Undergraduate Laboratory Instruction Prepared by Wilbert Hutton, Iowa State University Inflation, decreasing enrollments, a strong public consciousness toward safety supported by ever increasing government control and regulation, decreasing supply and increasing costs of petroleum and petrochemicals, the energy shortage, rapid advances in technology and instrumentation, low federal and state funding in s u.p.~ o rof t science education-dl of t htw ;#rrfncts of lift. nlgw, and thrre is ewry r w i m tu expect thilt this will con~inueto describe conditions as we approach the 21st century. Nowhere in undergraduate chemical education do these conditions exert a greater influence than in the laboratory. So serious is the situation becoming that chemical educators mieht well ask the auestion. "All thines considered. can we a i h d to cmttnut: to offer high quality lahortlt~,ryinitruction at the undergraduate level?" I'anici~ants in [he Svm~osium on ~ n d e r ~ r a z u aLaboratory te ~nstrnkionattempted t'o focus their remarks and discussion on topics related to this auestion. The results of studies of the costs associated with a variety of experiments performed in general chemistry labs at several universities and colleges presented by Cohn ( I ) demonstrated that some ex~erimentsare dramaticallv more costlv than others. This siggests that a system of cost accounting should become an inteeral nart of the oneration of a laboratorv Drogram for it means for ketermining the best balance between maximum instructional value and minimum expense. Data, taken over the period 1968-77, seems to indicate that for the most part the increase in prices of most chemicals
8 I Journal of Chemical Education
roughly parallels the rise in inflation. However, some organic chemicals (especially those directly related to petroleum) underwent an abruot tbree- to five-fold nrice increase in 1974. This initial surge ;as been followed b; a continuous steady increase. although to be de.. " the rate of this increase amears celerating. The prices of organic chemicals can be identified as the major contributor to increased laboratory costs, even when such additional expenses as equipment, technical glassware, faculty salaries, etc. are considered.' These findings suggest that the costs associated with undergraduate organic labomtories have been severely affected over the last seven years. That this is indeed the case was shown by Neckers (2) who reported on detailed studies of the cost of chemicals and utilities in performing various organic laboratory experiments. As an examnle of the severe situation which exists in oreanic laboratories the average VIM per student in the organic lahunrtory for chemistry maiurs during the period 1970 to 1377 was found to have increaicd from S12.50 11,$40 per quarter, and thrre was an increase oi$H to 325 per student per ilunrtw in the service organic courses over thk same period. ~t present, the cost to support one student in the undergraduate biochemistry laboratory is reported to be approximately $100 per quarter. These costs represent chemicals and equipment a t onlv one institution and do not include salaries of facultv. teaching assistants or support staff; however, it is very likei; that these figures are renresentative of the situation a t other universities as well. Most-departmentsreport that increases in operating funds
-
have not been allocated a t a rate commensurate with the rate of inflation. Demographic analyses predict decreases in enrollments of the order of 25% by 1985. Since the operating budgets of most departments are based on the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled, it appears that financine education in the future is likely to be more of a problem th& it is now. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is clear that some changes in the organic lahoratory must he considered. Among the suggestions made were the following: (1)Evaluate the costs associated with each experiment and make changes in the procedures to modify these. In doing this, it is recommended that experiments be designed which employ reactions in which the product of the reaction in one experiment can he utilized as starting material for another. (2) I n performing syntheses, the rule should be to start with less expensiue reagents and prepare more expensiue ~ r o d u c t so s that there is an overall economic gain in the prices. One example was cited where the product of a synthesis carried out in the undereraduate laboratory was the chief source of supply of this compound for a major chemical ~ o m p a n y (3) . ~ Wheneuer possible, solvents should be recovered for later use. (4) Experiments should be project oriented, and the student reouired to eualuate the economic factors associated with hiilher approach to the project. This cannot only result in a savinas in the cost associated with the laboratorj, but also it serves to teach students that chemicals are indeed expensive, and i t stresses the importance of cm.ien,atiun and the, maximization of yields. A plan to issuestudentsa fixed amount of script with which thev buv the reagents thev use in a svnthesis a i d sell their product as a part of the experiment was described as a means of reinforcing this instruction. I t was also suggested that a "do more for fewer" policy be developed in which the only students who are permitted to take undergraduate organic laboratory are those who need this training for their careers. In turn, of those qualified to take the course, the more intellectually capable should be provided with more challenging project-oriented lab work. A first semester course stressing techniques and a second semester spent working on projects in collaboration with individual research groups was cited as one possible sequence of activities for these students. Rassmussen (3) described an example of an ongoing program which utilizes modern technology to replace a two-term general chemistry laboratory sequence with aone-term course. The economic gains from this approach come from scheduling advantages and increased throughput rather than from the decrease in the total numher of two-term laboratory contact hours. The laboratory course is designed to stand alone. Better prepared stud& take the lab ¤t with the first semester lecture course, and thr weaker students take thr lab during the second term. A four-hour lab period is used which consists of a short color videotaped pre-lab presentation stressine skills and backeround information on relevant instrumeits and a "bench"laboratory experiment followed by hands-on in-lah use of computer simulation im~lementedon the Commodore I'l?'l' mic;octrml)utcr. l'he c;nnputer programs aredesiynrd to help the student desirn tht, conditions for an experiment, test vaiious approaches and obtain results which either extend or compliment the principal "bench" experiment, Adeauate facilities for laboratow instruction will continue to be of concern to chemical educaiors. The dual use of laboratories for recitation and laboratorv work has been considered by many as a mwns of ecunomizing un classroom space. An t:nrIy etfurt at Cornell I!niversity to design luhorniories in a classroom setting,' proved to hr unsati~lactory. As drscrihed bv Hurlitch (41 a recent nmoddinz. which has placed the recitation in a laboratory setting, has proven to be very successful. A cluster of five laboratories surround a service center which ~
~
consists of an unknown preparations lab, an instrument room and a dispensing stockroom. There is one of these clusters on each of four floors. Communication between each service center and a central lab service area in the basement is maintained by an elevator and an intercom svstem located in the dispensing stockrooms. Both general chemistry and undergraduatr organic rhemistry Iahori1turirsare arcommudated in these unics. Instructors have ready access toearh students' work atation, especially h i g n e d opensided equipment racks can be hung on the front of the lahoratory henchei so students have ready access to their equipment and the bench tops may be kept relativelv clear. A steu-stool has been designed to doubie as a seat &ring recitation. Each laboratory has 32 linear feet of hood space along two walls, a 4-ft reagent hood, and three large chalk boards placed so they are available for use during recitations. The design permits effective utilization of color videotaped prelab presentations. Can academic laboratories afford to comnlv with the ~~~-Oc- cupational Safety and Health ~ d m i n i s t r a t i o n ~ (stan0~~~) dards? This is a question that is certainly pertinent to the future of undergraduate laboratory instruction. The answer,, as emphasized hy Norman Steere, is "yes," hut only by the intelligent interpretation of the existing standards and by active informed uarticipation in the adoption of orooosed new standards so that any safety requirem&ts will be necessary, practical, effective, and economical (5). There is little, if any, evidence of the participation of laboratory people in establishing the safety standards set forth in 1975,and there is no indication that there has been meaningful input from laboratory people in the health standards developed by the National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH) and proposed for adoption of OSHA. This represents a real problem now and a potentially greater problem in the future, especially if chemical educators' groups do not become involved.4 There is a need for some knowledgeable group to gather information about academic laboratorv iniuries. accidents. and fires and to analyze this data.5~heies;lts c o h d then be used to nenerate a basis for develouine and eainine accentance for reasonable interpretations of sifety precautiok wh;ch fall within the broad limits of the OSHA standards. A case in point is the interpretation of the OSHA recommendations for eye protection in chemical laboratories. The OSHA standards state, Protectiue eye and face equipment shall be required where there is a reasonable probability of any eye injury being preuented by such equipment. One such local interpretation of this standard is that chemical splash goggles are what one must have in order to provide eye protection in their laboratories. T o attempt to apply this interpretation to the general chemistry laboratory may actually be a case of over-protection. The fogging and overall discomfort which results when students wear chemical splash gogglt:s for extended periuds ut' time frequently rncourages violation of the rule, resulting in nu rye protection at all. On thc other hand. rerular safetv.elasses with side shields.. heine more comfortable, are more likely to be worn a t all times. Al-
-
~
~~
~~~
-
T h e average increase in the prices of the organic chemicals used in the general chemistry experiments studied was 166% during 1970-197fi. Neekers, D. C., Duncan, M. B., Gaynor, J., and Grasse, P. B., J. CHEM. EDUC., 54,690 (1977). Chemical and Engineering News, March 3,1966. An announcement made at the Conference by Anna Harrison indicated that the American Chemical Society is instituting aprogram designed to develop interactionswith the federal government which t the Societv in establishing related will result in i n ~ ufrom - reeulations to chemical laboratories. To be most effective,any recommendation should not be made on a local basis, but rather on decisions reached by a larger more representativegroup. The Division of Chemical Education was suggested as one such group. Volume 56, Number 1, January 1979 1 9
though these glasses do not provide complete protection, in almost all cases encountered in the general chemistry laboratory, they provide adequate proiection. Eye pro&ction should he tailored to fit the situation. In some laboratory activities, chemical splash goggles alone are not adequate protection; face shields and safety screens may he necessary as well. Although academic laboratories are not as likely to be ins ~ e c t e das other workdaces. everv effort should he taken to tiy to comply with ~ ~ ~ O standards S H A voluntarily. Not only is this imnortant for the immediate nrotection of students and faculty, but also students should know how to function in a laboratory in a safe manner since the laboratories in which they will eventually be employed are quite likely to be operated under OSHA standards. Experience is the best teacher. The cost of complying with OSHA standards can he controlled by the intelligent interpretation of the existing standards. For example, an appropriate glove box may be estahlished as a regulated area for the storage and manipulation of carcinogenic materials instead of a several thousand dollar
10 / Journal of Chemical Education
special laboratory facility; a common %in. diameter garden hose equipped with a quick-opening nozzle can meet requirements for adequate emergency water instead of a safety shower, etc. Bibliography (1) Relative Costs of Experiments in a General Chemistry Program, Kim Cohn, Dept. of Chemistry, California State College, Bakersfield, CA 93309. (2) The Economic Aspects of Undergraduate Laboratory Instruction, D. C. Neekers, Dept. of Chemistry, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43402. (3) A Stand-Alone One Term General Chemistry Laboratory Course Using A Three Step Learning Model, P. G. Rassmussen, R. B. Kozma and H. C. Griffin,Dept. of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. (4) The Cornell Recitation Laboratory, J. M. Burlitch, Dept. of Chemistry, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. (5) Can Academic Laboratories Afford to Comply with Occunational Safetv and Health Administration Standards? N. V. Steere, ~aboratorySafety and Design Consultant, 140 Melbourne Ave., SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414. ~~~
