provocative opinion How "Safe" Are the Students in My Lab? Do Teachers Really Care? Jay A. Young Chemical Consultant, 12916 Allerton Lane, Silver Spring. MD 20904 We often hear it said that things are pretty safe, all things considered, in academic chemistry laboratories. "After all," someone asserts, "look a t the chemical industry, it has a pretty low accident rate, and we don't have nearly as many accidents as they do." Let's take a look a t the chemical industry; what are the facts? This industry is defined according to the U S . Department of Commerce as Standard Industrial Code No. 28--and accident statistics are kept by the U S . Department of Lahor on SIC 28 (and all the other SIC'S as well). According to the U S . Department of Labor Bureau of Lahor Statistics News Release IJSDL-81-526 dated November 18.1981, the chemical ...~ ..-industry incidence rate in 1980 for minor injuries (i.e., nonfatal, no lost work days) was 3.4 per 100 workers. At 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, this translates into 3.4 injuries per 200,000 worker hours. Not bad, considering the hazardous nature of and the quantities of chemicals involved. What does this signify for academe? At a typical college or university campus approximately 10%of the full time students are enrolled in a chemistry lab course. These students spend ahout 3 hours per week a t a lab bench. For each 1000 full-time students. that is 100 students in lab for about 45 weeks per year, rountlny summer schwl enrollment. Or. I:i.%X)exposure hours 1100x :I X 151. At thr i.hemiral industry rdte of i3.4 per 200,000 exposure hours, this 13,500exposure hours "permits" 0.23 minor injuries. Or, for a typical school with 4000 full-time students on campus, one minor injury per year. In a typical high school, ahout 5% or less, of all the students are taking a chemistry lab course. For a 35-week school year (no lab during summer school) that is 5,250 exposure hours, assuming 3 hours per week in lab, for 1000 full-time students enrolled. The chemical industry rate "permits" 0.09 minor injuries during a school year. Or, for say 3000 full time students enrolled in a high school, one minor injury every three years. ~
~
~
Statistical figures for academic lab injuries are not compiled on a national basis. From informal personal inquiries and scattered records of accidents available for inspection, the chemistry lahoratory accident frequency for minor injuries in high schools and post-secondary educational institutions is probably within the range of 1.5-8.2 per year for each 1000 full-time students enrolled. This does not comoare favorablv with either0.09 or 0.23; the chemistry laboratdry in academk is a t least ten times more hazardous hv this measure than the chemical industry workplace. Clearly, laboratory work in academe is not equivalent to paid employment in the chemical industry. Perhaps unfortunatelv. .. the relativelv small number of students takine chemistry lab courses a t any single institution yields a perceotion a t that institution of onlv rare and almost alwavs m h o r accidents. But when put in perspective, the academ.ic chemistry lahoratory student injury rate is appallingly severe. Does academe have any excuses? There are two familiar reasons: insufficient dollars and insufficient time. A possihle third factor is an excuse: insufficient faculty concern. If we were concerned, we would find the time, and the means to generate the needed funds. The following list of errors and omissions often noted in laboratories where chemicals are handled and used may help to stimulate your concern. Look it over and evaluate your ~ h o r a t o r ypractices. Eye, or face protection not continuously worn, or if worn, does not meet ANSI or equivalent standards. Gloves not worn, or gloves worn that do not resist penetration by chemical being handled, or proper gloves worn hut not cheeked for hales (pin holes) or tears, rips. Loofie clothing worn: sleeves, full-cut blouses, etc.; long unrestrained hair; dangling jewelry; dangling necktie. Poor labeling: inadequate or incorrect information on label; new label pasted on over old label; partially loose label; label not marked with
Volume 60
Number 12 December 1983
1067
receipt. or prrparation. date: lahrl not iuitialrd to identify person resptms~blr;lahrl rlves no prrcautwnary infknation. I'wnr htrusrkeeping: d m and debns on f l w r , bench tops: ~ n n m p a t ~ h l r wastes pul i n t u smylc waste receptarlr: hwkrn glass shard4 Iuuard tt, lanlttml staff; o t h r ~reiupe dl..p+al prart~crsput lanmrr at rick: overcrowded temporary (?) storage of reagents and apparatus on lab bench; lab shelves in disarray, not organized. Imprnper electrical wiring: no ground connection, poor ground connection; potential overloaded circuit, "octopus" array of wires on socket; puddle of water near frayed wire; frayed wire not replaced; wires near heat source, near corrosive chemical, near oxidizer. Hoods improperly used: poor draft or no draft even when fan motor is operating; no recent quantitative measure of hood draft; placement of fume source too near hood face-allowing fumes to flow into room even when hood is in excellent condition; excessive hood draft; exhaust air from external hood vent redrawn into room air by improperly designed fresh air intake system; crowded arrangement of otherwise suitable materials in hwd; hood used for praetieally permanent storage of chemicals and also used as fume hood: perchloric acid used in hood not designed for this specific purpose. Lab occupants do not know sound of alarm bell, nor what to do if alarm sounds. Improper storage of flammable liquids: too large quantities stored in "unsafety" containers; container corroded, container improperly labeled; no orovisinn for bonding container to receiving vessel when liquid transferred; container not grounded; conta6er made of polymer that generates static charge when liquid moves inside. Undetected. excessive mercurv.vaoor . in room. Fire extinguishers not regularly maintained, records not available; personnel not drilled in proper use through actual (not simulated] fire: oersonnel unacauainted with meanine of "Class A fire". "Class R fire;' etc., and class relation to fire exGnguisher use. Moth holes, rips in not-recently inspected fire blanket. Safety showers and eye wash not recently tested; no records kept of such testing. Telephone emergency list not up to date; emergency phone inaecessable; list not adjacent to phone. Personnel occasionally work alone in lab. "I'll do it just this once." Personnel have insufficient, or inaccurate, knowledge of hazards of chemicals they use; poorly informed on what to do if exposed. Protection provided for lab worker, e.g., a safety shield, but partner nearby not similarly shielded. I.ah personnel do nu1 n ~ ~ t i n e infwm ly c
