========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:51:18 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Swiki Anderson Subject: Re: Exhaust Stack Discharge >From ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 - 1992 (partial inclusion of section) 4.8 Exhaust stack discharge Exhaust discharge from stacks shall be in accordance with the latest applicable ASHRAE standards, and it shall -be in a vertical-up direction at a minimum of 10 feet above the adjacent roof line and so located with respect to openings and air intakes of the laboratory or adjacent buildings to avoid reentry. (For technical information see Chapter 14 of the 1989 [ASHRAE] Fundamentals handbook.); and -have a discharge velocity of at least 3000 fpm for a stack without internal condensation; or -have a discharge velocity of 2000 fpm or less if internal condensation might occur. Proposed wording under consideration in revised standard. In any event the discharge shall be a minimum of 10 feet above adjacent roof lines and in a vertical up direction. A minimum discharge velocity of 3000 fpm is required. Aesthetic conditions concerning external appearance shall not supersede the requirements of 4.7 and 4.8 The basic challenge in locating the hood discharge is to avoid reintrainment of effluent into any building air intake or opening and to minimize exposure of the public. The selection of stack height is dependent on the building geometry and air flow pattern around the building and is variable as meteorological conditions. Generally the evaluation of these phenomenon are not within the competency of most designers. It is thus frequently advisable to seek the counsel of people skilled in dispersion analysis. An excellent resource is Chapter 15 of the 1997 Fundamentals Handbook. Among the factors to consider in establishing stack configuration, design and height are: Toxicity, corrosivity, and relative humidity of the exhaust, meteorological conditions, geometry of the building, type of stack head and cap design, adjacency of other discharge stacks and building intake, and discharge velocity. A discharge velocity of 2500 fpm prevents downward flow of condensed moisture within the exhaust stack. It is good practice to make the terminal velocity at least 3000 fpm to encourage plume rise and dilution. These factors affect the dilution of the exhaust stream and the plume trajectory. High discharge velocity and temperature increases plume rise, but high velocity is a poor substitute for increased stack height. In cases there is a conflict, the requirements of 4.8 take priority. Some solutions that may be used are: Architectural structures to mask the unwanted appearance of the stack, as long as the stack extends vertically one stack diameter or more above the masking structure and otherwise meets the requirements of 4.8. An evaluation of the masking structure is required to assure that it is not counterproductive to avoiding discharge gas reintrainment. Treatment of the discharge gas so that a lower and aesthetically acceptable stack meets stack requirements. Treatment of the discharge gas so its quality is acceptable for return air to the laboratory. The technology of gas treating equipment is outside the scope of this standard except as described in 4.12.2 Appendix 1 is provided to assist the designer in understanding stack height determination and evaluation methods. It is interesting to note that the intent of the ASHRAE Task Group on Air Flow Around Buildings with regards to reintrainment was focused primarily on stack height, and not stack velocity. Increasing stack height is a much more effective means of dispersion than increasing stack velocity. The old adage "?the solution to pollution is dilution?" was and remains the most effective way of reducing reentry of fugitive emissions back into a building outside air intake. Somewhere along the line of development however, favor has been given to one particular fan supply that sells fans primarily for fume hood exhaust service and as a result of the favoritism, the 3000 fpm wording requirement found its way it the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 Standard. And, the standard now dictates a stack velocity that this particular fan manufacturers espouses. This subtle but manipulative marketing ploy seems to have worked very well for this particular manufacturer, however, even thought other fan manufacturers can accomplish the same goal with some "add on" controls that reduce the total cost to the consumer by as much as 65% in some cases. Unfortunately, a high stack velocity most often does not provided the needed result of getting the air above the flow patterns that exist around a building. Air friction and the expansion mechanism of jets of air into ambient simply do not allow for kinetic dissipation of fugitive emissions this way. The late John Clark, first Chairman of the ASHRAE TASK GROUP ON AIR FLOW AROUND BUILDINGS, worked at Oak Ridge and became very knowledgeable regarding exhaust re-entry problems. They had some real problems with fugitive emissions and the emissions were very easy to detect! He had a slide presentation entitled "Buildings Can Be Well Stacked and Beautiful Too!" that was excellent; it dealt with making stacks architectural features ( such as a corn stalk at a seed lab) instead of treating stacks like bastard stepchildren at a family reunion. He also published a feature article entitled "How to Plan Ventilation" in the January, 1963 issue of National Safety News . One aspect of the paper deals with what stack velocity is needed to overcome rain falling into the stack and he goes on to indicate that this is not all that bad if the fan scroll has a drain. He stated that the terminal velocity of raindrops ranged from 1,800 to 2000 fpm, and also stated that if the stack velocity exceeded these values, no rain would enter the stack and that velocities of 2,500 to 3,000 fpm would scavenge condensed moisture from ducts (p31). He also we on to say, "No drains or caps of any type are desired or needed for stacks on continuously operating systems" (p.33). He also identified other stack features that can address the terminal water velocity problem if it is of concern, which in most cases it is not. Interesting enough, the only reason he suggested this high a stack velocity was because of terminal water droplet velocity problem. Seems now like the only reason that folks are using to justify a high stack velocity is use of the velocity to jet the stack emissions above the plum of the building, which is does only in a very few and rare instances. Stack height works much better for this than does stack velocity. No one seems to want to tell the unsuspecting user/purchaser of this and other facts however. Sales hype leads to someone perception of how things "..really are.." and then perception, especially with someone unknowing, become reality that all the rest of the sheep follow. Caveat emptor. Swiki Anderson, Ph.D., P.E., Past Chairman, ASHRAE TASK GROUP ON AIR FLOW AROUND BUILDING, 1976-1978 Swiki A. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E. Office: Swiki Anderson and Associates, Inc. 1516 Shiloh Ave., Bryan, TX 77803 v. 409.779-6068, x11; f -6085; 800.949-1996 website: http://saai-svc.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:23:29 +0000 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Herman curtis Subject: Re: Exhaust Stack Discharge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Why 3000 fpm velocity for a non-condensing exhaust and 2000 fpm or less for a condensing exhaust? It seems to me it should be the opposite. Maybe i'm missing something. Herman Curtis Department of Physical Science Cameron University 2800 W Gore Blvd Lawton, OK 73505 hermanc@cameron.edu (580)591-8007 ,(580)581-2323 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:18:58 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Schultz William F USAMRIID Subject: Laboratory hood exhaust MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I was recently given some information to review from a course on ventilation issues that one of our employees attended. The following information was in the Codes and Standards Section of the manual. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ TOPIC Exhaust Systems Stack height and location. REQUIREMENTS American National Standard for Laboratory Ventilation (ANSI/AIHA Z9.5) Pg. 5: 4.8 Exhaust stack discharge (The stack shall) be in a vertical-up direction at a minimum of 10 feet above the adjacent roof line and so located with respect to openings and air intakes of the laboratory or adjacent buildings to avoid reentry. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Industrial Ventilation, 22nd Edition, 5-29 5.16.1: Stack Considerations 6. Locate stacks on the highest roof of a building when possible. If not possible, a much higher stack is required to extend beyond the wake of the high bay, penthouse or other obstacle. ASHRAE, Fundamentals Handbook, 1993, Pg. 14.11 Exhaust Stack Design: (This section of the ASHRAE Handbook provides extensive guidance to determine stack height to avoid exhaust entrainment.) National Fire Protection Association, Standard NFPA 45, Par:, 6-4.10: 6-4.10 Air exhausted from laboratory hoods and special exhaust systems shall be discharged above the roof at a location, height, and velocity sufficient to prevent reentry of chemicals. A-6.4.10 Exhaust stacks should extend at least 10 ft. (3m) above the highest point on the roof to protect personnel on the roof. Exhaust stacks might need to be much higher to dissipate effluent effectively, and studies might be necessary to determine adequate design. SUMMATION & COMMENTARY When various complexities exist such as nearby buildings, complex architectural features and irregular terrain, it may not be possible to reliably establish the necessary height of a stack with existing formulae. In such instances scale modeling of the facility and surrounding area and wind tunnel testing can provide realistic indication of the effect of various stack heights and locations. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Hope this helps. I personally think the NFPA cite listed clearly states the intent of the standards. The exhausted air should be discharged at a roof location, at a height sufficient to protect anyone on the roof, at a location, height and velocity sufficient to prevent reentry of chemicals into the laboratory, building or any adjoining structure. Or in simple terms you shouldn't protect your workers by removing hazardous fumes from their work area and discharging them into someone else area. My analogy would be to look at the height of industrial smokestacks before the technology to scrub the stack discharges was developed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:45:03 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mark Yanchisin Subject: FW: Gas bottle explosion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Greetings, This went to the Safety list about a month ago, but I don't remember seeing it in the NACHO mailings. If it was, I apologize for a duplication!! These are very interesting pictures though!!! Mark Yanchisin -----Original Message----- To: SAFETY@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Gas bottle explosion You might find this interesting. Drag racers use an injection of nitrous oxide into the engine for extra power and speed. These are pics of what happens to a car when the NOS bottle explodes. They don't seem to know exactly why it happened. http://www.enhancedhealth.com/NOS2.htm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:59:58 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Chad Bennett Subject: Cyanmethemoglobin Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Does anyone out there know where I can get cyanmethemoglobin? It is for an anlytical chem research project. Apparently this is used to lyse RBC's in order to release the hemoglobin to determine hemoglobin level in blood. But this method is "old fashioned" and not used in clinical labs today because of instrumentation, e.g., the Coulter counter. The procedure talks about using known standards of cyanmethemoglobin concentrations to formulate a curve, but I cannot seem to find any. By mixing 0.02 ml of whole blood with 5.0 ml of something called Drabkin's solution (which contains sodium bicarb, potassium cyanide, and something else (not sure right now, as the students have the procedure with them) you actually create cyanmethemoglobin. But how can you be sure exactly how much cyanmethemoglobin you have if using it as a standard for a curve is the intended purpose? Making Drabkin's solution is not a problem. I guess I am confused as to the relationship of hemoglobin to methemoglobin to cyanmethemoglobin. The only insight I have to all this is from my paramedic training for cyanide poisoning. I remember learning that cyanide attaches to the ferric ion (Fe 3+) of a respiratory enzyme called cytochrome oxidase. This inhibits respiration. The treatment consists of several steps, which starts with high concentration of oxygen. What oxygen does is compete with cyanide for ferric ions on the enzyme. The next step is to administer amyl nitrate, which converts hemoglobin to methemoglobin by oxidizing the ferrous ions (Fe 2+) on hemoglobin to ferric ions. So methemoglobin is simply hemoglobin with the iron ion in the oxidized state (?). The presence of these ferric ions cause the displaced cyanide to attach to the hemoglobin, creating, I suppose, cyanmethemoglobin. The next step is to administer sodium nitrate because it converts even more hemoglobin to methemoglobin. However, methemoglobin cannot transport oxygen, so sodium thiosulfate is given to re-convert it to hemoglobin. But if, clinically, cyanmethemoglobin is used to lyse RBCs to release the hemoglobin (as this procedure indicates), then wouldn't all patients who have been treated for cyanide poisoning have lysed RBC's? Without intact RBC's to contain the hemoglobin, the hemoglobin would be cleared from the blood stream by the spleen so quickly that death would ensue in short order. That wouldn't be good for business. Any help in explaining this confusion would be appreciated. -- Chad Bennett Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ Campus Environmental Compliance Officer Central College Pella, Iowa - ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:32:36 -0900 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Trig Subject: Re: Cyanmethemoglobin In-Reply-To: <199911022301.RAA122978@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Try locating hemoglobin standards in med lab supply catalogs. I believe VWR used to carry them, but there are many other suppliers. You might want to contact your local hospital medical lab and they can provide supply names or they may be willing to donate some standards that are approaching outdates. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:22:37 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Walters.Douglas" Subject: Re: Cyanmethemoglobin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > Does anyone out there know where I can get cyanmethemoglobin? > I don't know about know, but it was sold by Alfa thru Johnson Matthey Po Box 8247 Ward Hill, MA 01835 508 521 6300 1 800 343 0660 Doug Douglas B. Walters, Ph.D., CSP National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Toxicology Program Head, Laboratory Health and Safety walters@niehs.nih.gov ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:46:15 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Schultz William F USAMRIID Subject: Re: Cyanmethemoglobin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" http://www.boehringer-mannheim.com/labdiag/us/list.htm They have it listed. Bill Schultz USAMRIID -----Original Message----- From: Chad Bennett [mailto:stockroom@CENTRAL.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 5:00 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Cyanmethemoglobin Does anyone out there know where I can get cyanmethemoglobin? It is for an anlytical chem research project. Apparently this is used to lyse RBC's in order to release the hemoglobin to determine hemoglobin level in blood. But this method is "old fashioned" and not used in clinical labs today because of instrumentation, e.g., the Coulter counter. The procedure talks about using known standards of cyanmethemoglobin concentrations to formulate a curve, but I cannot seem to find any. By mixing 0.02 ml of whole blood with 5.0 ml of something called Drabkin's solution (which contains sodium bicarb, potassium cyanide, and something else (not sure right now, as the students have the procedure with them) you actually create cyanmethemoglobin. But how can you be sure exactly how much cyanmethemoglobin you have if using it as a standard for a curve is the intended purpose? Making Drabkin's solution is not a problem. I guess I am confused as to the relationship of hemoglobin to methemoglobin to cyanmethemoglobin. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:17:08 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Naomi Kelly Subject: Re: Exhaust Stack Discharge In-Reply-To: <01BF2447.C8D5DC80.swiki@bihs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1062566==_.ALT" --=====================_1062566==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A discharge velocity of 2500 fpm prevents downward flow of condensed >moisture within the exhaust stack. It is good practice to make the >terminal velocity at least 3000 fpm to encourage plume rise and dilution. This is the part that I don't understand--the standard says "a discharge velocity of 2000 or less if internal condensation might occur", not as you have indicated above. >At 05:51 PM 10/31/99 -0800, you wrote: >>From ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 - 1992 (partial inclusion of section) >4.8 Exhaust stack discharge > >Exhaust discharge from stacks shall be in accordance with the latest >applicable ASHRAE standards, and it shall > > -be in a vertical-up direction at a minimum of 10 feet above the >adjacent >roof line and so located with respect to openings and air intakes of the >laboratory or adjacent buildings to avoid reentry. (For technical >information see Chapter 14 of the 1989 [ASHRAE] Fundamentals handbook.); >and > > -have a discharge velocity of at least 3000 fpm for a stack without >internal condensation; or > > -have a discharge velocity of 2000 fpm or less if internal condensation >might occur. > >Proposed wording under consideration in revised standard. > >In any event the discharge shall be a minimum of 10 feet above adjacent >roof lines and in a vertical up direction. > >A minimum discharge velocity of 3000 fpm is required. > >Aesthetic conditions concerning external appearance shall not supersede the >requirements of 4.7 and 4.8 > >The basic challenge in locating the hood discharge is to avoid >reintrainment of effluent into any building air intake or opening and to >minimize exposure of the public. The selection of stack height is >dependent on the building geometry and air flow pattern around the building >and is variable as meteorological conditions. Generally the evaluation of >these phenomenon are not within the competency of most designers. It is >thus frequently advisable to seek the counsel of people skilled in >dispersion analysis. > >An excellent resource is Chapter 15 of the 1997 Fundamentals Handbook. > Among the factors to consider in establishing stack configuration, design >and height are: Toxicity, corrosivity, and relative humidity of the >exhaust, meteorological conditions, geometry of the building, type of stack >head and cap design, adjacency of other discharge stacks and building >intake, and discharge velocity. > >A discharge velocity of 2500 fpm prevents downward flow of condensed >moisture within the exhaust stack. It is good practice to make the >terminal velocity at least 3000 fpm to encourage plume rise and dilution. > >These factors affect the dilution of the exhaust stream and the plume >trajectory. High discharge velocity and temperature increases plume rise, >but high velocity is a poor substitute for increased stack height. > >In cases there is a conflict, the requirements of 4.8 take priority. Some >solutions that may be used are: > >Architectural structures to mask the unwanted appearance of the stack, as >long as the stack extends vertically one stack diameter or more above the >masking structure and otherwise meets the requirements of 4.8. An >evaluation of the masking structure is required to assure that it is not >counterproductive to avoiding discharge gas reintrainment. > >Treatment of the discharge gas so that a lower and aesthetically acceptable >stack meets stack requirements. > >Treatment of the discharge gas so its quality is acceptable for return air >to the laboratory. The technology of gas treating equipment is outside the >scope of this standard except as described in 4.12.2 > >Appendix 1 is provided to assist the designer in understanding stack >height determination and evaluation methods. > >It is interesting to note that the intent of the ASHRAE Task Group on Air >Flow Around Buildings with regards to reintrainment was focused primarily >on stack height, and not stack velocity. Increasing stack height is a much >more effective means of dispersion than increasing stack velocity. The old >adage "?the solution to pollution is dilution?" was and remains the most >effective way of reducing reentry of fugitive emissions back into a >building outside air intake. Somewhere along the line of development >however, favor has been given to one particular fan supply that sells fans >primarily for fume hood exhaust service and as a result of the favoritism, >the 3000 fpm wording requirement found its way it the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 >Standard. And, the standard now dictates a stack velocity that this >particular fan manufacturers espouses. This subtle but manipulative >marketing ploy seems to have worked very well for this particular >manufacturer, however, even thought other fan manufacturers can >accomplish the same goal with some "add on" controls that reduce the total >cost to the consumer by as much as 65% in some cases. Unfortunately, a >high stack velocity most often does not provided the needed result of >getting the air above the flow patterns that exist around a building. Air >friction and the expansion mechanism of jets of air into ambient simply do >not allow for kinetic dissipation of fugitive emissions this way. > >The late John Clark, first Chairman of the ASHRAE TASK GROUP ON AIR FLOW >AROUND BUILDINGS, worked at Oak Ridge and became very knowledgeable >regarding exhaust re-entry problems. They had some real problems with >fugitive emissions and the emissions were very easy to detect! He had a > slide presentation entitled "Buildings Can Be Well Stacked and Beautiful >Too!" that was excellent; it dealt with making stacks architectural >features ( such as a corn stalk at a seed lab) instead of treating stacks >like bastard stepchildren at a family reunion. He also published a >feature article entitled "How to Plan Ventilation" in the January, 1963 >issue of National Safety News . One aspect of the paper deals with what >stack velocity is needed to overcome rain falling into the stack and he >goes on to indicate that this is not all that bad if the fan scroll has a >drain. He stated that the terminal velocity of raindrops ranged from 1,800 >to 2000 fpm, and also stated that if the stack velocity exceeded these >values, no rain would enter the stack and that velocities of 2,500 to 3,000 >fpm would scavenge condensed moisture from ducts (p31). He also we on to >say, "No drains or caps of any type are desired or needed for stacks on >continuously operating systems" (p.33). He also identified other stack >features that can address the terminal water velocity problem if it is of >concern, which in most cases it is not. Interesting enough, the only >reason he suggested this high a stack velocity was because of terminal >water droplet velocity problem. Seems now like the only reason that folks >are using to justify a high stack velocity is use of the velocity to jet >the stack emissions above the plum of the building, which is does only in a >very few and rare instances. Stack height works much better for this than >does stack velocity. No one seems to want to tell the unsuspecting >user/purchaser of this and other facts however. Sales hype leads to >someone perception of how things "..really are.." and then perception, >especially with someone unknowing, become reality that all the rest of the >sheep follow. Caveat emptor. > >Swiki Anderson, Ph.D., P.E., Past Chairman, ASHRAE TASK GROUP ON AIR FLOW >AROUND BUILDING, 1976-1978 > >Swiki A. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E. >Office: Swiki Anderson and Associates, Inc. > 1516 Shiloh Ave., Bryan, TX 77803 > v. 409.779-6068, x11; f -6085; 800.949-1996 > website: http://saai-svc.com --=====================_1062566==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" A discharge velocity of 2500 fpm prevents downward flow of condensed
>moisture within the exhaust stack.  It is good practice to make the
>terminal velocity at least 3000 fpm to encourage plume rise and dilution.

This is the part that I don't understand--the standard says "a discharge velocity of 2000 or less if internal condensation might occur", not as you have indicated above.


>At 05:51 PM 10/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>From ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 - 1992 (partial inclusion of section)
>4.8 Exhaust stack discharge
>
>Exhaust discharge from stacks shall be in accordance with the latest
>applicable ASHRAE standards, and it shall
>
>        -be in a vertical-up direction at a minimum of 10 feet above the
>adjacent
>roof line and so located with respect  to openings and air intakes of the
>laboratory or adjacent buildings to avoid reentry.  (For technical
>information see Chapter 14 of the 1989 [ASHRAE] Fundamentals handbook.);
>and
>
>        -have a discharge velocity of at least 3000 fpm for a stack without
>internal condensation; or
>
>        -have a discharge velocity of 2000 fpm or less if internal condensation
>might occur.
>
>Proposed wording under consideration in revised standard.
>
>In any event the discharge shall be a minimum of 10 feet above adjacent
>roof lines and in a vertical up direction.
>
>A minimum discharge velocity of 3000 fpm is required.
>
>Aesthetic conditions concerning external appearance shall not supersede the
>requirements of 4.7 and 4.8
>
>The basic challenge in locating the hood discharge is to avoid
>reintrainment of effluent into any building air intake or opening and to
>minimize exposure of the public.  The selection of stack height is
>dependent on the building geometry and air flow pattern around the building
>and is variable as meteorological conditions.  Generally the evaluation of
>these phenomenon are not within the competency of most designers.  It is
>thus frequently advisable to seek the counsel of people skilled in
>dispersion analysis.
>
>An excellent resource is Chapter 15 of the 1997 Fundamentals Handbook.
> Among the factors to consider in establishing stack configuration, design
>and height are:  Toxicity, corrosivity, and relative humidity of the
>exhaust, meteorological conditions, geometry of the building, type of stack
>head and cap design, adjacency of other discharge stacks and building
>intake, and discharge velocity.
>
>A discharge velocity of 2500 fpm prevents downward flow of condensed
>moisture within the exhaust stack.  It is good practice to make the
>terminal velocity at least 3000 fpm to encourage plume rise and dilution.
>
>These factors affect the dilution of the exhaust stream and the plume
>trajectory.  High discharge velocity and temperature increases plume rise,
>but high velocity is a poor substitute for increased stack height.
>
>In cases there is a conflict, the requirements of 4.8 take priority.  Some
>solutions that may be used are:
>
>Architectural structures to mask the unwanted appearance of the stack, as
>long as the stack extends vertically one stack diameter or more above the
>masking structure and otherwise meets the requirements of 4.8.  An
>evaluation of the masking structure is required to assure that it is not
>counterproductive to avoiding discharge gas reintrainment.
>
>Treatment of the discharge gas so that a lower and aesthetically acceptable
>stack meets stack requirements.
>
>Treatment of the discharge gas so its quality is acceptable for return air
>to the laboratory.  The technology of gas treating equipment is outside the
>scope of this standard except as described in 4.12.2
>
>Appendix 1  is provided to assist the designer in understanding stack
>height determination and evaluation methods.
>
>It is interesting to note that the intent of the ASHRAE Task Group on Air
>Flow  Around  Buildings with regards to reintrainment was focused primarily
>on stack height, and not stack velocity.  Increasing stack height is a much
>more effective means of dispersion than increasing stack velocity.  The old
>adage "?the solution to pollution is dilution?" was and remains the most
>effective way of reducing reentry of fugitive emissions back into a
>building  outside air intake.   Somewhere along the line of development
>however, favor has been given to one particular fan supply that sells fans
>primarily for fume hood exhaust service and as a result of the favoritism,
>the 3000 fpm wording requirement found its way it the ANSI/AIHA Z9.5
>Standard.  And, the standard now dictates a stack velocity that this
>particular fan manufacturers espouses.  This subtle but manipulative
>marketing ploy seems to  have worked very well for this particular
>manufacturer, however,  even thought other  fan manufacturers can
>accomplish the same goal with some "add on" controls that reduce the total
>cost to the consumer by as much as 65% in some cases.   Unfortunately, a
>high stack velocity most often does not provided the needed result of
>getting the air above the flow patterns that exist around a building.  Air
>friction and the expansion mechanism of jets of air into ambient simply do
>not allow for kinetic dissipation of fugitive emissions this way.
>
>The late John Clark, first Chairman of the ASHRAE TASK GROUP ON AIR FLOW
>AROUND BUILDINGS, worked at Oak Ridge and became very knowledgeable
>regarding exhaust re-entry problems.  They had some real problems with
>fugitive emissions and the emissions were very easy to detect!   He had a
> slide presentation entitled "Buildings Can Be Well Stacked and Beautiful
>Too!"  that was excellent; it dealt with making stacks architectural
>features ( such as a corn stalk at a seed lab) instead of treating  stacks
>like  bastard stepchildren at a family reunion.   He also published a
>feature article entitled "How to Plan Ventilation" in the January, 1963
>issue of National Safety News .  One aspect of the paper deals with what
>stack velocity is needed to overcome rain falling into the stack and he
>goes on to indicate that this is not all that bad if the fan scroll has a
>drain.  He stated that the terminal velocity of raindrops ranged from 1,800
>to 2000 fpm, and also stated that if the stack velocity exceeded these
>values, no rain would enter the stack and that velocities of 2,500 to 3,000
>fpm would scavenge condensed moisture from ducts (p31).   He also we on to
>say, "No drains or caps of any type are desired or needed for stacks on
>continuously operating systems" (p.33).   He also identified other stack
>features that can address the terminal water velocity problem if it is of
>concern, which in most cases it is not.  Interesting enough, the only
>reason he suggested this high a stack velocity was because of terminal
>water droplet velocity problem.  Seems now like the only reason that folks
>are using to justify a high stack velocity is use of the velocity to jet
>the stack emissions above the plum of the building, which is does only in a
>very few and rare instances.  Stack height works much better for this than
>does stack velocity.   No one seems to want to tell the unsuspecting
>user/purchaser of this and other facts however.  Sales hype leads to
>someone perception of how things "..really are.."  and then perception,
>especially with someone unknowing,  become reality that all the rest of the
>sheep follow.   Caveat emptor.
>
>Swiki Anderson, Ph.D., P.E., Past Chairman, ASHRAE TASK GROUP ON AIR FLOW
>AROUND BUILDING,  1976-1978
>
>Swiki A. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.
>Office:         Swiki Anderson and Associates, Inc.
>        1516 Shiloh Ave., Bryan, TX 77803
>        v. 409.779-6068, x11;  f -6085;  800.949-1996
>        website: http://saai-svc.com
--=====================_1062566==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:31:47 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Lucy M. Zotter" Subject: SOPs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Nachos, I am meeting resistance with the necessity of having SOPs I have given our dept chair a copy of the SOP chapt. from the PARIS ,OSHA lab standard book and 29 CRF 1910.1450 any other info would be appreciated. Also if anyone has ben cited for not having SOPs and would be willing to share I'd appreciate it. Lucy Zotter Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:12:26 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: Re: SOPs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Lucy - In the preamble (Federal Register page 3317 and 3318, Vol. 55, No. 21) to the rule, OSHA indicated there were only a few comments in the public record addressing SOP's. As stated in the preamble (the version I have), "OSHA did not specify the contents to be covered under the SOP's, as they would vary with each facility and would best be determined by the employer. The purpose of the SOP's is to assure that work practices and policies that the employer may deem necessary to protect employees from chemical hazards in the laboratory are in place. SOP's, for example, may specify general safety precautions (e.g. safety glasses, eating and drinking area restrictions, general housekeeping practices) accident response, disposal procedures and spill clean-up procedures". It has been my experience that the preambles describe OSHA's intent; the rules just document the requirements, and especially so for performance oriented standards like this one. Then its up to the employer. I personally find the preambles useful materials. If you have not already done so, try providing the preamble to your chair. Chances are you already have SOP's (always wear appropriate PPE, never work alone, avoid open flames, etc), but maybe they are not called that and only a cross reference is needed. Ben Greene AlliedSignal > ---------- > From: Lucy M. Zotter[SMTP:lmz0@MS1.ALLENCOL.EDU] > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 9:31 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: SOPs > > Hi Nachos, > I am meeting resistance with the necessity of having SOPs I have given our > dept chair a copy of the SOP chapt. from the PARIS ,OSHA lab standard book > and 29 CRF 1910.1450 any other info would be appreciated. Also if anyone > has ben cited for not having SOPs and would be willing to share I'd > appreciate it. > Lucy Zotter > Lucy Zotter > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:29:35 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Chad Bennett Subject: Bomb Calorimeter and Solution Calorimeter Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Does anyone know where I can find these? -- Chad Bennett Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ Campus Environmental Compliance Officer Central College Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:43:50 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Robert N. Nelson" Subject: Re: Bomb Calorimeter and Solution Calorimeter In-Reply-To: <199911031830.MAA91178@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:29 11/3/99 -0500, you wrote: >Does anyone know where I can find these? >-- >Chad Bennett >Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ >Campus Environmental Compliance Officer >Central College >Pella, Iowa Chad, Try Parr Instruments who manufactures calorimeters of all sorts. Bob Nelson Robert N. Nelson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Chemistry, Chem. Dept. Georgia Southern Univ. P.O.B. 8064, Statesboro, GA 30460-8064 912-681-5675 (voice) 912-681-0699 (fax) ********* The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:36:19 -0800 Reply-To: jhoward@mtsu.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "James C. Howard" Organization: MTSU Department of Chemistry Subject: Re: Bomb Calorimeter and Solution Calorimeter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Try Parr Instrument Co. 211 Fifty-Third Street Moline, IL 61265 voice: 309/762-7716 fax: 309/762-9453 telex: 270226 Info is from my 1990 manual for a 1425 Semimicro Bomb Calorimeter. I could not find a web site for them. Jim Chad Bennett wrote: > > Does anyone know where I can find these? > -- > Chad Bennett > Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ > Campus Environmental Compliance Officer > Central College > Pella, Iowa -- James C. Howard, Ph.D. xxxxx Associate Professor x x Department of Chemistry x x Middle Tennessee State University x x The Murfreesboro, TN 37132 x x Essence x x of 615-898-2079 (voice) x x Life 615-898-5182 (fax) x H O x x 2 x Keep it Clean jhoward@mtsu.edu xxxxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:14:53 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Gonzalez, Lisa" Subject: California equivalent of the Lab Standard? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I have the responsibility for several facilities, the newest one being in California. I have most of the haz waste regs and the radiation safety regs, and all federal regs (I work in New York and have New Jersey facilities as well). The company we purchased is a biotech and they have no chemical hygiene plan, CHO, evac plans, etc. I have 2 questions for the group: 1) Is there a Cal/OSHA equivalent to the lab standard? 2) Does anyone have know if CCHESMA has a website, I have a link back east and cannot access it. I don't know if it is misspelling. It is an organization in California that I've heard of from time-to-time that deals with safety (at least that's what I think!). Thanks for all of your help! Lisa A. Gonzalez R&D Safety and Health Officer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:32:39 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: California equivalent of the Lab Standard? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Lisa Look for 5191 under Title 8. For further information and assistance, please call me at 310-257-1080 Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 02:14 PM 11/3/99 -0500, you wrote: >I have the responsibility for several facilities, the newest one being in >California. I have most of the haz waste regs and the radiation safety >regs, and all federal regs (I work in New York and have New Jersey >facilities as well). > >The company we purchased is a biotech and they have no chemical hygiene >plan, CHO, evac plans, etc. > >I have 2 questions for the group: > >1) Is there a Cal/OSHA equivalent to the lab standard? >2) Does anyone have know if CCHESMA has a website, I have a link back east >and cannot access it. >I don't know if it is misspelling. It is an organization in California that >I've heard of from time-to-time that deals with safety (at least that's what >I think!). > >Thanks for all of your help! > >Lisa A. Gonzalez >R&D Safety and Health Officer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:40:24 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Subject: Re: California equivalent of the Lab Standard? Comments: To: Lisa.Gonzalez@PHARMA.COM Comments: cc: owner-labsafety-l@siu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Lisa, The web address is http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5191.html Home page for the California Dept. of Industrial Relations is http://www.dir.ca.gov You might also like "Find California Code" http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Teresa R. Robertson, CCHO CSUB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:56:25 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Maria Kuhn Subject: phenol-chloroform solutions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can anyone tell me what type of glove might be recommended for use with phenol-chloroform solutions used in genetics/biochemistry laboratories for DNA extractions? Nitrile can be worn with phenol but I'm pretty sure that they won't work for chloroform. The solution is actually 50% phenol, 48% chloroform and 2% isoamyl alcohol. I'm looking up chemical info. (msds...) and I'm having a difficult time finding any statement other than "appropriate gloves". Any suggestions are appreciated. Maria. _____________________________________________________ Maria J. Kuhn Environmental Safety Specialist/UGA Right to Know Coordinator Environmental Safety Division University of Georgia 240A Riverbend Rd. Athens, Ga. 30602-8002 (706) 542-3571 Fax (706) 542-0108 mkuhn@esd.uga.edu http://www.esd.uga.edu GO BRAVES!!!!!!!! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:40:03 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions Comments: To: mkuhn@ESD.UGA.EDU Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit mkuhn@ESD.UGA.EDU writes: >Can anyone tell me what type of glove might be recommended for use with >phenol-chloroform solutions used in genetics/biochemistry laboratories for >DNA extractions? Nitrile can be worn with phenol but I'm pretty sure that >they won't work for chloroform. The solution is actually 50% phenol, 48% >chloroform and 2% isoamyl alcohol. Maria. Maria, Please verify with a couple other sources - I have a MSDS from Life Technologies that says, "Glove and Protective Clothing: A plastic laminate specifically rated for the constituents of this product. Nylon. Viton rubber. Breakthrough may occur; don fresh protection frequently. Use a face shield with chemical goggles." for the following reagent- 48% chloroform 2% isoamyl alcohol 35.5% phenol 0.5% tris-HCl 14% water Teresa R. Robertson, CCHO CSUB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:08:38 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Nitrile gloves do not provide a suitable barrier for phenol. We are running into this problem in our gross anatomy lab. We were focusing on the formaldehyde and really hadn't look very closely at the other constituents of the embalming fluid. Nitrile will only hold up for about 15 to 30 minutes depending on the amount of embalming fluid present at the site of dissection. I am interested in other suggestions for phenol as we are seeing more exposure related complaints now that formaldehyde is under control. For what its worth, Janeen. Opinions expressed are mine, I often have many, and not those of UNE. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Janeen M. Lapierre Microbiology Lab Coordinator/CHO University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine (207)283-0170 x2446 jlapierre@mailbox.une.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:08:56 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Schultz William F USAMRIID Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/MAIN_PAGES/CHEM-HS.HTML At the web site click on "Search the entire H & S database". Then enter the CAS number for the chemical. Glove selection is at the bottom of the documents. I found that Viton is the best for both phenol and chloroform. I have another chart that claims that nitrile is good for chloroform (better than natural rubber, neoprene, or vinyl) but the chart does not list the compatibility of nitrile with phenol (for phenol it lists neoprene and vinyl as excellent). If nitrile can indeed be worn with phenol it should be acceptable for the mixture. Due to our office being remodeled my safety supply catalogs are not available. These catalogs can be a good source of determining glove compatibilities. Bill Schultz USAMRIID -----Original Message----- From: Maria Kuhn [mailto:mkuhn@ESD.UGA.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 3:56 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: phenol-chloroform solutions Can anyone tell me what type of glove might be recommended for use with phenol-chloroform solutions used in genetics/biochemistry laboratories for DNA extractions? Nitrile can be worn with phenol but I'm pretty sure that they won't work for chloroform. The solution is actually 50% phenol, 48% chloroform and 2% isoamyl alcohol. I'm looking up chemical info. (msds...) and I'm having a difficult time finding any statement other than "appropriate gloves". Any suggestions are appreciated. Maria. _____________________________________________________ Maria J. Kuhn Environmental Safety Specialist/UGA Right to Know Coordinator Environmental Safety Division University of Georgia 240A Riverbend Rd. Athens, Ga. 30602-8002 (706) 542-3571 Fax (706) 542-0108 mkuhn@esd.uga.edu http://www.esd.uga.edu GO BRAVES!!!!!!!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:46:07 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Marc Neuffer Subject: HazCom - Chem Safety Power Point Presentation Available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Short note to let you know we have posted a new HAZCOM-Chemical Safety Power Point Presentation on www.safetyinfo.com. Also thanks to all who have sent in info they were willing to share. Regards Marc Neuffer SafetyInfo.Com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:45:22 -0330 Reply-To: Geraldine Kennedy Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Geraldine Kennedy Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991103155245.00929400@128.192.187.3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello, My charts from Ansell Edmont list neoprene as excellent for phenol and PVA (polyvinyl alcohol) for chloroform. Viton is a good glove material for most chemicals but I haven't found any in a disposal glove. Past experience with DNA extractions indicated you require dexterity as well as protection. You might try double gloving with the neoprene or nitrile for the phenol on the outside. Phenol can absorb directly through the skin to cause poisoning and the absorbtion rate is increased in the presence of chloroform so a primary concern is to avoid phenol contact. I would also suggest changing gloves at the first sign of chemical contact. I know you will get the complaint of the expensive of this but what price to you put on someones health and safety. Geraldine Kennedy Environmental Officer Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, NF, A1C 5S7, CN (709)737-4320 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:30:51 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Amy Gregory Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" According to glove compatibility charts that we created for our institution, neoprene and vinyl work well with phenol. However, someone asked about Chloroform too. Neoprene and vinyl do not work as well for Chloroform. Silver Shield gloves work well for both. But, dexterity is bad with silver shield. I would probably wear a vinyl glove over a silver shield. That way I have dexterity and I am definitely protected. Is this overkill?? Amy R. Gregory Univ. of Cin./Clermont College Lab Manager/NRCC--CHO Amy.Gregory@UC.EDU >I am interested in other suggestions for phenol as we are seeing more exposure related complaints now that formaldehyde is under control. > >For what its worth, Janeen. > >Opinions expressed are mine, I often have many, and not those of UNE. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Janeen M. Lapierre >Microbiology Lab Coordinator/CHO >University of New England >College of Osteopathic Medicine >(207)283-0170 x2446 >jlapierre@mailbox.une.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:24:01 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Nick Pinizzotto Subject: phenol-chloroform solutions Comments: To: mkuhn@ESD.UGA.EDU In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991103155245.00929400@128.192.187.3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DNA extraction is a fairly hands off technique, and unless the lab personnel are poor aims with the pipettors they should not have contact with the chemical. Many replies have a common thread, "dexterity" , which is a neccessity in a bio lab. Unfortunately there are few glove materials providing that dexterity except latex, nitrile, and vinyl. I would echo some of the other comments and recommend double gloving, changing gloves frequently and always upon visible wetting of the gloves. That's what we do here. Nick Pinizzotto Environmental Health Officer Dept. Environmental Health & Safety Thomas Jefferson University nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu 215-503-5853 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:14:22 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: chemical inventory question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Fellow officers - I am interested in how chemical inventories, particularly in (but not limited to) industrial settings, are being handled when there is an absence of a central store room. The general scenario is: order is initiated, order is reviewed by CHO, approved orders go to purchasing, purchasers deal with vendors, chemicals (with MSDS) arrive at warehouse, warehouse delivers chemicals to labs. There are a bunch of labs. Does anybody have a success story they would like to share? (Because I'm not familiar with one). Ben ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:21:50 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ben Owens Subject: Phenol-Chloroform Solutions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9EDC2C806867115F258CC2D8" --------------9EDC2C806867115F258CC2D8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With respect to phenol-chloroform solutions: According to the Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing (Forsberg and Mansdorf), only a laminate glove such as the Ansell Edmont 4H glove, or a Viton glove provide adequate protection against both chemicals. A thin nitrile glove (such as Best N-Dex or Ansell Edmont TNT) can be worn over the laminate glove to increase dexterity. Viton gloves do not provide good dexterity and are expensive ($50 or more in Lab Safety catalog). The above cited reference does not recommend nitrile gloves for chloroform or phenol, and states that nitrile gloves provide < 1 hr. of breakthrough resistance under continuous contact. This refers to thick nitrile gloves, not the thin nitrile gloves. If lack of dexterity prevents performance of the procedure, multiple layers of a thin nitrile glove can be worn. However, as stated above the nitrile gloves will only provide protection against inadvertent splashes, etc., and gloves should be changed anytime liquid is detected (or suspected) on the glove (and hands washed). In making this recommendation, I'm assuming that the user understands the hazards of phenol-chloroform, is experienced in this procedure, and will not have significant contact time with the chemical solution (I have performed this procedure many times myself and as long as none of the containers leak, this is generally a safe assumption). -- Ben Owens, Chemical Hygiene Officer University of Nevada, Reno Environmental Health and Safety Department, MS 328 Reno, NV 89557 (775) 327-5196 (775) 784-4553 fax --------------9EDC2C806867115F258CC2D8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With respect to phenol-chloroform solutions:  According to the Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing (Forsberg and Mansdorf), only a laminate glove such as the Ansell Edmont 4H glove, or a Viton glove provide adequate protection against both chemicals.  A thin nitrile glove (such as Best N-Dex or Ansell Edmont TNT) can be worn over the laminate glove to increase dexterity.  Viton gloves do not provide good dexterity and are expensive ($50 or more in Lab Safety catalog).  The above cited reference does not recommend nitrile gloves for chloroform or phenol, and states that nitrile gloves provide < 1 hr. of breakthrough resistance under continuous contact.  This refers to thick nitrile gloves, not the thin nitrile gloves.  If lack of dexterity prevents performance of the procedure, multiple layers of a thin nitrile glove can be worn.  However, as stated above the nitrile gloves will only provide protection against inadvertent splashes, etc., and gloves should be changed anytime liquid is detected (or suspected) on the glove (and hands washed).  In making this recommendation, I'm assuming that the user understands the hazards of phenol-chloroform, is experienced in this procedure, and will not have significant contact time with the chemical solution (I have performed this procedure many times myself and as long as none of the containers leak, this is generally a safe assumption).

--
Ben Owens, Chemical Hygiene Officer
University of Nevada, Reno
Environmental Health and Safety Department, MS 328
Reno, NV 89557
(775) 327-5196
(775) 784-4553 fax
  --------------9EDC2C806867115F258CC2D8-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:26:42 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Rebecca Levins, RSR Corporation" Subject: Re: chemical inventory question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BF26BB.102715C0" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BF26BB.102715C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, not totally successful, but works most of the time. We have each = area supervisor responsible for letting us know what is in their area = each month. We are in industry - I send out inventory/update sheets each = month and the lab, maintenance, refinery, water treatment, and etc. = areas send me back info. Best regards, Rebecca Levins Environmental, Health & Safety Compliance Specialist RSR Corporation Dallas, Texas RSRrdl@onramp.net (214) 583-0245 -----Original Message----- From: Greene, Ben [SMTP:bgreene@SMTP3.WSTF.NASA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:14 AM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: chemical inventory question Fellow officers - I am interested in how chemical inventories, particularly in (but not limited to) industrial settings, are being = handled when there is an absence of a central store room. The general scenario = is: order is initiated, order is reviewed by CHO, approved orders go to purchasing, purchasers deal with vendors, chemicals (with MSDS) arrive = at warehouse, warehouse delivers chemicals to labs. There are a bunch of = labs. Does anybody have a success story they would like to share? (Because I'm = not familiar with one). Ben ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:59:39 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jerry Tipton Subject: Introduction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello: I am the Program Coordinator for the Chemical Environmental Management System (CEMS) here at the University. This program tracks all of the hazardous chemical material. It currently is a decentralized system where the chemical user is required to bar code the new chemical container and provide specific information about it. Then when the container is emptied another report is required. I have an established website for those interested www.unh.edu/cems . Jerry Tipton EHS Coordinator University of New Hampshire Perpetuity Hall Durham, NH 03824 voice: (603) 862-0197 fax: (603) 862-0047 e-mail:gtipton@cisunix.unh.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:42:37 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Herbert Carpenter Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions I agree with Nick on this. In our lab, we've been doing DNA work with phenol/chloroform for several years. Our chemists use latex or nitrile and know very well that there is a short permeation time in case of a wetting event. Proper (not sloppy) technique, frequent glove changes, and immediate change upon visible contamination seems to work fine in terms of cost, operational dexterity and management of the hazard . In fact, from the standpoint of preventing the spread of contamination and preserving the integrity of our examination process, I see some benefit to having the examiners know that they have to remove the contaminated PPE promptly rather than think that they can continue to manipulate the equipment and specimens with gross contamination on their hands for any extended period. In contrast, the individual spill kits in these areas are equipped with both silvershield and heavy nitrile gloves and our people are instructed to double glove with the SilverShield on the outside if they were ever to have to clean up a spill of chloroform/phenol or any other chlorinated solvent. Herb Carpenter Army Crime Lab > ---------- > From: Nick Pinizzotto[SMTP:Nick.Pinizzotto@MAIL.TJU.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:24 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: phenol-chloroform solutions > > DNA extraction is a fairly hands off technique, and unless the lab > personnel > are poor aims with the pipettors they should not have contact with the > chemical. Many replies have a common thread, "dexterity" , which is a > neccessity in a bio lab. Unfortunately there are few glove materials > providing > that dexterity except latex, nitrile, and vinyl. I would echo some of the > other comments and recommend double gloving, changing gloves frequently > and > always upon visible wetting of the gloves. That's what we do here. > > Nick Pinizzotto > Environmental Health Officer > Dept. Environmental Health & Safety > Thomas Jefferson University > nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu > 215-503-5853 > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:30:47 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Naomi Kelly Subject: Re: HazCom - Chem Safety Power Point Presentation Available In-Reply-To: <001301bf26ca$f32e2480$84c6e4d0@safety1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" How specifically is it posted--where do you find it once you get to the safetyinfo site? At 07:46 AM 11/4/99 -0600, you wrote: >Short note to let you know we have posted a new HAZCOM-Chemical Safety Power >Point Presentation on www.safetyinfo.com. Also thanks to all who have sent >in info they were willing to share. > >Regards >Marc Neuffer >SafetyInfo.Com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:37:11 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Sam Hurlbut Subject: Re: HazCom - Chem Safety Power Point Presentation Available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I found it in the category "Safety Training", sub heading "Power Point Files." Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: Naomi Kelly [SMTP:nkelly@CLEMSON.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:31 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: HazCom - Chem Safety Power Point Presentation > Available > > How specifically is it posted--where do you find it once you get to > the > safetyinfo site? > > > At 07:46 AM 11/4/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Short note to let you know we have posted a new HAZCOM-Chemical > Safety Power > >Point Presentation on www.safetyinfo.com. Also thanks to all who > have sent > >in info they were willing to share. > > > >Regards > >Marc Neuffer > >SafetyInfo.Com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:46:05 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Robert Burns Subject: Re: chemical inventory question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" In our case, in an industrial setting, generate requisition, to purchasing, issue purchase order number, requisitioned then orders. When it arrives, with MSDS, requisitioner enters it on the inventory. Each user is responsible to enter new and remove used up chemicals. Once a year, I (CHO) issue a paper inventory and each lab checks and corrects as needed. We have about 20 people and about 14,000 items on inventory. If we have several containers of a material, each container is counted as an item. AS you can see from my SIG, CHO is an additional duty. I have neither the time nor the inclination to review every req. before purchase. We have trained professionals and treat them as such. "Semper Adventurus!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation Email rburns@ruetgers-organics-corp.com Phone 814 231 9214 Fax 815 333 4805 > -----Original Message----- > From: Greene, Ben [mailto:bgreene@SMTP3.WSTF.NASA.GOV] > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:14 > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: chemical inventory question > > > Fellow officers - I am interested in how chemical inventories, > particularly in (but not limited to) industrial settings, are > being handled > when there is an absence of a central store room. The > general scenario is: > order is initiated, order is reviewed by CHO, approved orders go to > purchasing, purchasers deal with vendors, chemicals (with > MSDS) arrive at > warehouse, warehouse delivers chemicals to labs. There are a > bunch of labs. > Does anybody have a success story they would like to share? > (Because I'm not > familiar with one). > > Ben > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:04:17 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Maria Kuhn Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks to everyone who has posted information regarding phenol-chloroform solutions. I am in agreement with both Herb & Nick's suggestions. After speaking with a variety of laboratory personnel, contact with these materials is virtually non-existent because of technique and dexterity is critical for this technique. Many laboratories are utilizing kits for their procedure which also eliminates or minimizes chemical contact risks. The staff that I have spoken with stated that they use nitrile and/or latex and that none have had problems with break-through. The information about chloroform increasing the absorption rate of phenol is interesting -- and therefore, immediate removal of contaminated PPE is important as well. I will be recommending double gloves and frequent glove changing alone with good laboratory practice and personal hygiene. I also, like Herb's suggestion for spill situations. Also, the glove selection guide that I received is very useful. Again, thanks for the help. Maria. At 01:42 PM 11/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >I agree with Nick on this. In our lab, we've been doing DNA work with >phenol/chloroform for several years. Our chemists use latex or nitrile and >know very well that there is a short permeation time in case of a wetting >event. Proper (not sloppy) technique, frequent glove changes, and immediate >change upon visible contamination seems to work fine in terms of cost, >operational dexterity and management of the hazard . In fact, from the >standpoint of preventing the spread of contamination and preserving the >integrity of our examination process, I see some benefit to having the >examiners know that they have to remove the contaminated PPE promptly rather >than think that they can continue to manipulate the equipment and specimens >with gross contamination on their hands for any extended period. > >In contrast, the individual spill kits in these areas are equipped with both >silvershield and heavy nitrile gloves and our people are instructed to >double glove with the SilverShield on the outside if they were ever to have >to clean up a spill of chloroform/phenol or any other chlorinated solvent. > >Herb Carpenter >Army Crime Lab >> ---------- >> From: Nick Pinizzotto[SMTP:Nick.Pinizzotto@MAIL.TJU.EDU] >> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:24 AM >> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU >> Subject: phenol-chloroform solutions >> >> DNA extraction is a fairly hands off technique, and unless the lab >> personnel >> are poor aims with the pipettors they should not have contact with the >> chemical. Many replies have a common thread, "dexterity" , which is a >> neccessity in a bio lab. Unfortunately there are few glove materials >> providing >> that dexterity except latex, nitrile, and vinyl. I would echo some of the >> other comments and recommend double gloving, changing gloves frequently >> and >> always upon visible wetting of the gloves. That's what we do here. >> >> Nick Pinizzotto >> Environmental Health Officer >> Dept. Environmental Health & Safety >> Thomas Jefferson University >> nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu >> 215-503-5853 >> _____________________________________________________ Maria J. Kuhn Environmental Safety Specialist/UGA Right to Know Coordinator Environmental Safety Division University of Georgia 240A Riverbend Rd. Athens, Ga. 30602-8002 (706) 542-3571 Fax (706) 542-0108 mkuhn@esd.uga.edu http://www.esd.uga.edu GO DAWGS!!!!!!!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:17:25 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: h & jg stormking Subject: Re: chemical inventory question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi: At my last job (I was the Sr. Quality/Safety/Environment Specialist) I managed this program. We would have a purchase request generated. The Purchase Agent would check the approved chemical list (which indicated how much was allowed on site if necessary). If the product was on the approved chemical list, (and the amount on hand didn't exceed the limits) he could order it. If not, it would go to the CHO (me) for review of the MSDS and other documents as needed. If there were no reds flags (e.g. storage, PPE, disposal, or cleanup concerns), the material was approved and the Purchase Agent ordered the material. This was entered onto the Approved Chemical List. If there were red flags, a Chemical Review Board was called to allow management to make the decision that getting the material was indeed needed. Then management would support addressing the red flags. If we didn't do this, the R&D chemists sometimes would order first and consider the consequences later. This also assured that we'd have an MSDS on hand when the material was received. When the material was received, we had a safety sticker attached to a copy of the shipping receipt. This safety sticker provided the additional information needed for the approved chemical list and inventory (e.g. type of container, location, etc.). We also checked the label and initialed and dated each container. This provided visual documentation that we had performed the OSHA required label check. This program worked very well. The labs were required to inform the safety department when a material was used up, this was the only inventory chore that was problem in the system. They were also to return to the safety department any unused chemicals they were disposing of to assure nothing went down the sink that wasn't supposed to. Alas, in my current job I am a member of the safety committee but do not have specific safety duties. They use me as a resource for information. But then again, we don't have as many chemicals on site as the last place. Sorry if this was a little long. Helen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:15:54 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Naomi Kelly Subject: Ductless Chemical Hoods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have always discouraged the use of ductless hoods in our laboratories. Although they may be used safely for very low toxicity chemicals, ensuring that lab personnel will use them for only those specified chemicals is highly unlikely. The purchase of a number of these hoods, however, has once again been proposed by the members of one of our research groups. They have literature from the manufacturer of a ductless hood that claims that the hood may be safely used quite a list of chemicals including Methylene chloride and Benzene. I was quite surprised that these chemicals were on the list. These hoods have activated charcoal and HEPA filters. I have always equated these hoods with a cartridge respirator and assumed that those chemicals not approved for use with a cartridge respirator would certainly not be approved for use in a ductless hood??? All comments welcome. Naomi Kelly Environmental Health and Safety Officer Clemson University 261 P&AS Building Clemson, SC 29634-5740 (864)656-7554 Fax (864)656-7630 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:59:58 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Lucy M. Zotter" Subject: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Nachos! Thanks for past help. A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really mean't for us. Any comments or good replys I could give him. Does anyone know of any other documentation that would fit this situation. Thanks again, Lucy Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:37:54 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Schultz William F USAMRIID Subject: Re: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The regulation states "This section shall apply to all employers engaged in the laboratory use of hazardous chemicals as defined below." Most academic laboratories perform procedures that fall under the definition. The problem that I see is that the regulation only applies to "employers". Therefore the regulation applies to the faculty members and other school/college/university employees and not the students. I am sure the school/college/university has some form of liability if they do not make sure students follow some generally accepted standards of laboratory safety. Since the school/college/university is not an employer of the students (actually they are the opposite of employers, they charge the students for the privilege of attending) the OSHA Regulations do not apply to the school/college/university relationship but to the school/college/university faculty and staff. Bill Schultz USAMRIID -----Original Message----- From: Lucy M. Zotter [mailto:lmz0@MS1.ALLENCOL.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 12:00 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs Hi Nachos! Thanks for past help. A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really mean't for us. Any comments or good replys I could give him. Does anyone know of any other documentation that would fit this situation. Thanks again, Lucy Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:12:05 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Subject: Re: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs Comments: To: lmz0@MS1.ALLENCOL.EDU Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit lmz0@MS1.ALLENCOL.EDU writes: >A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. >meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't >really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really >mean't >for us. >Lucy Zotter Lucy, I believe the opposite is true, the lab standard could be considered more appropriate for academic labs than industry, not less so (except for R&D operations). The very purpose of the Lab Standard is to acknowledge that laboratory workers are apt to have a greater understanding of the hazards of the materials they are using than that of the average industrial worker. >From the summary of the preamble to the "Lab Standard", "The basis for this standard is a determination by the Assistant Secretary, after careful review of the complete rulemaking record, that laboratories typically differ from industrial operations in their use and handling of hazardous chemicals and that a different approach than that found in OSHA's substance specific health standard is warranted to protect workers. The final standard applies to all laboratories that use hazardous chemicals in accordance with the definition of laboratory use and laboratory scale provided in the standard." >From the definition of "Laboratory Scale" in the main body of the regulation, ""Laboratory scale" excludes those workplaces whose function is to produce commercial quantities of materials." >From the Background and History of the Regulation, in the pre-amble to the "Lab Standard", "Prior to the promulgation of this final rule, laboratories were subject to all provisions of OSHA's General Industry Standards codified in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. However, interested parties involved in laboratory operations have for sometime opposed this arrangement...As a result they argued that laboratories were required to comply with provisions that were more appropriately designed for industrial workplaces....The preamble to the standard regulating those substances [14 specified carcinogens] noted the following objections from parties representing laboratories interests: Laboratories use very small amounts of the substances; laboratory work is done by, or under the direct supervision of, highly trained personnel; and in the absence of an exemption or other special consideration, the standard would obstruct important research, including cancer research." The body of the "Lab Standard" begins, "Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories. (a) Scope and application. (1) This section shall apply to all employers engaged in the laboratory use of hazardous chemicals..." Lucy, it says, "...all employers...". It does not say, "all employers in the industrial setting." Good luck! Teresa R. Robertson, CCHO CSUB ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:24:34 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Jeffery S. Stewart" Organization: Morehead State University Subject: Re: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------D9A5EAA86D90C92D7AF7F9A2" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D9A5EAA86D90C92D7AF7F9A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lucy, What Teresa has stated pretty much sums it up. I am at the beginning of a voluntary compliance audit with Ky OSHA. The very first thing I was asked to provide was my Chemical Hygiene Plan, and who was the CHO. Hope this helps your situation out on campus. Jeffery S. Stewart, RSO/CHO Coordinator, Environmental Health & Safety Industrial Hygienist Morehead State University "Lucy M. Zotter" wrote: > Hi Nachos! > Thanks for past help. A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. > meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't > really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really mean't > for us. Any comments or good replys I could give him. Does anyone know of > any other documentation that would fit this situation. > Thanks again, > Lucy > Lucy Zotter --------------D9A5EAA86D90C92D7AF7F9A2 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="j.stewart.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Jeffery S. Stewart Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="j.stewart.vcf" begin:vcard n:Stewart;Jeffery tel;fax:606-783-2359 tel;work:606-783-2179 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Morehead State University;Environmental Health & Safety version:2.1 email;internet:j.stewart@morehead-st.edu title:Coordinator, Environmental Health & Safety adr;quoted-printable:;;213 Downing Hall=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A;Morehead;Kentucky;40351; x-mozilla-cpt:;-7792 fn:Jeffery S. Stewart end:vcard --------------D9A5EAA86D90C92D7AF7F9A2-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:17:47 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Naomi Kelly Subject: Re: HazCom - Chem Safety Power Point Presentation Available In-Reply-To: <001301bf26ca$f32e2480$84c6e4d0@safety1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks for the posting. It will certainly save me some work. Does anyone have a Power Point Presentation for Chemical Hygiene/Lab Safety that they would be willing to share? At 07:46 AM 11/4/99 -0600, you wrote: >Short note to let you know we have posted a new HAZCOM-Chemical Safety Power >Point Presentation on www.safetyinfo.com. Also thanks to all who have sent >in info they were willing to share. > >Regards >Marc Neuffer >SafetyInfo.Com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:21:38 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Being a CHO for academia, I am only too familiar with the situation you describe. As some have already said, the "Lab Standard" was designed for "Labs"! Academia is much better off because of it. My canned response to this point of view is simply this: A lab can not be safe for employees(faculty) if it is full of students who are not familiar with lab safety and standard operating procedures that we as experienced workers are familiar with. I use this line of reasoning to justify the first lab session as lab safety training. It is so strikingly similar to lab safety I do for faculty that they may opt to attend one of these sessions for their yearly refresher. It makes the students realize this is not just stuff for them but stuff they will need in the real world some day. I find training sessions with faculty present for training usually take on a better air than those without. SOP's are as simple as place hot glassware on a wire mess to cool. Or no mouth pipetting. Or no food in the lab. Or safety glasses are required for the following labs. Good luck, Janeen. Opinions expressed are mine, I often have many, and not those of UNE. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Janeen M. Lapierre Microbiology Lab Coordinator/CHO University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine (207)283-0170 x2446 jlapierre@mailbox.une.edu >>> "Lucy M. Zotter" - 11/5/99 11:59 AM >>> Hi Nachos! Thanks for past help. A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really mean't for us. Any comments or good replys I could give him. Does anyone know of any other documentation that would fit this situation. Thanks again, Lucy Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:16:23 -0400 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Don Abramowitz Subject: Re: Ductless Chemical Hoods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" the manufacturer of a ductless hood that claims that >the hood may be safely used quite a list of chemicals including Methylene >chloride and Benzene. I was quite surprised that these chemicals were on >the list. These hoods have activated charcoal and HEPA filters. I have >always equated these hoods with a cartridge respirator and assumed that >those chemicals not approved for use with a cartridge respirator would >certainly not be approved for use in a ductless hood??? I agree with your assessment. I think ductless hoods with HEPA filters have some good uses, like balance enclosures for non-volatile/non-sublimable toxic solids. Having had an on-site demo not too long ago, I can imagine no practical way to provide protection for benzene and methylene chloride with a sorbent [unless they include an afterburner and caustic scrubber :-) ]. Issues of how well methylene chloride sticks to sorbent, lack of adequate warning properties, effects of humidity, and performance against mixtures of chemicals come to mind as arguments against such an application. Don ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Donald Abramowitz, CIH Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College 101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue Bryn Mawr PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081 (610) 526-5166 | (610) 328-8564 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:59:50 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Warren C. Pinches" Subject: Re: Relevance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If your institution is within OSHA's jurisdiction, then the Lab Standard applies to your academic labs. Remember, however, that public-sector institutions are not within OSHA's jurisdiction unless your state government has specifically made it so. I think it is the "SOP" part of the Lab Standard that galls them; academic researchers think this sounds like industrial standardization and is beneath their exalted level of intellectual freedom. I never use the term "SOP", even though that's what OSHA calls them. I call them "safe laboratory practices". They don't necessarily have to be task-specific; a set of guidelines that everyone ought to be following if they have any business being in a lab could be an "SOP" under OSHA's definition. I believe that it's even possible to have just a single general SOP, unless you have specific hazards that you feel need separate treatment, or unless you have many different types of laboratories, where good procedures for one might be counter-indicated for another. Even then, you may want a general SOP with several more specific ones. A ready-made solution that I believe would meet OSHA's requirements in many cases would be to adopt the ACS booklet, "Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories" as your SOP. Buy copies for $3.50 each from Jim Kaufman's Lab Safety Workshop at 508-647-1900 (no, I don't get a commission) and hand them out to your entire staff. (Do this on general principles even if you don't call it your SOP.) More ambitiously, adopt the whole of "Prudent Practices in the Laboratory" by the National Research Council as your SOP. (Of course, if you do, you really must plan to abide by everything in this book.) OSHA based the appendices to the Lab Standard substantially on this book, which certainly makes it an authoritative basis for compliance. Jim Kaufman also has it for sale, although it's too expensive to buy a copy for everyone. At least that's my reading of the Lab Standard. Does anyone think that having one or more general SOPs does not meet the requirements of the standard, and that industry-style task-specific SOPs are required? I have written task-specific SOPs only where I think they are called for by the nature of the hazard; for example, using hydrofluoric acid. Warren C. Pinches, CSP, CHMM Purely personal opinions asked for and wanted by no one else. "Lucy M. Zotter" on 11/05/99 11:59:58 AM Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU cc: (bcc: Warren Pinches) Subject: Relavance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs Hi Nachos! Thanks for past help. A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really mean't for us. Any comments or good replys I could give him. Does anyone know of any other documentation that would fit this situation. Thanks again, Lucy Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 21:49:31 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Chad Bennett Subject: Respirator Use Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit We have a chemical refrigerator in our instrument lab that when someone opened it over the summer they were met with a "very bad smell". Someone taped it shut and hung a Do Not Open sign on it. No one seems to know what all is in the refrigerator, let alone what spilled. The idea then came up to purchase a respirator so that we could open the refrigerator and find out what is spilled or breached and correct the problem. However, a few years back we had an experience with OSHA where they did an inspection and found a respirator on the campus but no respiratory protection program. They required we either develop a program or get rid of the respirator; we got rid of the respirator. So I feel that if we purchase a respirator for this problem we will suddenly be faced with the costly and time-consuming burden of implementing a respiratory protection program. (Doesn't it seem contradictory that providing myself an added measure of protection before opening the refrigerator is actually in violation of the law?) Because of the small volumes we work in the instrument labs, I would say that whatever is spilled in there is a very small volume and would be considered an incidental release, and not a true hazardous material release. I am HAZWOPPER trained, but we have no campus HAZMAT team. Regardless, I feel we are exempt anyway in this situation from the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, because it is an incidental release. But does this mean that we are also exempt from needing a respiratory protection program if we choose to use a respirator to protect ourselves? I tend to think not, because 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection, applies to General Industry, which we are. I read 1910.134 to say that if we feel a procedure is dangerous enough to warrant a respirator, then we need to have a respiratory protection program, which in turn requires the use of respirators. Maybe we can just say that we didn't officially feel the procedure of opening the refrigerator was at all dangerous, we just wanted to wear a respirator as a fashion statement that day. Speaking of that, when is something worn on the body considered a piece of PPE and not part of, let's say, a Halloween costume? Your thoughts on how to deal with this? -- Chad Bennett Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ Campus Environmental Compliance Officer Central College Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:55:20 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Labsafe@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Relevance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-11-05 18:05:53 EST, Warren Pinches writes: << A ready-made solution that I believe would meet OSHA's requirements in many cases would be to adopt the ACS booklet, "Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories" as your SOP. Buy copies for $3.50 each from Jim Kaufman's Lab Safety Workshop at 508-647-1900 (no, I don't get a commission) and hand them out to your entire staff. (Do this on general principles even if you don't call it your SOP.) More ambitiously, adopt the whole of "Prudent Practices in the Laboratory" by the National Research Council as your SOP. (Of course, if you do, you really must plan to abide by everything in this book.) OSHA based the appendices to the Lab Standard substantially on this book, which certainly makes it an authoritative basis for compliance. Jim Kaufman also has it for sale, although it's too expensive to buy a copy for everyone. >> Thanks Warren. But first... get yourself a free copy of "Safety in Academic Chemistry Labs" by calling 1-800-ACS-5558 and asking for it. Have all the folks at your place make the call. It's a free call and it's a great free book. If you insist on buying them, ok. LSW is less expensive than ACS in the 2-199 copies range. ACS is $3.50 and LSW is $2.50. At 200 copies, go to ACS because they are $1.75 each. We buy them 200 at a time and resell or give them away at the seminars. .... Jim ***************************************************** James A. Kaufman, Director The Laboratory Safety Workshop Safety in Science Education 192 Worcester Road, Natick, MA 01760 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 Cell: 508-574-6264 Email: labsafe@aol.com Web Site: http://www.labsafety.org/ ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:45:20 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Marshall Huckaby Subject: Re: Respirator Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sounds an awfully a lot like not sounding a fire alarm during a fire in a hospital because you didn't want to wake the patients. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:55:12 -0800 Reply-To: erickson@ridgecrest.ca.us Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Eric & Barb Subject: Re: Relevance of 29CFR 1910 to Academic Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Like most of the members of the list, I believe that the Lab Standard includes academic labs. However, there is a serious issue that seems to have been ignored by others in responding. The academic lab is the training ground for our future industrial chemists and researchers. Once they leave the academic setting they will be required by employers and law to follow the tenants of the Lab Standard. Why teach them habits that will get them into trouble later? Train them properly now and it will only reflect well on your institution. Eric D. Erickson Research Chemist (Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry) Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division Code 4T4230D China Lake, CA 93555-6100 > Hi Nachos! > Thanks for past help. A member of our faculty stated at a recent Dept. > meeting that the Lab Standard was really written for industry and doesn't > really fit academic labs and therefore things like SOPs arn't really mean't > for us. Any comments or good replys I could give him. Does anyone know of > any other documentation that would fit this situation. > Thanks again, > Lucy > Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 05:09:31 -0800 Reply-To: erickson@ridgecrest.ca.us Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Eric & Barb Subject: Re: Respirator Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The purpose of a respiratory protection program is to ensure that all respirators in use fit properly, are uncontaminated, and that operators use the proper respirators for the job. Why would any sane operator want to bypass these assurances? I agree that the requirements for such a program can be a nuisance, but I have personally experienced a situation where a respirator that met all field test specifications for fit and seal did not pass during an analytical fit test. Eric D. Erickson Research Chemist Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division Code 4T4230D China Lake, CA 93555-6100 ericksoned@navair.navy.mil erickson@ridgecrest.ca.us Chad Bennett wrote: > We have a chemical refrigerator in our instrument lab that when someone > opened it over the summer they were met with a "very bad smell". Someone > taped it shut and hung a Do Not Open sign on it. No one seems to know what > all is in the refrigerator, let alone what spilled. The idea then came up > to purchase a respirator so that we could open the refrigerator and find out > what is spilled or breached and correct the problem. > > However, a few years back we had an experience with OSHA where they did an > inspection and found a respirator on the campus but no respiratory > protection program. They required we either develop a program or get rid of > the respirator; we got rid of the respirator. So I feel that if we purchase > a respirator for this problem we will suddenly be faced with the costly and > time-consuming burden of implementing a respiratory protection program. > (Doesn't it seem contradictory that providing myself an added measure of > protection before opening the refrigerator is actually in violation of the > law?) > > Because of the small volumes we work in the instrument labs, I would say > that whatever is spilled in there is a very small volume and would be > considered an incidental release, and not a true hazardous material release. > I am HAZWOPPER trained, but we have no campus HAZMAT team. Regardless, I > feel we are exempt anyway in this situation from the requirements of 29 CFR > 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, because it is > an incidental release. But does this mean that we are also exempt from > needing a respiratory protection program if we choose to use a respirator to > protect ourselves? I tend to think not, because 29 CFR 1910.134, > Respiratory Protection, applies to General Industry, which we are. I read > 1910.134 to say that if we feel a procedure is dangerous enough to warrant a > respirator, then we need to have a respiratory protection program, which in > turn requires the use of respirators. Maybe we can just say that we didn't > officially feel the procedure of opening the refrigerator was at all > dangerous, we just wanted to wear a respirator as a fashion statement that > day. Speaking of that, when is something worn on the body considered a > piece of PPE and not part of, let's say, a Halloween costume? > > Your thoughts on how to deal with this? > -- > Chad Bennett > Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ > Campus Environmental Compliance Officer > Central College > Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:30:56 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Warren C. Pinches" Subject: Re: Respirator Use Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I would not consider a bad odor in a refrigerator as something that would be regulated under 1910.120, the HAZWOPER standard, unless you are dealing with something so spectacularly deadly that a small spill would pose a serious threat. Actually, I have never yet met a lab refrigerator that didn't stink to some extent. A fingerprint of mercaptan on the outside of a single bottle will be enough to assault the next person who opens the refrigerator. You need to make the assessment: is it a hazard, or just a nuisance? Knowing what was in the refrigerator would be the key to this. As far as respirators go, OSHA's position is actually fairly reasonable. If respirators are not used correctly, they will offer no protection, and perhaps give users a false sense of security. This can have fatal consequences. They want to force you to go through a disciplined program, so you will not be tempted to consider respirators an easy alternative to engineered ventilation. Since your institution uses chemicals, it would be reasonable to have a written respirator plan in any event, even if you were not planning on issuing and using respirators routinely, so that you could deal with situations such as this. The word "program" terrifies people, but it can be scaled to match what you are actually proposing to do. Since your respirator "program" will be very minimal, keep your plan simple and minimal. A few pages will do, as long as you touch on all the points required by the standard. Such a plan could be substantially cut-and-pasted from the OSHA standard itself, or based on models that you may see posted on the websites of many universities. (Look at http://www.uky.edu/FiscalAffairs/Environmental/otherehs.html for an excellent index of such sites.) In either case, edit it down to the essentials. You should equip at least two persons, so they can use a buddy system when needed. You will need to get a licensed health care professional to agree that they are physically able to wear a respirator. You will need to train the users in proper use (it sound like you have sufficient background to do this), and fit-test the users (the qualitative fit test described in the standard can be done in a matter of minutes). For a basic training program, look at http://siri.uvm.edu/ftp/ppt/powerpt.html. Everything you need to run such a minimal "program" could fit on one small shelf: a notebook with the program and training materials and records, a couple of respirators in protective pouches, a small supply of appropriate cartridges, some mild cleaning/disinfecting detergent, and a bottle of qualitative test compound. I recommend that you bite the bullet and do this proactively to be prepared for the next crisis, even if you manage to resolve your refrigerator problem without such a program. A more perplexing issue is that selection of a respirator is dependent on knowing what you are protecting against. Without that knowledge, you cannot be sure that the respirator you select will in fact offer any protection at all. Protecting against unknowns usually involves difficult, awkward, and expensive overprecautions. If you are really convinced that this refrigerator poses a hazard, the most secure (and very expensive) approach would be to ask your hazardous waste contractor if they would come in with SCBA and "remediate" your refrigerator. This may be necessary if you have no idea what is in the refrigerator. If the stink is more of a nuisance than a hazard, remember that an engineered solution, if available, should always be preferred to a PPE solution. An approach less drastic than an outside contractor might be to shut off your refrigerator and move it into a ventilated enclosure if you have one large enough, or fashion a ventilated enclosure by taping plastic sheeting around the door to form a small enclosure, and prop the door open. Supply a source of local ventilation such as an exhaust trunk, probably to the base of the enclosure, since the majority of organic vapors are heavier than air. Remember to leave a hole, probably at the top, for make-up air. Keep people away from it, perhaps over a weekend, while it ventilates. However, you may not be able to get rid of the stink completely until you can wipe down the outside of all the bottles and interior surfaces. And train your users in the importance of chemical housekeeping. Warren C. Pinches, CSP, CHMM Purely personal opinions asked for and wanted by no one else. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:47:00 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Elizabeth Smith Subject: Re: Respirator Use & halloweek costumes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is PPE if your safety department says you must wear it in order to protect your health, based on a hazard assessment. This assessment would then provide specifics for the PPE. It is a fashion accessory if the employee wants to wear it, and the employer has already performed the hazard assessment and determined that PPE is not required. Mind you, 29 CFR 1910.134 *does* address optional use of respirators. Regarding your particular situation - No, I don't think that the situation you describe qualifies as a Hazmat emergency response - if it's been there since the summer, it doesn't sound very urgent. If you don't know what's inside the fridge, and cannot even get a reasonable guess (based on previous known work, the description of the smell, last known inventory of the equipment) - you need to make sure that what ever course of action taken is well reasoned and scientifically based. Someone must have a guess as to what it is - track down the last PI/supervisor, the person who found the smell, etc. If you want a respirator, you'll need to either grossly identify the material (it's an organic vapor) in order to use an air purifying set up, otherwise you'd need to go with an air supplied one. You need to ensure that the filtration system is adequate for both the chemical nature of the material and the quantity of it. Perhaps you can contact you local fire department, ascertain if they have a HAZMAT unit, and offer your fridge as a training exercise for them? They may be able to help with either the identification or removal. If it's in a fridge, perhaps you could consider sampling the air? I am sure there are labs around who can perform analysis, and would be able to direct you to the appropriate sampling/analysis for your situation. Best of luck, Elizabeth E. Smith Environmental, Health & Safety BioPort Corporation Lansing, MI 48906 517-327-6806 -----Original Message----- From: Chad Bennett To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 10:54 PM Subject: Respirator Use >We have a chemical refrigerator in our instrument lab that when someone >opened it over the summer they were met with a "very bad smell". Someone >taped it shut and hung a Do Not Open sign on it. No one seems to know what >all is in the refrigerator, let alone what spilled. The idea then came up >to purchase a respirator so that we could open the refrigerator and find out >what is spilled or breached and correct the problem. > >However, a few years back we had an experience with OSHA where they did an >inspection and found a respirator on the campus but no respiratory >protection program. They required we either develop a program or get rid of >the respirator; we got rid of the respirator. So I feel that if we purchase >a respirator for this problem we will suddenly be faced with the costly and >time-consuming burden of implementing a respiratory protection program. >(Doesn't it seem contradictory that providing myself an added measure of >protection before opening the refrigerator is actually in violation of the >law?) > >Because of the small volumes we work in the instrument labs, I would say >that whatever is spilled in there is a very small volume and would be >considered an incidental release, and not a true hazardous material release. >I am HAZWOPPER trained, but we have no campus HAZMAT team. Regardless, I >feel we are exempt anyway in this situation from the requirements of 29 CFR >1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, because it is >an incidental release. But does this mean that we are also exempt from >needing a respiratory protection program if we choose to use a respirator to >protect ourselves? I tend to think not, because 29 CFR 1910.134, >Respiratory Protection, applies to General Industry, which we are. I read >1910.134 to say that if we feel a procedure is dangerous enough to warrant a >respirator, then we need to have a respiratory protection program, which in >turn requires the use of respirators. Maybe we can just say that we didn't >officially feel the procedure of opening the refrigerator was at all >dangerous, we just wanted to wear a respirator as a fashion statement that >day. Speaking of that, when is something worn on the body considered a >piece of PPE and not part of, let's say, a Halloween costume? > >Your thoughts on how to deal with this? >-- >Chad Bennett >Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ >Campus Environmental Compliance Officer >Central College >Pella, Iowa __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:53:38 -0800 Reply-To: techton@pop.ihug.co.nz Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Tony Haggerty Subject: Re: Respirator Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How can you choose a respirator if you don't know what the substance is? They are not universal. Step 1 in your programme needs to be Selection of cartridges. Why not call your local Fire Department who can use SCBA and remove the contents (or maybe the whole fridge) to a safe place. Tony Haggerty Haz Mat Adviser NZFS ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 19:37:30 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jeff Rubin Subject: Job opening Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Howdy NACHOs,

After a relatively speedy (for UT) process, there is now a senior safety position posted at the University of Texas at Austin.  This is the position that replaced mine; although there are similarities, it is significantly different.  Rather than try to reproduce the entire posting here, I'll give you the URL for the listing:  http://dpweb1.dp.utexas.edu/pnjobs/pnjobsvw.wb?job_nbr=99-11-09-06-6616&comp=0

The job number is 99-11-09-06-6616, title is Safety Specialist IV, a very unusual level (I think there's only one other in the entire UT system).  I am not part of the search committee or hiring process, although I did have some input on the job description and mission.  For those who are interested and qualified, I'd be happy to offer my opinion on some aspects of the position with the understanding that it is only my opinion.

Buena suerte,

JNR

Jeff Rubin
jrubin@mail.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 06:35:29 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: Re: Respirator Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Having dealt with some stinkers myself, why not pull an air sample and analyze it first? If you need to use a respirator you would need this information anyway in order to make the appropriate selection. If you don't have the analytical capability or the resources to have the analysis performed elsewhere, is there a walk-in hood or other ventilation device the refrigerator can be placed? Ben Greene AlliedSignal ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:40:07 -0500 Reply-To: swihart@purdue.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Dr. L A Swihart" Organization: Purdue University Subject: Acetonitrile and cyanide antidote kit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi list! Who out here makes sure there's a cyanide antidote kit available (and instructions for using it) everywhere acetonitrile is used in research labs? And if you don't, why not? Thanks, Linda ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:02:51 -0500 Reply-To: swihart@purdue.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Dr. L A Swihart" Organization: Purdue University Subject: Re: Acetonitrile and cyanide antidote kit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I got one private response so far, but I'd like to share it with the group (anonymously of course) > Hi Linda > I was under the impression that it was inorganic cyanide that > was the problem, not organic ones. We only have antidote kits > for those that use KCN, NaCN, etc. (and they are probably out > of date - we have zero control over who buys what on this > campus). > > If acetonitrile causes imminent death, I'd think half the campus > would be puttingup the insurance rates of the other half. I agree. :-) Most acetonitrile MSDSs tell you to have an antidote kit and to use it. See for example http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/a0518.htm I looked a little further and found some interesting info (Ann Clin Biochem 1997; 34: 448 excerpted by Piscator, Leeds) "Cyanide poisoning is not usually known for its insidious onset, but the picture is very different if organic rather than inorganic cyanides are ingested. Mueller and Borland (Postgrad Med J 1997; 73: 299-300) describe what appears to be the first recorded UK case of acetonitrile (methyl cyanide) poisoning. The patient was a 39-year-old woman who ingested 25g acetonitrile in a suicide attempt. She vomited for half an hour after ingestion, and was well, apart from mild dizziness, on admission to hospital. Eleven hours later she became severely acidotic (pH 6·99) and rapidly went into coma. Acute cyanide poisoning was diagnosed, and she was given sodium nitrite and sodium thiosulphate as iv bolus doses. She remained acidotic for the next 5 days, and required repeated doses of cyanide antidote, eventually being discharged well 26 days after admission. Acetonitrile is oxidized by a hepatic cytochrome P450 pathway to cyanide ion, with a conversion half life of approximately 36 hours. Potentially lethal cyanide levels were still present 24 hours after ingestion. The moral is to watch such cases very carefully, and consider prophylactic sodium thiosulphate if significant amounts of acetonitrile have been ingested." Also found things from USFDA chronicling deaths of toddlers from fake-fingernail remover fluid, which is acetonitrile. They die from cyanide poisoning, quite clearly. Organic chemists of course pooh-pooh this because they think it's just some alarmist bullshit by people who don't know chemistry. And yes, the "bioavailability" of CN- from NaCN or KCN is much more obvious. But cyanide poisoning from CH3CN is real, not just silliness, and the safety literature I'm reading tells us to have cyanide antidote kits around! And so what are we doing about it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:56:52 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Evans, Melinda M Ms RRAD" Subject: Laboratory Footwear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Hi NACHOs, I'm a new subscriber and I'm excited about having so much expertise available through this list. I am in the process of updating our Chemical Hygiene Plan and we have been challenged on lab footwear. Occasionally female members of the lab need to wear dresses for special events. We have been questioned on allowing them in the lab with footwear that does not cover the entire top of the foot and that may have heels. Our CHP currently prohibits only "sandals, open-toed shoes and cloth sneakers". It does not mention dresses or leg covering. Can anyone tell me if they know of regulatory guidance that would prohibit this? I would also be interested in "standard practices" ya'll employ in this regard and whether or not you make cursory visitors to the lab adhere to the standard (i.e, would a female delivering mail to the lab not be allowed to enter in a dress and heels?). We have a small operation (6 chemists) in a very well-designed facility. We have operated for over 15 years without a reportable accident. I do not want to go overboard in our dictates, but do want to do what is reasonable. I'm looking forward to being part of your group. You can reply to me personally at mmevans@REDRIVER-EX.ARMY.MIL. Thanks, Melinda Melinda M. Evans Lead Chemist Red River Army Depot Texarkana, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:14:30 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear In-Reply-To: <59722BA0FB2FD311986800E0292656E2487BF2@REDRIVER-EX1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I certainly wouldn't prohibit dresses, but high heels are out. I suggest that slip on type safety shoes would be useful. They are safe, but not pretty. However, neither are most types of PPE. It is not uncommon for outside employees to enter the labs, but safety shoes are a must. I ask those individuals to keep a pair in their desk. Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 09:56 AM 11/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >Hi NACHOs, > >I'm a new subscriber and I'm excited about having so much expertise >available through this list. I am in the process of updating our Chemical >Hygiene Plan and we have been challenged on lab footwear. Occasionally >female members of the lab need to wear dresses for special events. We have >been questioned on allowing them in the lab with footwear that does not >cover the entire top of the foot and that may have heels. Our CHP currently >prohibits only "sandals, open-toed shoes and cloth sneakers". It does not >mention dresses or leg covering. > >Can anyone tell me if they know of regulatory guidance that would prohibit >this? I would also be interested in "standard practices" ya'll employ in >this regard and whether or not you make cursory visitors to the lab adhere >to the standard (i.e, would a female delivering mail to the lab not be >allowed to enter in a dress and heels?). > >We have a small operation (6 chemists) in a very well-designed facility. We >have operated for over 15 years without a reportable accident. I do not >want to go overboard in our dictates, but do want to do what is reasonable. > >I'm looking forward to being part of your group. You can reply to me >personally at mmevans@REDRIVER-EX.ARMY.MIL. > >Thanks, >Melinda >Melinda M. Evans >Lead Chemist >Red River Army Depot >Texarkana, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:23:55 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Robert Burns Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" WE have an industrial R&D lab, with about 20 people. Our rule is steel toed shoes, provided by the company, when working in the lab. We also require knees be covered- no mini skirts or shorts. Most people, including me, keep their lab shoes under their desk and change when working in the lab. Our offices are not in the labs. WE generally dress casual, but do dress up for visitors. In that case, we'd wear dress shoes for the meetings and the lab shoes if we have to work in the lab that day. The operative word here is "working". Casual visitors are not required to wear safety shoes. "Semper Adventurus!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation Email rburns@ruetgers-organics-corp.com Phone 814 231 9214 Fax 815 333 4805 > -----Original Message----- > From: Evans, Melinda M Ms RRAD > [mailto:Melinda.Evans@REDRIVER-EX.ARMY.MIL] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:57 > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Laboratory Footwear > > > Hi NACHOs, > > I'm a new subscriber and I'm excited about having so much expertise > available through this list. I am in the process of updating > our Chemical > Hygiene Plan and we have been challenged on lab footwear. > Occasionally > female members of the lab need to wear dresses for special > events. We have > been questioned on allowing them in the lab with footwear > that does not > cover the entire top of the foot and that may have heels. > Our CHP currently > prohibits only "sandals, open-toed shoes and cloth sneakers". > It does not > mention dresses or leg covering. > > Can anyone tell me if they know of regulatory guidance that > would prohibit > this? I would also be interested in "standard practices" > ya'll employ in > this regard and whether or not you make cursory visitors to > the lab adhere > to the standard (i.e, would a female delivering mail to the lab not be > allowed to enter in a dress and heels?). > > We have a small operation (6 chemists) in a very > well-designed facility. We > have operated for over 15 years without a reportable > accident. I do not > want to go overboard in our dictates, but do want to do what > is reasonable. > > I'm looking forward to being part of your group. You can reply to me > personally at mmevans@REDRIVER-EX.ARMY.MIL. > > Thanks, > Melinda > Melinda M. Evans > Lead Chemist > Red River Army Depot > Texarkana, Texas > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:51:42 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Gordon Miller Subject: Re: Respirator Use In-Reply-To: <199911060350.VAA116600@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Advice has been given to use SCBA. I agree! I would unplug the refrigerator before opening it just in case some sort of flammable vapor is involved. The clean up people should also use multi-layer disposable plastic gloves and body-covering to the extent that it may be needed. The multi-layer gloves work on the premise that if the material can penetrate through the outer layer, it will be blocked by the chemically dissimilar middle layer. The first job of a responder may be to look for the probable source and get any label information (s)he can find and relay it back to the ES&H people. Then PPE could be selected with more knowledge or a decision could be made to remove the offending material and start the process of disposing of it in accordance with environmental and HW regulations. One question is what an instrument lab is doing with a strongly malodorous substance. The comment about unplugging comes from the thought that maybe the malodorous material is a pyrolysis or thermal degradation product of an organic material or polymer subjected to an arc. Gordon Miller, CHO miller22@llnl.gov ---------------------- >We have a chemical refrigerator in our instrument lab that when someone >opened it over the summer they were met with a "very bad smell". Someone >taped it shut and hung a Do Not Open sign on it. No one seems to know what >all is in the refrigerator, let alone what spilled. The idea then came up >to purchase a respirator so that we could open the refrigerator and find out >what is spilled or breached and correct the problem. > >However, a few years back we had an experience with OSHA where they did an >inspection and found a respirator on the campus but no respiratory >protection program. They required we either develop a program or get rid of >the respirator; we got rid of the respirator. So I feel that if we purchase >a respirator for this problem we will suddenly be faced with the costly and >time-consuming burden of implementing a respiratory protection program. >(Doesn't it seem contradictory that providing myself an added measure of >protection before opening the refrigerator is actually in violation of the >law?) > >Because of the small volumes we work in the instrument labs, I would say >that whatever is spilled in there is a very small volume and would be >considered an incidental release, and not a true hazardous material release. >I am HAZWOPPER trained, but we have no campus HAZMAT team. Regardless, I >feel we are exempt anyway in this situation from the requirements of 29 CFR >1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, because it is >an incidental release. But does this mean that we are also exempt from >needing a respiratory protection program if we choose to use a respirator to >protect ourselves? I tend to think not, because 29 CFR 1910.134, >Respiratory Protection, applies to General Industry, which we are. I read >1910.134 to say that if we feel a procedure is dangerous enough to warrant a >respirator, then we need to have a respiratory protection program, which in >turn requires the use of respirators. Maybe we can just say that we didn't >officially feel the procedure of opening the refrigerator was at all >dangerous, we just wanted to wear a respirator as a fashion statement that >day. Speaking of that, when is something worn on the body considered a >piece of PPE and not part of, let's say, a Halloween costume? > >Your thoughts on how to deal with this? >-- >Chad Bennett >Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ >Campus Environmental Compliance Officer >Central College >Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:45:12 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Don Abramowitz Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear In-Reply-To: <557A869D0907D31195D000508B085CD228AC35@ROCMAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I find it interesting that both Ray and Robert speak of requirements for safety shoes in the lab. I see the advantages to this, but am curious about whether any academic labs have gone this route, and question whether hazard assessments of typical academic chemistry/biology lab operations indicate the need for steel toed shoes. I more frequently encounter the prohibition against sandals, open-toed shoes, high heels, and cloth sneakers in academic lab safety literature, and would like to see comments from other academic settings on steeled toed shoes. Don ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Donald Abramowitz, CIH Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College 101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue Bryn Mawr PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:03:16 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Gordon Miller Subject: Re: Ductless Chemical Hoods In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991105105802.009ac3a0@mail.clemson.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree. Methylene chloride will go through carbon like a hot knife through butter. One problem not often mentioned with carbon is that it does not bind the contaminants chemically. It adsorbs them which is Post-It adsorption rather than Scotch Tape absorption. What sort of sticks to the carbon when contaminant concentration in the airstream is high desorbs, comes off, when the contaminant concentration is low. So a carbon bed is "an exposure metering device". I did authorize HEPA filtered recirculating glove box hood units for alcohol with toxic solute work by means of an empirical study where we metered out a known volume of ethanol as a spilled blob and timed it to full evaporation. The inflow of air was measured at various flow settings so it was possible to calculate alcohol concentration and assure it was <10% of LEL by prescribing flow settings to be used during alcohol work. The hood was used only for alcohol work so the calculation was sufficient for the use of those particular boxes. We also discourage the use of these things. Gordon Miller, CHO miller22@llnl.gov ----------------------------- >I have always discouraged the use of ductless hoods in our laboratories. >Although they may be used safely for very low toxicity chemicals, ensuring >that lab personnel will use them for only those specified chemicals is >highly unlikely. The purchase of a number of these hoods, however, has >once again been proposed by the members of one of our research groups. They >have literature from the manufacturer of a ductless hood that claims that >the hood may be safely used quite a list of chemicals including Methylene >chloride and Benzene. I was quite surprised that these chemicals were on >the list. These hoods have activated charcoal and HEPA filters. I have >always equated these hoods with a cartridge respirator and assumed that >those chemicals not approved for use with a cartridge respirator would >certainly not be approved for use in a ductless hood??? > >All comments welcome. > > > > > > > >Naomi Kelly >Environmental Health and Safety Officer >Clemson University >261 P&AS Building >Clemson, SC 29634-5740 >(864)656-7554 >Fax (864)656-7630 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:53:05 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mary Ann Solstad Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear In-Reply-To: <59722BA0FB2FD311986800E0292656E2487BF2@REDRIVER-EX1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" That's easy -- change shoes. If they want to risk their dress, OK. Is it in the regs? Only by reference in Prudent Practices... or in your own CHP. If it's in there, then follow your plan; so add it if you wish. Mary Ann PS: I long ago gave up on heels. My feet are more important than fashion. At 09:56 AM 11/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >Hi NACHOs, > >I'm a new subscriber and I'm excited about having so much expertise >available through this list. I am in the process of updating our Chemical >Hygiene Plan and we have been challenged on lab footwear. Occasionally >female members of the lab need to wear dresses for special events. We have >been questioned on allowing them in the lab with footwear that does not >cover the entire top of the foot and that may have heels. Our CHP currently >prohibits only "sandals, open-toed shoes and cloth sneakers". It does not >mention dresses or leg covering. > >Can anyone tell me if they know of regulatory guidance that would prohibit >this? I would also be interested in "standard practices" ya'll employ in >this regard and whether or not you make cursory visitors to the lab adhere >to the standard (i.e, would a female delivering mail to the lab not be >allowed to enter in a dress and heels?). > >We have a small operation (6 chemists) in a very well-designed facility. We >have operated for over 15 years without a reportable accident. I do not >want to go overboard in our dictates, but do want to do what is reasonable. > >I'm looking forward to being part of your group. You can reply to me >personally at mmevans@REDRIVER-EX.ARMY.MIL. > >Thanks, >Melinda >Melinda M. Evans >Lead Chemist >Red River Army Depot >Texarkana, Texas > Mary Ann Solstad, CIH 4 A's of Safety SOLSTAD Health & Safety Evaluations Attitude 16 Pequot Rd, Marblehead, MA 01945 Awareness 781-631-4748 tel, 781-631-1832 FAX Automatic Application Authority Past Chair, DivCHAS, ACS msolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:48:41 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "David E.Wilson" Subject: Re: Respirator Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BF2A3B.68BB36C0" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BF2A3B.68BB36C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chad:=20 I have had experience with OSHA's regulations on respirators. We pout = them in place for a while in the paint department of the sun catcher = plant where I was maintenance supervisor. In our case it proved much = cheaper to reengineer the exhaust system. In your case, it would be a lot cheaper for someone to hold their nose, = open the d- box when no one is around, and determine whether the stuff = is really hazardous or just rotten. Even if you "snuck in" a respirator mask, you wouldn't know which = cartridge to use. Not much use, is it? Back to the OSHA regs: 1. Determine which personnel should use the mask 2. Allow no beards or mustaches among the wearers. 3. Show that there is an enforcement program in place and used.=20 4. Establish a training program to be administered to each wearer. 5. Document all your work, including refresher training for the users. 6. Document that there is a sanitation program in place and used for = each mask. 7. Show that engineering solutions to the problem are not feasible. Incidentally, how is your safety goggle program doing. Most schools = (including ours) don't do diddly when it comes to documenting safety = goggle use, sanitation and repair. Thanks for introducing me to the list serve. It has already given me a = lot to think about. David E. Wilson, Ph. D Stockroom Manager -----Original Message----- From: Chad Bennett [SMTP:stockroom@CENTRAL.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 8:50 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Respirator Use We have a chemical refrigerator in our instrument lab that when someone opened it over the summer they were met with a "very bad smell". = Someone taped it shut and hung a Do Not Open sign on it. No one seems to know = what all is in the refrigerator, let alone what spilled. The idea then came = up to purchase a respirator so that we could open the refrigerator and find = out what is spilled or breached and correct the problem. However, a few years back we had an experience with OSHA where they did = an inspection and found a respirator on the campus but no respiratory protection program. They required we either develop a program or get = rid of the respirator; we got rid of the respirator. So I feel that if we = purchase a respirator for this problem we will suddenly be faced with the costly = and time-consuming burden of implementing a respiratory protection program. (Doesn't it seem contradictory that providing myself an added measure of protection before opening the refrigerator is actually in violation of = the law?) Because of the small volumes we work in the instrument labs, I would say that whatever is spilled in there is a very small volume and would be considered an incidental release, and not a true hazardous material = release. I am HAZWOPPER trained, but we have no campus HAZMAT team. Regardless, = I feel we are exempt anyway in this situation from the requirements of 29 = CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, because it = is an incidental release. But does this mean that we are also exempt from needing a respiratory protection program if we choose to use a = respirator to protect ourselves? I tend to think not, because 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection, applies to General Industry, which we are. I = read 1910.134 to say that if we feel a procedure is dangerous enough to = warrant a respirator, then we need to have a respiratory protection program, which = in turn requires the use of respirators. Maybe we can just say that we = didn't officially feel the procedure of opening the refrigerator was at all dangerous, we just wanted to wear a respirator as a fashion statement = that day. Speaking of that, when is something worn on the body considered a piece of PPE and not part of, let's say, a Halloween costume? Your thoughts on how to deal with this? -- Chad Bennett Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ Campus Environmental Compliance Officer Central College Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:07:08 -0500 Reply-To: swihart@purdue.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Dr. L A Swihart" Organization: Purdue University Subject: Re: Respirator Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Advice has been given to use SCBA. I agree! I would unplug the refrigerator > before opening it just in case some sort of flammable vapor is involved. But you still need to have a Respiratory Protection Program to put an employee in SCBA. And in answer to costume question -- It's a Halloween costume if it's not being used for personal protection. If it's used for PP, it's PPE. This causes a few problems when we require long pants and shoes as PPE, i.e. does the employer then have to provide them?! (I tell our staff that if it's clothing that can be reasonably expected to be a part of the employee's wardrobe, the employer does not buy it. I don't tell them the law says this, but they probably assume that's what I mean.) $.02 Linda ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:36:56 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Subject: Re: Respirator Use Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit stockroom@CENTRAL.EDU writes: >So I feel that if we purchase >a respirator for this problem we will suddenly be faced with the costly >and >time-consuming burden of implementing a respiratory protection program. Have you looked into the possibility of an already-existing respiratory protection program on your campus? We have one for Facilities Management. We have not had the need to don respirators in our labs, but have included some laboratory workers in the respiratory training given to our groundspeople, painters, etc. Teresa R. Robertson, CCHO CSUB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:31:17 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Dewey Williams Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed We say in our safety seminar "do not wear sandals, open-toed or cloth shoes to lab." We have to watch this carefully in the summer, but don't have much problem. There was a discussion about a certain type of popular women's shoe that has no back, leaving the heel and side of the foot uncovered. I missed the resolution of this discussion. Are these shoes safe? Should they be allowed? At 11/8/1999 1% -0500, you wrote: >I find it interesting that both Ray and Robert speak of requirements for >safety shoes in the lab. I see the advantages to this, but am curious >about whether any academic labs have gone this route, and question whether >hazard assessments of typical academic chemistry/biology lab operations >indicate the need for steel toed shoes. I more frequently encounter the >prohibition against sandals, open-toed shoes, high heels, and cloth >sneakers in academic lab safety literature, and would like to see comments >from other academic settings on steeled toed shoes. > > Don > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Donald Abramowitz, CIH > Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer > > Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College > 101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue > Bryn Mawr PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081 Dewey Williams - Lab Manager mailto:williams@email.uncc.edu UNC-Charlotte Chemistry Dept. http://www.chem.uncc.edu "These are my ideas and no one else will claim them." "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:16:41 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" PS> We also require it due to our extensive use of compressed gas for GC/HPLC. Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 11:45 AM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >I find it interesting that both Ray and Robert speak of requirements for >safety shoes in the lab. I see the advantages to this, but am curious >about whether any academic labs have gone this route, and question whether >hazard assessments of typical academic chemistry/biology lab operations >indicate the need for steel toed shoes. I more frequently encounter the >prohibition against sandals, open-toed shoes, high heels, and cloth >sneakers in academic lab safety literature, and would like to see comments >from other academic settings on steeled toed shoes. > > Don > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Donald Abramowitz, CIH > Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer > > Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College > 101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue > Bryn Mawr PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:23:29 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain safety shoes in the lab> > In labs where there is a lot of work with compressed gas cylinders, various DOT rated cylinders, and other heavy containers such as 160 or 210L LN2 dewars a Z47 safety shoe is recommended. Getting your toes pinched when rolling these around on a cart is not good. Also, a "non-porous" leather safety shoe without eyeholes or other openings which could admit liquid" is standard fare for some (except for working with high test hydrogen peroxide, which catches leather on fire.) I don't see why academic labs should be any different from industry; they still use compressed gas cylinders for instruments. And the last time I looked, the lab standard doesn't supercede the PPE standard. Also, I'm not exactly a walking fashion statement, but was surprised to see the variety of Z47 rated safety shoes for those stylists out there. They are not all clunkers. Ben ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:12:30 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Gordon Miller Subject: Re: Respirator Use Comments: To: swihart@purdue.edu In-Reply-To: <3827033C.CA76D20F@purdue.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Starting from not having a respirator program to using SCBAs in a spill scenario is a real push, so may be the best thing to do is to call a HAZWOPER specialist firm. If a respirator program has not been prepared, it may be time to prepare one using 29 CFR 1910.134 (or state equivalent) as a specification. The person preparing an employer's respirator program also needs to see ANSI Z88.2-1992 to get an idea of what good practice is. When there is a conflict between ANSI and OSHA, or when compliance with Z88.2-1992 is onerous, please consider that 29 CFR 1910.134 was revised just a few years ago so it is more recent and has much more force than Z88.2-1992. SCBAs are the most challenging respirators in terms of inspection, training, service/maintenance and also for medical qualifications. SCBAs imposes a heavy burdens on users, in terms of visual restriction/claustrophobia, breathing, and carrying around an awkward mass. So the medical review done in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (or state equivalent) needs to follow a protocol established by a physician who has thought through what using an SCBA means. This is even more appropriate if extensive body protective equipment is to be used due to additional work load and the potential for heat stress. If that happens, the review will probably be something of a thorough physical exam. Any use of PPE must be evaluated per 29 CFR 1910.132 (or state equivalent). Selection of level A to Level D PPE ensembles, and customization thereof, depends on local judgement and possibly extant practices of the responding agency. The responders may simply have and choose to use Level A ensembles. If they're not with the organization having the problem, then they will prepare the hazard assessment. The hazard assessment will need to address the equipment that will be used. The hazard assessment should give options and the equipment and precautions specified in the hazard assessment should (really must) be agreed to by the people who will use the PPE. Gordon Miller miller22@llnl.gov ----------------------------- >> Advice has been given to use SCBA. I agree! I would unplug the refrigerator >> before opening it just in case some sort of flammable vapor is involved. > >But you still need to have a Respiratory Protection Program to put an >employee in SCBA. > >And in answer to costume question -- It's a Halloween costume if it's >not being used for personal protection. If it's used for PP, it's PPE. >This causes a few problems when we require long pants and shoes as PPE, >i.e. does the employer then have to provide them?! (I tell our staff >that if it's clothing that can be reasonably expected to be a part of >the employee's wardrobe, the employer does not buy it. I don't tell >them the law says this, but they probably assume that's what I mean.) > >$.02 >Linda ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:07:25 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: Laboratory Footwear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Melinda, If I were running the lab, I would require effective safety clothing to be used by employees as based on the standard established for the lab. While I can sympathize with your female employees ( I have 6 sister) I would still insist on the standard being complied with. Christmas is almost here. I would hate to be the one to contact a family or confront an co-worker due to a burn or other injury to a worker because the safety standard was relaxed in order to allow the employee to wear clothing or footwear not appropriate for a lab. Hard nosed, yes, but realistic yes I think so. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Evans, Melinda M Ms RRAD To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:04 AM Subject: Laboratory Footwear >Hi NACHOs, > >I'm a new subscriber and I'm excited about having so much expertise >available through this list. I am in the process of updating our Chemical >Hygiene Plan and we have been challenged on lab footwear. Occasionally >female members of the lab need to wear dresses for special events. We have >been questioned on allowing them in the lab with footwear that does not >cover the entire top of the foot and that may have heels. Our CHP currently >prohibits only "sandals, open-toed shoes and cloth sneakers". It does not >mention dresses or leg covering. > >Can anyone tell me if they know of regulatory guidance that would prohibit >this? I would also be interested in "standard practices" ya'll employ in >this regard and whether or not you make cursory visitors to the lab adhere >to the standard (i.e, would a female delivering mail to the lab not be >allowed to enter in a dress and heels?). > >We have a small operation (6 chemists) in a very well-designed facility. We >have operated for over 15 years without a reportable accident. I do not >want to go overboard in our dictates, but do want to do what is reasonable. > >I'm looking forward to being part of your group. You can reply to me >personally at mmevans@REDRIVER-EX.ARMY.MIL. > >Thanks, >Melinda >Melinda M. Evans >Lead Chemist >Red River Army Depot >Texarkana, Texas > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:33:16 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Lucy M. Zotter" Subject: Lab footwear Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We tell our students not to wear cloth shoes oe sandels. We also give each student a disposable tyvec lab coat that covers most of them to the knees. For myself I like to wear Dansko clogs, although I sure there must be other brands made in a similar way. The clogs I wear cover both the heal and the eront of the foot. They are leather and easy to slip on and off if the need would arise. Hope this helps Lucy Lucy Zotter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:13:59 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Thomas J. Shelley" Subject: Re: phenol-chloroform solutions In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991104152353.009334a0@128.192.187.3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1270030453==_ma============" --============_-1270030453==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On 4 Nov 1999 Maria Kuhn wroate, in part: >Thanks to everyone who has posted information regarding phenol-chloroform >solutions. I am in agreement with both Herb & Nick's suggestions. Maria--A belated "me too" with Herb and Nick. From my in-house glove selection document. Tom Phenol-chloroform mixtures: Double glove with heavier weight (8 mil) nitrile gloves (incidental contact) or use 15 mil or heavier nitrile gloves; remove outer glove at once if exposed to mixture. Viton gloves are recommended for work with phenol-chloroform mixtures when probable exposure to the mixtures exists (extended contact), such as when making up the mixtures. ********************************************************* Tom Shelley, Chemical Hygiene Officer, Cornell University Department of Environmental Health and Safety, 125 Humphreys Service Building, Ithaca, NY 14853. (607) 255-4288 tjs1@cornell.edu ****************************DISCLAIMER******************** The comments and views expressed in this communication are strictly my own and are not to be construed to officially represent those of my peers, supervisors or Cornell University. --============_-1270030453==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" On 4 Nov 1999 Maria Kuhn wroate, in part: >Thanks to everyone who has posted information regarding phenol-chloroform >solutions. I am in agreement with both Herb & Nick's suggestions. Maria--A belated "me too" with Herb and Nick. From my in-house glove selection document. Tom GenevaPhenol-chloroform mixtures: GenevaDouble glove with heavier weight (8 mil) nitrile gloves (incidental contact) or use 15 mil or heavier nitrile gloves; remove outer glove at once if exposed to mixture. Viton gloves are recommended for work with phenol-chloroform mixtures when probable exposure to the mixtures exists (extended contact), such as when making up the mixtures. ********************************************************* Tom Shelley, Chemical Hygiene Officer, Cornell University Department of Environmental Health and Safety, 125 Humphreys Service Building, Ithaca, NY 14853. (607) 255-4288 tjs1@cornell.edu ****************************DISCLAIMER******************** The comments and views expressed in this communication are strictly my own and are not to be construed to officially represent those of my peers, supervisors or Cornell University. --============_-1270030453==_ma============-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:01:29 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Robert Burns Subject: CH3CN Comments: cc: Ken Lotts , Bruce Albright , Jim Gazza , Mary Jo Smith , Mike Bombicca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The info from Sax on acetonitrile is below. Note the toxicity for human ingestion is 570 mg/kg, not very toxic. Sax calls it "moderately toxic". The PEL, TWA and TLV are both 40 ppm. With a BP of 81, not likely to get that high in an active lab with hoods, etc, if you have a spill. NOT a human carcinogen. for comparison, isobutanol has a TWA of 50, as does toluene. I don't want to be one of those organic chemists Linda referred to, so I'm not "pooh-pooh"ing. I'm an organic chemist who lets the facts speak for themselves. >From Sax: ACETONITRILE ACETONITRILE [Hawley] [Prager] [Verschueren] [Pohanish] DPIM: ABE500 Hazard Rating: 3 CAS: 75-05-8 DOT Number: UN 1648 M Formula: C2H3N M Weight: 41.06 Properties: Colorless liquid; almond-ethereal, aromatic odor. Melting point: -45º, boiling point: 81.1º, flash point: 42ºF (Cleveland open cup), density: 0.7868 @ 20º/20º, vapor density: 1.42, vapor pressure: 100 millimeter @ 27º, lower explosive limit: 4.4%, upper explosive limit: 16%, autoignition temperature: 975ºF. Miscible in water, alcohol, and organic solvs. Immiscible in petroleum ether. Synonyms: ACETONITRIL (GERMAN, DUTCH) CYANOMETHANE CYANOMETHANE CYANURE de METHYL (FRENCH) CYANURE METHYL FRENCH ETHANENITRILE ETHANENITRILE [Verschueren] ETHYL NITRILE ETHYL NITRILE METHANECARBONITRILE METHANECARBONITRILE METHANE, CYANO- METHANE CYANO METHYL CYANIDE METHYL CYANIDE [Hawley] METHYLKYANID METHYLKYANID NCI-C60822 NCI C60822 RCRA WASTE NUMBER U003 RCRA WASTE NUMBER U003 USAF EK-488 USAF EK 488 TOXICITY DATA with REFERENCE Sex Chromosome Loss and Nondisjunction-Saccharomyces cerevisiae 47,600 ppm Mutation Research. (Elsevier Science Publications B.V., POB 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands) V.1- 1964-MUREAV 149,339,85 Skin-Rabbit, adult 10 mg/24H Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. (Baltimore, MD/New York, NY) V.18-31, 1936-49. For publisher information, see AEHLAUJIHTAB 30,63,48 Skin-Rabbit, adult 500 mg open Mild irritation effects Union Carbide Data Sheet. (Industrial Medicine and Toxicology Dept., Union Carbide Corp., 270 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017)UCDS** 3/18/65 Eye effects-Rabbit, adult 20 mg Severe irritation effects Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. (Baltimore, MD/New York, NY) V.18-31, 1936-49. For publisher information, see AEHLAUJIHTAB 30,63,48 Oral-Hamster TDLo:300 mg/kg (8D preg):Teratogenic effects Teratology, A Journal of Abnormal Development. (Wistar Institute Press, 3631 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104) V.1- 1968-TJADAB 27,313,83 Oral-Hamster TDLo:400 mg/kg (8D preg):Reproductive effects Teratology, A Journal of Abnormal Development. (Wistar Institute Press, 3631 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104) V.1- 1968-TJADAB 27,313,83 Oral-Human TDLo:570 mg/kg:Central nervous system effects Acta Pharmacologica et Toxicologica. (Munksgaard, 35 Noerre Soegade, DK-1370, Copenhagen K, Denmark) V.1- 1945-APTOA6 41,340,77 Inhalation-Human TCLo:160 ppm/4H "Toxicology of Drugs and Chemicals," Deichmann, W.B., New York, NY, Academic Press, Inc., 196934ZIAG -,65,69 Oral-Rat LD50:2730 mg/kg Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. (Academic Press, 111 5th Ave., New York, NY 10003) V.1- 1959-TXAPA9 19,699,71 Inhalation-Rat LC50:7551 ppm/8H Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Intraperitoneal-Rat LD50:850 mg/kg Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Subcutaneous-Rat LD50:3500 mg/kg "Toxicometric Parameters of Industrial Toxic Chemicals Under Single Exposure" Izmerov, N.F., et al., Moscow, USSR, Centre of International Projects, GKNT, 198285GMAT -,16,82 Intravenous-Rat LD50:1680 mg/kg Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Parenteral-Rat LD50:1100 mg/kg "Toxicometric Parameters of Industrial Toxic Chemicals Under Single Exposure" Izmerov, N.F., et al., Moscow, USSR, Centre of International Projects, GKNT, 198285GMAT -,16,82 Oral-Mouse LD50:269 mg/kg Archives of Toxicology. (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberger Pl. 3, D-1 Berlin 33, Germany) V.32- 1974-ARTODN 55,47,84 Inhalation-Mouse LC50:2693 ppm/1H Clinical Toxicology. (New York, NY) V.1-18, 1968-81. For publisher information, see JTCTDWCTOXAO 18,991,81 Intraperitoneal-Mouse LD50:175 mg/kg Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. (Academic Press, 111 5th Ave., New York, NY 10003) V.1- 1959-TXAPA9 59,589,81 Subcutaneous-Mouse LD50:4480 mg/kg "Toxicometric Parameters of Industrial Toxic Chemicals Under Single Exposure" Izmerov, N.F., et al., Moscow, USSR, Centre of International Projects, GKNT, 198285GMAT -,16,82 Inhalation-Dog, adult LCLo:16,000 ppm/4H Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Consensus Reports: On Community Right-To-Know List. Reported in EPA TSCA Inventory. Standards and Recommendations OSHA PEL: TWA 40 ppm; STEL 60 ppm ACGIH TLV: TWA 40 ppm; STEL 60 ppm (skin); Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen DFG MAK: 40 ppm (70 mg/m3) NIOSH REL: (Nitriles) TWA 34 mg/m3 DOT Classification: 3; Label: Flammable Liquid, Poison SAFETY PROFILE: Poison by ingestion and intraperitoneal routes. Moderately toxic by several routes. An experimental teratogen. Other experimental reproductive effects. A skin and severe eye irritant. Human systemic effects by ingestion: convulsions, nausea or vomiting, and metabolic acidosis. Human respiratory system effects by inhalation. Mutation data reported. Dangerous fire hazard when exposed to heat, flame, or oxidizers. Explosion Hazard: See also CYANIDE and NITRILES. When heated to decomposition it emits highly toxic fumes of CN¯ and NOx. Potentially explosive reaction with lanthanide perchlorates and nitrogen-fluorine compounds. Exothermic reaction with sulfuric acid at 53ºC. Will react with water, steam, acids to produce toxic and flammable vapors. Incompatible with oleum, chlorosulfonic acid, perchlorates, nitrating agents, indium, dinitrogen tetraoxide, N-fluoro compounds (e.g., perfluorourea + acetonitrile), HNO3, SO3. To fight fire, use foam, CO2, dry chemical. Analytical Methods: For occupational chemical analysis use NIOSH: Acetonitrile, 1606. Class: Mutagen; Primary Irritant; Reproductively Active; Standards or Recommendations "Semper Adventurus!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation Email rburns@ruetgers-organics-corp.com Phone 814 231 9214 Fax 815 333 4805 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:10:52 -0800 Reply-To: phils@webmolecules.com Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Phil Stevens Organization: Molecular Arts Corporation Subject: WebMolecules News - Nov 99 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi LS'rs A new version of WebMolecules.com is now available at http://www.webmolecules.com New Features: -------------------------------------------------------------- - Another 50,000 CAS-indexed molecular models have been added. We now have over 100,000 molecular models on-site. Search for these by CAS number http://www.webmolecules.com/search.shtml - New Visitor Uploads are available in Category 28.0 Includes the Fun, the Unusual, and the Unclassifiable. - Email Models to Friends You can now send 3D models to friends via email. When viewing a 3D model, just click the Email Model link. Molecule du Jour -------------------------------------------------------------- Hexamethylphosphoramide (HMPA) http://www.webmolecules.com/cgi-bin/webmolpage.cgi?hmpa.m3d Formula: C6H18N3OP Weight: 179.202(1) g/mol Colorless liquid Patented by Monsanto - 1956 Solvent for polymers; polymer UV protectant additive; jet fuel de-icing additive; chemosterilant (insects); probable carcinogen; known mutagen Other Recent Upgrades and New Features -------------------------------------------------------------- - 100's of large structures have been added. For example: DNA, RNA, C180, C240, cyclodextrin, vitamin B12, large nanotech models, crystals, etc. - Support for both Chime and VRML plug-ins - For performance reasons, large molecules (>150 atoms) are available for the Chime viewer only. - Mirror sites for the VRML plug-ins have been added. See: http://www.webmolecules.com/vrmlint.shtml - Mirror sites for the Chime plug-in has been added. See: http://www.webmolecules.com/chimeint.shtml - Resizable viewing window - Support for uploads and model requests - Improved support for bookmarks - 3D coordinate downloads (M3D, MOL, PDB) -------------------------------------------------------------- WebMolecules.com is a FREE, sponsor-supported site. Designed for the 3D visualization of molecules, it contains over 100,000 molecular structures in 3D. Thousands of common molecules are organized into 30+ categories. Included are molecules of commercial value, educational importance, and of topical interest. It is indexed by formula and category and is also fully searchable. Included are structures such as: - Top 100 pollutants - Top 100 commercial chemicals - Top 200 pharmaceuticals - Common valence geometries - Common orbital configurations WebMolecules.com is great for student and classroom use. -------------------------------------------------------------- KNOW SOMEONE WHO MIGHT ENJOY WEBMOLECULES? Feel free to forward WebMolecules News to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like to receive information directly, you can join our mailing list by clicking the Free Newsletter link at: http://www.webmolecules.com or better yet, tell them to sign-up directly on: http://www.webmolecules.com/newsletter.shtml -------------------------------------------------------------- Enjoy. -- Phil Stevens http://www.webmolecules.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:25:37 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Elizabeth Smith Subject: Re: Lab footwear MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We require all persons working in the labs to wear sturdy shoes with closed toes; sandals are prohibited. Only one person strenuously objected to my dictates on footwear. (He likes his Birkenstocks with a closed toe and open heel - I don't.) On the subject of 'high heels' - opinion varies on how high is 'high'. Larger diameter heel construction is more important to me than height. I've seen women's shoes that have a pointy little surface under the heel, but are only about an inch. It's a common fashion scene to see women wearing sneakers with business suits at lunch - why not in the lab? I keep a pair of simple leather loafers under my desk as a back-up. They're handy if whatever I wore on my feet towork to day turns out to be wrong for the day's demands. (E.g., today I wore a pair of sandals, expecting to be in my office all day. Today wound up including a crawl into a garbage dumpster. - ah, the adventure of safety ...) This recommendation is, of course, directed at both sexes. Elizabeth E. Smith Environmental, Health & Safety BioPort Corporation Lansing, MI 48906 517-327-6806 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:38:53 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Anna Dalipi Subject: Introduction & Re: CH3CN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Greetings to all! Recently, I joined the list and feel privileged to have access to the list's expertise. I am a Product Steward and have a degree in Chemistry. I am responsible for MSDSs, labels and regulatory work. I also have basic knowledge in industrial hygiene and toxicology. Regarding Acetonitrile, here is what my text book on "Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man", third edition, by Randall C. Baselt and Robert H. Cravey, published by Year Book Medical Publishers Inc.. Acetonitrile is known to undergo bio-transformation to CYANIDE, which is further metabolized to thiocyanate. It has been estimated that at least 12% of an inhaled dose of the chemical is metabolized in this manner, and undoubtedly a substantial portion is exhaled unchanged in the breath. Blood cyanide concentrations of 3-11 mg/l and serum thiocyanate of levels of 160-230 mg/L were observed in two workers suffering sever toxicity due to exposure to high concentration of acetonitriles More on acetonitrile from (CCOHS- Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety) This info can easily be accessed on their web site (www.ccohs.ca). Please note, I don't work for CCOHS. But I do use their services. They have a toxicologist on staff. Thought you may be interested in the story below which is posted on their website: At a recent health and safety conference, two CCOHS staff had the pleasure of meeting a new CCINFOdisc subscriber. The subscriber told of a close call at her company involving a chemical spill. She was thankful that, by using CCOHS' CHEMpendium disc, she had helped save her colleague's life. The subscriber has asked that her company remain anonymous, but agreed to share her story with Liaison readers: "A student here had accidentally used the wrong glassware for the wrong substance. My colleague noticed that the contents of a flask were starting to bubble. The flask had a stopper on it, but my colleague knew some-thing must be terribly wrong. She took the flask and just had time to run over to a fume hood, where the flask just blew up. The substance, acetonitrile, overflowed all over her safety glove. "Shortly afterward, she starting having trouble breathing. My colleague wasn't alarmed at first; she has asthma and thought this was just another attack. But one of her co-workers got worried and called me (I'm the safety officer). "I ran downstairs to the computer, because I happened to have a 30- day trial copy of the CHEMpendium CD-ROM. I searched the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB®) for acetonitrile. In the information about acute toxic effects, it said that breathing difficulty and rapid heart rate were the first symptoms caused by skin absorption, and that exposure could be fatal. "I had my colleague rushed to the hospital. Before we knew it, the poor thing was in ICU... but we got her there in time, thank goodness. She's fine now." Needless to say, this anonymous safety officer subscribed to CHEMpendium immediately after her 30-day trial had elapsed. "Oh yeah" she laughs, "we kept it." More on Acetonitrile A follow-up to our Cover Story Acetonitrile is a member of the cyanide chemical family. Each member of this family contains a chemical unit called the cyanide ion. Cyanide is one of the few workplace chemicals for which exposure can be immediately life-threatening. Acetonitrile can rapidly enter the body by inhalation, skin absorption and ingestion. Acetonitrile breaks down in the body to release the cyanide ion. Once inside the body, the cyanide ion interferes with essential chemical reactions. One of the most serious interactions is with certain chemicals (enzymes) that help the body use oxygen. Early symptoms of cyanide poisoning are weakness, headache, giddiness, confusion, dizziness, anxiety, nausea and vomiting. In severe cases, the victim's breathing may speed up and, as the situation worsens, become slow and gasping. First, the blood pressure is high and the heart rate is slow. Then, the blood pressure drops and the heart rate becomes fast. Fluid may fill the lungs and interfere with breathing. The victim may lose consciousness and enter a coma. Death may occur. As soon as cyanide poisoning has occurred, medical assistance must be summoned. The emergency response team must be informed that it is a cyanide emergency, so that the appropriate equipment and medications can be brought to the site. Rescuers must ensure that their own safety is protected. They must protect themselves from potential inhalation or skin exposure by wearing appropriate protective equipment. Cyanide is one of the few chemicals for which there is a known antidote. Amyl nitrite can be administered by trained personnel on site, with appropriate delegation of medical authority, if necessary. Depending on the actual risk of poisoning and the accessibility of the closest emergency medical facility, it may be prudent to have amyl nitrite available at a workplace. The above information was extracted from the CCOHS website. Regards, Anna Dalipi Product Steward ICI Canada Inc. All waivers apply as I am responding on my own accord and not on the Comapny's behalf. Robert Burns on 11/08/99 04:01:29 PM Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU cc: (bcc: Anna S Dalipi/CA/EXPL/ICI) Subject: CH3CN The info from Sax on acetonitrile is below. Note the toxicity for human ingestion is 570 mg/kg, not very toxic. Sax calls it "moderately toxic". The PEL, TWA and TLV are both 40 ppm. With a BP of 81, not likely to get that high in an active lab with hoods, etc, if you have a spill. NOT a human carcinogen. for comparison, isobutanol has a TWA of 50, as does toluene. I don't want to be one of those organic chemists Linda referred to, so I'm not "pooh-pooh"ing. I'm an organic chemist who lets the facts speak for themselves. >From Sax: ACETONITRILE ACETONITRILE [Hawley] [Prager] [Verschueren] [Pohanish] DPIM: ABE500 Hazard Rating: 3 CAS: 75-05-8 DOT Number: UN 1648 M Formula: C2H3N M Weight: 41.06 Properties: Colorless liquid; almond-ethereal, aromatic odor. Melting point: -45º, boiling point: 81.1º, flash point: 42ºF (Cleveland open cup), density: 0.7868 @ 20º/20º, vapor density: 1.42, vapor pressure: 100 millimeter @ 27º, lower explosive limit: 4.4%, upper explosive limit: 16%, autoignition temperature: 975ºF. Miscible in water, alcohol, and organic solvs. Immiscible in petroleum ether. Synonyms: ACETONITRIL (GERMAN, DUTCH) CYANOMETHANE CYANOMETHANE CYANURE de METHYL (FRENCH) CYANURE METHYL FRENCH ETHANENITRILE ETHANENITRILE [Verschueren] ETHYL NITRILE ETHYL NITRILE METHANECARBONITRILE METHANECARBONITRILE METHANE, CYANO- METHANE CYANO METHYL CYANIDE METHYL CYANIDE [Hawley] METHYLKYANID METHYLKYANID NCI-C60822 NCI C60822 RCRA WASTE NUMBER U003 RCRA WASTE NUMBER U003 USAF EK-488 USAF EK 488 TOXICITY DATA with REFERENCE Sex Chromosome Loss and Nondisjunction-Saccharomyces cerevisiae 47,600 ppm Mutation Research. (Elsevier Science Publications B.V., POB 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands) V.1- 1964-MUREAV 149,339,85 Skin-Rabbit, adult 10 mg/24H Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. (Baltimore, MD/New York, NY) V.18-31, 1936-49. For publisher information, see AEHLAUJIHTAB 30,63,48 Skin-Rabbit, adult 500 mg open Mild irritation effects Union Carbide Data Sheet. (Industrial Medicine and Toxicology Dept., Union Carbide Corp., 270 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017)UCDS** 3/18/65 Eye effects-Rabbit, adult 20 mg Severe irritation effects Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. (Baltimore, MD/New York, NY) V.18-31, 1936-49. For publisher information, see AEHLAUJIHTAB 30,63,48 Oral-Hamster TDLo:300 mg/kg (8D preg):Teratogenic effects Teratology, A Journal of Abnormal Development. (Wistar Institute Press, 3631 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104) V.1- 1968-TJADAB 27,313,83 Oral-Hamster TDLo:400 mg/kg (8D preg):Reproductive effects Teratology, A Journal of Abnormal Development. (Wistar Institute Press, 3631 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104) V.1- 1968-TJADAB 27,313,83 Oral-Human TDLo:570 mg/kg:Central nervous system effects Acta Pharmacologica et Toxicologica. (Munksgaard, 35 Noerre Soegade, DK-1370, Copenhagen K, Denmark) V.1- 1945-APTOA6 41,340,77 Inhalation-Human TCLo:160 ppm/4H "Toxicology of Drugs and Chemicals," Deichmann, W.B., New York, NY, Academic Press, Inc., 196934ZIAG -,65,69 Oral-Rat LD50:2730 mg/kg Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. (Academic Press, 111 5th Ave., New York, NY 10003) V.1- 1959-TXAPA9 19,699,71 Inhalation-Rat LC50:7551 ppm/8H Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Intraperitoneal-Rat LD50:850 mg/kg Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Subcutaneous-Rat LD50:3500 mg/kg "Toxicometric Parameters of Industrial Toxic Chemicals Under Single Exposure" Izmerov, N.F., et al., Moscow, USSR, Centre of International Projects, GKNT, 198285GMAT -,16,82 Intravenous-Rat LD50:1680 mg/kg Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Parenteral-Rat LD50:1100 mg/kg "Toxicometric Parameters of Industrial Toxic Chemicals Under Single Exposure" Izmerov, N.F., et al., Moscow, USSR, Centre of International Projects, GKNT, 198285GMAT -,16,82 Oral-Mouse LD50:269 mg/kg Archives of Toxicology. (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberger Pl. 3, D-1 Berlin 33, Germany) V.32- 1974-ARTODN 55,47,84 Inhalation-Mouse LC50:2693 ppm/1H Clinical Toxicology. (New York, NY) V.1-18, 1968-81. For publisher information, see JTCTDWCTOXAO 18,991,81 Intraperitoneal-Mouse LD50:175 mg/kg Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. (Academic Press, 111 5th Ave., New York, NY 10003) V.1- 1959-TXAPA9 59,589,81 Subcutaneous-Mouse LD50:4480 mg/kg "Toxicometric Parameters of Industrial Toxic Chemicals Under Single Exposure" Izmerov, N.F., et al., Moscow, USSR, Centre of International Projects, GKNT, 198285GMAT -,16,82 Inhalation-Dog, adult LCLo:16,000 ppm/4H Journal of Occupational Medicine. (American Occupational Medical Association, 150 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606) V.1- 1959-JOCMA7 1,634,59 Consensus Reports: On Community Right-To-Know List. Reported in EPA TSCA Inventory. Standards and Recommendations OSHA PEL: TWA 40 ppm; STEL 60 ppm ACGIH TLV: TWA 40 ppm; STEL 60 ppm (skin); Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen DFG MAK: 40 ppm (70 mg/m3) NIOSH REL: (Nitriles) TWA 34 mg/m3 DOT Classification: 3; Label: Flammable Liquid, Poison SAFETY PROFILE: Poison by ingestion and intraperitoneal routes. Moderately toxic by several routes. An experimental teratogen. Other experimental reproductive effects. A skin and severe eye irritant. Human systemic effects by ingestion: convulsions, nausea or vomiting, and metabolic acidosis. Human respiratory system effects by inhalation. Mutation data reported. Dangerous fire hazard when exposed to heat, flame, or oxidizers. Explosion Hazard: See also CYANIDE and NITRILES. When heated to decomposition it emits highly toxic fumes of CN¯ and NOx. Potentially explosive reaction with lanthanide perchlorates and nitrogen-fluorine compounds. Exothermic reaction with sulfuric acid at 53ºC. Will react with water, steam, acids to produce toxic and flammable vapors. Incompatible with oleum, chlorosulfonic acid, perchlorates, nitrating agents, indium, dinitrogen tetraoxide, N-fluoro compounds (e.g., perfluorourea + acetonitrile), HNO3, SO3. To fight fire, use foam, CO2, dry chemical. Analytical Methods: For occupational chemical analysis use NIOSH: Acetonitrile, 1606. Class: Mutagen; Primary Irritant; Reproductively Active; Standards or Recommendations "Semper Adventurus!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation Email rburns@ruetgers-organics-corp.com Phone 814 231 9214 Fax 815 333 4805 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:37:00 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Barricades and tape to mark hazardous areas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=NXJBb87goKVb38NPzAKohKwV4A85wToHni1bqOMmLXBSYF4ds4CPETP6"; X-Lotus-Encap=encap3 --0__=NXJBb87goKVb38NPzAKohKwV4A85wToHni1bqOMmLXBSYF4ds4CPETP6 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline I'm looking for information about regulations/standards regarding barricades and hazard tape. A colleague has found the applicable OSHA standard, but he would like more information. He's wondering if there is any standard for marking an area where people cannot enter without permission from the person who put up the warning tape or barricade. Also, he would like more information about colors which can/should be used. He knows about the OSHA definitions for red, yellow, and blue already. I know this a construction question, but I'm hoping someone on the list can help. Thanks! Julie O'Brien Archimica (Florida) and EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville afn35210@afn.org The opinions expressed here are my own. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:04:13 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Chad Bennett Subject: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Now that everyone who wanted to discuss the cyanide issue has had a chance to, and in response to Dr. Swihart's question of whether we have cyanide antidote kits, I have the following questions: 1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be considered a medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for sale at the grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I presume that they are not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The Lily Companies was the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar with in EMS. I am pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not operate under extension of a physician's medical license from using this antidote. How many safety professionals out there are comfortable starting an intravenous line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium nitrite, while monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract it, possibly with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not many. How many safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, unless they are a physician, or work for a company that has a physician who has given them written authorization to do this. 2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, possess, and use a cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? -- Chad Bennett, Nationally Registered Paramedic Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ Campus Environmental Compliance Officer Central College Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:34:49 -0500 Reply-To: swihart@purdue.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Dr. L A Swihart" Organization: Purdue University Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chad Bennett wrote: --cut-- > 1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be considered a > medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for sale at the > grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I presume that they are > not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The Lily Companies was > the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar with in EMS. I am > pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a > physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not operate under > extension of a physician's medical license from using this antidote. How > many safety professionals out there are comfortable starting an intravenous > line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium nitrite, while > monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract it, possibly > with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not many. How many > safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, unless they are a > physician, or work for a company that has a physician who has given them > written authorization to do this. Perfectly put. This is why it's such an icky sticky thing to be having the MSDSs tell us to do! I read somewhere (in this list lately? don't remember) that the amyl nitrite inhalers were all that were stocked by Somewhere University lab first aid kits, because you can't just have people running around giving IVs to anyone. (Although we have a biochem research lab here where the grad students phlebotomize each other daily!) > 2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, possess, and use a > cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? Even the amyl nitrite "vaporoles" are an icky issue, because of their recreational drug potential. I don't know but what they aren't controlled or semi-controlled substances in some states... Northwestern University has a good looking web page about safety kits, and a treatment of the cyanide poisoning antidote question. see http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/research-safety/emerg/firstaid/ and http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/research-safety/emerg/firstaid/cyanide.htm Linda ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:05:52 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Robert Burns Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote Comments: To: "swihart@PURDUE.EDU" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Our company doctor is willing to give us a prescription for the amyl nitrite, but not the injections. however, they do have a kit in our local ER. We also have several people trained as First Responders- if they can do the amyl nitrite and O2, and get the patient transported ASAP, we and our Dr. feel we are covered. "Semper Adventurus!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation Email rburns@ruetgers-organics-corp.com Phone 814 231 9214 Fax 815 333 4805 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. L A Swihart [mailto:swihart@PURDUE.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:35 > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote > > > Chad Bennett wrote: > --cut-- > > 1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be > considered a > > medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for > sale at the > > grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I > presume that they are > > not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The > Lily Companies was > > the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar > with in EMS. I am > > pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a > > physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not > operate under > > extension of a physician's medical license from using this > antidote. How > > many safety professionals out there are comfortable > starting an intravenous > > line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium > nitrite, while > > monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract > it, possibly > > with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not > many. How many > > safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, > unless they are a > > physician, or work for a company that has a physician who > has given them > > written authorization to do this. > > Perfectly put. This is why it's such an icky sticky thing to > be having > the MSDSs tell us to do! I read somewhere (in this list > lately? don't > remember) that the amyl nitrite inhalers were all that were stocked by > Somewhere University lab first aid kits, because you can't just have > people running around giving IVs to anyone. (Although we > have a biochem > research lab here where the grad students phlebotomize each other > daily!) > > > 2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, > possess, and use a > > cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? > > Even the amyl nitrite "vaporoles" are an icky issue, because of their > recreational drug potential. I don't know but what they aren't > controlled or semi-controlled substances in some states... > > Northwestern University has a good looking web page about safety kits, > and a treatment of the cyanide poisoning antidote question. > > see > http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/research-safety/emerg/firstaid/ > and > http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/research-safety/emerg/firstaid/cyanide.htm > > Linda > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:13:57 EDT Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jennifer Minogue Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Where to get cyanide kits. Believe it or not, I have a address for USDA in Idaho that was selling some sort of cyanide antidote kit for use with coyote poison bait. We tried to buy some but either they wouldn't ship to Canada or they wouldn't ship outside Idaho. All I know is that we were refused (this was 1997). Address: Pocatello supply depot USDA - APHIS Animal Damage Control 238 East Dillon Street Pocatello, Idaho 83201 Sorry, no phone number Jennifer E. Minogue, B.S., M.S.P.H. Hazardous Materials Safety Officer Environmental Health and Safety University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada 519-824-4120 X3190 Fax 519-824-0364 e-Mail jennifer@hr.admin.uoguelph.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:19:39 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yes, this is a sticky situation, but we look at administering the amyl nitrite inhalants as first aid, but only administered by trained individuals. These individuals are the ones in control/access to the kits. In an exposure situation, they would properly administer the inhalants (only) until EMS arrived and took control... The IVs/injectibles can only be administered by EMS or related. Our Occ Med physician provides us the prescriptions and first aid information. Try "Taylor Pharmaceuticals" (a former Eli Lilly Co)in CA at 800/223-9851. Andy these are only my opinions... -----Original Message----- From: Chad Bennett [mailto:stockroom@CENTRAL.EDU] Sent: November 10, 1999 10:04 AM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote Now that everyone who wanted to discuss the cyanide issue has had a chance to, and in response to Dr. Swihart's question of whether we have cyanide antidote kits, I have the following questions: 1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be considered a medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for sale at the grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I presume that they are not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The Lily Companies was the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar with in EMS. I am pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not operate under extension of a physician's medical license from using this antidote. How many safety professionals out there are comfortable starting an intravenous line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium nitrite, while monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract it, possibly with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not many. How many safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, unless they are a physician, or work for a company that has a physician who has given them written authorization to do this. 2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, possess, and use a cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? -- Chad Bennett, Nationally Registered Paramedic Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ Campus Environmental Compliance Officer Central College Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:53:40 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I just called them and they only supply the kits with syringes etc. for trained EMS or physicians. Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 12:19 PM 11/10/99 -0600, you wrote: >Yes, this is a sticky situation, but we look at administering the amyl >nitrite inhalants as first aid, but only administered by trained >individuals. These individuals are the ones in control/access to the kits. >In an exposure situation, they would properly administer the inhalants >(only) until EMS arrived and took control... The IVs/injectibles can only >be administered by EMS or related. Our Occ Med physician provides us the >prescriptions and first aid information. > >Try "Taylor Pharmaceuticals" (a former Eli Lilly Co)in CA at 800/223-9851. > >Andy >these are only my opinions... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chad Bennett [mailto:stockroom@CENTRAL.EDU] >Sent: November 10, 1999 10:04 AM >To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU >Subject: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote > > >Now that everyone who wanted to discuss the cyanide issue has had a chance >to, and in response to Dr. Swihart's question of whether we have cyanide >antidote kits, I have the following questions: > >1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be considered a >medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for sale at the >grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I presume that they are >not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The Lily Companies was >the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar with in EMS. I am >pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a >physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not operate under >extension of a physician's medical license from using this antidote. How >many safety professionals out there are comfortable starting an intravenous >line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium nitrite, while >monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract it, possibly >with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not many. How many >safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, unless they are a >physician, or work for a company that has a physician who has given them >written authorization to do this. > >2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, possess, and use a >cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? > > >-- >Chad Bennett, Nationally Registered Paramedic >Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ >Campus Environmental Compliance Officer >Central College >Pella, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:59:14 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mary Ann Solstad Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote In-Reply-To: <199911101704.LAA27314@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Maybe I am answering the wrong question because I deleted an earlier post, but the point of amyl nitrate kits is that a sufficient dose of HCN is so quick acting that a medical responder would be far too late. I inspected a lab once where the senior researcher wore the amyl nitrate around his neck for sufficiently quick action if his experiment went awry. That would hopefully keep him alive until further help was available. I deferred to his presumed knowledge from previous experience with HCN. At 11:04 AM 11/10/99 -0500, you wrote: >Now that everyone who wanted to discuss the cyanide issue has had a chance >to, and in response to Dr. Swihart's question of whether we have cyanide >antidote kits, I have the following questions: > >1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be considered a >medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for sale at the >grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I presume that they are >not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The Lily Companies was >the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar with in EMS. I am >pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a >physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not operate under >extension of a physician's medical license from using this antidote. How >many safety professionals out there are comfortable starting an intravenous >line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium nitrite, while >monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract it, possibly >with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not many. How many >safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, unless they are a >physician, or work for a company that has a physician who has given them >written authorization to do this. > >2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, possess, and use a >cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? > > >-- >Chad Bennett, Nationally Registered Paramedic >Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ >Campus Environmental Compliance Officer >Central College >Pella, Iowa > Mary Ann Mary Ann Solstad, CIH 16 Pequot Rd Marblehead, MA 01945-1202 tel 781-631-4748, FAX 781-631-1832 outmsolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:57:32 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Chang, Jim C" Subject: Re: Cyanide Poisoning Antidote MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A point to consider... I recall from the weapons of mass destruction training that cyanide antidote kits are in less favor these days. If I recall, supportive care (artificial respiration and CPR) are recommended. I think the logic was that CN- is quickly metabolized and if the individual can be supported through the crisis period, then they should be "okay". Any poison control or MDs out there that know for sure? Jim C. At 11:04 AM 11/10/99 -0500, you wrote: >Now that everyone who wanted to discuss the cyanide issue has had a chance >to, and in response to Dr. Swihart's question of whether we have cyanide >antidote kits, I have the following questions: > >1. Wouldn't the administration of this type of antidote be considered a >medical procedure? I do not see cyanide antidote kits for sale at the >grocery store (like syrup of ipecac, for example) so I presume that they are >not OTC, and therefore require a physician's order. The Lily Companies was >the manufacturer of the antidote kit that I was familiar with in EMS. I am >pretty sure this kit read, "For sale and use on or by the order of a >physician." This would preclude non-physicians who do not operate under >extension of a physician's medical license from using this antidote. How >many safety professionals out there are comfortable starting an intravenous >line and administering a 10 ml slow IVP bolus of 3% sodium nitrite, while >monitoring for hypotension and being prepared to counteract it, possibly >with other medications such as dopamine? Probably not many. How many >safety professionals can legally do that? Probably none, unless they are a >physician, or work for a company that has a physician who has given them >written authorization to do this. > >2. If it is perfectly legal for anyone to purchase, possess, and use a >cyanide antidote kit, then where can I get one? > > >-- >Chad Bennett, Nationally Registered Paramedic >Vermeer Science Center Stockroom Manager/ >Campus Environmental Compliance Officer >Central College >Pella, Iowa > Mary Ann Mary Ann Solstad, CIH 16 Pequot Rd Marblehead, MA 01945-1202 tel 781-631-4748, FAX 781-631-1832 msolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:42:23 +0000 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: barb moore Subject: atrazine MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have a student using atrazine in her Independent Study Project. She has obtained information from handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals - 3rd Ed. 1996 by Van Nostrand Reinhold stating that atrazine can be neutralized with chlorine. Does anyone know about this - what concentrations of atrazine - what concentration of chlorine, etc.? We are going to have 20 dishpans of water containing small amounts of atrazine to dispose of. This would be great, but I need more information. Barbara Moore Administrative Manager Biology Department bmoore@acs.wooster.edu The College of Wooster 330-263-2379 Wooster, Ohio 44691 FAX 330-263-2378 Check the web site @ http://www.wooster.edu/biology ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:04:13 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Crime Lab Subject: Class demonstration MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been invited by my son to talk to his math and science gifted (4-5-6 combined) class. They have just completed a science section about atoms and simple molecules. I remember a science class that got my attention and started my intrest in Chemistry. It delt with the breaking down of water into H2 and O2. We traped both gases in small test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them. We recorded the diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick. Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it. My questions are: Is this still done for and with kids? If it is still done, can someone send me some references to look it up. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:34:52 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Elisabeth B. Langford" Subject: Re: Class demonstration In-Reply-To: <382B132D.86718BE4@lorainccc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The IPS curriculum did this experiment using either a 9 or 12 volt battery. The current must be DC. The electrolyte sodium carbonate was added to the water to increase the speed of the reaction. Place a test tube over each of the 2 U shaped electrodes that are in the beaker of water. Turn on the current and collect your gases. The electrodes can be made by using covered heavy copper wire. Bend the wire into a U shape. Strip the covering from most of one side of the U. Strip only the top of the other side of the U for a connection to your battery wires. The test tubes are placed over the side of the U that is exposed. -----Original Message----- From: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List [mailto:LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu]On Behalf Of Crime Lab Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:04 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Class demonstration I have been invited by my son to talk to his math and science gifted (4-5-6 combined) class. They have just completed a science section about atoms and simple molecules. I remember a science class that got my attention and started my intrest in Chemistry. It delt with the breaking down of water into H2 and O2. We traped both gases in small test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them. We recorded the diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick. Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it. My questions are: Is this still done for and with kids? If it is still done, can someone send me some references to look it up. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:09:26 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ian Fraser Subject: Re: Class demonstration In-Reply-To: <382B132D.86718BE4@lorainccc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I recall picking pieces of plastic out of my face and arms when our chemistry teacher did the same experiment.(about 1963) He used a plastic container (rather large) to collect the gas. At 02:04 PM 11/11/99 , you wrote: >I have been invited by my son to talk to his math and science gifted >(4-5-6 combined) class. They have just completed a science section >about atoms and simple molecules. I remember a science class that got >my attention and started my intrest in Chemistry. It delt with the >breaking down of water into H2 and O2. We traped both gases in small >test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them. We recorded the >diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick. >Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it. > >My questions are: > >Is this still done for and with kids? >If it is still done, can someone send me some references to look it up. Thanks in advance Ian Fraser Safety Office University of Waterloo 200 University Ave. W. Waterloo, ON Canada, N2L 3G1 mailto:igfraser@uwaterloo.ca http://www.safetyoffice.uwaterloo.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:25:38 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: Class demonstration Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=uE0PpoKeuEeV2YJhBAlwdpOI8mdkwxynsJwxwp1D5ALxeqchJc7OwBpw"; X-Lotus-Encap=encap3 --0__=uE0PpoKeuEeV2YJhBAlwdpOI8mdkwxynsJwxwp1D5ALxeqchJc7OwBpw Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline >It delt with the >breaking down of water into H2 and O2. We traped both gases in small >test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them. We recorded the >diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick. >Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it. I would not recommend doing this demo. Many accidents (and injuries) have resulted from doing this experiment. I have so many safe demos that I could recommend, but I don't know where to begin. How soon is your talk? E-mail me off the list and I'll provide some sources for demos. Julie O'Brien afn35210@afn.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:28:58 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Julianne M. Braun" Organization: UGA, Dept of Chemistry Subject: Re: Class demonstration MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Fraser wrote: > > I recall picking pieces of plastic out of my face and arms when our > chemistry teacher did the same experiment.(about 1963) > He used a plastic container (rather large) to collect the gas. > This is a good reason to use an electrode system rather than the "glowing stick" or burning splint method. Three advantages ov electrodes over the older method...the containers can be submerged in water so that the amount of water displaced will make the difference in gas volume apparent, but with containers open to the water, any excess gas would bubble out rather than building up pressure...second, using electrodes, it's simple to stop the reaction by turning off the switch or unplugging the voltage source to prevent the vessel from over-filling...finally, the electrodes shouldn't ignite the hydrogen that's generated. my $0.02 worth Julianne M. Braun, PhD Franklin Teaching Fellow Department of Chemistry University of Georgia ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:04:43 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Tayman, Tammy" Subject: Re: Class demonstration MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" An easier way is to simply go to Radio Shack or any other electronics supply store and purchase the replacement adapter for a 9V battery. This consists of the "harness" that snaps onto the electrodes at the top of the battery and two wires (red and black) that come out of it. The wires already have bare ends (about 1/4") and are about 5 or 6" long. Nice size for just this application. (We've done it here.) We usually use sodium sulfate for our electrolyte, as we don't want to drive off carbon dioxide from the carbonate already suggested. Also, do not use sodium chloride, as it is possible to generate chlorine gas in the procedure! Hope this helps, Tammy Tayman > -----Original Message----- > From: Elisabeth B. Langford [mailto:langford@SPRINGFIELD.K12.IL.US] > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 2:35 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Class demonstration > > > The IPS curriculum did this experiment using either a 9 or 12 > volt battery. > The current must be DC. The electrolyte sodium carbonate was > added to the > water to increase the speed of the reaction. Place a test > tube over each of > the 2 U shaped electrodes that are in the beaker of water. Turn on the > current and collect your gases. The electrodes can be made by > using covered > heavy copper wire. Bend the wire into a U shape. Strip the > covering from > most of one side of the U. Strip only the top of the other > side of the U for > a connection to your battery wires. The test tubes are placed > over the side > of the U that is exposed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > [mailto:LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu]On Behalf > Of Crime Lab > Sent: > Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:04 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Class demonstration > > > I have been invited by my son to talk to his math and science gifted > (4-5-6 combined) class. They have just completed a science section > about atoms and simple molecules. I remember a science class that got > my attention and started my intrest in Chemistry. It delt with the > breaking down of water into H2 and O2. We traped both gases in small > test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them. We recorded the > diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick. > Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it. > > My questions are: > > Is this still done for and with kids? > If it is still done, can someone send me some references to > look it up. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:57:06 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: George McKelvy Subject: Re: Class demonstration In-Reply-To: <382B132D.86718BE4@lorainccc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_849506195==_.ALT" --=====================_849506195==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I believe this demo can be done safely. Follow the advice on the sodium sulfate and 9V battery clip and use relatively small test tubes. Take all the safety precautions you can. If you can do this in a petri dish as your reservoir, you can follow up that demo by adding a few drops of bromothymol blue to the water and see the color changes at the electrodes. Bromothymol blue solution is green at pH=7, but turns yellow above 7.4 (basic; excess OH-) and blue below 6 (acidic; excess H+). Maybe too advanced for gifted upper elementary, but I don't think so. It will certainly add another dimension to the demo. Reference: Shakhashiri, Bassam Z. 1992 Chemical Demonstrations Volume 4. At 02:04 PM 11/11/99 -0500, Crime Lab wrote: >I have been invited by my son to talk to his math and science gifted >(4-5-6 combined) class. They have just completed a science section >about atoms and simple molecules. I remember a science class that got >my attention and started my intrest in Chemistry. It delt with the >breaking down of water into H2 and O2. We traped both gases in small >test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them. We recorded the >diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick. >Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it. > >My questions are: > >Is this still done for and with kids? >If it is still done, can someone send me some references to look it up. George M. McKelvy Demonstration Teacher; and Safety and Right-to-Know Coordinator School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Fon: 404-894-0433 Georgia Institute of Technology Fax: 404-894-2038 Atlanta, GA 30332-0400 --=====================_849506195==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I believe this demo can be done safely.
Follow the advice on the sodium sulfate and 9V battery clip and use relatively small test tubes.  Take all the safety precautions you can. 
If you can do this in a petri dish as your reservoir, you can follow up that demo by adding a few drops of bromothymol blue to the water and see the color changes at the electrodes.  Bromothymol blue solution is green at pH=7, but turns yellow above 7.4 (basic; excess OH-) and blue below 6 (acidic; excess H+).
Maybe too advanced for gifted upper elementary, but I don't think so.  It will certainly add another dimension to the demo.
 
Reference: Shakhashiri, Bassam Z. 1992 Chemical Demonstrations Volume 4.






At 02:04 PM 11/11/99 -0500, Crime Lab wrote:
>I have been invited by my son to talk to his math and science gifted
>(4-5-6 combined) class.  They have just completed a science section
>about atoms and simple molecules.  I remember a science class that got
>my attention and started my intrest in Chemistry.  It delt with the
>breaking down of water into H2 and O2.  We traped both gases in small
>test tubes, and then put a glowing stick into them.  We recorded the
>diference in both amount of gases and reaction to the glowing stick.
>Since this was done in 1963, I do not have total recall of it.
>
>My questions are:
>
>Is this still done for and with kids?
>If it is still done, can someone send me some references to look it up.

George M. McKelvy       
Demonstration Teacher; and
Safety and Right-to-Know Coordinator
School of Chemistry and Biochemistry         Fon: 404-894-0433 
Georgia Institute of Technology              Fax: 404-894-2038
Atlanta, GA  30332-0400 --=====================_849506195==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:56:54 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Linda Morin Subject: Gloves Tested for Dimethyl Mercury MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I posted this to Ralph Stuart's SAFETY list but thought the collective wisdom of this list would find this query of interest as well. I just noticed that the Fisher Safety Catalog listing for Ansell's 4H laminated gloves now lists Dimethyl Mercury in it's permeation and breakthrough charts as a "new chemical or test". I'm wondering if other manufacturers have tested glove materials against this hazmat in the wake of the Karen Wetterhan death at Dartmouth a couple of years ago. As we have an investigator who uses methyl mercury, I have an interst in this issue. Is anyone aware of other glove manufacturers/glove types that have data on this or other organo-mercury compounds? Many thanks! Linda ********************************************************* Linda Grant Morin UMCES-CBL email: morin@cbl.umces.edu P.O. Box 38 Voice:(410)-326-7253 Solomons, MD 20688-0038 Fax: (410)-326-7349 ********************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:02:56 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Anna Dalipi Subject: Re: atrazine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The principal atrazine technical registrant (basic producer) is Novartis Crop Protection. Ciba Geigy is another supplier. Generally, it is best to contact the supplier and they are in best position to give advise for your conditions of use. If you have access to Internet Grateful Med intenet site the HSDB record would contain the following information under disposal method: Peer review: React atrazine wettable powders with sufficient 10% wt/vol aqueous sodium hydroxide to ensure a pH of > 14. Heating speeds the hydrolysis. When completely hydrolysed, dilute with much water and wash down sewer. (Peer-review conclusions of an IRPTC expert consultation (May 1985)) [REF-20, p.293] . Wet oxidation: Studies of wet oxidation applied to atrazine process wastes indicate 100% destruction of the active ingredient. [REF-20, p.294] Ref. 20 REF- 20: United Nations. Treatment and Disposal Methods for Waste Chemicals (IRPTC File). Data Profile Series No. 5. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environmental Programme, Dec. 1985. You may consider checking the following sites for additional information: Also, Check EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ Handbook on pesticide poisoning: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/ For specific questions regarding pesticides: National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) Telephone: 1-800-858-7378 Internet: ace.orst.edu/info/nptn E-mail: nptn@ace.orst.edu Regards, Anna Dalipi Chemist No warranties implied( all waivers apply).... barb moore on 11/11/99 06:42:23 AM Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU cc: (bcc: Anna S Dalipi/CA/EXPL/ICI) Subject: atrazine We have a student using atrazine in her Independent Study Project. She has obtained information from handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals - 3rd Ed. 1996 by Van Nostrand Reinhold stating that atrazine can be neutralized with chlorine. Does anyone know about this - what concentrations of atrazine - what concentration of chlorine, etc.? We are going to have 20 dishpans of water containing small amounts of atrazine to dispose of. This would be great, but I need more information. Barbara Moore Administrative Manager Biology Department bmoore@acs.wooster.edu The College of Wooster 330-263-2379 Wooster, Ohio 44691 FAX 330-263-2378 Check the web site @ http://www.wooster.edu/biology IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:23:59 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: atrazine In-Reply-To: <80256827.00581561.00@gbrhn001.ici-group.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would like to add a caution that one should not drain spent chemicals down the drain. If you think about this treatment method, you are draining neutralized atrazine, but you are also flushing Sodium Hydroxide with a pH of 14!! This is illegal in California to discharge material with a pH less than 6 or greater than 12. The POTW's get rather angry when you upset their treatment plants. In those states that discharge to streams, lakes etc., what about the aquatic toxicity? Do you want to risk a fish kill? I had a sister plant in a former life that did this and they spent $52,000 on fines alone. Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 11:02 AM 11/12/99 -0500, you wrote: >The principal atrazine technical registrant (basic producer) is Novartis >Crop Protection. Ciba Geigy is another supplier. >Generally, it is best to contact the supplier and they are in best position > to give advise for your conditions of use. > > >If you have access to Internet Grateful Med intenet site the HSDB record >would contain the following information >under disposal method: > > Peer review: React atrazine wettable powders with sufficient 10% > wt/vol aqueous sodium hydroxide to ensure a pH of > 14. Heating speeds >the > hydrolysis. When completely hydrolysed, dilute with much water and wash > down > sewer. (Peer-review conclusions of an IRPTC expert consultation (May >1985)) > [REF-20, p.293] > . Wet oxidation: Studies of wet oxidation applied to atrazine process >wastes > indicate 100% destruction of the active ingredient. [REF-20, p.294] > >Ref. 20 REF- 20: United Nations. Treatment and Disposal Methods for >Waste Chemicals > (IRPTC File). Data Profile Series No. 5. Geneva, Switzerland: United >Nations > Environmental Programme, Dec. 1985. > >You may consider checking the following sites for additional information: >Also, Check EPA: >http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ > >Handbook on pesticide poisoning: >http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/ > >For specific questions regarding pesticides: >National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) >Telephone: 1-800-858-7378 >Internet: ace.orst.edu/info/nptn >E-mail: nptn@ace.orst.edu > > >Regards, > >Anna Dalipi >Chemist >No warranties implied( all waivers apply).... > > > > > > > >barb moore on 11/11/99 06:42:23 AM > >Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > >To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU >cc: (bcc: Anna S Dalipi/CA/EXPL/ICI) >Subject: atrazine > > > > >We have a student using atrazine in her Independent Study Project. She has >obtained information from > >handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals - 3rd Ed. >1996 by Van Nostrand Reinhold > >stating that atrazine can be neutralized with chlorine. > >Does anyone know about this - what concentrations of atrazine - what >concentration of chlorine, etc.? > >We are going to have 20 dishpans of water containing small amounts of >atrazine to dispose of. This would be great, but I need more information. > >Barbara Moore >Administrative Manager