In the Classroom edited by
Safety Tips
Timothy D. Champion Johnson C. Smith University Charlotte, NC 28216
Examination of the Occupational Health and Safety Initiatives Available within the Chemistry Departments of Australian Universities Veronica Goodwin,* Deirdre Cobbin, and Peter Logan Department of Health Sciences, Science Education Unit, Faculty of Science, University of Technology, Sydney P.O. Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia
Nearly 50 years ago, Fawcett drew attention both to the need for a substantial improvement in the occupational health and safety (OHS) component of the undergraduate chemistry curriculum and to the potentially hazardous nature of the transition of the chemistry graduate from the university laboratory to the industrial workplace (1). In subsequent decades, various authors have continued to report the presence of the same and related safety issues and deficits (1–5). These have included inadequacies of funding, time allocation, and concern by the faculty for laboratory safety or willingness to change. In turn, these translate into deficits in quality and quantity of safety training in universities and to the significantly greater hazard potential and accident rates in academic laboratories compared with the industrial workplace. In spite of the debate about whether safety should be addressed as a separate subject or as an integral part of the general chemistry curriculum (3), the former is rarely the case. Everett and DeLoach found that the curriculum of only 6% of the 546 schools on the American Chemical Society’s approved list included a subject addressing chemical laboratory safety (6 ). Similarly, in 1994, Senkbeil reported that only 5% of North American colleges and universities offered a compulsory subject in safety for chemistry undergraduates (7). The main obstacles to inclusion of such a subject were pressures from other subjects and the unwillingness of academics to forego any of their allotted teaching time. Renfrew drew attention to the growing importance placed upon the legal responsibilities of academic instructors for the safety of students, such responsibilities including both safety knowledge and selection of experiments with an acceptably low hazard potential (5). Indeed, Jamieson viewed changes in legislation as an important reason for many improvements in the academic setting (8). He pointed out that employers (academic institutions) had an obligation to establish safe systems of work and employees (academic staff ) needed to work within these systems and comply with their guidelines. In 1993 the Australian Chemical Industry Council voiced its concern that university graduates from science and engineering courses were entering the chemical industry with an inadequate understanding of OHS and its practical application in the workplace. In a letter to the Australian ViceChancellors’ Committee, the Council emphasized the need for integration of OHS education as an essential part of the curriculum at both the secondary and tertiary educational levels (9). To examine the issues raised by the Council, the Faculty of Science at the University of Technology, Sydney, undertook 1226
a survey of all university chemistry departments. The aim of the survey was to obtain comprehensive information about the manner in which each department addressed OHS education and training for staff and students. This material was compiled as a resource document for distribution to all university chemistry departments (10). The purpose of the document was to provide sufficient details of the various initiatives to facilitate their application by other chemistry departments. This paper reviews the main findings from the survey. Methods
Survey Procedure Contact was made with appropriate staff members in each of the 33 Australian universities that offered an undergraduate degree that would meet the academic requirements of a professional chemistry qualification set by the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI). Participating staff initially completed a telephone survey that covered the major aspects of OHS teaching to chemistry undergraduate and postgraduate students and relevant training opportunities for staff. From the initial material, a detailed questionnaire was developed and completed either by a follow-up telephone interview or by mail, depending upon the respondent’s preference. For each set of answers provided by a respondent, a summary of information to be included in the report was prepared and returned to that respondent for verification. At some institutions several staff members were required to complete the detailed questionnaire and these responses were integrated into one completed questionnaire response that was returned for verification. Of the 33 institutions contacted, 31 (94%) completed both the initial detailed questionnaire and returned the verification. Questionnaire Content The questions addressed OHS education and training for undergraduate students, postgraduate students, and staff (Appendix 1). A copy of the OHS content of undergraduate and postgraduate chemistry courses was also requested from each chemistry department. Resource Document After the completion of the initial questionnaires and the verifications, the responses were collated and a resource document (10) was developed. This document was distributed to each participating university chemistry department, the ACIC, the AVCC, the State Library of New South Wales, the National Library of Australia, and our own University library.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 9 September 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
Results and Discussion
Undergraduate Curriculum The undergraduate results are presented in Table 1. Eight departments taught a dedicated OHS subject which addressed general chemical safety, although there tended to be an emphasis on either management, toxicological, or environmental issues. Most subjects discussed relevant OHS legislation and all subjects were formally assessed. Practical elements included the use of fire-fighting equipment and demonstration of safe laboratory procedures. Dedicated OHS subjects were taught in either the second or third year of the undergraduate course, but staff noted some difficulty in identifying the optimal stage in the course at which these safety subjects should be presented. If taught too early, students might be unfamiliar with or not have been exposed to particular laboratory scenarios. Alternatively, the subject might be included too late to be of maximum benefit to students. Seven universities had one or more chemistry subjects in which a section was devoted entirely to OHS and laboratory safety. This enabled the departments to include OHS information in the curriculum without replacing a core chemistry subject. Some reasons given for not including a specific OHS subject in chemistry courses included the pressure of time and teaching space and the difficulty of introducing a new subject into the undergraduate curriculum. Many staff commented on the lack of teaching guidelines for OHS topics and the need to develop their own materials. All chemistry departments integrated OHS and laboratory safety material within the context of appropriate lectures or practical sessions. Various methods included safety lectures at the beginning of a subject, laboratory manuals, safety videos, completing a safety test prior to commencing experimental work, and discussion of safety issues on an ad hoc basis. Unfortunately both the quality and quantity of the information taught have the potential to be quite variable, being dependent upon the enthusiasm and knowledge of the individual staff members responsible for these subjects. Without formal guidelines setting out the required OHS content and its assessment, OHS issues can be overlooked or their importance downgraded and students may not receive a comprehensive grounding in important OHS issues. At eight universities, students undertook a period of industrial training at some stage of their undergraduate course. It is reasonable to expect these students, as a result of their placements, to have in increased awareness of OHS issues relating to the particular industry in which they gained experience. The different types of OHS teaching initiatives and the number of universities reporting their use are presented in Table 1. Based on the findings of this study, it is suggested that all undergraduate chemistry students should be provided with a broad OHS education that incorporates material as a dedicated subject, laboratory education, and integration into appropriate general chemistry subjects. A dedicated OHS subject would appear to be optimally placed early in the second year of the course. Topics covered should include toxicology, legislation, personal protective equipment, disaster planning, chemistry and the environment, hazardous waste management, and the role of management in OHS. More specific topics could be added depending on the emphasis of the particular chemistry course. A practical component should
Table 1. OHS Teaching Initiatives and Their Frequency Initiative
Frequency UGa PGa
Dedicated OHS subject Assessment of dedicated OHS subject Dedicated OHS subjects with a practical element
8 8 4
3 2 2
Component of general chemistry subject devoted to OHS Assessment of OHS component OHS component with a practical element
7 3 0
NAb b NA NAb
OHS material incorporated into general chemistry subjects 31
NAb
Information booklet
28
19
Induction program
24
19
Laboratory tour
22
10
Laboratory accident/emergency procedures
19
12
Safety videos
18
4
Material safety data sheet (MSDS) training
18
11
OHS legal information
16
6
8 5 2
0 0 0
Industrial training Compulsory industrial training Assessment of industrial training
Newsletter 1 2 aUG and PG refer to the undergraduate level and the postgraduate level, respectively. The total number of departments in each category is 31. bMost postgraduate course were research and were not composed of individual subjects; therefore these questions were not applicable.
also be included. The method of teaching such an OHS subject would depend on the preferences, skills, and resources of individual chemistry departments—a combination of several modalities (lectures, tutorials, audiovisual presentations, and practical work) would seem ideal. The subject should be formally assessed to reinforce the profile and importance of OHS issues for students and staff. In addition to a specific OHS subject, all chemistry students should be taught OHS and laboratory safety as an integral part of their laboratory practical work. Ideally, the important aspects of laboratory safety would be covered in the first practical session and a laboratory manual or similar documentation would be issued to all students. The laboratory is the appropriate environment in which to conduct regular practical drills, such as fire-fighting equipment demonstrations or laboratory evacuations. Laboratory safety principles should also be included in examinations. Finally, OHS education should be incorporated throughout the general undergraduate chemistry curriculum. This is important because, while a dedicated subject may cover general OHS principles, it would be impossible to cover each safety aspect of every chemistry subject offered by an institution. Specific OHS safety issues related to these subjects could be discussed at the time they arise. However, it is necessary that an appropriate amount of time be programmed into the chemistry curriculum to discuss these safety issues and they are not left to be mentioned in passing. Perhaps an effective solution lies in an approach that incorporates features of both the dedicated subject and integration across the chemistry curriculum. That is, a specific staff member is appointed as OHS curriculum coordinator and is responsible for developing and presenting the OHS syllabus for the entire chemistry course. However, rather than being presented as a single full-semester subject, the material is divided into a series of short modules. Each separate module is then included in the most appropriate chemistry subject
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 9 September 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
1227
In the Classroom
and is taught by the staff member responsible for the safety curriculum.
Postgraduate Curriculum The approach to postgraduate education was somewhat different from that to undergraduate education. Some respondents commented on the lack of a common standard of assumed knowledge for postgraduate students and others on the difficulty of introducing a specific subject or lectures to research students. To a large extent, the education of postgraduate students in OHS matters was based on two approaches: specific induction packages and individual supervisors. Postgraduate students were recognized as being at potentially greater risk than undergraduates in terms of laboratory and general safety and therefore it was essential that they completed a compulsory OHS induction. In part this was because of the nature of the laboratory activities of postgraduates, who tended to work in isolation and where the consequences of experimental procedures were not necessarily predictable. In addition, it could not be assumed that postgraduate students who completed their earlier chemistry studies at other institutions received adequate training in laboratory safety and OHS at an undergraduate level. Induction courses and introductory booklets were the most common means for teaching OHS issues to postgraduate students (Table 1). The time devoted to induction courses ranged from half a day to two weeks. Most covered aspects of general and specific laboratory safety, emergency procedures, the relevant state OHS legislation and legal obligations, and manual handling issues. While the induction courses were compulsory in many cases, no indication was given of the percentage of postgraduate students who attended them. In some departments there was a strong emphasis on the involvement of individual supervisors in OHS instruction, particularly in the case of postgraduate research students. However, the value of this option depended upon the interests and knowledge of the supervisor concerning OHS. The laboratory manager and safety officer, in conjunction with the student’s supervisor, were also involved in OHS education and supervision of laboratory practice. Few departments provided OHS information either in a dedicated subject or via its incorporation into other subjects. These approaches were usually only available for honors or masters by course work students. Other OHS initiatives are detailed in Table 1. It is suggested that each year, postgraduate students should attend a compulsory, full-day induction or update program that comprises lectures and demonstrations in aspects of laboratory safety and OHS. Out of necessity, the content of this induction program would be limited to the more general aspects of OHS. However, it would give students a foundation on which to build their knowledge of more specific principles appropriate to their area of study. Postgraduate students should also receive a laboratory manual or some other form of documentation. They should routinely be made aware of any changes or updates to legislation, laboratory practices, or other aspects of safety. Laboratory managers and supervisors should be required to instruct postgraduate students in the specific aspects of laboratory and OHS appropriate to their area of study. At least part of this education should be formalized by including an outline in the subject description and by discussion with examiners or assessors during regular research reviews. 1228
Staff Table 2. OHS Resources Available to Staff The resources a Frequency available to chemis- Resource try department staff OHS policy 28 are detailed in Table OHS manual 26 2. Some orientation OHS updates 25 programs were conNew staff orientation 24 ducted by the hu16 man resources de- RACI Laborator y Safety aNumber of chemistry departments offering partment and had initiative to department staff. Total number an OHS compo- the of universities responding was 31. nent. Other induction programs were directed specifically toward chemistry staff and were often conducted by the laboratory manager. Some respondents did not complete this section of the survey, perhaps indicating an absence of any formal induction program for new staff members. Even more so than for students, this lack of training is a concern because staff members will then be unable to pass on consistent OHS knowledge to their students, hence perpetuating the cycle of poor OHS training. OHS updates ranged from simple additions to policy manuals to formal courses and techniques such as a safety quiz, first aid courses, specific training modules for supervisors, or regular newsletters. However, staff participation was generally voluntary, and it was difficult to ascertain the percentage of staff who availed themselves of these opportunities or the relative level of need of those who did or did not. Some staff were members of university OHS committees. Most departments had a copy of their relevant OHS policy and an OHS manual in their laboratories. Only half the departments reported having a copy of the RACI document Laboratory Safety (11). Universities have an obligation to train and maintain chemistry department staff in OHS issues, for the safety of both staff and students, because staff are responsible for students’ safety education. While it is possible to rely solely on the enthusiasm and good will of a few individual staff members or heads of department, this is no substitute for the commitment of adequate time and funding by the university, as staff enthusiasm may quickly dissipate as a result of personnel changes or added pressure from other areas within the curriculum. New staff members in chemistry departments should attend an orientation program and all staff members should attend annual training courses in OHS and laboratory safety. In addition, some type of formal communication between staff members should be instituted. This may be in the form of regular newsletters, direct mailing of notices, electronic mailing lists or newsgroups. Regular updates conducted by the laboratory manager or OHS representative would also be an appropriate method of OHS education. Conclusion While the extent to which Australian university chemistry departments are addressing the OHS needs of students is encouraging, there appears to be a degree of uncertainty on the part of curriculum planners about how much time should be devoted to these issues. This is suggested by the wide range of approaches to OHS education and the variable extent to which these are included in courses and training programs. A major concern is the lack of attention paid to the assessment of the OHS education and training provided for
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 9 September 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
both undergraduate and postgraduate students. Since nonexaminable material tends to be relegated to the unimportant and unstudied categories, this is an inappropriate casting for the OHS education of potential chemists. For postgraduate students the emphasis was found to be on induction programs and instruction by individual supervisors. The OHS education for postgraduate students should be structured and compulsory, as it cannot be assumed that they have adequate laboratory safety knowledge. For staff, the extent of continuing education and training provided was variable. This is a matter of some concern, since it is essential that staff have current knowledge on all relevant aspects of OHS and laboratory safety. This is necessary not only for their own needs, but because staff are responsible for disseminating such information to their undergraduate and postgraduate students. Given the differences in safety needs and issues relevant to individual departments, it is unlikely that any single method of teaching would be universally appropriate. The resource document developed from the findings of this study (10) is designed to assist in the promotion of quality OHS knowledge and awareness in the academic laboratory by alerting staff to the different techniques that are in place at other institutions. Finally, it is emphasized that departmental commitment and adequate funding are essential for the success of OHS and laboratory safety programs. Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Department of Health Sciences and the Science Education Unit in the Faculty of Science at the University of Technology, Sydney. We would like to thank all the staff from the 31 university chemistry departments who participated in the survey, and the staff at the Worksafe Australia library. Literature Cited 1. Fawcett, H. H. Supplementing the Chemical Curriculum with Safety Education; J. Chem. Educ. 1949, 26, 108. 2. Young, J. A. How Safe Are the Students in My Lab? J. Chem. Educ. 1983, 60, 1067–1068. 3. Pesta, S.; Kaufman, J. A. Laboratory Safety in Academic Institutions; J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, A242–A247. 4. McKusick, B. C. Safety in the Laboratory: Are We Making Any Progress? J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, A123–A125. 5. Renfrew, M. M. Safety in the Firstyear Chemistry Laboratory; J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, A125–A128. 6. Everett, K. G.; DeLoach, W. S. What Fate for Laboratory Safety Courses? J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, A177–A179. 7. Senkbeil, E. G. Laboratory Safety Course in the Chemistry Curriculum J. Hazardous Mater. 1994, 36, 159–164. 8. Jamieson, J. From Instinct to Statute: Changes in Laboratory Safety Phys. Educ. 1991, 26, 266–271. 9. Reid, A., Australian Chemical Industry Council. Letter to F. S. Hambly, Executive Director, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee (29 September 1993). 10. Goodwin, V.; Cobbin, D.; Logan, P. Occupational Health and Safety and the Chemistry Department: Educational and Training Initiatives Developed for Staff and Students within Australian Institutions of Higher Education; University of Technology, Sydney: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1997. 11. Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Laboratory Safety, 6th ed.; Royal Australian Chemical Institute: Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 1983.
Appendix University OHS Questionnaire 1. For each degree (undergraduate and postgraduate) course in chemistry please provide the following information: (a) Course name (b) Duration (c) Mode of study (full time or part time) 2. For each course which of the following methods are used to disseminate information about OHS? (a) Designated subject (subject name, credit points, week hours and course stage) (b) Induction package (c) Tour of laboratory (d) Information booklet (e) Audiovisual information (f ) Newsletter (g) Incorporated into other course subjects (name of subject(s), method(s) of incorporation) (h) Other methods of education (please specify) If there is a designated subject given relating to OHS, is there a practical safety component within this subject (e.g. fire drill)? If YES, please describe briefly the nature of the component(s) How is the student’s knowledge of the designated subject assessed? (a) Examination (b) Assignment (c) Practical demonstration (d) Presentations (e) Other methods (please specify) During the course, how frequently do students have practical experience in the following: (a) Fire drill (b) Laboratory evacuation (c) Demonstration of fire fighting equipment (d) Procedures for laboratory accident/emergency (e) Material safety data sheet (MSDS) searches (f ) Other (please give details) Please indicate which OHS legal issues are covered within the course (e.g. OHS Acts, Dangerous Goods Act, Codes of Practice, Regulations). 3. For the undergraduate degree programs in chemistry, do any include a period of industrial training? If YES, please specify: (a) Course name (b) Compulsory or optional (c) Duration (d) Stage (year) offered Is there an evaluation conducted post industrial placement of the relevance of OHS information? If YES, please specify: (a) Course name(s) (b) Manner in which evaluation is conducted (e.g. questionnaire, verbal feedback, report/assignment) 4. Does your department have a copy of the university’s (a) OHS policy (b) OHS manual 5. Please indicate which policy and procedure manuals are available in your department’s laboratories. Do the laboratories have copies of The Royal Australian Chemical Institute Laboratory Safety? 6. What OHS/laboratory safety initiation/orientation/training is provided for: (a) New postgraduate students (b) New staff members (c) Staff members generally (e.g. ongoing updates) 7. Are you aware of any reports/papers concerning OHS education in science that have been written by staff within your university? If YES it would be appreciated if you would provide the author’s contact address/phone number. 8. Please provide information about any additional methods of addressing OHS and laboratory safety training for staff or students in your department.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 9 September 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
1229
