========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 22:25:08 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Michael Ahler Subject: Other Scarey Stories MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Other" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit New Year Greetings to All, The "Scarey Story" thread that was weaving recently reminded me of a similar story I took part in a few years ago. In the time before CHO's I and my supervisor were doing that kind of work in and for the Chemistry Department here. It was a vacuum we abhorred. In addition, from time to time the Chemistry Department would get a call from outside the campus asking for lab safety advice. Callers hoped the University's Chemistry Department might know which end is up. So we would do a bit of "pro bono" advising to local hospitals and high schools (mostly) in the area of safe chemical handling and management and general lab safety. ( I really am trying to abbreviate here.) One day a young man called about a situation he had with the contents of a business his recently deceased pharmacist-father had left behind. A garage floor full of lab chemicals we saw. He asked do we want? We said no. Thanks. But here is the name and number of a haz waste hauler you can deal with. Fine. Months later, during another "pro bono" San Luis Obispo High School, we were asked to look at one more store room at the end of the hall. There, still in boxes, was the answer to how the young pharmacy heir had solved his excess chemical problem. I think I did a credible job of keeping a straight face. The high school eventually solved their excess chemical problem ( "Do we want? No. Thanks.) through a county schools financed chemical cleanup - many science departments at many schools. I think an earlier writer to this list ( Mr. Hawkins from Acorn High School) mentioned such a program. I think it's a good idea ( County-wide / State-wide Hazardous waste pickup for K-12 schools). Most High Schools I know of don't have the resources to finance such things independently. Anecdotes like this and others I have seen on this list reinforce my phobia for Gift Chemicals. Almost every chemical gift I have seen has been a chemical dump - complete with unlabeled bottles and bottles actually labeled "unknown". I have other interesting Chemical Stories ( some Scarey) I am saving for another time. This message is long enough already. Maybe I'll do this from time to time. Thanks for listening. Michael Ahler, CHO Risk Management Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, California ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:42:42 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Labsafe@AOL.COM Subject: NACHO Meeting in Hartford Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi NACHO Members, Members interested in getting together for an informal dinner meeting in conjunction with the NEW SAFETY (Winter Safety 99) meeting this coming week at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut should gather at the Alumni Lounge in the Mather Campus Center at between 5:30 and 6:00 PM. We can decide where to go for dinner and carpool from there. So far, I've received about six rsvps. I'll be staying at the Wellesley Inn on Roberts Street in East Hartford starting tomorrow night. Cell Phone # 508-574-6264 .... jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:05:59 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: stefan Subject: Re: NACHO Meeting in Hartford In-Reply-To: <89041264.368ff262@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >Members interested in getting together for an informal dinner meeting in >conjunction with the NEW SAFETY (Winter Safety 99) meeting this coming week at >Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut should gather at the Alumni Lounge in >the Mather Campus Center at between 5:30 and 6:00 PM. We can decide where to >go for dinner and carpool from there. > ******** What day- Wednesday? ****************** - Stefan Wawzyniecki UConn > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:50:30 EST Reply-To: "Karcz-ENV, Timothy" Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Karcz-ENV, Timothy" Subject: Re: Formaldehyde substitute MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="915458959-MIME-Part-Dividor" --915458959-MIME-Part-Dividor Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline See attached message. --915458959-MIME-Part-Dividor Content-type: application/octet-stream; name="FORMALD2.FIX" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="FORMALD2.FIX" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --915458959-MIME-Part-Dividor-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:16:37 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Salary Range Info Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Nadine asked: >>> What I'm looking for are salary ranges for Chemical Hygiene Officer (or Environmental Health & Safety Specialist, etc.) positions at private schools comparable to ours -- with an enrollment of 1500-2500 students, and an annual budget of $14.7-30.1 million. ****** Here at UNE, our Environmental Health and Safety Officer position starts at 30k. Chemical Hygiene Officers are paid an add on salary of 3k per year in addition to their full time jobs. Hope this helps, Janeen. ***************** Janeen Lapierre, CHO College of Osteopathic Medicine University of New England 11 Hills Beach Road Biddeford, ME 04005 E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:27:49 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Formaldehyde substitute Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit We have been trying to find an alternative for cadaver preservation in our gross anatomy lab. I have had several conversations with different schools and this seems to be a real problem. I would welcome more info on your product and would be interested in furthering this cause. If I can be of assistance give me a call. Janeen. ***************** Janeen Lapierre, CHO College of Osteopathic Medicine University of New England 11 Hills Beach Road Biddeford, ME 04005 E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. >>> Russ Phifer - 12/29/98 10:23 AM >>> Can anyone give me an idea as to the current market for non-formaldehyde biological/histological fixatives and preservatives? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:37:58 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Donald E. Clark, Ph.D." Subject: Something to Consider-Forwarded Comments: To: safety@list.uvm.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Anyone interested in giving a much needed helping hand to these unfortunate souls? dec >Subject: Something to Consider-Forwarded > >> >>For those of you with any compassion, you will most certainly want to >>read AND RESPOND to the message below, especially during this holiday >>season. >>Sincerely, >>Mark English >>MEMD@JUNO.COM >> >>Friends: >> >>Please consider donating a portion of your tithe to a new and critical >>program, >> "Adopt A Player" >> >>With the New Year approaching, please look into your heart to >>help those in need. Hundreds of National Basketball Association >>basketball players in our very own country are living at or just below >>the seven-figure salary level (a national disgrace!). And, as if that >>weren't bad >>enough, they will be deprived of pay for several months--possibly a >>whole year--as a result of the current lock-out situation. But now, >>you can help! >> >>For only $20,835 a month, about $694.50 a day (that's less than the >>cost of a large screen projection TV) you can help a basketball >>player remain economically viable during his time of need. This >>contribution by no means solves the problem (since it barely covers the >>yearly league minimum), but it's a start! >> >>Almost $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, but to a >>basketball player it could mean the difference between a vacation >>spent golfing in Florida or a Mediterranean cruise. For you, seven >>hundred dollars is nothing more than a month's rent or mortgage >>payment. But to an NBA basketball player, $700 will almost replace his >>daily salary, earned by playing a boy's game and appearing publicly >>in what amounts to underwear.. >> >>Your commitment of less than $700 a day will enable a player to buy >>that home entertainment center, trade in the year-old Lexus for a >>new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio. >> >>HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING? >> >>Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the >>player you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds, >>401(k), real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to >>your home. You'll also get information on how he plans to invest the >>$5 million lump sum he will receive upon retirement. >> >>Plus upon signing up for this program, you will receive a photo of >>the player (unsigned - for a signed photo, please include an >>additional $250.00). Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you >>of other peoples' suffering. >> >>HOW WILL HE KNOW I'M HELPING? >> >>Your basketball player will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who >>just wants to help in a time of need. Although the player won't know >>your name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a >>special operator just in case additional funds are needed for >>unexpected expenses. >> >>YES, I WANT TO HELP! >> >>I would like to sponsor a striking NBA basketball player. My >>preference is checked below: >> >>[ ] Starter >>[ ] Reserve >>[ ] Star (Higher cost) >>[ ] Superstar (Much higher cost) >>[ ] Entire team (Please call our 900 number to ask for the cost of a >> specific team [Cheerleaders not included.]) >>[ ] I'll sponsor a player most in need. Please select one for me. >> >>Please charge the account listed below $694.50 per day for a reserve >>player or starter for the duration of the strike. Please send me a >>picture of the player I have sponsored, along with a team logo and my >>very own NBA Players Association Relief Fund badge to wear proudly on my >>lapel. >> >>Your Name: _______________________ >>Telephone Number: _______________________ >>Account Number: _______________________ Exp.Date:_______ >>[ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Discover >>Signature: _______________________ >> >>Mail completed form to NBA Players Association or call >>1-900-2MUCH now to enroll by phone. >> >>Note: Sponsors are NOT permitted to contact the player they have >>sponsored, either in person or by other means including, but not >>limited to, telephone calls, letters, e-mail, or third parties. Keep >>in mind that the basketball player you have sponsored will be much too >>busy enjoying his free time, thanks to your generous donations. >> >>Contributions are not tax-deductible. >> >> >> >>--------- End forwarded message ---------- >> >>___________________________________________________________________ >>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] >> >> >> Donald E. Clark, PhD Chemical and Biological Safety Officer Environmental Health and Safety Department Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4472 Phone (409)845-2132 FAX (409)845-1348 E-mail declark-sh@tamu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:59:41 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jeff Rubin Subject: Re: Something to Consider-Forwarded In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990104093758.006abb00@ehsd.tamu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sign me up as the first kill-joy. I get enough unsolicited e-mail jokes (generally multiple times) that I'm not really looking for any from the list. If I'm in the minority here I'll just crawl back into my hole and kick a dog or two. Cheers, JNR Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS College of Natural Sciences G2500 W.C. Hogg Building University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-1199 (512) 471-6176 (O) (512) 471-4998 (F) jrubin@mail.utexas.edu "The opinions of Dr. Rubin are not meant to offend anyone unless otherwise specified." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:12:34 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Something to Consider-Forwarded MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I like a few jokes. I vote to keep them. I can see that everyone may not, though. "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D Specialty Chemicals Division RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Rubin To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 10:46 Subject: Re: Something to Consider-Forwarded >Sign me up as the first kill-joy. I get enough unsolicited e-mail jokes >(generally multiple times) that I'm not really looking for any from the >list. If I'm in the minority here I'll just crawl back into my hole and >kick a dog or two. > >Cheers, > >JNR > > >Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS >College of Natural Sciences G2500 >W.C. Hogg Building >University of Texas at Austin >Austin, TX 78712-1199 >(512) 471-6176 (O) >(512) 471-4998 (F) >jrubin@mail.utexas.edu > >"The opinions of Dr. Rubin are not meant to offend anyone unless otherwise >specified." > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:33:33 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Madelyn Miller Subject: designated areas for PHSs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Greetings, OK you Chemical Hygiene Officers, here a questions about the Lab. Standard. (no jokes, no advertisements) The Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450 (e)(3)(viii), requires that provisions be made for employee protection for work with particularly hazardous substances. These include select carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and acutely toxic substances. It also states that specific consideration shall be given to the establishment of a designated area, the use of containment devices, procedures for safe removal of contaminated waste, and decontamination procedures. How do you deal with designated areas for saccharine. And at what quantity do you restrict mineral oil? The bigger question is how to implement the PHS section of the CHP? Our first step here has been to get the labs to identify their PHSs (no easy feat). We use the definition from Prudent Practices for acute toxic substances: · Chemicals with an oral LD50 in rats <50mg/kg · Chemicals with a skin contact LD50 in rabbits <200mg/kg · Chemicals with an inhalation LC50 in rats <200ppm/per hour Select carcinogens are easier, the "known" human carcinogens but I recently had a person who declared pregnancy. The definition of reproductive toxin is soooo broad. Chemicals which affect the reproductive capabilities including causing chromosomal damage (mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis). How do you give advice to your labs? ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:08:26 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: designated areas for PHSs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit WE use prudent practices definitions for PHS too. When we work with one of them, we designate the lab and hood where the work is being done and post accordingly. Then monitor that area or the person doing the work. The last one we had was formaldehyde, and that's what we did. The monitor found none at any time, except it picked up acetone as formaldehyde when he washed dishes! "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D Specialty Chemicals Division RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Madelyn Miller To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 12:35 Subject: designated areas for PHSs >Greetings, >OK you Chemical Hygiene Officers, here a questions about the Lab. >Standard. (no jokes, no advertisements) > >The Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450 (e)(3)(viii), requires that >provisions be made for employee protection for work with particularly >hazardous substances. These include select carcinogens, reproductive >toxins, and acutely toxic substances. It also states that specific >consideration shall be given to the establishment of a designated area, >the use of containment devices, procedures for safe removal of >contaminated waste, and decontamination procedures. > >How do you deal with designated areas for saccharine. And at what >quantity do you restrict mineral oil? The bigger question is how to >implement the PHS section of the CHP? > >Our first step here has been to get the labs to identify their PHSs (no >easy feat). We use the definition from Prudent Practices for acute >toxic substances: > · Chemicals with an oral LD50 in rats <50mg/kg >· Chemicals with a skin contact LD50 in rabbits <200mg/kg >· Chemicals with an inhalation LC50 in rats <200ppm/per hour > >Select carcinogens are easier, the "known" human carcinogens but I >recently had a person who declared pregnancy. The definition of >reproductive toxin is soooo broad. Chemicals which affect the >reproductive capabilities including causing chromosomal damage >(mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis). How do you give >advice to your labs? > >---------------------- >Madelyn Miller >Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO >Environmental Health & Safety >Carnegie Mellon University >mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:24:45 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mary Ann Solstad Subject: Re: designated areas for PHSs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 12:33 PM 1/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >Greetings, >OK you Chemical Hygiene Officers, here a questions about the Lab. >Standard. (no jokes, no advertisements) > >The Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450 (e)(3)(viii), requires that >provisions be made for employee protection for work with particularly >hazardous substances. These include select carcinogens, reproductive >toxins, and acutely toxic substances. It also states that specific >consideration shall be given to the establishment of a designated area, >the use of containment devices, procedures for safe removal of >contaminated waste, and decontamination procedures. > >How do you deal with designated areas for saccharine. And at what >quantity do you restrict mineral oil? The bigger question is how to >implement the PHS section of the CHP? > >Our first step here has been to get the labs to identify their PHSs (no >easy feat). We use the definition from Prudent Practices for acute >toxic substances: > · Chemicals with an oral LD50 in rats <50mg/kg >· Chemicals with a skin contact LD50 in rabbits <200mg/kg >· Chemicals with an inhalation LC50 in rats <200ppm/per hour > >Select carcinogens are easier, the "known" human carcinogens but I >recently had a person who declared pregnancy. The definition of >reproductive toxin is soooo broad. Chemicals which affect the >reproductive capabilities including causing chromosomal damage >(mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis). How do you give >advice to your labs? > >---------------------- >Madelyn Miller >Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO >Environmental Health & Safety >Carnegie Mellon University >mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu > Madelyn, Depends on mood of your inspecting OSHA officer, or maybe phases of the moon. But use a dose of common sense. Store the saccharine with the coffee supplies (g). The mineral oil with medicinals (for constipation). I'm reaching here beyond regs I have actually read, but machine oils, mixed in with a whole bunch of other junk, including bacteria, and dispersed in a finally divided spray, is a suspect carcinogen. Since I doubt you have your oil in such a form, ignore it. If a chemist is asked to adhere to foolish interpretations of regs, they will tend to ignore them, and more reasonable regulations also. Mary Ann 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 DivCHAS Chair, ACS msolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:44:58 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Labsafe@AOL.COM Subject: Re: NACHO Meeting in Hartford Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Good Point Stephan ... The day of the NACHO meeting is Wednesday January 6th. Let meet from 5:30 to 6:30 in the Alumni Lounge of Mather Center at Trinity to decide where to go for dinner. ... Jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:46:34 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi All: I know that this has been addressed before but what are the airflow requirements for laboratory fume hood? I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info received in Jim's class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up any regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? Thanks! Helen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:44:40 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Daniel Hurley Subject: Re: designated areas for PHSs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think the first task is to determine what substances by name are PHS's. Then look at the exposure potentials and then regulate those chemicals which pose a hazard. We have the same problem with things like saccharin and estrogen. For the chemicals that are border line but on a list we are going to work with our chemical safety committee to deregulate those chemical with little hazard potential. Consider not only the health hazard but the exposure potential. Madelyn Miller wrote: > Greetings, > OK you Chemical Hygiene Officers, here a questions about the Lab. > Standard. (no jokes, no advertisements) > > The Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450 (e)(3)(viii), requires that > provisions be made for employee protection for work with particularly > hazardous substances. These include select carcinogens, reproductive > toxins, and acutely toxic substances. It also states that specific > consideration shall be given to the establishment of a designated area, > the use of containment devices, procedures for safe removal of > contaminated waste, and decontamination procedures. > > How do you deal with designated areas for saccharine. And at what > quantity do you restrict mineral oil? The bigger question is how to > implement the PHS section of the CHP? > > Our first step here has been to get the labs to identify their PHSs (no > easy feat). We use the definition from Prudent Practices for acute > toxic substances: > · Chemicals with an oral LD50 in rats <50mg/kg > · Chemicals with a skin contact LD50 in rabbits <200mg/kg > · Chemicals with an inhalation LC50 in rats <200ppm/per hour > > Select carcinogens are easier, the "known" human carcinogens but I > recently had a person who declared pregnancy. The definition of > reproductive toxin is soooo broad. Chemicals which affect the > reproductive capabilities including causing chromosomal damage > (mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis). How do you give > advice to your labs? > > ---------------------- > Madelyn Miller > Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO > Environmental Health & Safety > Carnegie Mellon University > mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 02:05:04 -0600 Reply-To: jameel@sage.nrri.umn.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: John Ameel Subject: Re: designated areas for PHSs In-Reply-To: <36911A28.7369E963@wfubmc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I have checked the previous messages for a definition of "PHS" and have been unable to find it. Would someone out there demystify the acronym? Thanks. > I think the first task is to determine what substances by name are PHS's. > Then look at the exposure potentials and then regulate those chemicals...... > John Ameel (jameel@sage.nrri.umn.edu) Phone: 218-720-4313 Natural Resources Research Institute Fax: 218-720-9412 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:02:19 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Helen, Prudent Practices says "the recommended face velocity is between 80 and 100 feet per minute" on page 178. Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D Specialty Chemicals Division RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Helen B. Gerhard To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 14:51 Subject: Hood >Hi All: > >I know that this has been addressed before but what are the airflow >requirements for laboratory fume hood? > >I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info received in Jim's >class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up any >regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? > >Thanks! > >Helen > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:16:18 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Madelyn Miller Subject: Re: designated areas for PHSs Comments: To: jameel@sage.nrri.umn.edu In-Reply-To: <199901042001.OAA03497@sage.nrri.umn.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Greetings, Here is the definition from our Chemical Hygiene Plan. (CHP) 4.2.1 "Particularly Hazard Substances" are defined as belonging to one of three groups. 4.2.1.1 Select carcinogens, acutely toxic chemicals, reproductive toxins and chemicals known to have undesirable biological effects. (Refer to Appendix A for a partial list of select carcinogens and acutely toxic chemicals.) 4.2.1.2 Chemicals for which reliable toxicity information is not available, whether or not they are highly suspect because of their similarity in chemical structure or function to known toxic agents. 4.2.1.3 Chemicals that are explosive or otherwise violently reactive 4.2.2 "Select carcinogens" are any substance which meets at least one of the following criteria1: 4.2.2.1 Regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen or; 4.2.2.2 Listed under the category, "known to be carcinogens," in the Annual Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) or; 4.2.2.3 Listed under Group 1 ("carcinogenic to humans") by the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs (IARC) or; 4.2.2.4 Listed in either Group 2A or 2B by IARC or under the category "reasonably anticipated to be carcinogens " by NTP, and causes statistically significant tumor incidence in experimental animals in accordance with any of the following criteria: · After inhalation exposure of 6-7 hours per day, 5 days per week, for a significant portion of a lifetime to dosages of less than 10 mg/m3 · After repeated skin application of less than 300 mg/kg of body weight, per week or · After oral dosages of less than 50 mg/kg of body weight per day 4.2.3 Acute toxicity is the ability of a chemical to cause a harmful effect after a single exposure. Parameters for assessing the risk of acute toxicity of a chemical are its LD50 and LC50 values. Acutely toxic chemicals meet the following criteria: · Chemicals with an oral LD50 in rats <50mg/kg · Chemicals with a skin contact LD50 in rabbits <200mg/kg · Chemicals with an inhalation LC50 in rats <200ppm/per hour 4.2.3.1 Lethal Dose 50 (LD50 ) is defined as the amount of a chemical that when ingested, injected, or applied to the skin of test animals under controlled laboratory conditions will kill one-half (50%) of the animals2. 4.2.3.2 Lethal Concentration 50 (LC50) is the concentration of the chemical in air that will kill 50% of the test animals exposed to it. 4.2.3.3 Reproductive toxins are chemicals which affect the reproductive capabilities including causing chromosomal damage (mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis). 4.2.3.4 Designated areas are areas which may be used for work with particularly hazardous substances. A designated area may be the entire laboratory, an area of a laboratory, or a device such as a laboratory hood or glove box. ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:14:02 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Other than the "non-mandatory" Appendix A to 1910.1450 C.4.b and h where in the CFR regs does it show the need to inspect hoods for proper functioning. I know it's in the regs somewhere but the books aren't on my desk! Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Helen B. Gerhard Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 12:47 PM To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' Subject: Hood Hi All: I know that this has been addressed before but what are the airflow requirements for laboratory fume hood? I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info received in Jim's class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up any regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? Thanks! Helen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:39:04 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1910.1450.d.iii says the CHP shall include " a requirement that fume hoods and .... are functioning properly and specific measures measures that shall be taken to ensure proper and adequate performance of such equipment" IN the Appendix A, there are no specific numbers given. Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D Specialty Chemicals Division RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Helen B. Gerhard To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 15:18 Subject: Re: Hood >Other than the "non-mandatory" Appendix A to 1910.1450 C.4.b and h where >in the CFR regs does it show the need to inspect hoods for proper >functioning. I know it's in the regs somewhere but the books aren't on my >desk! > >Thanks! > >Helen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Helen B. Gerhard > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 12:47 PM > To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' > Subject: Hood > > Hi All: > > I know that this has been addressed before but what are the airflow >requirements for laboratory fume hood? > > I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info received in >Jim's class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up any >regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? > > Thanks! > > Helen > > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:31:28 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: Re: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Appendix A (E)(3)(c) recommends a fume hood "face velocity of at least 60 linear feet per minute" for "Work with Chemicals of Moderate Chronic or High Acute Toxicity". My interpretation only. Ben Greene, Ph.D AlliedSignal Las Cruces, NM 88004 505-524-5761 > ---------- > From: Bob Burns[SMTP:rburns@BIGFOOT.COM] > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 1:39 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Hood > > 1910.1450.d.iii says the CHP shall include " a requirement that fume > hoods > and .... are functioning properly and specific measures measures that > shall > be taken to ensure proper and adequate performance of such equipment" > > IN the Appendix A, there are no specific numbers given. > > Bob > > "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" > > Robert L. Burns > Group Leader, R&D > Specialty Chemicals Division > RUETGERS Organics Corporation > 201 Struble Road > State College, PA 16801 > phone 814-231-9214 > fax 814-238-1567 > email rburns@bigfoot.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Helen B. Gerhard > To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu > Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 15:18 > Subject: Re: Hood > > > >Other than the "non-mandatory" Appendix A to 1910.1450 C.4.b and h > where > >in the CFR regs does it show the need to inspect hoods for proper > >functioning. I know it's in the regs somewhere but the books aren't > on my > >desk! > > > >Thanks! > > > >Helen > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Helen B. Gerhard > > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 12:47 PM > > To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' > > Subject: Hood > > > > Hi All: > > > > I know that this has been addressed before but what are the > airflow > >requirements for laboratory fume hood? > > > > I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info > received in > >Jim's class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up > any > >regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Helen > > > > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:55:18 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Nick Pinizzotto Subject: designated areas for PHSs Comments: To: mmiller@ANDREW.CMU.EDU In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it needs to be a decision that each institution makes for themselves. Nothing the Federal Government does is specific. Therefore we're left to grapple once again on a definition. We here have a list of PHSs, primarily carcinogens which researchers must consult when filing grant forms. It's not an extensive list but it does get the researchers thinking in the right frame of mind about proper containment, proper PPE and Proper Disposal. If they use a chemical not on the list but they judge it in their own minds to be a PHS, they will complete a form as well. I'm sure there'll be lots of discussion on this one but these are just one person's thoughts. Nick Pinizzotto Environmental Health Officer Dept. Environmental Health & Safety Thomas Jefferson University nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu 215-503-5853 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:21:50 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bill Schultz Subject: Re[2]: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is no requirement to inspect chemical fume hoods in the CFRs' that I am aware of. The only citations in the CFRs' concerning chemical fume hoods, that I am aware of, are in the regulations for the 13 carcinogens. These citations do not list a requirement for fume hood certification but require a face velocity of 150 feet per minute (fpm). Chemical fume hood manufactures, the American Chemical Society and Prudent Practices all state clearly that face velocities approaching or exceeding 150 fpm should not be used. The hoods are not designed for velocities this high and they can cause turbulence that can bring the fumes out of the hood and into the operators breathing zone. Prudent Practices has a good recommendation for fume hood face velocity on page 178, Section 8.C.2. Our standard for hood velocity is a paraphrasing of their recommendation. We aim for 100 fpm but allow a variance of 20% either way making 80-120 fpm acceptable. Our frequency of testing or "field certification" is every six months based on Department of Defense regulations. Testing on a six month basis is also the recommendation of The American Chemical Society in "Safety In Academic Chemistry Laboratories", page 48 Fume Hoods. Hope this helps. Bill Schultz USAMRIID ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Hood Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail Date: 1/4/99 1:14 PM Other than the "non-mandatory" Appendix A to 1910.1450 C.4.b and h where in the CFR regs does it show the need to inspect hoods for proper functioning. I know it's in the regs somewhere but the books aren't on my desk! Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Helen B. Gerhard Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 12:47 PM To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' Subject: Hood Hi All: I know that this has been addressed before but what are the airflow requirements for laboratory fume hood? I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info received in Jim's class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up any regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? Thanks! Helen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 06:39:52 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Hood MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain There is a very useful concensus standard on laboratory ventilation including fume hood performance criteria in "American National Standard for Laboratory Ventilation" ANSI/AIHA Z-9.5 (1992). Section 5.7 (Face velocities) states "Each hood shall maintain an average face velocity of 80-120 fpm with no face velocity measurement more than plus or minus 20% of the average". This is consistent with the Prudent Practices' recommendations stated by Bill Schultz. Ben Greene, Ph.D AlliedSignal Las Cruces, NM 88004 505-524-5761 > ---------- > From: Bill Schultz[SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL] > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 2:21 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re[2]: Hood > > There is no requirement to inspect chemical fume hoods in the CFRs' > that I am > aware of. > > The only citations in the CFRs' concerning chemical fume hoods, that > I am aware > of, are in the regulations for the 13 carcinogens. These citations > do not list > a requirement for fume hood certification but require a face velocity > of 150 > feet per minute (fpm). > > Chemical fume hood manufactures, the American Chemical Society and > Prudent > Practices all state clearly that face velocities approaching or > exceeding 150 > fpm should not be used. The hoods are not designed for velocities > this high > and they can cause turbulence that can bring the fumes out of the > hood and into > the operators breathing zone. > > Prudent Practices has a good recommendation for fume hood face > velocity on page > 178, Section 8.C.2. Our standard for hood velocity is a paraphrasing > of their > recommendation. We aim for 100 fpm but allow a variance of 20% > either way > making 80-120 fpm acceptable. > > Our frequency of testing or "field certification" is every six months > based on > Department of Defense regulations. Testing on a six month basis is > also the > recommendation of The American Chemical Society in "Safety In > Academic > Chemistry Laboratories", page 48 Fume Hoods. > > Hope this helps. > > Bill Schultz > USAMRIID > ______________________________ Reply Separator > _________________________________ > Subject: Re: Hood > Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at > Internet-Mail > Date: 1/4/99 1:14 PM > > > Other than the "non-mandatory" Appendix A to 1910.1450 C.4.b and h > where > in the CFR regs does it show the need to inspect hoods for proper > functioning. I know it's in the regs somewhere but the books aren't > on my > desk! > > Thanks! > > Helen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Helen B. Gerhard > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 12:47 PM > To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' > Subject: Hood > > Hi All: > > I know that this has been addressed before but what are the > airflow > requirements for laboratory fume hood? > > I've got the ACGIH information from my lab safety info > received in > Jim's class. However, someone has borrowed my 29 CFR so looking up > any > regulations is difficult at this time. Can someone help? > > Thanks! > > Helen > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:15:38 -0600 Reply-To: "swiki@bihs.net" Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Swiki A. Anderson" Organization: Swiki Anderson & Associates, Inc. Subject: Commercialism on the web -OR- web etiquette -OR- Vendor-engineering education -OR- attempts to help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Colleague... Clearly I have offend some with my posting of information pointing to information on our web page at http://www.saai-svc.com/engineer/html/tech-notes.htm; if my attempts to share knowledge with you offend you, I am truly sorry. If I can eliminate one potential health hazard in a lab or, better yet, keep one individual from incurring a health problem, then the time and effort I have spent in generating responses like this will have been worth it and I will gladly continue to take the "heat". Mary Ann Solstad, CIH indicated something to the effect that the ventilation in her college laboratory was bad and that she and all her class mates have survived, "The bad old days weren't that dreadful". While I am glad about Mary Ann's survival, she and others like her ought to read, learn and understand that others have not been so lucky. For example see "Nightmare in Building 503" September, by Jonathan Eng, Chicago Magazine, 1998 at http://www.chicagomag.com/chicagomag/text/features/amoco/0998c.htm. You might also note that this is a Phoenix Controls job, and while the folks at Phoenix do a superior job of marketing, what if there are some latent defects associated with this system that you do not understand and may not know about? Have you instrumented laboratory air flow control systems available from various vendors and determined by repeatable metered results containment performance available with each? I have. And next, I call attention to "When Science Isn't Good Enough" by John Hubner, West Magazine, concerning the chronic ventilation health problems that have occurred at the IBM San Hose Plastics lab. Of eight individuals who were co-workers in this exciting place in the late 1970s, only one remains alive and he lives in fear that cancer will also claim him. Jim Morris at the Houston Chronicle has written extensively about ventilation in the work place and cancer resulting from it. Accessing http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/vinyl/stories.html will bring you to the index of most of his articles in his series entitled "In Strictest Confidence" which deals with workplace ventilation problems and the fact that industry knew they were harming employees in some cases. Can I challenge Mary Ann, Robert Burns and other like these folks to become informed about Morris' extensive investigative efforts? I especially suggest you read Morris' Sunday, December 20, 1998, article "Sickening Results"; check this at http://www.chron.com/content/story.html/page1/162714. It deals with laboratories and resulting health problems. Is dilution versus containment ventilation a problem? Ask Michelle Pigott who is quoted in Morris' "Sickening Result" article. Could a properly engineered and functioning containment ventilation system in her lab prevented injury to her son, Dalton? I suspect she would think so. I also suggest your review or Morris' "Slipshod practices frequently observed in college laboratories" at the same websight and also published December 20th. If you have trouble locating these Morris' articles, I try accessing them and other similar articles on the net via a link set up for your convenience from our WebPages at http://www.saai-svc.com/engineer/html/tech-notes.htm. Clicking on "LINKS...." will bring you to a listing of all of Morris's plus many other articles by others dealing with fire and exposure hazard that someone has experienced. In my own family, I have had one uncle, an insulator, die of asbestosis and another uncle who worked in a chemical plant where 1,3-butadiene was produced die from pancreatic cancer. My father worked in this same chemical plant as did I for a two year period, including some time in the two plant laboratories. The labs in this plant were built in the 1940 W.W.II era on the basis of an expected useful life of 5 years. They still remain in use today and have enjoyed little upgrade. At last count 19 people in "Gas Lab" in this plant have died of cancer, with about 80% of them from pancreatic cancer; only two of them had ever smoked. Concerning the Gas Lab, I am especially reminded of one of the supervisors that I worked for, a friend, that I visited with several years after I entered the consulting engineering business, about 1986. When I ask him about the ventilation system in this laboratory that was blatantly bad and obvious so, at least to me, and his response was something like, "Hell, I've worked here for 20 years and I don't have cancer!" Sad thing was that when I visited this plant again about four years later and ask about Jim Hutto, one of the technicians told me, "Didn't you know? He died of cancer last year." This plant is located in Jefferson County, Texas, a place once touted as the oil refining center of the world. Cancer per capita is higher in this county than anywhere else in the USA. Would retrofit of the lab air systems to satisfy a containment ventilation goal in lieu of the dilution ventilation system have made a difference? I don't know. But believe me, it sure would have helped to reduce if not eliminate the problem. Now the question of why bother to why try to communicate one's findings or the finding of others that have gone before us? Why spend the time and effort in publication and defend your ideas from internet "nazis" or other forms of informational/media purest zealot? I suppose it is because I really do care about others, especially the working stiff who is typically an hourly employee, who may spend his working life in a laboratory, trusting in his management to protect him from exposure problems, only to learn when he is about 50 years old that he has a malignancy that has only one ultimate cure, despite the radiation treatment or chemotherapy. It is, however, disappointing when someone lambaste you for trying to point out to them dilution versus containment ventilation faults, especially when you are parroting what much wiser men have learned and published some 50 years ago that present decision makers dictating ventilation system design failed to recognized, don't know about and won't look into because they are protecting their egos and turf. We can do better. We have got to do better. We desperately need our chemical industry in this country. It has to grow and expand. However, by the same token we must make the laboratories and other work place safer, especially via cost effective engineered solutions. In the meantime, I continued to be amazed by the reluctance of some employers to even consider changes that can only help, especially when we have a documented history and positive proof of enhancement? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:10:29 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Commercialism on the web -OR- web etiquette -OR-Vendor-engineering education -OR- attempts to help Comments: To: swiki@bihs.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I, for one, thank you for taking the time to pull all these articles together and point me in their direction. Air Quality issues are the single largest complaint type I deal with as a CHO. Profs may not realize they are working with a potentially explosive compound but they know they have a problem when the smell or recurrent sinusitis catches them by the nose. The thing is, we need air to live. Breathing is not an option. Our lungs and bodies are marvelous at protecting us from many hidden hazards in our every day lives, but they have limits. I am a firm believer in removing as many hazards in my life as I can. God knows there are enough out there that I do not know about and can not control. If working in a hood removes a few of these hazards, then you can bet I do. Further, I feel it my moral obligation to look out for those working with me, around me, and in labs that I have responsibility for. There is so much more to what we do than to simply look at the regs and the numbers. They are important tools in our evaluations and decision making, but not the only ones. I always ask myself, Is this the most PRUDENT way to do this? Would I do this task myself or allow someone I love to do it? Safety has to be PERSONAL. I think that can make us feel uncomfortable sometimes but we should not ignore it. Keep the info coming. Keep the commercials coming. Some of my easiest solutions to tough problems we found in the junk mail adds filling my snail mail box. For what its worth, Janeen. ***************** Janeen Lapierre, CHO College of Osteopathic Medicine University of New England 11 Hills Beach Road Biddeford, ME 04005 E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:04:28 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: James Kapin Subject: Lab Safety Employment Opportunity Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Colleagues, we will be accepting applications for the job below for the next three weeks. Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested. All application materials need to go to UCSD HR (not to me), complete info at Thanks, Jim 116270-Y EH&S SPECIALIST I Environment, Health and Safety Filing Deadline: 1/22/99 $41,900-$52,300/yr. 100% Career As a member of the Research Safety Team the incumbent will support the research community at UCSD and facilitate safe and healthy research activities. Evaluate health and safety hazards in laboratories and support facilities according to environmental, health and safety principles and legal requirements. Work with laboratory staff to correct deficiencies. Develop laboratory safety training for a variety of audiences, including faculty, staff, and students, and incumbent presents training in a variety of settings to individuals and groups. Develop written materials, policies, and procedures to support the laboratory safety program, contribute to the UCSD Laboratory Safety Guide, and to the UCSD Laboratory Safety Web page. Support other chemical safety and research safety programs including the UCSD Hazard Communication, carcinogen registration, controlled substances, and emergency response. Provide advice and consultation on chemical safety to non-lab facilities and assists the Campus Chemical Safety Officer on special projects. REQUIREMENTS: Demonstrated knowledge and experience in the identification and evaluation of health and safety hazards in research laboratories. Demonstrated knowledge of current legal requirements, guidelines, and prudent practices applying to health and safety issues. Applied knowledge of chemical toxicology and properties, and of the principles of chemical storage, use and disposal. Demonstrated experience in design and performance of effective laboratory surveys, and ability to evaluate the results of such surveys and communicate findings in an effective, positive manner. Communication skills necessary to impart health and safety information to workers of differing backgrounds. Skills and knowledge to organize, present, and evaluate classes, seminars, and training sessions on health and safety topics. Demonstrated ability to use word processing, spreadsheet, database and other software to analyze data and prepare professional documents and training materials, including web pages. Ability to organize and schedule tasks to complete projects effectively and efficiently. Demonstrated strong ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing. Knowledge in the selection and use of personal protective equipment including, but not limited to, respirators, gloves and protective clothing. Ability and willingness to respond to hazardous materials spills and incidents as part of the UCSD emergency response team. Ability to pass pulmonary function test, be fit-tested and wear an air purifying respirator and a self-contained breathing apparatus. Jim Kapin UCSD Chemical Safety Officer Mail Code 0920 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla CA 92093 (619)534-2823 fax (619)534-7982 mailto:jkapin@ucsd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:09:49 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Sharyn Bake Subject: Re: Lab Safety Employment Opportunity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Gary, here is a great job in a great location. The salary is not too bad. Check it out! Sharyn > ---------- > From: James Kapin > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 1999 10:04 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Lab Safety Employment Opportunity > > Colleagues, we will be accepting applications for the job below for the > next three weeks. Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested. > All application materials need to go to UCSD HR (not to me), complete info > at Thanks, Jim > > > 116270-Y > EH&S SPECIALIST I > Environment, Health and Safety > Filing Deadline: 1/22/99 > $41,900-$52,300/yr. > 100% Career > > As a member of the Research Safety Team the incumbent will support the > research community at UCSD and facilitate safe and healthy research > activities. Evaluate health and safety hazards in laboratories and support > facilities according to environmental, health and safety principles and > legal requirements. Work with laboratory staff to correct deficiencies. > Develop laboratory safety training for a variety of audiences, including > faculty, staff, and students, and incumbent presents training in a variety > of settings to individuals and groups. Develop written materials, > policies, > and procedures to support the laboratory safety program, contribute to > the > UCSD Laboratory Safety Guide, and to the UCSD Laboratory Safety Web page. > Support other chemical safety and research safety programs including the > UCSD Hazard Communication, carcinogen registration, controlled substances, > and emergency response. Provide advice and consultation on chemical safety > to non-lab facilities and assists the Campus Chemical Safety Officer on > special projects. > > REQUIREMENTS: Demonstrated knowledge and experience in the identification > and evaluation of health and safety hazards in research laboratories. > Demonstrated knowledge of current legal requirements, guidelines, and > prudent practices applying to health and safety issues. Applied knowledge > of chemical toxicology and properties, and of the principles of chemical > storage, use and disposal. Demonstrated experience in design and > performance of effective laboratory surveys, and ability to evaluate the > results of such surveys and communicate findings in an effective, positive > manner. Communication skills necessary to impart health and safety > information to workers of differing backgrounds. Skills and knowledge to > organize, present, and evaluate classes, seminars, and training sessions > on > health and safety topics. Demonstrated ability to use word processing, > spreadsheet, database and other software to analyze data and prepare > professional documents and training materials, including web pages. > Ability > to organize and schedule tasks to complete projects effectively and > efficiently. Demonstrated strong ability to communicate effectively, both > orally and in writing. Knowledge in the selection and use of personal > protective equipment including, but not limited to, respirators, gloves > and > protective clothing. Ability and willingness to respond to hazardous > materials spills and incidents as part of the UCSD emergency response > team. > Ability to pass pulmonary function test, be fit-tested and wear an air > purifying respirator and a self-contained breathing apparatus. > > > > > Jim Kapin > UCSD Chemical Safety Officer > Mail Code 0920 > 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla CA 92093 > (619)534-2823 fax (619)534-7982 > mailto:jkapin@ucsd.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:42:53 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Neal Langerman Subject: COMMERCIAL: Revised Web Site Comments: To: hs-canada@ccohs.ca, SAFETY@LIST.UVM.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have revised the web site for Advanced Chemical Safety and have published the 1999 training schedule. I have also posted new information on our regulatory compliance documents. Neal ************************************************************* NEAL LANGERMAN chemsaf@ix.netcom.com ADVANCED CHEMICAL SAFETY 8909 Complex Drive San Diego CA 92123-1418 619 874 5577 (phone) 619 874 8239 (FAX) 619 990 4908 (cellular) visit our homepage: http://www.chemical-safety.com ************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:09:01 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Scott M. Davis" Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi folks! We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage tank. It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. Besides the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite from improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from these units. Many Thanx, Scott Davis, CIH UNC Charlotte Safety Office ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:15:40 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd put a good strong chain link fence around it. You don't want someone to take some out some dark night and get injured. -----Original Message----- From: Scott M. Davis To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 16:10 Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Storage >Hi folks! >We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage tank. >It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. Besides >the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite from >improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from these >units. >Many Thanx, >Scott Davis, CIH >UNC Charlotte Safety Office > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:38:19 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mark Yanchisin Subject: Alternative for dichloro dimethyl silane MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Happy New Year to all!! Does anyone know of anything that could be used as an alternative for using dichloro dimethyl silane diluted with ETOH for use as a silicone coating for glassware? This glass is used for protein synthesis and gel work. Thanks!! Mark Yanchisin Coordinator for Clinical and Lab Safety Programs University of Florida Env. Health and Safety PO Box 112190 Gainesville, FL 32611-2190 352-846-2550 (T) 352-392-7386 (F) Mark@ehs.ufl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:49:27 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Peter Priniski Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Please consider the following. Not only do you need to consider ice build-up, but water condensation as well...possible slip hazard. Aslo, consider adiquate ventilation at the use points. Be aware that valves often can "freeze up" making it difficult to close when needed. Good luck. Pete > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott M. Davis [SMTP:smdavis@EMAIL.UNCC.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 15:09 > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Storage > > Hi folks! > We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage > tank. > It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. Besides > the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite > from > improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from these > units. > Many Thanx, > Scott Davis, CIH > UNC Charlotte Safety Office ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:07:52 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mark Smith Subject: Toxicity Data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Is anyone familiar with the explanation of why an LD50 for "Skin, Rabbit" would be lower than the "Oral, Rat"? Case in point below (2-cyclohexen-1-one) Is this common or unusual? LD50/LC50: CAS# 930-68-7: Inhalation, rat: LC50 =250 ppm/4H; Oral, rat: LD50 = 220 mg/kg; Skin, rabbit: LD50 = 70 mg/kg. ms *************************************** MARK SMITH HENDRIX COLLEGE CHEMISTRY LABORATORY COORDINATOR CHEMICAL HYGIENE OFFICER NRCC-CHO *************************************** 1600 Washington Ave Conway, AR 72032 501-450-3812 Fax : 501-450-3829 *************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:36:42 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: >Is anyone familiar with the explanation of why an LD50 for "Skin, >Rabbit" >would be lower than the "Oral, Rat"? Case in point below >(2-cyclohexen-1-one) >Is this common or unusual? Mark, I don't have a good answer to your question, but an interesting related reference. I wish I had a more recent edition, but in "The Toxic Substances List, 1973 Edition" by NIOSH, Table One is called "Limiting Dosages Differentiating Toxic and Non-Toxic Substances According to Route of Administration to Experimental Animals of a Maximum Single (Acute) Dose Causing Death". The rows in the table list different species. The columns list different routes of administration. The body of the table lists LD50 data. Oral rat data is common and many of us use 500 mg/kg and less to define toxicity, but what about, for instance, IPR-Qal (Intraperitoneal-Quail)? According to the chart, a substance is toxic if the IPR-Qal is less than or equal to 20,000 mg/kg. (P.S. the number they give for oral rat is 5,000 mg/kg, so I'd say these numbers are for "moderate toxicity") Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:48:37 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart" Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage In-Reply-To: <199901062109.PAA66224@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage tank. >It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. Besides >the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite from >improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from these >units. We have a go-round every once in a while with grad students and post docs who fill a small Dewar (the sort without handles) and carry it, open, through the hallway. Or up the passenger elevator. I recently saw a fellow with five large books in his left arm, a cup of coffee in his left hand, and a 1-litre Dewar in his right hand trying to open his lab door from the hallway side. He was holding the Dewar up high, some instinct saying to keep it out of the way I guess, while bending down and to the left to try to operate the door handle with a couple available left-hand fingers. I thought he was going to pour it into his right ear..... The party line on in-building transportation here is to -- use a Dewar with a handle or use a secondary carrier with handle -- have open-mouth Dewar corked (it's *not* a seal but it helps a bit against splashing) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:25:46 +1300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Tony Haggerty Subject: Re: Toxicity Data MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, Have a look at the units. Inhalation is ppm/4hr, whilst oral is mg/kg of body weight, something like daily over 14 days, so they are not really comparable. Also note that the inhalation dose is referred to as the LC 50 whereas the oral dose is the LD 50. Substances can also be of varying toxicity according to their route of entry. So a substance which is highly toxic by ingestion may be less so by absorption. Here is an interesting example I came across while checking victims of a Magnesium fire. The product of combustion is Magnesium Oxide, commonly given to infants as an antacid. i.e. virtually non toxic by ingestion so I was not unduly concerned until I read that on inhalation it is quite toxic and liable to induce a condition known as "Metal Fume Fever". When looking at toxicology you must compare like with like, then assess the most likely route of entry and then always remember what an epidemiologist here called the "Canaries of Society". i.e. Those people who are sensitive to minute amounts of a substance. This is often called an allergy but is in fact a toxic reaction. Hope this helps your understanding. Regards Tony ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:59:28 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mary Ann Solstad Subject: Re: Toxicity Data In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Not that unusual. Different routes and different species each have their little, or sometimes big, idiosyncrasies. Sometimes a mouse has keeled over dead, and a rat been unaffected. In one famous poisoning in the 30's people were partially paralyzed, calves and chickens had another reaction (they died I think) and your usual lab animal was unaffected. Public Health Service wrote an extensive monograph on it. Go figure. Dig it out--it's a good read. Starts with tri-ortho--. That's your only clue. Mary Ann At 04:07 AM 1/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >Is anyone familiar with the explanation of why an LD50 for "Skin, Rabbit" >would be lower than the "Oral, Rat"? Case in point below >(2-cyclohexen-1-one) >Is this common or unusual? > >LD50/LC50: > CAS# 930-68-7: Inhalation, rat: LC50 =250 ppm/4H; > Oral, rat: LD50 = 220 mg/kg; Skin, rabbit: LD50 = 70 mg/kg. > > > >*************************************** > MARK SMITH > HENDRIX COLLEGE CHEMISTRY > LABORATORY COORDINATOR > CHEMICAL HYGIENE OFFICER NRCC-CHO >*************************************** > 1600 Washington Ave > Conway, AR 72032 > 501-450-3812 > Fax : 501-450-3829 >*************************************** > 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 DivCHAS Chair, ACS msolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:06:41 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mary Ann Solstad Subject: Re: Toxicity Data In-Reply-To: <009901be39ed$6b2d0ee0$bfcffea9@j623hqv7a394> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just an aside. Metal fume fever is a self-limiting fever and aches that is usually over in 24 hours after exposure to fumes from welding galvanized iron. I asked the 3 welders at a firm I advise--they knew about it, but had never had it. Said they had never heard of it's being serious. Mary Ann > >Here is an interesting example I came across while checking victims of a >Magnesium fire. The product of combustion is Magnesium Oxide, commonly >given to infants as an antacid. i.e. virtually non toxic by ingestion so I >was not unduly concerned until I read that on inhalation it is quite toxic >and liable to induce a condition known as "Metal Fume Fever". > >When looking at toxicology you must compare like with like, then assess the >most likely route of entry and then always remember what an epidemiologist >here called the "Canaries of Society". i.e. Those people who are sensitive >to minute amounts of a substance. This is often called an allergy but is in >fact a toxic reaction. > >Hope this helps your understanding. >Regards >Tony > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:03:24 +1300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Peter Robinson Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BE3A70.67A88C80" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE3A70.67A88C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kia Ora All Other possible hazards to those already discussed. 1. Implosion of Dewars used to transport LN2 in-house. I have used a = couple of options - tape around the outside of the container to further = help contain any flying glass (when I was a student MANY years ago, we = used replacement Dewar inners, taped, with no outer cover to save money = - impressive when they implode, but we never had any cuts. T'wouldn't = be allowed nowadays) 2. If the bleed vent from the main cylinder should ice up, there could = be a pressure buildup. 3. I have also used small polystyrene containers to hold LN2. Cheap, = works OK though inside can become brittle. Loss of LN2 can be high. = May be safer than glass Dewars? I have not been able to find any classification for "Cryogenic Liquids" = in any of the hazard classification systems I have looked at (NZ, = Australia, US, Europe). I think a classification is needed, along with = appropriate signage, etc, and I made submissions to a recent Govt = commission in NZ about this - hasn't been acted on. Anyone got any thoughts on this - how can we get a classification put in = place? The stuff is certainly hazardous! We get liq Ar delivered by = tanker, and this does not have any signage which would be of use if it = was involved in a crash. Peter Robinson PhD FNZIC Environmental Division Manager Hill Laboratories, Private Bag 3205, Hamilton, NEW ZEALAND Phone: +64 7 858 2000 Fax: +64 7 858 2001 Email: peter@hill-labs.co.nz ---------- From: Scott M. Davis Sent: Thursday, 7 January 1999 10:09 am To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Hi folks! We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage = tank. It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. = Besides the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite = from improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from = these units. Many Thanx, Scott Davis, CIH UNC Charlotte Safety Office ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:56:21 +1300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Tony Haggerty Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Teina Katou Katoa Peter, I think it's the United Nations that classifies gases according to their states. i.e. Permanent, Liquified, Dissolved and Cryogenic and then classifies them for transportation as Flammable, Non-flammable and Toxic. I'm away from the office for a while but I will check when I get back. Haere Ra Tony ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:00:51 +1300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Tony Haggerty Subject: Metal Fume Fever MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Mary Ann All my information is text book but my original source was NIOSH which I recall as being quite cautious about it and I've just checked the OSHA site and it talks about lung damage. Perhaps your guys have been lucky or the worst is yet to come. I am of course referring to Magnesium Oxide as the cause. Other Oxides such as Zinc from galvanising may not be as bad. Cheers Tony ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:37:50 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >1. Implosion of Dewars used to transport LN2 in-house. I have used a couple of options - tape around the outside of the container to further help contain any flying glass (when I was a student MANY years ago, we used replacement Dewar inners, taped, with no outer cover to save money - impressive when they implode, but we never had any cuts. T'wouldn't be allowed nowadays) There are special Dewars available for storage and transportation of cryogenics in-house that are much more appropriate than the ones you are referring to; the Dewars come in sizes as small as 1 L and as large as 20 or 30 L. The glass containers are really only supposed to be used when the cryogenic is in use (such as to cool a cold trap). >3. I have also used small polystyrene containers to hold LN2. Cheap, works OK though inside can become brittle. Loss of LN2 can be high. May be safer than glass Dewars? I would think that polystyrene would get so brittle that any significant handling of the container would cause it to break. How small are the containers? We have replaced most of our glass dewars with metal ones. They do not implode and last much longer than the glass ones. They are available from Cole Parmer. (p.503 in 97-98 Catalog) Julie O'Brien Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:33:32 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Wes Kolar Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage In-Reply-To: <199901062109.PAA66224@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Nitrogen does not support respiration. LN2 should therefore be stored in a fairly well ventilated area. At 03:09 PM 1/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >Hi folks! >We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage tank. >It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. Besides >the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite from >improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from these >units. >Many Thanx, >Scott Davis, CIH >UNC Charlotte Safety Office > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Wes Kolar Environmental Safety Specialist University of Georgia Environmental Safety Services Athens, GA 30602 http://www.ps.uga.edu/ess/LaboratorySafetyOffice.html <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:03:50 -0600 Reply-To: "msturgeon@mriresearch.org" Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike Sturgeon Organization: MRI Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Is anyone familiar with the explanation of why an LD50 for "Skin, Rabbit" would be lower than the "Oral, Rat"? Case in point below (2-cyclohexen-1-one) Is this common or unusual? LD50/LC50: CAS# 930-68-7: Inhalation, rat: LC50 =250 ppm/4H; Oral, rat: LD50 = 220 mg/kg; Skin, rabbit: LD50 = 70 mg/kg. *************************************** MARK SMITH HENDRIX COLLEGE CHEMISTRY LABORATORY COORDINATOR CHEMICAL HYGIENE OFFICER NRCC-CHO *************************************** Mark- Your posting hit my server at 4 a.m. Hope this isn't keeping you up at night. Anyway, while I don't know why, if I were to speculate (which I will), my guess is that it has something to do with the effect of digestive fluids on the substance in question. Perhaps saliva/stomach acids/bile in some way alter the substance or prevent uptake into the bloodstream/target organ in a way that does not occur with skin contact. Just my guess before coffee on a cold snowy morning. Mike Sturgeon Safety Officer Midwest Research Institute ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:04:28 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ron Angus Subject: Toxicity data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The question of why toxicity varies by route of exposure and method of administration is as difficult as explaining why the data are different between mamalian species given the same route of exposure and method of administration. It helps to think in simple terms. Why is liquid water relatively non-toxic when injected into the skin but deadly when breathed? Part of the answer has to do with the body's protective mechanisms which operate within specific "closed" systems. For instance, exposure by skin may be slowed down by lipid layer impermeability so that the liver is not overwhelmed by the assault, however, breathing the same stuff may send it almost immediately into the blood stream where it knocks out the liver quickly. Most chemicals have different toxicity levels based on the route and method of delivery. That's why all those tests are conducted (wouldn't life be easy if the answers were all simple). The important thing to get out of the data is the relative data relationships. If the stuff is nasty by skin contact but not by breathing, gloves may solve the problem. If the relationship is the opposite, you probably need a respirator but not gloves. Or if you have two chemicals that will do the job and one has a LC/LD50 lower than the other, it becomes your default choice. For reading in this area I recommend highly the book by Dr. Alice Ottoboni, The Dose Makes the Poison, it is a plain language guide to toxicology which is very readible for the layperson. Ron Angus The University of Georgia ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:04:09 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As some have already alluded to, all species are not created equal. Even if you were comparing same routs of entry, the species may deal with the chemical differently on a metabolic level. Sometimes the metabolites of chemicals are the agents that cause adverse reactions, such as death, in the organism. I would say this case you give is very common. Good luck, Janeen. ***************** Janeen Lapierre, CHO College of Osteopathic Medicine University of New England 11 Hills Beach Road Biddeford, ME 04005 E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. >>> Mark Smith - 1/7/99 5:07 AM >>> Is anyone familiar with the explanation of why an LD50 for "Skin, Rabbit" would be lower than the "Oral, Rat"? Case in point below (2-cyclohexen-1-one) Is this common or unusual? LD50/LC50: CAS# 930-68-7: Inhalation, rat: LC50 =250 ppm/4H; Oral, rat: LD50 = 220 mg/kg; Skin, rabbit: LD50 = 70 mg/kg. ms *************************************** MARK SMITH HENDRIX COLLEGE CHEMISTRY LABORATORY COORDINATOR CHEMICAL HYGIENE OFFICER NRCC-CHO *************************************** 1600 Washington Ave Conway, AR 72032 501-450-3812 Fax : 501-450-3829 *************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:20:58 EDT Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jennifer Reader Organization: Environmental Health and Safety Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The tank will also require inspection by your pressure vessel inspector (ours is with the insurance company) and will require a certificate of approval (at least in Ontario). Jennifer Reader, 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@ehs.uoguelph.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:36:27 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Labsafe@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-06 22:36:07 EST, you write: << When looking at toxicology you must compare like with like, then assess the most likely route of entry and then always remember what an epidemiologist here called the "Canaries of Society". i.e. Those people who are sensitive to minute amounts of a substance. This is often called an allergy but is in fact a toxic reaction. >> Isn't there a significant different between an allergic reaction and a hypersensitive response? Jim Kaufman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:38:48 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Hiram Patterson Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Comments: To: Mary Ann Solstad MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mary Ann is referring to tri-ortho cresol phosphate (TOCP) which is (or was?) used in hydraulic fluid. I know the Navy at one time used hydraulic fluids containing it. I wonder if in this 30's incident that cooking oil was contaminated with it. Hiram Patterson Safety Manager Baylor College of Dentistry, Dallas ---------- From: Mary Ann Solstad [SMTP:msolstad@MEDIAONE.NET] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 11:59 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Not that unusual. Different routes and different species each have their little, or sometimes big, idiosyncrasies. Sometimes a mouse has keeled over dead, and a rat been unaffected. In one famous poisoning in the 30's people were partially paralyzed, calves and chickens had another reaction (they died I think) and your usual lab animal was unaffected. Public Health Service wrote an extensive monograph on it. Go figure. Dig it out--it's a good read. Starts with tri-ortho--. That's your only clue. Mary Ann At 04:07 AM 1/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >Is anyone familiar with the explanation of why an LD50 for "Skin, Rabbit" >would be lower than the "Oral, Rat"? Case in point below >(2-cyclohexen-1-one) >Is this common or unusual? > >LD50/LC50: > CAS# 930-68-7: Inhalation, rat: LC50 =250 ppm/4H; > Oral, rat: LD50 = 220 mg/kg; Skin, rabbit: LD50 = 70 mg/kg. > > > >*************************************** > MARK SMITH > HENDRIX COLLEGE CHEMISTRY > LABORATORY COORDINATOR > CHEMICAL HYGIENE OFFICER NRCC-CHO >*************************************** > 1600 Washington Ave > Conway, AR 72032 > 501-450-3812 > Fax : 501-450-3829 >*************************************** > 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 DivCHAS Chair, ACS msolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:47:38 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Greene, Ben" Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Scott - if you are having bulk LN2 delivered by a vendor, make sure they have the appropriate safety procedures for tanker to storage tank transfers and that delivery/transfers are properly coordinated. Control access to the area during transfers. Appropriate PPE, eye and face, skin, and foot protection should be used. There are a number of sources of gloves approved for cryogen handling. An oxygen meter with an audible alarm and a two person system (minimum) should be used. Be real careful when transfers are being performed when weather conditions impair visibility. Safety shower/eye wash, as recommended by your occupational physician should be close by; treatment of cryogenic burns is not trivial; rubbing can cause severe tissue damage. Have emergency procedures in place in case of cryogenic burns. Protect the storage unit from damage by vehicles with appropriate access controls, such as concrete posts. Make sure it is located such that, if a catostrophic failure occurs, people nearby would not be frozen or asphyxiated. As far as transfers from the tank, which typically involve smaller quantities of LN2, make sure you have detailed procedures for opening/closing valves and make this a buddy system operation where one person in suitable PPE can assist if the person making a transfer has problems. The risks involved here should never be underestimated. Some of the list members discussed dewar handling; I prefer the metal dewars; and never allow a dewar (or anything else you wouldn't want released) in an elevator or otherwise inadequately ventilated area where people are present. My opinion only. Ben Greene, Ph.D AlliedSignal Las Cruces, NM 88004 505-524-5761 > ---------- > From: Scott M. Davis[SMTP:smdavis@EMAIL.UNCC.EDU] > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 2:09 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Storage > > Hi folks! > We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage > tank. > It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. > Besides > the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite > from > improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from > these > units. > Many Thanx, > Scott Davis, CIH > UNC Charlotte Safety Office > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:30:38 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Dorian McMillan Subject: cyanide antidote kits MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Folks- I'm looking into the possibility of buying a cyanide antidote kit for a lab that will be using K cyanide. Any recommendations for vendors? Does anyone know if the antidote must be administered by medical personnel, or is it OK for non-medical personnel to give an antidote in an emergency situation? Thanks! Dorian McMillan, Lab Manager Department of Biology College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 McMillanD@CofC.edu 843-953-4847 *Opinions are my own, not my employer's* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:41:37 -0500 Reply-To: "Dr. Henry" Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Henry Boyter Jr." Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Call your local emergency room, they will have the answers. Dr. Henry Boyter, Jr. Ph.D. Chemist The opinions of Dr. Boyter are provided for informational purposes only and should not be used as advice. No warranty or expression of professionalism is implied. *************** -----Original Message----- From: Dorian McMillan To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: cyanide antidote kits Hi Folks- I'm looking into the possibility of buying a cyanide antidote kit for a lab that will be using K cyanide. Any recommendations for vendors? Does anyone know if the antidote must be administered by medical personnel, or is it OK for non-medical personnel to give an antidote in an emergency situation? Thanks! Dorian McMillan, Lab Manager Department of Biology College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 McMillanD@CofC.edu 843-953-4847 *Opinions are my own, not my employer's* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:52:27 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: Alternative for dichloro dimethyl silane Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Does anyone know of anything that could be used as an alternative for using >dichloro dimethyl silane diluted with ETOH for use as a silicone coating for >glassware? This glass is used for protein synthesis and gel work. Mark, When the students are "diluting" the chlorosilane with ethanol, a chemical reaction occurs. The Cl is replaced with OH groups. Lancaster Synthesis sells a silicon compound called Prosil 28 specifically for coating glassware in applications such as yours. It should do the trick without the use of a chlorosilane. Lancaster's phone # is 800-238-2324. (By the way, Prosil 28 is more expensive than going the chlorosilane route.) If this material can't work in your application, let me know because I have several other alternatives. Julie O'Brien Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:23:31 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ***************** Janeen Lapierre, CHO College of Osteopathic Medicine University of New England 11 Hills Beach Road Biddeford, ME 04005 E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. >>> - 1/7/99 9:36 AM >>> In a message dated 99-01-06 22:36:07 EST, you write: << When looking at toxicology you must compare like with like, then assess the most likely route of entry and then always remember what an epidemiologist here called the "Canaries of Society". i.e. Those people who are sensitive to minute amounts of a substance. This is often called an allergy but is in fact a toxic reaction. >> Isn't there a significant different between an allergic reaction and a hypersensitive response? Jim Kaufman The short answer is yes! Janeen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:11:14 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: Re: Toxicity Data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The slightly longer answer is; an allergic reaction, also known as a sensitization reaction requires prior exposure to the causal agent or a structurally similar substance. Subsequent exposure triggers an immune response. Allergic responses do not typically exhibit the dose-response curve seen with other toxic agents. A hypersensitivity, on the other hand, may be thought of as an example of the low end of the dose-response curve. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 11:23 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >***************** >Janeen Lapierre, CHO >College of Osteopathic Medicine >University of New England >11 Hills Beach Road >Biddeford, ME 04005 > >E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU >Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 >Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. > >>>> - 1/7/99 9:36 AM >>> >In a message dated 99-01-06 22:36:07 EST, you write: > ><< > When looking at toxicology you must compare like with like, then assess the > most likely route of entry and then always remember what an epidemiologist > here called the "Canaries of Society". i.e. Those people who are sensitive > to minute amounts of a substance. This is often called an allergy but is in > fact a toxic reaction. >> > >Isn't there a significant different between an allergic reaction and a >hypersensitive response? Jim Kaufman > >The short answer is yes! Janeen > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:43:41 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We offer amyl nitrite inhalants as an optional addition to the first aid kits in those labs using cyanides. First we checked with the emergency room of the hospital to verify that they were prepared to handle cases of cyanide intoxication. Next we got approval from campus medical personnel to use the amyl nitrite as a first aid measure. We get the inhalants through the hospital pharmacy. We include information on first aid for cyanide exposure in our departmental first aid and safety courses and provide a procedure card to be placed in the first aid kit with the inhalants. Two important items on the procedure card are -inform medical personnel of the intoxicating agent and -inform them that amyl nitrite treatment was used. Hope this is of help. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 10:30 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Folks- > >I'm looking into the possibility of buying a cyanide antidote kit for a lab >that will be using K cyanide. Any recommendations for vendors? Does >anyone know if the antidote must be administered by medical personnel, or >is it OK for non-medical personnel to give an antidote in an emergency >situation? > >Thanks! > >Dorian McMillan, Lab Manager >Department of Biology >College of Charleston >Charleston, SC 29424 >McMillanD@CofC.edu >843-953-4847 > >*Opinions are my own, not my employer's* > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:34:31 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain How much are amyl nitrate inhalants? One of the dangers listed on the MSDS for Acetonitrile is cyanide poisoning. Would it be prudent to have these inhalants where significant quantities of Acetonitrile are used? Do any other companies using Acetonitrile have these inhalants? Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Mike hinz [SMTP:mhinz@WSU.EDU] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 10:44 AM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits We offer amyl nitrite inhalants as an optional addition to the first aid kits in those labs using cyanides. First we checked with the emergency room of the hospital to verify that they were prepared to handle cases of cyanide intoxication. Next we got approval from campus medical personnel to use the amyl nitrite as a first aid measure. We get the inhalants through the hospital pharmacy. We include information on first aid for cyanide exposure in our departmental first aid and safety courses and provide a procedure card to be placed in the first aid kit with the inhalants. Two important items on the procedure card are -inform medical personnel of the intoxicating agent and -inform them that amyl nitrite treatment was used. Hope this is of help. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 10:30 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Folks- > >I'm looking into the possibility of buying a cyanide antidote kit for a lab >that will be using K cyanide. Any recommendations for vendors? Does >anyone know if the antidote must be administered by medical personnel, or >is it OK for non-medical personnel to give an antidote in an emergency >situation? > >Thanks! > >Dorian McMillan, Lab Manager >Department of Biology >College of Charleston >Charleston, SC 29424 >McMillanD@CofC.edu >843-953-4847 > >*Opinions are my own, not my employer's* > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:53 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain One of the hazards listed on the MSDS is the possibility of oxygen build up that can be ignited by a spark. Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Windows/ServerMail/Peter On Behalf Of Peter Robinson Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 11:03 PM To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' Subject: RE: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Kia Ora All Other possible hazards to those already discussed. 1. Implosion of Dewars used to transport LN2 in-house. I have used a couple of options - tape around the outside of the container to further help contain any flying glass (when I was a student MANY years ago, we used replacement Dewar inners, taped, with no outer cover to save money - impressive when they implode, but we never had any cuts. T'wouldn't be allowed nowadays) 2. If the bleed vent from the main cylinder should ice up, there could be a pressure buildup. 3. I have also used small polystyrene containers to hold LN2. Cheap, works OK though inside can become brittle. Loss of LN2 can be high. May be safer than glass Dewars? I have not been able to find any classification for "Cryogenic Liquids" in any of the hazard classification systems I have looked at (NZ, Australia, US, Europe). I think a classification is needed, along with appropriate signage, etc, and I made submissions to a recent Govt commission in NZ about this - hasn't been acted on. Anyone got any thoughts on this - how can we get a classification put in place? The stuff is certainly hazardous! We get liq Ar delivered by tanker, and this does not have any signage which would be of use if it was involved in a crash. Peter Robinson PhD FNZIC Environmental Division Manager Hill Laboratories, Private Bag 3205, Hamilton, NEW ZEALAND Phone: +64 7 858 2000 Fax: +64 7 858 2001 Email: peter@hill-labs.co.nz ---------- From: Scott M. Davis Sent: Thursday, 7 January 1999 10:09 am To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Hi folks! We are considering the installation of a liquid nitrogen bulk storage tank. It is my experience that these are quite common at Universities. Besides the obvious hazards associated with ice build-up, and severe frostbite from improper handling of LN2, is anyone aware of any unique hazards from these units. Many Thanx, Scott Davis, CIH UNC Charlotte Safety Office ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:22:18 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The inhalants cost us about 30 cents apiece. While it is possible to evolve HCN or CN- from acetonitrile, as in a fire or some other violent decomposition scenario, (the same could be said for burning plastics, for example), we have felt that the normal uses of ACN do not have near the risk of CN intoxication associated with other cyanides and have not routinely recommended the inhalants based on ACN use alone. Of course any lab with any concern over cyanide intoxication is more than welcome to stock the inhalants. We do not routinely stock the inhalants in all kits because amyl nitrite is quite toxic in its own right and, (we don't advertise this), has been known to be used to "get high" by various people lacking in good sense. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 11:34 AM 1/7/99 -0700, you wrote: >How much are amyl nitrate inhalants? One of the dangers listed on the MSDS >for Acetonitrile is cyanide poisoning. Would it be prudent to have these >inhalants where significant quantities of Acetonitrile are used? Do any >other companies using Acetonitrile have these inhalants? > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:08:46 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: >One of the hazards listed on the MSDS is the possibility of oxygen >build up >that can be ignited by a spark. Let's expand and clarify that comment some - - - - Flammability and Explosibility Oxygen itself is nonflammable, but at concentrations greater than 25% supports and vigorously accelerates the combustion of flammable materials. Some materials (including metals) that are noncombustible in air will burn in the presence of oxygen. Reactivity and Incompatibility Oxygen is incompatible with combustible materials, including many lubricants and elastomers. Oil, greases, and other readily combustible substances should never be allowed to come in contact with O cylinders, valves, regulators, and fittings. Contact of liquid oxygen with many organic substances can lead to an explosion. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:35:59 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Wight, Hugh" Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Unfortunately most MSDSs for acetonitrile are misleading in their omission of the hazards related to hepatic metabolism of acetonitrile and other aliphatic nitriles and aliphatic thiocyantes into free cyanide. Absorption of acetonitrile through the skin can cause a delayed cyanosis that may occur shortly after exposure of several hours later. The Department of Health and Human Services published a TSDR in November 1991 related to cyanide toxicity that directly addresses this hazard. Any group that routinely uses these substances should strongly consider having a cyanosis kit available (or their occupational health provider). Hugh Wight Manager of QA and Safety Officer Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Framingham, MA (508) 766-2733 hwight@aquilabio.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike hinz [SMTP:mhinz@WSU.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:22 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits > > The inhalants cost us about 30 cents apiece. > > While it is possible to evolve HCN or CN- from acetonitrile, as in a > fire or > some other violent decomposition scenario, (the same could be said for > burning plastics, for example), we have felt that the normal uses of > ACN do > not have near the risk of CN intoxication associated with other > cyanides > and have not routinely recommended the inhalants based on ACN use > alone. Of > course any lab with any concern over cyanide intoxication is more than > welcome to stock the inhalants. We do not routinely stock the > inhalants in > all kits because amyl nitrite is quite toxic in its own right and, (we > don't > advertise this), has been known to be used to "get high" by various > people > lacking in good sense. > > Mike Hinz > Chemistry Dept. > Washington State University > > At 11:34 AM 1/7/99 -0700, you wrote: > >How much are amyl nitrate inhalants? One of the dangers listed on > the MSDS > >for Acetonitrile is cyanide poisoning. Would it be prudent to have > these > >inhalants where significant quantities of Acetonitrile are used? Do > any > >other companies using Acetonitrile have these inhalants? > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:52:22 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit WE had them handy when we handled HCN, but I've never heard of them for acetonitrile. I'd check with your medical consultant. -----Original Message----- From: Helen B. Gerhard To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 13:39 Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits >How much are amyl nitrate inhalants? One of the dangers listed on the MSDS >for Acetonitrile is cyanide poisoning. Would it be prudent to have these >inhalants where significant quantities of Acetonitrile are used? Do any >other companies using Acetonitrile have these inhalants? > >Thanks! > >Helen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike hinz [SMTP:mhinz@WSU.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 10:44 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits > > We offer amyl nitrite inhalants as an optional addition to the first >aid > kits in those labs using cyanides. > > First we checked with the emergency room of the hospital to verify >that they > were prepared to handle cases of cyanide intoxication. > > Next we got approval from campus medical personnel to use the amyl >nitrite > as a first aid measure. > > We get the inhalants through the hospital pharmacy. > > We include information on first aid for cyanide exposure in our >departmental > first aid and safety courses and provide a procedure card to be >placed in > the first aid kit with the inhalants. Two important items on the >procedure > card are -inform medical personnel of the intoxicating agent and >-inform > them that amyl nitrite treatment was used. > > Hope this is of help. > > Mike Hinz > Chemistry Dept. > Washington State University > > At 10:30 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Hi Folks- > > > >I'm looking into the possibility of buying a cyanide antidote kit >for a lab > >that will be using K cyanide. Any recommendations for vendors? >Does > >anyone know if the antidote must be administered by medical >personnel, or > >is it OK for non-medical personnel to give an antidote in an >emergency > >situation? > > > >Thanks! > > > >Dorian McMillan, Lab Manager > >Department of Biology > >College of Charleston > >Charleston, SC 29424 > >McMillanD@CofC.edu > >843-953-4847 > > > >*Opinions are my own, not my employer's* > > > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:54:08 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Right! Wasn't there something about using them for better sex? -----Original Message----- From: Mike hinz To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 14:23 Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits >The inhalants cost us about 30 cents apiece. > >While it is possible to evolve HCN or CN- from acetonitrile, as in a fire or >some other violent decomposition scenario, (the same could be said for >burning plastics, for example), we have felt that the normal uses of ACN do >not have near the risk of CN intoxication associated with other cyanides >and have not routinely recommended the inhalants based on ACN use alone. Of >course any lab with any concern over cyanide intoxication is more than >welcome to stock the inhalants. We do not routinely stock the inhalants in >all kits because amyl nitrite is quite toxic in its own right and, (we don't >advertise this), has been known to be used to "get high" by various people >lacking in good sense. > >Mike Hinz >Chemistry Dept. >Washington State University > > At 11:34 AM 1/7/99 -0700, you wrote: >>How much are amyl nitrate inhalants? One of the dangers listed on the MSDS >>for Acetonitrile is cyanide poisoning. Would it be prudent to have these >>inhalants where significant quantities of Acetonitrile are used? Do any >>other companies using Acetonitrile have these inhalants? >> > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:56:10 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And the O2 builds up in liq. N2 because the air condenses and N2 evaporates, leading to high O2? -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Robertson To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 15:10 Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage >LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: >>One of the hazards listed on the MSDS is the possibility of oxygen >>build up >>that can be ignited by a spark. > >Let's expand and clarify that comment some - - - - > > >Flammability and Explosibility > > Oxygen itself is nonflammable, but at concentrations > greater than 25% supports and vigorously accelerates the > combustion of flammable materials. Some materials >(including > metals) that are noncombustible in air will burn in the >presence > of oxygen. > > Reactivity and Incompatibility > > Oxygen is incompatible with combustible materials, > including many lubricants and elastomers. Oil, greases, and > other readily combustible substances should never be >allowed > to come in contact with O cylinders, valves, regulators, >and > fittings. Contact of liquid oxygen with many organic >substances > can lead to an explosion. > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:57:53 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd refer to the health provider. A CHO certificate does Not authorize us to practice medicine. -----Original Message----- From: Wight, Hugh To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 15:38 Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits >Unfortunately most MSDSs for acetonitrile are misleading in their >omission of the hazards related to hepatic metabolism of acetonitrile >and other aliphatic nitriles and aliphatic thiocyantes into free >cyanide. Absorption of acetonitrile through the skin can cause a >delayed cyanosis that may occur shortly after exposure of several hours >later. The Department of Health and Human Services published a TSDR in >November 1991 related to cyanide toxicity that directly addresses this >hazard. > >Any group that routinely uses these substances should strongly consider >having a cyanosis kit available (or their occupational health provider). > >Hugh Wight >Manager of QA and Safety Officer >Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. >Framingham, MA >(508) 766-2733 >hwight@aquilabio.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike hinz [SMTP:mhinz@WSU.EDU] >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:22 PM >> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU >> Subject: Re: cyanide antidote kits >> >> The inhalants cost us about 30 cents apiece. >> >> While it is possible to evolve HCN or CN- from acetonitrile, as in a >> fire or >> some other violent decomposition scenario, (the same could be said for >> burning plastics, for example), we have felt that the normal uses of >> ACN do >> not have near the risk of CN intoxication associated with other >> cyanides >> and have not routinely recommended the inhalants based on ACN use >> alone. Of >> course any lab with any concern over cyanide intoxication is more than >> welcome to stock the inhalants. We do not routinely stock the >> inhalants in >> all kits because amyl nitrite is quite toxic in its own right and, (we >> don't >> advertise this), has been known to be used to "get high" by various >> people >> lacking in good sense. >> >> Mike Hinz >> Chemistry Dept. >> Washington State University >> >> At 11:34 AM 1/7/99 -0700, you wrote: >> >How much are amyl nitrate inhalants? One of the dangers listed on >> the MSDS >> >for Acetonitrile is cyanide poisoning. Would it be prudent to have >> these >> >inhalants where significant quantities of Acetonitrile are used? Do >> any >> >other companies using Acetonitrile have these inhalants? >> > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:03:26 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Don Abramowitz Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>One of the hazards listed on the MSDS is the possibility of oxygen >>build up that can be ignited by a spark... A mechanism I know of for oxygen build-up is the condensation of oxygen from the air to liquid form in the presence of the big chill from the nitrogen. It's a worry with liquid nitrogen-filled cold traps used to capture solvents from vacuum lines and the like. Can get an interesting mix of solvent and oxygen that way. Does anyone know of any other context where oxygen build-up occurs with liquid nitrogen, or for that matter, of a way to prevent the formation of liquid oxygen in the above traps? thanks, 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 Telephone: (610) 526-5166 | (610) 328-8564 Fax: (610) 526-7499 | (610) 328-7837 e-mail: dabramo1@swarthmore.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:30:56 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: Re: Liquid Nitrogen Storage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Because oxygen condenses at a higher temperature than nitrogen one can selectively pull oxygen out of the air. LOX has been found to drip off of pipes used to transport LN2 so, for example, LOX may drip onto asphalt on a hot day placing a lot of oxidizer next to a fuel. The key to using cold traps is to use dry ice/acetone or whatever as long as you stay above the condensation temp for O2. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 04:03 PM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>One of the hazards listed on the MSDS is the possibility of oxygen >>>build up that can be ignited by a spark... > >A mechanism I know of for oxygen build-up is the condensation of oxygen >from the air to liquid form in the presence of the big chill from the >nitrogen. It's a worry with liquid nit