| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2006 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: Chemical lists for schools Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:56:12 -0400 Author: Peter Zavon |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: Chemical lists for schools Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 07:36:20 -0400 Author: List Moderator |
I think some brief comments are warranted here. While there is some truth in the content of this e-mail, there is much incorrect information. I have had no acquaintance with classroom chemical usage since I left the university oh so many years ago. But, to preclude the use of all the chemicals on OSHA's Z-1 table would leave students unnecessarily missing out on many learning experiences. . In my opinion, all of the chemicals on > OSHA's Subpart Z list should be minimized or excluded. The Subpart Z list > consists of the chemicals that OSHA considers to be confirmed as a cause > of human health problems (mostly cancer). These conclusions have been > created based upon the human epidemiological studies rather than just > animal studies. Most of them have specific requirements for workers > involved in the production, handling & use of these materials. The > specific regulations can be accessed through the website shown below > (29CFR Part 1910.1000-1096: > While I would agree that materias covered under regulations 1910-1001 and higher meet the criterias described, those covered under 1910-1000 do not. While the materials refered in OSHA Air Contaminants List are associated with some hazards, these hazards range from simple irritation to potential carcinogens. The data used to establish the hazard, and the exposure values most often comes from animal data and not human exposure data. In fact there are only a few carcinogens on the list, and all are noted with a "C". But note that the list contain materials such as Acetic Acid, Ethanol (think a good shot of Vodka), Sucrose (sugar), Starch, Formic Acid (think ant bite), Isopropyl Alcohol (think rubbing alcohol), etc. I think you get the picture. All, for sure, under certain circumstances are associated with some type of hazard. Some of those hazards are serious, and some are not so serious. It should be understood that the exposure levels noted are for workers, and for the most part, based on an 8-hr work day, and a 40-hr work week. I would seriously doubt that these exposure levels would be exceeded for most of these listed materials in a lecture laboratory. However, that said, the OSHA Z-1 list is a pass=E9 list and very much so out-of-date, and I would recommend that the ACGIH list be used instead, as it is more up-to-date. This list would be of extreem value to any laboratory, as it can be used as an "indication" of the level of hazard associated with certain materials. But, one needs to understand that hazard, the target organs affected, and the precautions that are recommended. That is what MSDS's are for. All laboratory chemicals should be accompanied by an MSDS, without exception. And, no material should be put to use without one. > > All of the chemicals listed in Subpart Z require air monitoring to > quantify the exposure levels, most of them require medical monitoring, & > some of the chemicals require dedicated areas & systems with warning signs > posted to segregate these areas. This is incorrect. None of the chemicals on the Z-1 list require medical monitoring, dedicated areas or systems with warning signs posted to segregate these areas. This only applies to the few specific materials listed from 1910-1001 and on, as is noted below. While OSHA's regulations do not cover > students, I would think they would cover the instructors. But, regardless > of the applicability of these regulations to a school setting, I believe > there is no reason to expose the student, instructors, & other school > employees to the potential health risk these materials can cause, > especially if there is a less hazardous alternative available. I would absolutely agree that the following list be avoided for any reason. But, I would find little value in the use of these materials in a lecture laboratory anyways. And, one should always select materials of the lowest hazard when conducting demonstrations. As an example, one may not have to forgo the use of Hydrochloric Acid in a pH neutralization demonstration if one uses dilluted HCl in place of of concentrated. Or uses HCl in place of Sulfuric Acid, or Nitric Acid. > > 1910.1003 13 carcinogens including 4-nitrobiphenyl > 1910.1004 alpha-Naphthylamine. > 1910.1006 Methyl chloromethyl ether > 1910.1007 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (& its salts) > 1910.1008 bis-Chloromethyl ether > 1910.1009 beta-Naphthylamine > 1910.1010 Benzidine > 1910.1011 4-Aminodiphenyl > 1910.1012 Ethyleneimine > 1910.1013 beta-Propiolactone > 1910.1014 2-Acetylaminofluorene > 1910.1015 4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene > 1910.1016 N-Nitrosodimethylamine > 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride > 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic (compounds) > 1910.1025 Lead > 1910.1026 Chromium(VI) (compounds) > 1910.1027 Cadmium (& compounds) > 1910.1028 Benzene > 1910.1044 1,2-Dibromo-2-chloropropane > 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile > 1910.1047 Ethylene oxide > 1910.1048 Formaldehyde > 1910.1050 Methylenedianiline > 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene > 1910.1052 Methylene chloride > > In my opinion, other chemicals to be wary of include those that form > peroxides relatively quickly, are explosive or can be easily converted to > explosives, are highly toxic, are named within the DEA regulation or are > on the DEA Chemicals of Concern list. Some of these categories are due to > lab safety issues, others are due to security/liability issues (how to > keep the chemicals from being misappropriated for illegal uses). There is no argument here, this is good advice. Instructors should be aware of the risks of such materials that can peroxidize as Ethers. And, some materials should always be under lock and key. Carl Zipfel, csp EHS Director
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post