mfety in the chemicol loborotory
edited by MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of Idaho MOSCOW,Idaho 83843
Epidemiology of Accidents in Academic Chemistry Laboratories 'Part I. Accident Data Survey Margaret A. Hellmann, Eldon P. Savage, and Thornas J. Keefe Department of Microbiology and Environmental Health, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
The prevention and control of accidents in academic chemistry laboratories is a eoncern of administrators, chemistry educators, and their students. Manv of the euidelinss
equipment, and procedures (1-3). Presenting safety instructions via filmstrips, demunstrations, handouts, or lectures a t the beginning of a semester is the method most frequently used to educate the student population a t risk in an attempt t o reduce the number and severity of accidents. In the first part of this study, data were analyzed t o investigate t h e etiology of academic chemistry-laboratory accldents in Colorado institutionsof higher education. Thesecond part was an accident intervention study basedon the etiological resultsfram the first Dart, a discussion about the leeal asoects of
Margaret A. Hellmann received her PhD from Colorado State University in Environmental Heaith. Before pursuing her doctorate. h e was a senior agricullural chemist lor the Caiorada Department of Agriculture. She is currently an Environmental scientist at CH2M Hiii. inc. Eldon P. Savage is Professor and Head of the Divisionof Environmental Heaith and the institute of Rural Environmental Heaith at Caiorado State University. He holds a MPH from Tulane University and a PhD from the University of Oklahoma. Thomas J. Keda is an Associate Professor of Biostatistics in the Division of Environmental Health at Coiordo State University. His master's and doctoral degrees. both in statistics, were Obtained atthe University of Missouri and Iowa State University, respectively.
History and PMlosophy of Aecldent
Prevention and Control Epidemiological methods were first used in accident research in 1949 when i t was found that such methods could be used t o define accident causation ( 4 ) .This early aecident research provided the basis for redefining the term "accident" from implying randomness to "an uncontrolled transfer of energy" ( 5 ) . These two research advances highlighted a change in attitude toward accident preventionand control. Formerly, accidents were considered acts of God, chance, or fate and were assumed to be entirely random (6). In time, researchers came to believe that it was possible to prevent and eontrol accidents, and the causes of accidents were then categorized (7). In subsequent studies, the components of an accident were further defined and research into human accident-causing behaviar was explored (8,9). Far several years, controlling and modifying human behavior was thought to be the solution to accident prevention and control (10). But most researchers who experimented with controlling accidents through changing human behavior concluded that, of all the variables in accident prevention, the human behavior variable, even with education, was t h e hardest t o control (11). Today, education still remains the current emphasis for accident prevention and control. For example, the public is constantly warned by signs and through the media of hazardous situations. In spite of these efforts, accidents persist a t an alarming rate (12). The following study was designed to provide data on the etiological factors of chemistry laboratory accidents in academic chemistry laboratories.
Statewlde Accldent Survey
currently maintaining accident files. (Institutions of higher education were defined as those institutions attended by high shcool graduates.) Five types of institutions were ident~fied:1) technical, 2) state and local community, 3) college, 4) university, and 5) medical. In general, the larger the institntion, the more likely it was that the ehemistry department maintained an accident file. The population a t risk included: 1) students, 2) chemistry educators, 3) researchers, 4) researchers not involved in instruction, 5) equipment fabricators, 6) maintenance workers, 7) secretaries, and 8) people unrelated to any chemistry building activity. Data retrieved from the 13 institutions indicated that 574 accidents had been reported between 1966 and 1984. These data were cateeorized under 48 characteristics
istry educators about the prevailing opinions concerning chemistry laboratory aecident prevention and control and the legal responsibilities of institutions offering chemistry courses.
Results of Statewlde Accldent Survey Data collected from the 13 academic institutions maintaining accident files were assessed in three ways: frequency of the 48 accident characteristics, patterns of etiology, and prevailing opinions ahout accident prevention and control. Since many of the 574 accident reports did not record all 48 characteristics an their accident report forms, calculations were made from only the total number of accidents in which that characteristic appeared (n). All accident reports recorded the accident results (n = 574). Although most accidents resulted in injury, two percent of the acci-
(Continued on page A2681
Volume 63
Number 11
November 1986
A267
dents reported neither injury or damage. For example, one report included in anaccident file but reporting neither injury nor damage involved a vagrant who wandered into the chemistry building and was suspected of arson. Locations within chemistry buildings where accidents occurred were determined. A total of 502 accident reports included these data: 81% of these occurred in teaehing laboratories, 13% in research laboratories, 2% in fabrication rooms, and 4% in other areas such as mailrooms. coo" roams. hallways, and areas outside the immediate chemistry building. Table 1shows the percentage of accidents involved in various chemistry-related activities a t the institutions. Most accidents occurred in entry-level chemistry laboratory courses. The second most frequent institutional activity was experiments in organic laboratories. The ages of the accident victims ranged from 17 to 64 years ( n = 242). For purposes of this study aceident victims were divided into four age groups: 17-22, 23-27, 28-33, and 34-65. The 17-to-22-year age group experienced 48% of all the accidents. This compared to 23% of all accidents occurring in the 23-to-27-year age group and 14% in the 28-to-33-year agegroup. Only 15%afthe accidents occurred in the 34-to-65-year age group.
..
For those reports recording the title of the tified chemicals (UNID CHEM). Water, accident victim ( n = 544) over 72% of the usually in the form of steam, was involved in 6% of the accidents. accident victims were undergraduates. Figure 3 shows what happened to the Graduates, researchers, and maintenance equipment andlor reagent a t the moment of workers each accounted for 5%. Professors the accident. Fifty-five percent of all acciaccounted for 4% and student workers, redent reports indicated that equipment besearch associates, and "other" accounted for ing used by the accident victim was either 3%. The other people reportingchemical acbroken during the accident or was already cidents were secretaries and chemistry cracked and broke when the victim used it. equipment fabricators. Thirteen oercent of the accidents were due A total of 452 accident reports provided I
