edled by
MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of Idatlo Moscow, MBtc 83843
Occupational Health Efforts in University Chemistry Labs A survey and a monitoring scheme J. T. Pierce' Navy Environmental Health Center Cincinnati, OH R. L. Coleman Department 01 Env~ronmentalHealth Universm of Oklahoma Heallh Soences Center 0klah&a City, OK A SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH EFFORTS IN UNIVERSITY CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES Due to the difficulty in finding ~ppropriate information an health-control measures for educational chemical laboratories in the standard literature, a series of requests for otherwise unavailahlepublications was made. A letter requesting safetylhealth handbooks or any other self-generated materials was sent to the chairmen of the PhD-pranting chemistry departments in the United States. Of 220 letters there were 49 responses (22% response rate), 4fi of which were suitable for analysis. There is little mention in thesafetyhealth manuals of experiences or statistical compilations of experiences which prompt the inclusion of stated precautions. Steere ( I ) has emphasized the importance of the "applied" a r t of hazard prevention which depends heavily upon a body of knowledge gained through practical experience which makes the omission of this kind of information especially unfortunate. There appears Lo be little axrelation between the size of an institution and thedegree of safety and health efforts being made there. Individuals responsible for safety and health range from professors t o site-support personnel, with a wide range of committees, consultants, and voluntary representatives also engaged in safetylhealth matters.
tion indicating inadequacy. Unfortunately some of the manuals do not in any way address health considerations as opposed to safety information. T h e University of California, San Francisco responded to the request for materials with check-off sheets fur safety and health hazards surveys (2). T h e University of California, Davis' "Safety Regulations for Chemistry Personnel" includes information on physical and chemical hazards (3). T h e Indiana University chemistry safety publication details a guide to environmental exposure limits (threshold limit values), the means of contact and entry of toxic materials, and mercury vapor hazards and control measures ( 4 ) . The University of Kansas manual includes a consideration of toxic hazards and contains a reading list of toricalogy ( 5 ) .T h e Duke University manual offers a brief treatment of safety and health while detailing twelve particular chemical hazards ( 6 ) . Drexel University's manual considers toxic substances. Treated are the most likely hazards, precautionary measures, and counteractive steps. Mercury spills are discussed in detail, and it is recommended that the safety office he called in the case of mercury spills. This sharply contrasts with the currently discouraged practice of attempting to clear mercurv soills without exoert euidanee (7).
Desoite eeneral efforts there is little m e -
a statement that expressed a desire to improve on monitoring measures and in some cases a stated hesitancy t o release informa-
,-,. T h e University of Louisville's chemical department provides a guide to safety which is patterned after the widely used So& in (Continued on ooge AJOJ
Dr. Pierce is an industrial hygienist in the Medical Service Corps, United States Navy. T h e work described here was performed as part of his doctoral research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Dr. Coleman, who directed the research, is Professor of Environmental Health and Research Professor of ~ K h e m i s t r yand Molecular Biology a t the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center -.,-.=..*
~..
,..
Volume 57, Number 1. January 1980 / A9
Safety
... -
Academic Chemistry Laboratories (9). The Louisville manual emphasizes procedures for labeling, use, and waste disposal of chemicals with many examples of toxic chemicals given. T h e Cornell University manual includes lists of dangerous and incompatible chemicals (10). Purdue University utilizes a sheet describing major hazards. I t also lists responsible personnel tocall if the needarises (11). Rutgers University has its own safety manual and also uses short safety "reminder" sheets (12). Clark University's safety manual advises graduate students t o consult their research advisors or selected texts for advice on toxic ~ r o o e r t i e sof materials the" use (13).
gives students specific advice concerning use and handling (14). Tufts University's manual lists the most toxic substances encountered in their lahoratories (including hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, diazomethsne, organometallic compounds, metal carbunyls, and carhon monoxide). This manual also advises that inexperienced workers, undergraduate or graduate, should he supervised continuously by experienced workers (15). At the University of Michigan, a publication entitled "Lahoratary Safety" is provided monthly (16). Programs such as Michigan State's are under emstant revision. Radiation safety precedents may help to plan and or-
ganize chemical hazards programs (17). In states like Arizona, universities are bound by state occupational safety and health acts. Arizona State University highlights its safety manual's recommended practices with legal requirements (18). Videotaped experimental procedures help the Universitv of Arizona inform students of
,--,.
T h e University of Washington reports conducting half-day indoctrinations for all new teaching assistants in the fall followed by four seminars given by experts in toxicology, fire engineering, and carcinogen& (21). The manual from Colorado State Universitv in-
discusses the most common lahoratory hazards (23). T h e University of Iowa utilizes a list of the toxic effects of important industrial chemicals that might be found in their laboratories. Both maximum allowable sir concentrations
uation, virus control, and ~ncompatible chemical storage (25). A series of six questions have been devised far use in analyzing the information obtained (Table 1 ) . Question one is included to give credit far manuals that a t least mention the health aspects of laboratory work. Questions two and three were suggested by Cohen's study (26) which identified commitment and coopera-
tion as critical elements in safety programs (assumed health fallows). Due to the difficulty in distinguishing between safety and health, questions two and three addressed the broader aspects of these areas. Questions four, five, and six consist of the classical components of industrial hygiene: recognition, evaluation, and control. These results would seem to indicate a general desire on the part of those responsible to ensure a safe and healthful laboratory environment, hut they also indicate a current deficit in terms of monitoring and control efforts. Monitoring S c h e m e Two general methods have been devised to provide students and teachers with a basic appreciation of the risks associated with laboratory work. T h e first of these known as the Health Hazards Index allows for an estimate of the degree of risk associated with the use of particular reagents, experiments, or laboratory textbooks. T h e second method referred to as Reagent Monitoring permits the qualitative monitoring of students and their work spaces in terms of contaminant spread. These techniques do not require special training or equipment and can be adapted easily to any teaching lahoratory. Health H a z a r d s Index Three reasonably identifiable measures of risk were used in order t o develop a n index numher. These three are referred t o as the amount rating, the degree of exposure rating, and the toxicity rating. The three measures are multiplied together to give the Health Hazards Index, Tahles2,3, and 4 explain the ratings. Generation of Health Hazards Index numbers of individual reagents allows their compilation in the form of summations for individual experiments and cstegorizatiun by types of experiments and reagents. This number may then he used to identify "high risk" candidates for evaluation and control. R e a g e n t Monitoring A multifaceted program for the health monitoring of reagents commonly encountered in the laboratory was employed. Specific tests and reagents for use in qualitative monitoring were modified (27,28) for use in health effects monitoring. Although these techniques are not sufficient or adequate toensure compliance with state or federal occupational safety and health standards, they are useful in demanstrating the presence of contaminants, their spread throughout the laboratory, and some basic techniques for their detection. Respiratory film badges. Plastic name tag holders were drilled with small holes toallow for the exposure of filter papers moistened with an appropriate reagent color-sensitive to the reagent of interest. The name tags were pinned high on the students clothing in the vicinity of their breathing zones. Glycerin works well to maintain a moist surface during the period of measurement. Disposable Plastic Film Gloues. Dispnsahle doves were reouired for students working i n tlw l h h , m t q At I I W ~ N Icd'!ho kShw r.alury p e m d they ulew L L I I I P L I P ~ and m a -
. ,...... I n h o r c l r r , C o ~ n r o r i r . phoi,d,.r ld,wr / I , n , ! , n Small B I W ~ (lf I~lmr:~torv L I ~ I I I ~
talp, wrri wnhrd u i r h d ~ a ~ l l rwalcrard d 111, liquid collected for analysis. General Discussion While each of the methods described pos-
T
sesses unique attributes, the combination of methods offers advantages not obtainable using single methods. The combination offers techniques employable from th? planning stages of laboutory work through its campletion when an evaluation must be made. The combination permits the qualitative monitoring of the work spaces as well as the monitoring of students' breathing or hand contact experience. The planning of experiments should incorporate the results of previous monitoring. Health Hazards Index numbers should be compiled and analyzed at the earliest opportunity. The Laboratory Countertop Residue Identification scheme provides information on the basic pattern of flow of material throughout the laboratory. This pattern should not be used extensively to correlate the presence of contaminants with the work experience of students, but rather the methods employing the film badges or disposable gloves should be utilized.
Table 3.
address health, as opposed to safety, aspects of laboratory work? 2) Do the manuals show a commitment on the part of those responsible for safety and health?
43(93)
3)
30(65)
D o t h e manuals indicate that anempts are being
Degree of Exposure Ratlng Degree of Exposure
3( 7)
Condition
Rating
Few or inadequate precautionary 16(35)
Few or inadequate precautionary notes and procedures for a highly localized material or a readily
made to achieve a cooperative effort among those concerned?
3
notes and proceduresfor an sasily disseminated material. 2
disseminated material with
4) Are toxicity parameters presented, or are there at l e a ~ references t to
16135)
30(65)
adequate precautionary nates and procedures
~OU,CBS?
~ d e q u a t eprecautionary notes and
5) Are monitoring methods
41 9)
42(91)
14130)
32170)
mentioned? 6) Are control procedures outlined?
1
procedures for a highly localized material.
Table 4.
Toxlcity Rating Toxicity
Condition
Literature Cited
a t San Fr&& undated. (3) "Chemical Directory." University of California at nevii. undated. (4) "Manusl of Laboratory Safety? Indiana University Depertmentof Chemistry. 1912. 151 "Safety ReguIafionsufthoDepartmentufChemistry: univrrrity of Kansas, undated. (6) "Gross Chemistry Lshoratory Safsty Manual." Duke University. undated. iIl . . "Lshnrstorv Ssfetv . Manual." Drerel University, undated. I81 "l.ehieh Chemistry Demrtment Safety Manual." Lehigh ilniuer$ith undated. (9) American Chemical Society Committee on Chemical Safety. "Safety in AcademieChemistrvLahoratorin," American Chemical Society. Washington. 1974. l l O l ''Raker Laboratorv Safety Handbook: Cornoll Unlvorsity, 1970. (11) ."Rules Safety and Clpsnliners in theDepartment
