mfety in the chemkal lcrborcrtory
edited by MALCOLMM. RENFREW University 01 Idaho MOSCOW. ldaho 83843
Laboratory Safety in Academic Institutions Shelley Pesta and James A. Kauhnan Science Division, Curry College, Milton, MA 02186
Estimates suggest that the rate of injury in secondary school, college, and university laboratories is 10 to 50 times greater than is common in the chemical industry. It is not SO sumrisine. therefore. to hear the safetv manager o f f h e research laboratories of major chemical company saying. "We we the products of our colleges and universities as summer employees, as temporary employees, and as permanent employees. They range from undergraduate through postdoetorallevels. AU have one thing in commonno conception of safety." There sentiments were confumed in s November 1983 article in Chemical Engineering Progress in which Flores reported on a survey of 200 engineers a t a major company that ". . only slightly more than a third felt their college education adequately prepared them to deal with safety issues they routinely faced on the job." Unfortunatelv.. safetv trainine does not take place in most science courses. Schools and colleges are notoriously poor in terms of safety performance. John R. Leach, head of the safety management program a t the National Institutes of Health, observed, "The lack of safety consciousness on the part of manv hieh school and universitv teachers is praeiicaby criminal. Rerause df their poor awareness of lab hazards, safety is, unfortunately,s very minor part of the instructional process." The scope of the problem extends beyond the school and college classrooms with a resultant costly impact an both industry and society. The graduating students take their ooor habits to their fust ioh where thev.. a s new emolovees. are more Likelv ~~~, , to be hurt. Injuries to new employees account fur 6060%of all industrial injuries. They alao take their bad habits into their homes as parents, exposing themselves and their children to the hazards of flammable and toxic solvents was well as unsecured medicines and hausehold cleaners. The problem is not just one of handling, storage, and disposal of chemicals. The problem ia an educational system which fails to prepare its students and teachers to function safely in a world whichis filled with hazards. Chemicals are just one of the haz-
a
.
.
~
~
A242
.~~.
.
~~~~
~~~~~~
ards. The National Safety Council estimates that in 1983 accidents took 91,M)Olives and caused 8.8 million disabling injuries. To make matters worse, safety training for secondary school science teachers is almost negligible. None of the 26 respondents in a survey of the 50 state's departments of education which are responsihle for teacher certification had any safety training criteria. Many felt this training would take place in college science courses. So, the problem facing the secondary school science teacher is twofold: 1) not being able to recognize the various hazards and 2) not feeling they are of sufficient importance to be part of the curriculum. This is not difficult to understand when cansidering the lack of emphasis in our educational system and the speed with which new hazards are being discovered. Benzene and formaldehyde are just two current examples of chemicals now felt to he more hazardous than was believed onlv a few veara a m . It is a vicious cycle. Mont academic institutions seem both unwilling and unable to teach health and safety, so the teachers are neither prepared nor encouraged to do it. The students graduate thinking that safety procedures are not important and so on and SO on. To try u, understand betcer the sropr of the problem, we conducted a national survey of 2019 college and university chemistry
.
~-~
departments in the spring of 1984. Information was requested on accidents and injuries occurring over the past five academic years, 1978-1982. Additionally, a number of questions were asked relating to laboratory safetv. The survev was undertaken as an setivitv o i ~ u r r Y ~ c i i e g eLaboratory 's Safety w u z shop, a national center for training w d information. The Workshop's other activities now include three-day training programs for secondary school science teachers, a labaratory safety audio-visual lending library, mini-grants to support lah safety research, training for ACS local section representatives to run similar programs, a quarterly newsletter, and an annual mini-symposium on "Chemicals in the Workplace". The programs of the Laboratory Safety Workshop are sponsored by grants from the Cabot Corporation Foundation, Union Carbide, Polaroid Foundation, Honeywell, the Northeastern Section of the American Chemical Society (ACS), and the ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety. Unfortunately, only 272 institutions replied (Table 1).A few commented that their records were not sufficient for completii the survey. Others may have felt that confidentialitv would not be maintained. Theresults argpresented below (Tables 2.7) and include summariesof 50 accidents which institutions reported. ~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~~
~
~~~
Table 1. Profile ot Respondlnp Instltutlons: Enrollment Slze Dlstrlbutlon
~~~~~~
~~
~~
Journal of Chemical Education
SO00
Total
94 35 %
44 16%
54 20%
272
16 11%
10 7%
149
25 23 %
41 39%
107
AN lnstfiutlons
80 29 %
institutions without a Safety Committee 56 39 %
65 44%
lnstituWom with a Safety Committee 15 14%
26 24%
Table 2.
Summary of Injuries
Total Repinjuries Injuries Needing
Table 3.
Survey ot College and Unlverslty Accidents (Academic Years IS78 to 1982)
2704 1171
People Working a Studying in lhe Chemisby Department(5-y av) llotal number divided by number of responses)
Treatment
Lost Tlme injuries Number of Days Lost Days Lost per Injury Type 01 Acoident Fires Explosions Omw Damage Amwnts Less Than $100 $100 to $1.000 $1,000 to $10.000 Greater than $10,000
294 2466 8.4 178 72 1552 523 19 3 1
- .
A new survev is olanned for distribution during summer 1985 and will cover only the most recent academic year. We are hopeful that publication uf these preliminary findings and aless imposing request for data will encourage more institutions to participate
Summary ot survey Rmuns 1)Does your department hove a safety committee? See Table 8. Smaller institutions are less likely to have a safety mmmittee. This result is similar to that which was obtained several years ago in our survey of New England colleges and universities. 2) Does your department h a m o safety coordinator? See Table 9. This result is an improvement over the less than 50% that was reported in the earlier survey. However, again smaller institutions are less likely to have a safety coordinator. 3) Does your department offera separate course in lab safety? See Table 10. This result is similar to that obtained in the earlier survey. The ACS Committee on Professional Training is fairly evenly divided on the question of whether a safety course should be required. We feel it is essential to have both a separate course and integration of safety training into all laboratory work. This may mean a change in priorities for departments with crowded curricula. This is really the essence of good safety practice-realizing its importance and being willing to spend more time a t it. Good safety practice is more time than money. 4) Does your department require a safety course for chem majors? See Table 11.This result is similar to that obtained in the earlier survey. The remarks from item 3) apply here as well.
Accldent summarles 1)A professor was preparing a mixture of powdered iodine and powdered antimony for use in an experiment in "Basic Laboratories in CoUeee Chemistrv". when a ranid reaction orc;rred. He was'burned on .his hands and required E.R. treatment. 2) A graduate student was following the procedure of preparing tetramethyldiphosphine disulfide described in Inorganic Syntheses when a rapid rise in temperature over-pressurized the 5-Lflask. The result-
5000
Total
Full-Time Faculty Responses NO Data
3.2 78 3
4.3 92 2
8.6 40 3
17.1 48 6
7.0 258 14
Pan-Time Facuny Responses NO Data
.5 78 3
.8 90 4
1.7 36 5
1.9 48 6
1.0 252 18
Post Dacs Responses NO Data
.8 78 3
.1 68 6
3.6 36 7
6.1 48 6
2.0 250 22
Support Staff Responses NO Data
1.4 78 3
1.4 91 3
4.1 40 3
10.1 50 4
3.5 259 13
Total Underwads Responses No Data
639 78 3
1525 92 2
3587 40 3
10332 46 8
3160 256 16
Undergrad Majors Responses No Data
14 78 3
29.1 68 6
42.8 39 4
85.5 46 8
36.9 25 1 21
Graduate SMents Responses No Data
.2 78 3
.7 89 5
8.2 39 4
48.1 50 4
10.9 256 16
Table 4.
All Injuries to People Worklng or Studylng In the Departmenta 5000
Total
Full-Time Faculty Responses NO Data Freq. Rate
2 72 9 0.69
7 84 10 1.55
6 40 3 1.36
26 44 10 2.76
41 240 32 1.94
Part-Time Faculty Responses No Data Freq. Rate
0 70 11 0.00
2 84 10 2.36
0 40 3 0.00
9
44 10 8.61
11 238 34 3.54
Post DOCS
Responses No Data Freq. Rate
0 71 10 0.00
0 84 10 0.00
22 39 4 3.13
35 43 11 2.67
57 237 35 2.42
~upporistaff Responses NO Data Freq. Rate
1 72 9 0.20
6 83 11 1.36
34 40 3 4.15
165 44 10 7.43
208 239 33 4.98
Total Undergrads Responses NO Data Freq. Rate
99 71 10 1.09
384 61 13 1.55
424 38 5 1.56
959 44 10 1.05
1866 234 38 1.26
Undergrad Majors Responses No Data Freq. Rate
22 71 10 4.43
45 81 13 3.82
73 36 5 8.98
157 42 12 8.74
297 232 40 6.94
Graduate SMenta Responses No Data Freq. Rate
1 71 10 1.88
5 83 11 2.29
47 39 4 3.92
171 44 10 2.15
224 237 35 2.30
Freq. rate of 2.43 lor chemlcd
idusby does not inslvde m i n a flrst aM.
ing explosion pulverized the apparatus throwing glass from the fume hood. He was struck in thechroat by a pieceofflyingglass. His left carotid artery was nearly completely severed, which resulted in same hrain damage. 3) A student was inserting glass rods into
Volume 83
rubber policemen. The student varied the procedure and a glass rod shattered causing injury to the student's index finger. Two faculty members were present in lab. 4) A fire resulted when an extraction of spinach was whirled in a blender with petro(Continued on page A 2 4 4
Number 10 October 1986
A243
Table 5.
Injurles Requlrlng Treatment by a Nurse or Doctor' 5000
Total
Full-Time Faculty Responses No Data Freq. Rate leum ether. The ether "escaped" from the glass jar and was ignited by the blender motor. 5) A student removed material from a hood and got s good whiff of acetic anhydride. The student checked out all right a t hospital-no further problem. 6) Synthesis of sulfur nitride polymer was being performed in a hood behind a glass curtain, but an explosion occurred during the sublimation of sulfur nitride. The explosion occurred while a student had a hand behind the shield. The student had glass particles imbedded in her hand and ahdomen. Surgery was performed to remove the glass. No litigation occurred. 7) A chemical splashed into the eye of a student. The eye wash fountain was inoperable a t the time and resulted in frequent checks 9f all safety equipment. 8) AU minor injuries were lacerations resulting from broken glassware and acid burns from carelessly poured acid, spilled on surfaces and not wiped up, or acid left on the outside of a container. 9) A fire that started in an unattended lab caused major property damage. No eases involved litigation. 10) A fire/explosion in one of the research labs resulted in the death of a female grad student. The lah was damaged to the extent of $200,000. The accident was attributed to the drying of 1-2 L of THF with lithium aluminum hydride. Litigation is still pending. 11) A student was adding drops of an aqueous solution to anthrone reagent. The student was not wearing goggles. An acid burn to the eyes and face was the result. In a second incident the student, who again was not wearing goggles,was swirling acid, and it splashed on his face. No litigations are nendine from either case. 121 istudent's reaction flask emitted vapors that rgnited in the hood. The explodion was su powerful that it leveled a gar cylinder and equipment. No injuries, hut several thousand dollars in damages was incurred. 13) A professor received a shot of hot nitric acid in the face. He was wearing safety glasses. The eyes were not injured, hut the face was burned. 14) A student received a laser burn. He was wearing two pairs of protective goggles but suffered a small amount of permanent eye damage. Investigation and reeommendations are continuing. 15) A flask was found in an organic lab with an unknown corn~oundin it. The stooper wasstuck. Following the normal lab procedure, the side of the stupper was tapped ona counter top. Without warning the flask exploded sending glass and chemicals everywhere. One person was sent to the hospital with glass and chemicals in cuts. The suhstance in the flask was a sludge before the exnlosion: afterwards it was in the form of soiid rocks. Its identity is still unknown. 16) A student wassetting upa distillation apparatus in order to distill an ether sub~
~~~
~
A244
~
Journal of Chemical Education
Part-Tlme ~acaculty Responses No Data Freq. Rate Post DOCS Responses NO Data Freq. Rate suppm Stafl Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Total Undergrads RBSPO~SBS
No Data Freq. Rate Undergrad Majws Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Graduate Shldenls Responws NO Data Freo. Rate
Table 6.
1.88
1.81
.97
1.08
lnjurles Resulting In Lmt Tlme (Injured P e m n Could Not Resume Same Actlvlty on Same Day).
Full-Time Facub Respwses NO Data Freq. Rate Part-Time Faculty Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Post DOCS Responses NO Data Freq. Rate suppon statf Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Total Undergrads Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Undergrad Majors Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Graduate Students Responses No Data Fmo. Rate 'Freq.
2.14
rate of 0.53
chamical iMunry should be mmparabltt.
Table 7.
Number of Days ol Loat T I m * b
5000
Total
Full-Time Faculty Responses No Data Sev. Rate Part-Time Faculty Responses No Data Freq. Rate post Docs Res~onses NOData Freq. Rate Support Staff Responses No Data Freq. Rate Total Undergrads Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Undergrad Majors Responses NO Data Freq. Rate Graduate Students Responses No Data 'Incl&s one fatal@b wad s M o N In June 1979. bSeuer@ rates of 10-20 dsya fademlcal indushy may be comparable.
stance. The setup was not as air tight as possible, allowing leaks. The ether vapors escaped and travelled back to the flame and a fire resulted. Cause: an inexperienced student was not properly warned. 17) The most serious accident involved the explosion of a glass vessel during the vacuum distillation of an aldehyde. The vessel was propelled throughout the lab. We recommended that ceramic heating surfaces and oil baths be abandoned in favor of heating mantles or steel plates. 18) While washing out a heavy hattery jar, the soapy jar slipped. I t smashed on the edge of the sink. Severe Lacerations of the left hand resulted with damage to the tendons. Reconstructive surgery was necessary. No litigation was involved. 19) A graduate student transferring trifluoracetic acid by syringe had some spray out of the needle resulting with contact on skin. Chemical burns resulted which leftvisible marks on the skin for several months. The student was treated in E.R. 20) A laboratory fire probably resulted from disposal of finely divided iron in a waste basket. Spontaneous combustion may have ignited the basket's contents. Enough heat was generated to melt the sign under which the hasket was stored. Extinguished by grad student. 21) Student was cleaning glassware, part of which was a beaker about half full of a brownish material. This brown material detonated as she was attempting to remove it. The detonation released copius quantities of smoke and fumes. The blast opened a deep gash in the area of her thumb.
22) A student was peppered on the face and neck with glass fragments from an eaplosion as she was shutting down a distillation of 2-hutanol. The explosion caused a loud report, smashed a boiling flask and shredded the glass fiber fabricof the heating mantel. Some hiih-boiling residue in the flask was heated to s very high temperature causing it to detonate. 23) Undergrad student in frosh lah-hair ignited by Bunsen burner. Received burn treatment. 24) A vacuum line exploded in a graduate research lab. Student was wearing required face shield and was not injured other than a few band-aid lacerations. 25) An undergraduate s t u d e n t aide splashed dilute sodium hydroxide, and some entered an eye. The eye was washed out. No loss af sight resulted. 26) A bottle and flasks rinsed with hexane andlor acetone were placed in a drying oven. Thevent to the oven had inadvertently been closed. The exdasion toooled the oven from the desk and threw glass ;or 20 feet. No one was injured. 27) Methanol added to P d hydrogenation catalyst causing ignition and resulting in burns to both the researcher's hands. Back to work the next day. 28) A grad student was drying and distilling dimethoxyethane from lithium aluminumhydride. The student had essentially completed the distillation hut had not
(Continued on page A246)
Volume 63
Number 10
October 1986
A245
Presence ol a Safety Committee
Table 8.
Enrollment 5000
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
25 57%
16 36%
3 7%
41 76%
10 19%
3 5%
107 39%
Total no
n.r.
149 55%
16 6%
Presence ol Satetv Coordinator Enrollment
5000
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
31 70%
11 25%
2 5%
43 80%
7 13%
4 7%
161 60%
96 35%
15 5%
Table 10. Presence ol a Separate Course In Lab Safety Enrollment 5000
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
2 2%
72 90%
6 8%
5 6%
85 91%
3 3%
6 14%
36 82%
2 4%
5 10%
44 88%
1 2%
15 6%
239 88%
15 8%
n.r.
Table 11. Requirement ot a Safety Course for Chem Majors Enrollment yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
no
n.r.
yes
Tola no
2 2%
72 90%
6 8%
2 2%
88 95%
3 3%
4 9%
38 86%
2 5%
1 2%
48 96%
1 2%
6 2%
243 20 90% 8%
5000
40) A student was using acetone to dry glassware and got acetone all over his hand a t the sink. In walking hack to his lab bench, he passed a burning Bunsen burner and the acetone ignited. Some blistering, but no permanent damage. 41) Eye injury was the result of trapping hydrogen chloride fumes under a contact lens. The eye was scratched by the student in trying to remove the lens. No litigation was involved.
42) An explosion occurred when a student mixed concentrated acids in an attempt to dissolve an unknown quickly inside a volumetric flask. The pieces of glass broke nearby concentrated reagent bottles. 43) A leak of the oil in an inner container of yellow phosphorus was noted and preparations were made to transfer the phosphorus to a new container under water. While moving the container to the water, a fire started. The container was moved to the hood where t h e fire was successfully quenched with no injury or property damage.
44) A faculty person attempted to reerystallize an inorganic compound from a solvent mixture including hexane. The -400 mL volume of solution was contained in a 1000-mLbeaker and was not covered when placed in an ordinary refrigerator. The container and contents were stored in this condition for several days. A custodian reported
a very smokey fire. It resulted in a bill of several thousands of dollars. 45)Fire oeeured in an unoccupied preparation room. It was caused by acan of white phosphorus that developed a leak, and the resulting flare-up ignited a bottle of tbermite stored nearby. No litigation. 46) An explosion was caused by mixing frozen sulfuric acid that was thawing with water. A grad student misjudged the degree of thawing that had occurred and mixed it too soon. He received lacerations and minor damage to equipment. 47) Stuck stopper on separatory funnel caused brominelmethylene chloride solution to escape. When stopper became unstuck it splashed student in the face and area of the eye. Eye just irritated. 48) A flask containing hot nitric acid was over turned, burning a student's arm with second-degree burns. Arm healed without skin graft.
Volume 63
49) Student had been repeatly warned to be very careful while using fuming nitric acid. But student was quite "head-strong" and at the time he poured fuming nitric acid on his hand and arm. His chemical burns were quite severe. 50) A student, who just had permission to go ahead with his experiment, formulated a flash powder in small quantities. When the student arrived at a formulation that created the effect he wanted, he then mixed up a larger quantity for his demonstration and began mixing it with a mortar and pestle. The pressure set off the gunpowder mixture and the detonation totally fragmented the mortar and pestle. Student sustained significant damage to his hands and some "peppering" of his face.
Number 10 October 1986
A247
