of understaffing

The paragraph suggesting that urination and defecation in cleanroom suits is "an indication of understaffing" is misleading and inappropriate for a factual article. The linked Vanity Fair article also states that in the particular Merck plant investigated, "Workers appeared to be defecating and urinating in their uniforms, and feces had been found smeared on the floor of the plant’s production area, the letter alleged." Follwing the current state of the article, we should thus include that feces may be found on the floors of understaffed cleanrooms!

To suggest that this is a ubiquitous "indicator" for all facilities that use cleanrooms is misleading and sensational.

I recommend to remove this paragraph from an otherwise informational article.

The currently linked Vanity Fair article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/fda-covid-vaccine-plant-inspectors

The paragraph in question:

   Because it takes a significant amount of time (at least 15 minutes) to put on and take off such suits properly, one indicator that a clean room may be understaffed is whether suits deposited for cleaning consistently show evidence of frequent accidents (i.e., when a technician was too overwhelmed with urgent tasks to escape from the suit and reach a toilet in time). 

DeminJanu (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the cited article simply states that (un)gowning "can take 15 minutes", not "at least 15 minutes".

I'm not sure about the differences between nanofab and biomedical cleanroom equipment, but at least in a nanofab cleanroom 15 minutes would be considered bizarrely long, even for a person's first time in the facility. Rabbitflyer (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)