fafety in the chemical loboratory
edited by MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of ldaho ldaho 83843
MOSCOW.
What Fate for Laboratory Safety Courses? Kenneth G. Everett Stetson University, DeLand, FL 32720 Will S. DeLoachl University of North Carolina a t Wilmington, Wilmington. NC 28403 Over the past decade concern about safety in college and university laboratories has risen to unprecedented prominence. A more enlightened awareness of hazards, the encroachment of stricter state and federal regulations, and the increase in accident-related lawsuits have all played a role in prompting t h e current focus of attention. In response, articles appearing in this Journal have suggested a gamut of measures aimed a t improving laboratory safety that include the appointment of departmental safety committees, departmental safety inspection teams, preparation and promulgation of departmental safety guidelines, the introduction of a safety component into the reward schemes for students (grades) and faculty (salary, promotion, and tenure), intraduction of more safety tips inta pre-lab discussions, informal safety seminars ( 1 5 ) , and, lastly, formal courses in laboratory safety, some excellent classroom-tested examples of which have been described (6-10). Of these proposed measures it might have heen anticipated that formal courses in laboratory safety would face the greatest resistance to general implementation because, of course, they make the most direct claim upon the chemistry curriculum itself, a curriculum already so replete that a new course can hardly be introduced without effectively displacing an old one. So the situation reduces to the stultifying question: What do we now teach that can be dispensed with in favor of formal safety instruction? And the difficulty multiplies when it is realized that a safety course, to he generally effectual, would need t o he taken by all chemistry majors; that is, it would have to be made a requirement for the major. I t can do little good to interject safety into the curriculum as just another elective course that only a few chemistry majors would have the time or inclination to take-unless we accede to the premise that only a few chemistry majors need to know much about safety. If we accept, however, the contrary view that all chemistry majors need thorough instruction in safety, a little reflection will show that the approach of consolidating t h a t instruction inta a single required course affords advantages of facility and effectiveness unmatched by other measures. When the whole of a student's safety instruction is fragmented into the various pre-
lab discussions of a half dozen different courses as is now common practice, emphasis in each instance is put upon those safety concerns peculiar t o the laboratory work of the course a t hand. If complete coverage is to be ensured, this system requires considerable effort a t coordination among courses (e.g., eye protection in general chemistry, compressed gas cylinders and electrical safety in physical chemistry, radiation safety in radiochemistry), and it usually ignores facets of safety practice that are not the direct responsibility of the laboratory student while in class but that will be of concern t o him or her in his or her later career (e.g., hroader questions of toxicity, proper storage and disposal of chemicals, and the ethical and legal implications of laboratory safety). The greatest advantage offered by a formal course requirement, however, derives from the power of sanction thatattaches to any course holding required status in the curriculum. Students recognize, for instance, that physical chemistry must be important to a chemical education because it is required for the major. Can they, on the other hand, think good safety practice is important when they see it treated as an incidental in their coursesand relegated t o a stature that elicits only passing and, all too often, perfunctory attention from their professors? The advantages of a safety course requirement are clearly substantial. But faced with a curriculum rendered practically impervious by the surfeit of present requirements, it is difficult to imagine a scenario, short of legal injunction, under which safety might be interpolated into the undergraduate pragram aa aformalrequired course. l f suchcan happen, though, it will irkely require uidesprmd suooort in ACS.nu~rc,v~ddeonrtGents with'the concomitan~establishment P of a anfery course requirement fur T ~ ACScertified degrec, our tlagship program, after which the requirement would disseminate into lower-level degree requirements and into departments not ACS-approved. As an aid to judging the prospects for such a train of de\elopment we haw conducted an exhaustive su&y of the current state of safety course offerings among ACS-approved departments. In the first phase of our investigation the catalogs of almost all schools (94%) on the most recently puh-
lished list of ACS-appnmd depnrtments ( 1 1 1 were searched fur LOUTSP offwings in chrm~rnllaboratory safety. To uhrnin additional information, questionnaires were subsequently sent to all departments listing such courses. Results and Discussion The current (1981-1988) catalogs of 546 of the 580 schools on the ACS-approved list were available in the microfiche files (12) used for this study. These catalogs were searched for courses that included instruction in chemical laboratory safety as a major component. Thirty-four such courses were found among the offerings of 31 different chemistry departments. At present, then, a h m t sac of ACS-appruved departments list fc,rmal, tor-credit courses in snt'm.. This firure agrees exactly with a comparable one reported hy Pesta and Kaufman (13). In a national survey these authors mailed comprehensive safety questionnaires to 2019 college and university chemistry departments and found that of 272 schools responding, 15, or 6%, offered safety courses. Thus it appears that the proportion of ACSapproved d e p a r t m e n t s offering such courses is no ereater than that of chemistw departmmrs at lorye. In another mrerrsting comparison, Prsra and Kaufmnn r e p m that 2"~ of their respmdmts required a satrty course for the chemistry major, whereas we find that only 1% of ACS-approved departments do so. The 34 safety courses fall into three categories: (1) courses primarily for undergraduate chemistry majors (22, or 64%, were of this type); (2) courses for graduate students in chemistry (6, or 18%);and (3) courses for secondary school science teachers (6, or 18%). Table 1 presents some of the catalog information on these courses. Of the 22 courses for undergraduate chemistry majors, all of which dealt exclusively with laboratory safety, only five were designated as requirements for the BS major in chemistry. One was listed as required for the BA hut not the BS major. A more refined perspective on the curricular priarity accorded safety courses-even, note, in
Volume 65
-
(Continued on page A1 78) Number 7
July 1988
A177
Table 1. Categories and Descrlptlons of Laboratory Safety Courses In ACS-Approved Departments Type of Course (number found)
Representative Titles
Courses for Undergraduate Chemistry Maiors (22)
Chemical Safety Chemical Laboratory Safety Chemical and Laboratory Safety Safety in Working with Chemicals Safety in Chemistry Safety in the Chemicai Laboratory
Credit
Prerequisites
1 sem. hr. (1 1) 2 sem. hrs. (5) 3 sem. hrs. (6)
none (5) 1 yr. general chem. (5) 1 semester org. chem. (5) 1 yr. org. chem. (3) 24 sem. h n . of chem. (1) jr. or sr. status (1) a college chem. course and upper div. standing (11
previous Or cment enrolimem in a lab. science (11
Courses lor Graduate Studenta in Chemishy (6)
Chemical Laboratmy Safety Special Topics in Chemical Health and Safety Seminar in Teaching Chemistry
0 sem. hrs. (1) 1 sem. hr. (1) 2 sem. hrs. (2) 3 sem. hrs. (2)
none listed (3) grad. standing (2) qusnt.. 1 yr. wg. (1)
Courses lor Secondary Schmi Science Teachers (6)
Techniques for High School Chemistry Laboratories Chemical Safety in lhe Teaching Laboratory Chemical Hazards and Toxicity Demonstration and Experimentation in Chemistry
2 sem. hrs. (2) 3 sem. hrs. (3) 4 sem. hrs. (1)
none listed (2) 20 sem. hrs. in chem. (1)
departments where they exist-is gained from a reading of some of the catalog course descriptions. The University of California a t Irvine, far instance, requires that for a chemistry major four chemistry electives must be taken beyond the core of hasic courses; however, it is specifically noted that the safety course may not be counted as one of those electives. At Bemidji State University the safety course is accepted only as an elective for the BS major hut is required for the BA major as well as for all students with BA minors or BS physical science majors who seek teacher licensing. Such representations reveal that the likelihood of taking a safety course tends t o decline in proportion as the rigor of a student's chemistry program increases, manifesting the apparent sentiment that for the more serious chemistry student there are more important things to learn than laboratory safety. Of the six safety courses for graduate students, one, entitled "Special Topics in Chemical Health and Safety", did not appear to be directed to or required of any particular audience. Of the other courses, four were designed t o train new departmental teaching assistants in the safety prac-
Table 3. Type of Course (numberresponding to questionnaire) Courses for Undergraduate Chemistry Majors (13) Courses lor Graduate Students in Chemishy (4) Courses for Secondary School Science Teachers 121
A178
Table 2.
sr. standing and majw or minor in chem. (1) permission of insbucta (1) certain education courses (1)
Text and Reference Materials Used In Laboratory Safety Courses In ACSApproved Departments Materials Used.
Number Reporting Use
Sefely h Acsdemic Chemishy Labwatories. Am. Chem. Soe. Prudent Practices fw HandlingHazardous Chemicals in Labaratories. Nat. Res.
6
Council Safetyin Working with Chemicals. Green and Turk J. Chem. Ed. articles. Am. Chem. Sac. Notes aenerated bv instructor
4 2 2
3
'Materials repatsd only once are OM included.
tices requisite to proper conduct of their laboratory classes; one of these dealt only with safety; the other three treated safety along with several other topics relating t o laboratory instruction. T h e remaining course, taught a t Purdue University "for a t least 40 years" (making it, by far, the longest-lived course we found), aims to prepare new graduate students for hazards likely t o be encountered in graduate research lahoratories. All these courses were reauired for the respective groups of studentsaffected. (It should perhaps he noted that many, if
not most, graduate schools require prospective teaching assistants to receive some kind of preliminary safety instruction, usually in the form of a seminar or workshop type of offering that carries no credit. Our own survey of four schools in North Carolina that grant the PhD in chemistry-probably a typical group-showed that three required such training sessions.) Two of the six courses for school science teachers dealt altogether with safety. The rest dealr generally with technique8 fi,r teaching high school chemistry laboratories
Enrollment Data for Laboratory Safety Courses In ACS-Approved Departments Frequency of Offering
Chem.
Non-Chem.
Average Number of Studenta Enrolled
once per
majors
Soph.
Jr.
Sr.
Qad.
(%I
majors (%)
Fr.
year
alternate years
( 1
(%I
(%I
1%)
(%I
22
11
1
85
15
9
29
30
24
8
23
4
-
too
0
0
0
0
0
100
4
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
100
Journal of Chemical Education
hut olaced exoress emohasis uoon safetv. Two of the courses were for undtr~raduates the forand four forgraduatestuden~r
