mfety in the chemicol loborotory
edited by MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of Idaho MOSCOW, Idaho 83843
Epidemiology of Accidents in Academic Chemistry Laboratories Part' II. Accident Intervention Study, Legal Aspects, and Observations Margaret A. Hellmann, Eldon P. Savage, and Thomas J. Keete Department of Microbiology and Environmental Health, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Part I of this paper1 described the data of a chemistry lahoratory accident survey taken throughout the state of Colorado. This oart describes an accident intervention vud, based UI, the rewlts of thesurvey, the Irgnl npccts wnrerning academic chemisty nrridenta, and k~m?observarionsabout academic chemistry laboratory accidents on the whale
Please fill in all information (Use reverse side if needed) Name: Title (Professor,undergraduate, teaching assistant, etc.): Course and section number in which accident occurred Date of accident Time Location of accident (laboratory, hallway, etc.) Describe e ~ e n t ~ l ~ i t ~ aleading t i o n up to accident:
Date: Age:
MIF: -
InterventionStudy Because safety in the academic chemistry laboratory seems to rely heavily on education, an accident-intervention study was developed using education as an intervention method. Two institutions maintaining accident files were selected from the institutions participating in the statewide survey. Their accident rates were adjusted for accidents per 9,000 student hours for each semester from the spring of 1974 to the fall of 1983. The professors in charge of general, organic, and quantitative analysis laboratory courses a t Institution A were given a summary of the statewide survey accident data base to augment their safety instructions for the fall semester of 1984. In addition, s new accident report form (Fig. 1) was used. This new
Margaret A. Hellmann received her PhD from Colorado State University In Environmental Heaim. Before pursuing her doctorate, she was a senior agricultural chemist for the Colorado Department of Agrlcullure. She is currently an Environmental Scientist at CH2M Hill, Inc. Eldon P. Savage is Professor and Head of the Division of Environmental Health and the Institute of Rural Environmental Healm at Colorado State University. He holds a MPH from Tulane University and a PhD from the University of Oklahoma. Thomas J. Keete is an Associate Professor of Biostatistics in the Division of Environmental Health at Colorado State University. His master's and doctoral degrees, both in statistics, were obtained at the University of Missouri and Iowa State University, respectively.
A290
Journal of Chemical Education
Describe accident (Includeequipment, reagents, etc.)
Detailed description of injury(s) Estimated con of damage HOW WBS first aid administered? Other medical treatment(s)(stitches, surgery, bandages, etc.)
Figure 1. Accident report form.
accident report form was considered valuable in establishing legal responsibilities, with the exception that no space was provided for the signature of the accident victim (data furnished hy the new report form would not he as strong legally without the victim's signature). During the intervention semester, the accident rate for Institution A went up from an average nine-year rate of 0.24 accidents per 9,000 student hours to 0.47 accidents per 9,000 student hours for the fall semester of 1984 (Fig. 2). The accident rate decreased, however, a t Institution B (the control institution) from 1.13 accidents oer 9.000 student hours t o 0.36 accidentsber 9 ; ~ 0student hours.
The increasr in accidrnt ratcs at lndtiturionA may bedue w several fneturr. Pirst,it
is commonly observed that data increases from those populations who know that they are being studied. In the case of Institution A, a reason for the observed increase was their under-reporting of chemistry laboratory accidents for the last three semesters. I t is highly unlikely that a large academic institution would have no chemistrv laboratoconsecutive semesters. Second, lectures given to the population a t risk on laboratory safety may not he an effective method of accident prevention and control; for example, 12 of the 13 institutions maintaining chemistrv laboratorv accident files eave safety instructiuos at the brginning of their laborat~ryrwrsrs, bur all of them still consistantly experienced accidents.
-
(Continued on page A292)
Figure 2. The accident rates for Institutions A (top)and B (bottom):Nine years by quarters and semesters and the intervention study sernsstw.
In the case of the control institution (Institution B), the decreased accident rate could be an artifact of not having the intervention study run for a full academic year (two semesters). Figure 3 shows that there were two oreviaus semesters with similar tution B.
Observations Analyses of the accident data from this study (Parts I and 11) indicated that there are three environmental components of an
A292
Journal of Chemical Education
acadcm~cchem~rrryInburntory whwh have rhe pott'ntml for genernrmg arcdents They are 1)the design of the equipment andphysieal plant, 2) the activity or function required in the laboratory exercise, and 3) the personal protective equipment available for use. Each component may be altered to decrease accidents in academic chernistrv lab.,ratorlei While each component is separately defined, they may overlap in actual practice. However, these three components have separate characteristics for implementing accident reduction. The practicality of their accident-reduction potential de-
pends upon three factors: 1)the purchasing and maintenance cost, 2) the degree of reliance upon human behavior, and 3) the ease of adaptability to new circumstances. The design of equipment can do much to reduce accidents by reducing the human responsibility to make the choice needed to prevent accidents. For example, a rubher stopper has heen created to reduce friction while a glass rod is being inserted into it. By giving the "responsibility" to the equipment for reducing accident potential, the importance of modifying human behavior is reduced. However. creativitv in huildine design mn be exprnsive lo redearch and develop. Once design has bcrn incorporated into a structure most l a r g ~changes bccomc codtIs. The design romponenr may pose another problcm known as the "fail-safe" phmomcnon or " I t ~houldhave wrked hut it didn't." This problem is especially common in new untried designs. The function or activity of an occupation is the required duties of that occupation. Some activities are inherently more dangernus than others. Pertaining to the academic chemistry laboratory, dangerous activities long considered standard procedures might well be reevaluated for modifying or eliminating accident potential. For example, is the activity of inserting glass rods into ruhber stoppers always necessary, or is there some other equipment which can be used instead? Or does the activity of inserting glass rods into rubber stoppers need to be done a t all to convey what needs to he taught? Personal protective equipment is another environmental component that influences accidental injury. Personal protective equipment is the easiest to buy, maintain, and change with alterations in either design or activity. However, out of the three components, its effectiveness relies the most on influencing human behavior. This is hecause it is necessary not only to purchase and maintain good safety equipment, but also to use it and use it properly. The decision not to use personal safety equipment bas resulted in many avoidable injuries and is a common human behavior decision. The excuses are well known: "I didn't think it was necessary", "I've done this before and nothing's ever happened", "The safety gear is uncomfortable", and "I would have needed it only for a second; what could have happened?"
dent prevention. Such statements as "If no records are kept of the accidents occurring in an academic chemistry laboratory, there will be no evidence of legal responsibility; therefore all involved parties will be safe from liability" (as mentioned in Part 1) is erroneous but is all to prevalent. Another misconception is that the relationship between student and professor is such that no student would ever think of suing a professor. Such beliefs are naive as evidenced by court cases on the subject. Furthermore, th= tendency for the United States public to sue for monetary awards is commonly accepted as on the rise.
Summary Although educating students in chemistry laboratory safety is the most common method among chemistry educators of attempting to prevent laboratory accidents, it may not be the most effective. Other approaches such as equipment and building design and modification or elimination of certain laboratory activities might prove to be more effective in reducing accidents. Whatever the approach taken to reduce chemistry laboratory accidents, decreasing the reliance on changing human behavior to reduce accidents would be the mast successful one. Acknowledgment The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Walter Melvin, Stephen Thompson, and John Roberts, professors at Colorado State University, for aid in this study, and Winifred Murdy for her help in preparing the manuscript.
'
Helimann, M. A,; Savage. E. P.; Keefe. T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986,63. A267. Presented, in part, at the American Chemical Society National Meeting, Chemical Education Division, New York, New York, April, i986.
Legal Aspects of Laboratory Accidents The legal ramifications of maintaining a chemistry laboratory accident file are all to the benefit and protection of the institution. The interviews with chemistry educators showed that they had appropriate concern for the welfare of their students and employees. However, the concern, while well meant, was not based on knowledge as to what might happen to those involved if a student decided to sue the institution hecause of an injury occurring in an academic chemistry laboratory. Legally speaking, the actionable act of negligence is not the failure to keep records but the act that caused the injury. Failure to keep records, however, makes it more difficult for the institution to defend itself in a lawsuit. Such failure also impairs the ability of the institution to monitor the acts of its employees and students for safety and acciVolume 63
Number 12
December 1986
A293
