edited by MALCOLMM. RENFREW Universlly 01 Idaho MOSCOW, Idaho 83843
Contact Lenses in the Laboratory David W. Kingston Northern Michigan University, Marquette. MI 49855
In response t o increasing awareness of inadequate health and safety precautions in academiclaboratoriesand a number of letters t o the Editor of C&E News' about the advisability of wearing contact lenses in laboratories, 61 academic institutions in Michigan were asked their policy on allowing students to wear contact lenses in chemistry laboratories. Forty-three institutions (70%) responded to the following questions:
1) Eye protection is, a. required continuously in all laboratories h. required as needed c. not required 2) Our department requires the followingeye protection in undergraduate lahoratories, a. goggles h. plastic safety glasses with side shields c. protective conventional safety glasses with side shields 3) Our department a. does not allow undergraduate studenta to wear contact lenses in laboratories. b. allow studenta t o wear contact lenees in laboratories c. has no policy on contact lenses The answers t o these questions from the responding institutions are in the table.
Dlscusslon The responsestoquestion l asshown in the table are interesting, not so much that all the institutions require eye protection, but that almost three-fourths of the institutions have a wlicv that individual eve uroteetion is worn aiall Gmes in their labs:~his seems to indicate a trend toward rigorously enforced eye protection. Question 2 had multiple responses, in that mare than one kind of eye protectionequipment was used by that particular department. The trend in equipment is away from safety glasses, whieh might be more appropriate for industrial arts classes to gaggles and plastic safety glasses. Question 3 had no multiple answers which meant that all the institutions which chose answer (b) (19%) had a conscious policy whieh allowed students to wear contacts to laboratary. Response (c) (58%) indicated that many institutions have yet to make a decision about contaets, however, 23% had decided t o ban contacts. Several of the Demons completing the questionnaire commented that their insurance carrier would not allow ~ t u dent- to wear contacts in their labs In Chemirol ond b.'n,qineerinp.Yews (57.43 (197911 Marjorie Kandel requested information on wearing contacts in laboratories. Of the five responses1 to Ms. Kandel's inauirv. nart of one letter to the editor was faintly pro-contacts. This letter, hy John L. Ennis and Irving Aronn of Arthur D.Little, Inc.. quotes the American Optometric Asno-
~.
ciation policy statement; "Contact lenses may be worn in hazardous environments with appropriate covering safety eye wear." The authors then go on t o discuss the possible problems that are compounded when a con-
2..
Or. Klngslon received a Bachelors and Master* Degree from hUniversiV of New Hampshire and a PN) hornhUniverrW ol Arizona where he wwked for Professor
Responses to Conlad Lens Oueaionnalre
~otal Ouestlonnalre RBSPOMBS
(Xl(rstl0n1 (eye proteo(ion) a b c
Qmtfon2 (We 01 prolectton) a
b
c
a
b
7
4
3
2
3
5 0 2 10 18%
3 2 3 10 23%
~anrmnn~
13
9
4
0
Colleges Colleges Stale Colleges Universities Totals % response/
15 4 11 43
11 3 9 32 74%
4 1 2 11 26%
0 0 0 0 0%
6 1 1 1 4 7 3 21 22 40% 42%
(Xrrstion3 (use 01 Contacts) C
6
2 1 0 1 1 2 6 6 25 19% 58%
pamne"ta1 and universi?, stew m m and has research Interests in a~lytlcal chemisby and thermal analyds.
meae lenersto me Edkw appW in Cd;ENeWS. 57,4 (1979).
(Continued on page ,4290) Volume 58
Number 10
October 1981
A289
tact lens is in an injured eye.Theother four letters are completely anti-contacts.These letters speak of the variation ofthe structure of contacts and the methods by which chemicals are accidentally introduced into the eye. The two major points of these letters are that speed in irrigation of the eye is essential in preventing further damage and that irrigation is not effective unless the contact lens is removed. The Manufacturing Chemists Association Case Histories of Chemical Accidents has a large numher of caaes dealing with eye injuries. Caw History No. 9 4 P is most telling. A worker with schemieal splash in both eyps did not irrigate his eyes in a nearby eye wash station for fear of losing his contact lenses. Finally, it should he noted thatthe American Chemical Society Committee on Chemical Safety has stated3 that contact lenses should be prohibited in laboratories even when eye protection is worn. ~~
~
dent who does not have a pair of glasses of appropriate correction, require the student t o purchase a pair of glasses for use in chemistry laboratories. This would place an unexpected financial burden on some of the chemistry students. Another paint of view is that of the academic department which wishes to present a meaningful and safe laboratory experience for their students. The concern of departments for the well-being and safety of students is evidenced by the respect for eye safety shown in the response to question 1. If contacts are deemed hazardous, responsible departments should consider banning them. If contacts are allowed in laboratories, the departments should have trained their supervisory personnel to assist in removal of contacts if a student has splashed chemicals in their eye. In the case of a corrosive chemical splashed into the eye, the pain may be so severe that the student is incapable of helping themselves. A different paint of view is that of the university administration. A ban on contacts in laboratories might have the effect of lowering the institution's liability profile. The fear of liability suits, is not, unfortunately, a phantom problem, but it has to be dealt with in a reasonable manner.
Conclusions There seems to be three points ofview on this controversy about contact lenses. For the person who has contact lenses, a policy that prohibits contact lenses intrudes on the personal life-style of the individual. Of lesser importance, perhaps, a policy prohibiting contacts in laboratories would, for the stu-
A290
Journal of Chemical Education
M A . Case Hislm& of ChemIcel AacMents. 2, 74. (1966). ACS pemphlet "Safety In AcademlcChemklFl Labaatories." 3rd Ed.. p. 36.
(Continued on page A.293)
Malcolm M. Rentrew draws on w e d industrial and academrc experlencer in hlr approach to goad safety practices. After qraduate study at the University 01 Minneiota, he was a s.penmr ol researcn and m,eiopmen wfthDlPont am C r n a a MI r. Inen an aam n strator an0 taacnar a! the University of ldaho, his Alma Mater. He is active in the American Chemical Society. including service with the Cornminee on Safety and the new division of Chemical Health and Safety. He now is professor emeritus of chemistry and is patent director of his UniverLiWS Idaho Research Foundation. inc. ~~~
