2025 was a big year for laboratory safety standards. New regulations and guidelines from organizations like OSHA, ANSI, EPA, and NFPA are reshaping how labs manage hazards. In this overview, we’ll highlight the biggest safety changes of 2025, how they affect lab operations, and what to expect as we head into 2026. Whether you work at a university bench, an R&D lab, or in EH&S support, these updates are worth your attention.

Overhauled Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom)

One of the most significant developments is OSHA’s update to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). In May 2024 OSHA announced a final rule aligning HazCom with the latest Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (7th revision)[1]. This rule took effect in July 2024, and 2025 has been a transition year for laboratories to adapt. The goal is to improve the clarity and quality of chemical hazard information provided to workers:

• Better Labels and SDSs: Chemical manufacturers must provide more comprehensive labels (even on small containers) and more detailed Safety Data Sheets (SDS)[2][3]. Precautionary statements, hazard pictograms, and disposal instructions have been updated to be clearer and more globally consistent. Trade-secret rules were also tweaked so that critical hazard info can’t be withheld even if an ingredient is proprietary[4]. For lab staff, this means the chemical bottles and SDSs you receive should be easier to read and act on in an emergency.
• New Hazard Categories: The updated HazCom incorporates new physical hazard classes from GHS Rev. 7. For example, “Chemicals Under Pressure,” “Desensitized Explosives,” and updated aerosol and gas categories have been added[3]. These finer classifications help labs and chemical suppliers communicate risks more accurately (e.g. distinguishing a pyrophoric gas vs. a simple flammable gas). If your lab works with pressurized reagents or aerosolized chemicals, expect new label wording reflecting those specific hazards.
• SDS Includes Use Hazards: A key change for laboratories is that manufacturers now must consider hazards that arise when a product is used as intended, not just the hazards of the product as packaged. OSHA found that some two-part materials (like epoxies or resin kits) and reagents that undergo chemical reactions during normal use weren’t warning users about the reaction by-products[5][6]. For instance, if Part A and Part B of a kit together produce a toxic gas or if a chemical generates formaldehyde when heated, those “downstream use” hazards must now be documented in the SDS[7][8]. The label on the container will still list the hazards of the as-supplied chemical, but Section 2 of the SDS should inform you of any dangers from known reactions or changes in physical form during normal use. In practice, lab personnel should start seeing more detailed SDS warnings (e.g. “Mixing this component with Part B will release X gas – use in a fume hood”) and must take those precautions seriously.
• Training and Timeline: OSHA has given employers and suppliers some breathing room to comply. Chemical manufacturers have until Jan 19, 2026 to re-classify pure substances and update labels/SDS, and until mid-2027 for mixtures[9][10]. Laboratories as end-users then have until July 2026 (for substances) to update their own workplace labeling and train employees on the new system[11]. This staged timeline means you might receive revised SDS throughout 2025–2027. By late 2025, many labs are already receiving updated SDSs from vendors, so lab managers should ensure their HazCom training materials are refreshed to explain any new pictograms or hazard categories. Come 2026, OSHA expects labs to have trained their staff on these changes and to maintain the new SDSs on file[12].

Bottom line: The HazCom 2025 update brings U.S. labs in line with global chemical communication practices. It should make it easier for anyone in a lab to recognize hazards quickly and respond safely, whether the chemical came from a US supplier or abroad. Take the time to familiarize yourself with any new labels and SDS sections – they’re designed to be more user-friendly and informative[3].

Crackdown on Hazardous Chemicals – Methylene Chloride Ban

Chemical safety isn’t just about communication – it’s also about eliminating or controlling the most dangerous substances. Methylene chloride (DCM), a common lab solvent (also known as dichloromethane), came under intense regulatory scrutiny in 2025. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule under TSCA effectively banning most uses of methylene chloride due to its health risks[13][14].

• Broad Prohibition: The EPA’s rule (finalized April 2024) prohibits all consumer uses of DCM and most commercial/industrial uses[14]. This builds on a 2019 ban of DCM in consumer paint strippers. In short, by 2025 it is no longer legal to sell or use methylene chloride in products like adhesives, cleaners, or paint removers that consumers or many industry workers might use[15]. Safer alternatives are generally available for these purposes, and EPA expects most prohibited uses to be fully phased out within 2 years[16] – roughly by 2026.
• Lab Use Exceptions – with Strings Attached: Recognizing that DCM is a staple solvent in many research labs (prized for its volatility and extraction prowess), EPA carved out an exception to allow its use as a “laboratory chemical.” However, labs don’t get a free pass – they must adhere to a strict Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) to continue using DCM[13][17]. This includes measures like exposure monitoring, engineering controls, and enhanced PPE to ensure lab worker exposure stays below new EPA limits. EPA initially gave labs about a year (into 2025) to implement these measures[18][19]. In fact, labs were expected to complete initial air monitoring for DCM by May 2025 and implement exposure controls by October 2025[20][21].
• Extra Time for Compliance: If this sounds fast, you’re not alone – many universities and companies raised concerns about the short timeline and practical challenges[22][23]. Responding to feedback, EPA extended the lab compliance deadlines by 18 months in late 2025[24][25]. This extension (aligning non-federal labs with federal labs’ timeline) pushes full WCPP implementation into 2026–2027. The reprieve is meant to give labs more time to budget for fume hood upgrades, air monitoring equipment, staff training, or to phase out DCM entirely. In fact, many smaller colleges have decided it’s easier to discontinue use of methylene chloride rather than meet the costly monitoring and ventilation requirements.
• What Lab Staff Should Do: If your lab still uses methylene chloride, expect changes. EH&S departments are likely to restrict DCM usage to certain areas or require special approvals. You may be asked to use alternative solvents (e.g. ethyl acetate or diethyl carbonate) whenever possible. If DCM use continues, additional PPE (possibly supplied air respirators or continuous CO₂ monitoring badges) could be mandated to ensure exposures never exceed the new EPA limits[19][26]. Labs also must establish “regulated areas” and written exposure control plans for DCM work[27]. All of this represents a cultural shift – dichloromethane, once a lab workhorse, is now treated as a highly regulated toxin akin to formaldehyde or benzene. Lab personnel should be prepared for more paperwork and oversight around any procedure involving DCM.

Looking forward: Methylene chloride is just the first of several chemicals being re-evaluated by EPA for safety. Other solvents and reagents (such as trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, or certain ethers) could face similar restrictions in coming years if deemed an “unreasonable risk.” The lesson from 2025 is clear: labs should actively seek safer substitutes and minimize use of the most hazardous chemicals before regulations force the issue. A proactive chemical substitution plan not only keeps you ahead of compliance, it better protects your health and the environment.

New PPE Standards – Better Eye and Face Protection (and More)

Keeping laboratory personnel safe isn’t just about controlling the chemicals; it’s also about personal protective equipment (PPE). In 2025, new standards from ANSI/ISEA have emerged to guide PPE improvements. These aren’t government regulations, but they influence what products are on the market and what safety officers recommend. Two notable updates affect labs:

• Biological Splash Hazard – New Eye/Face Protection Standard: One timely development is ANSI/ISEA Z87.62, first approved in late 2021 but gaining traction by 2025. This is the first consensus standard specifically for eye and face protection against biological hazards like bloodborne pathogens[28]. Why does this matter for labs? Think of biomedical research labs, clinical labs, or any setting where you work with human blood, infectious agents, or animal fluids – standard safety glasses weren’t designed to guarantee protection from a sudden splash or squirt of infectious material. Z87.62 changes that by defining tests and criteria for goggles, face shields, and other protectors to prevent spray or spurt of liquids from reaching the eyes, nose, or mouth[29].
• Is ANSI/ISEA Z87.62 actually being used by manufacturers—and what does it mean for the future of PPE? Increasingly, yes—and that’s good news for anyone doing biological or clinical work where eye and face exposure risk is real. While Z87.62 is newer than long-established impact standards like ANSI Z87.1, manufacturers are beginning to use it as a clear differentiator for PPE designed to reduce exposure from biological sprays and spurts, and labs can expect to see more sealed goggles, face shields, and combination systems marketed specifically for this purpose. The practical value is that Z87.62 helps labs match protection specific and proportionate to the hazard: for many tasks, the best choice will be eye/face protection that is dual-marked Z87.1 + Z87.62, because Z87.62 focuses on biological fluid protection and does not include impact resistance requirements on its own [32]. The key is to verify claims before purchasing—look for clear documentation of Z87.62 conformance (not just “splash resistant”) and consider writing it into procurement language for clinical, animal, and high-splash biosafety work. As adoption grows, the standard also encourages innovation beyond traditional PPE: it opens the door for head-worn magnifiers, wearable scopes/loupes, and task lights to be designed with splash pathways, fit, and compatibility in mind—so users don’t have to “make it work” by layering PPE in ways that create gaps or reduce comfort. Over time, lab personnel should have more options, clearer performance claims, and better alignment between PPE selection and real exposures at the bench—exactly what a modern safety program should aim for. As one standards committee member noted when Z87.62 was introduced, employers now have an appropriate performance standard to reference when selecting eye and face protection to prevent exposure from infectious sprays [33].

• Uniform Glove Ratings – ANSI/ISEA 105-2024: Another quiet but useful change in 2025 is an update to the hand protection standard ANSI/ISEA 105 (released at end of 2024). This standard covers cut resistance, puncture resistance, and chemical resistance ratings for gloves. The big change is in how glove performance info is labeled for the user. Manufacturers are now encouraged to use a new pictogram “badge” label – a little pentagon icon with standardized numeric ratings for a glove’s cut, abrasion, and puncture resistance[34]. In the past, each manufacturer might use their own icons or scales, which made it confusing for labs to compare gloves. With ANSI/ISEA 105-2024, if a glove meets the standard, you’ll see uniform ratings (like Cut Level A3, Abrasion Level 2, etc.) in a consistent format on the packaging or even printed on the glove[35][36]. For laboratory personnel, this means easier selection of the right gloves – you can quickly identify if a glove will hold up against sharp objects or glass (cut level) or if it’s just basic lab cotton. While this standard also covers chemical resistance testing, do note that chemical breakthrough times are still usually found in the manufacturer’s documentation. The key improvement is that across brands, the protection levels are communicated in the same way. As you stock up your lab’s PPE supply, keep an eye out for the new ANSI/ISEA 105 labeling. It should reduce the guesswork when matching gloves to hazards, complementing OSHA’s requirement that employers select appropriate hand protection for their workers[37].

Fire Safety Emphasis and NFPA 45 Updates

Chemical handling isn’t the only risk in laboratories – fire safety is a perennial concern. The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 45, Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals, received a noteworthy update in its 2024 edition (published early 2024, with enforcement and adoption picking up in 2025). NFPA 45 isn’t law, but it’s often referenced by fire codes, insurance inspectors, and EH&S policies to ensure labs are designed and operated safely.

• Expanded Scope: The latest NFPA 45 (2024 edition) explicitly expanded its scope to cover healthcare laboratories in addition to academic and industrial labs[38]. This reflects a trend of hospital and clinical labs coming under similar safety expectations as traditional chemical labs. If you work in a clinical or pharma lab in a healthcare facility, don’t be surprised if your facility managers now apply NFPA 45 requirements to your area.
• Key Fire Safety Requirements: NFPA 45 provides comprehensive guidelines on everything from lab design to emergency planning. Some core elements that labs need to heed include: lab hazard classification, limits on flammable chemical quantities per lab (based on that classification), proper chemical storage requirements, and required fire protection systems (like sprinklers, extinguishers, alarms)[39][40]. The 2024 update brought stricter rules for chemical storage and handling – for example, it reiterates that flammables should not be stored in fume hoods (they belong in safety cabinets) and sets a 5-gallon limit for individual containers of hazardous liquids in labs[41]. It also clarified ventilation requirements (like keeping fume hood sashes closed when not attended) and introduced considerations for newer lab equipment (such as managing “stored energy” in devices so that even idle equipment isn’t a fire hazard)[42][43].
• Why It Matters: For lab personnel, many of these practices might sound like common sense or existing policy – but the NFPA standards give them teeth. Fire marshals or safety officers may conduct more rigorous lab inspections citing the updated NFPA 45. In 2025 there has been an uptick in awareness campaigns about lab fire incidents. The NFPA highlighted rising fire incidents in laboratory settings, partly attributing them to lack of training and risk assessment[44][45]. So you can expect renewed emphasis on things like not storing excess solvent bottles on the bench, segregating incompatible chemicals, maintaining clear egress routes, and doing regular fire drills. If your lab hasn’t reviewed its fire safety plan recently, now is the time. And if you’re in a healthcare lab setting, be prepared for some “new” rules as NFPA 45’s latest edition gets adopted – possibly limits on total alcohol volume in your lab, mandatory self-closing doors, or additional exhaust requirements, depending on your facility.

Ventilation: shifting from “fixed ACH” to risk-based airflow. One of the most important lab operations trends carrying through 2025 and into 2026 is the growing acceptance that air changes per hour (ACH) should be determined by hazard and risk—not by a one-size-fits-all number. More labs are using a Laboratory Ventilation Management Plan (aligned with AIHA/ANSI Z9 concepts) to document hazards, identify which processes truly need higher exhaust flow, and then apply risk-based or demand-controlled ventilation where it’s appropriate (and validated). This approach supports both safety and sustainability: it keeps high airflow where chemical, biological, or fire risk demands it, while avoiding unnecessary “always-on” overventilation in low-hazard spaces. This risk-based approach also fits well with NFPA 45’s focus on hazard evaluation, lab hazard classification, and engineered controls—including ventilation—as part of the overall fire and life safety strategy. In practice, expect more questions from EH&S and facilities teams about your processes (heat, flammables, toxics, aerosols), because ventilation setpoints increasingly depend on what you actually do at the bench.

In short, 2025 put a spotlight on lab fire safety. The combination of updated standards and heightened enforcement means labs should double-check their compliance with basics: are your flammable cabinets adequate? Exits unobstructed? Everyone know what to do if a fire starts in that solvent cabinet or during a battery experiment? A safe lab is not just about chemicals themselves but also how we store and work with them day-to-day.

Looking Ahead to 2026

With 2025’s flurry of changes, what’s on the horizon for 2026 in lab safety? We foresee a continuation of these trends:

• Completion of HazCom Transition: By the end of 2025 and into 2026, most chemical suppliers will have sent out updated GHS-aligned SDS and labels. OSHA’s key compliance deadline is mid-2026 for employers to train staff and update workplace labeling for pure substances[9][12]. This means that in 2026, lab workers should finally see a fully consistent hazard communication system. In early 2025 you might have been juggling old and new SDS formats; by 2026 that confusion should subside. Continue to watch for mixture classification changes through 2027 (since mixtures have a longer phase-in). For example, a multi-component reagent kit might be re-labeled with new hazard info in 2026–27 that wasn’t previously obvious.
• Full Enforcement of the Methylene Chloride Rule: The EPA’s methylene chloride rule will move from the planning phase to reality. Most uses of DCM will be completely phased out by 2026[16], and labs that qualify for the exception must have their Workplace Chemical Protection Programs fully in place by then. By 2026, expect regulators (or funding agencies, or internal auditors) to ask pointed questions if your lab is still using dichloromethane. The extra time EPA granted will run out by 2027, so 2026 is effectively the last chance to get compliant. Labs should use this time to train personnel on the new exposure monitoring protocols or, better yet, eliminate routine DCM use. We might also see EPA targeting another commonly used lab solvent for risk management – perchloroethylene (used in some histology labs) or ethylene oxide (for sterilization) are possibilities being watched.
• New and Emerging Standards: The PPE landscape will continue evolving. ANSI Z87.1 (Eye and Face Protection) saw a 2020 update and a 2025 edition has been published[46], so keep an eye out (no pun intended) for any tweaks it might introduce – e.g. updated testing for anti-fog coatings or face shield coverage. Internationally, ISO and other bodies are also active; for instance, ISO committees are discussing lab ergonomics and safety requirements for automated lab equipment – which could yield new guidelines to prevent repetitive strain or accidents with robots. While these might not hit in 2026, labs with advanced automation should stay tuned to emerging best practices.
• Global Harmonization and Chemical Safety: Outside the U.S., major changes can foreshadow what might eventually happen here. For example, the EU implemented new hazard classes in 2023 for chemicals – covering things like endocrine disruptors and very persistent pollutants – with compliance dates in 2025–2026[47][48]. These are not yet part of the UN GHS model, but Europe’s move (adding categories for endocrine disruption, PBT/vPvB, etc.) signals a growing concern for hazards not captured by traditional toxicity and flammability categories. By 2026, European chemical suppliers will label chemicals with new warnings (e.g. “EUH380: May cause endocrine disruption in humans” for Category 1 endocrine disruptors)[49][50]. While the US OSHA has no immediate plans to adopt those specific categories, American labs importing reagents from Europe might start seeing some unfamiliar phrases on EU SDSs. Furthermore, Canada aligned its WHMIS regulations with GHS Rev. 7 & 8 as of late 2025[51], right in step with OSHA’s update. All of this means the world is moving toward more unified and comprehensive chemical safety info. Lab professionals, especially those collaborating internationally, will benefit from this consistency. And who knows – by late 2026 we might hear whispers of OSHA considering the next HazCom alignment (perhaps to GHS Rev. 9 or 10) to keep up.

What Leading Organizations Are Saying About 2026

If there’s one clear message coming from leading safety and standards organizations, it’s that 2026 will be about “smarter safety”—verified controls, better decision-making, and stronger alignment between safety, sustainability, and research productivity. NFPA continues to emphasize that laboratories need consistent hazard evaluation, strong training and preparedness, and engineered controls that support safe work—not just during emergencies, but day-to-day. That message is increasingly global: labs across sectors are being encouraged to align around consistent safety practices and shared standards, because safety outcomes improve when the whole system supports safe work (design, maintenance, training, procedures, and supervision) [54][38]. At the same time, ASHRAE and the broader ventilation community are reinforcing that ventilation should be risk-based and performance-managed, not simply set by fixed air change targets. In 2025, ASHRAE’s addendum to Standard 170 explicitly supported hazard-assessment-driven air change rates and the use of demand-controlled approaches when supported by an effective ventilation management plan. This aligns with what many labs are already experiencing: as 2030 energy and carbon reduction goals loom, ventilation decisions are increasingly being evaluated through both a worker health and sustainability lens. In parallel, ANSI/ISEA standards continue to shape the PPE market—particularly for eye/face protection and hand protection—meaning labs should expect clearer performance claims, improved product design, and ultimately better PPE choices that match real exposures and tasks [29][34]. 

Bottom Line for 2026: Better Safety Systems, Not Just Better Rules

As labs face increasing research demands, faster timelines, and pressure to reduce energy use and carbon footprint, the most successful programs will be the ones that take a complete, modern approach—one that aligns policy, practice, and people. That means policies that reflect current hazards and standards, practical procedures that match real work at the bench, and training/support systems that help people consistently do the right thing—even under time pressure. In 2026, labs should expect more emphasis on verified controls (ventilation performance, hood practices, chemical storage, exposure control planning), a stronger push toward substitution and safer alternatives (especially for high-risk solvents), and more intentional use of data and technology to support safety decisions. With demand-controlled and risk-based ventilation gaining broader acceptance, labs will increasingly be asked to show that decisions are based on hazard assessment, performance monitoring, and clear documentation—not just tradition or rules of thumb [54]. The best way to keep pace is to build a culture that treats safety as an essential skill: invest in training support, lean on trusted technical resources, and create communities of learning across departments and institutions so researchers and staff can share solutions, stay current on evolving standards, and keep safety practices strong as science advances. In short: 2026 isn’t about slowing research down—it’s about building safer systems that let research move faster, with fewer incidents and healthier outcomes. [54][38].

References:

• OSHA (2024). Department of Labor announces final rule updating the Hazard Communication Standard to better protect workers, first responders. Press Release, May 20, 2024[52][3]. (Describing alignment with GHS Rev. 7 and improvements to labels and SDS information.)
• OSHA (2024). Hazard Communication Standard; Final Rule. 89 FR 44144 (July 2024)[5][8]. (HazCom revision requiring classification of hazards from intended product uses and reaction products, with those hazards to be included in the SDS Section 2.)
• OSHA (2024). Hazard Communication Standard; Final Rule. 29 CFR 1910.1200 (j) – Effective dates and transition[9][10]. (Compliance timeline for HazCom 2025: substance classifications by Jan 2026, mixtures by 2027; employee training updates by mid-2026 for substances.)
• EPA (2025). Risk Management for Methylene Chloride – Managing Risks from Methylene Chloride. EPA official site[14][17]. (Overview of EPA’s 2024 methylene chloride risk management rule: banning consumer and most commercial uses, and requiring workplace chemical protection programs for remaining uses like laboratory chemicals.)
• EPA (2025). Risk Management for Methylene Chloride. EPA official site[16][53]. (Details on timeline: most prohibited uses phased out within 2 years; labs and other allowed uses have 18 months from the final rule to comply with workplace protections, including exposure monitoring.)
• C&EN – Vasquez, K. (July 12, 2024). “What does the new EPA methylene chloride rule mean for academic labs?” Chemical & Engineering News[13][19]. (Noting EPA’s April 2024 rule prohibiting nearly all methylene chloride uses, with lab use exempted if stringent safety measures (WCPP) are in place; compliance deadlines in 2025 for monitoring, PPE, regulated areas, etc.)
• ISEA (2021). Eye Protection Product Group Releases New Standard to Address Spray, Spurt of Biological Hazards. Press Release, July 29, 2021[28][33]. (Announcement of ANSI/ISEA Z87.62-2021, the first standard for eye and face protection against spray/spurt of blood or body fluids, and its benefit in guiding PPE selection for biohazard protection.)
• ISEA (2024). ISEA Announces Updated ANSI/ISEA 105 Hand Protection Standard. Press Release, Nov 21, 2024[34][36]. (Describing the new uniform pictogram labeling for glove protection levels in ANSI/ISEA 105-2024, which helps users readily identify abrasion, cut, and puncture resistance ratings.)
• NFPA (2025). NFPA discusses laboratories and their fire safety challenges. Fire & Safety Journal Americas, Feb 12, 2025[54][40]. (NFPA 45 2024 edition noted as available; key elements of lab fire safety covered by NFPA 45, such as lab classifications, design/construction features, fire suppression, chemical storage, emergency planning, and training.)
• European Commission (2023). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/707 – introducing new hazard classes under CLP. Implementation dates announcement[47][55]. (EU added new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors, PBT/vPvB, and PMT/vPvM in CLP; new substances must comply by May 1, 2025, mixtures by 2026 – representing a significant international development in chemical hazard classification.)
• Health Canada (2022). Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR) Amendments – Alignment with GHS 7 & 8. Canada Gazette II, Vol. 157, No. 1[51]. (Canada’s WHMIS update to GHS Rev.7/8, with suppliers required to update SDS and labels by Dec 14, 2025, aligning timing closely with U.S. OSHA’s HazCom 2025 transition.)