| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2013 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Facial hair and fire? Date: January 29, 2013 1:43:32 PM EST Author: Monona Rossol |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Interesting article about flame retardants Date: January 29, 2013 2:27:13 PM EST Author: Monona Rossol |
Yes, the no fabric softener advice is applicable to inherently FR fabrics and goes double for the treated ones. Some fabrics will have a warning on their laundry advice tags and some fabric softeners have warnings about using the product on retarded fabrics. And this includes children's clothing and bedding which come under CPSCs FR standards. Besides, the stuff smells.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: NEAL LANGERMAN <neal**At_Symbol_Here**CHEMICAL-SAFETY.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Tue, Jan 29, 2013 5:43 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Flame Resistance & Lab Coats
I also suggest you all make sure your written procedures forbid the use of fabric softeners or dryer sheets when lab coats are laundered. These softeners coat the fibers with chemicals that make them more combustible.. The softeners also separate and fluff the fibers which increases susceptibility to burning.
Is applicable to Nomex and other inherently FR fabrics. I launder my own coveralls (self-employed), I run my washer empty with only water. I then put in my coveralls and run then with Tide or other low additive detergent, no fabric softener.
It is a pain but nowhere near the pain of deep tissue burns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard confidentiality terms apply
NEAL LANGERMAN, Ph.D.
ADVANCED CHEMICAL SAFETY, Inc.
PO Box 152329
SAN DIEGO CA 92195
011(619) 990-4908 (phone, 24/7)
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:47 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Flame Resistance & Lab Coats
My expertise is in flame retarding theatrical curtains, cycs, costumes etc. And there is no way I would take a treated fabric over one that is inherently fire retarded like Nomex. All of the applied chemical retardants fail. And they are not all boron compounds as implied in one post. There are a flock of very different chemicals used and often they are trade secrets on top of it.
Theatrical curtains come with a certificate telling you when they must be retreated. If they are inherently resistant, there is no time limit except the common sense one of checking to see when there there is so much dust on the fabric the dust itself becomes a fire issue. As the rule, theatrical curtains are not regularly cleaned. And when they are, the treated curtain's certificate is voided and it must be retreated.
The CPSC and ASTM have fire retarded fabric standard tests that include laundering tests. We use at these standards when costumes need to be retarded as when fire or pyro will be used on stage. Recently, these CPSC standards were updated to include modern washing machines and detergents. But it is clear there could be some unpleasant surprises in the speed with which the retarding chemicals are removed because the formulas of detergent products are constantly changing and new chemicals that CPSC and ASTM did not consider are being added.
I also suggest you all make sure your written procedures forbid the use of fabric softeners or dryer sheets when lab coats are laundered. These softeners coat the fibers with chemicals that make them more combustible.. The softeners also separate and fluff the fibers which increases susceptibility to burning. You might notice that all drier sheets now come in dispensers that only release one sheet at a time. When they were on a roll, they became the preferred choice of arsonists who could use them like a giant long fuse.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin M. Izzo <rmizzo**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 11:54 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Flame Resistance & Lab CoatsRuss, I will look for the literature on this, but to quickly answer about the treated coats vs. Nomex, the companies that sell the treated coats say that the fire resistance begins to fail after two years. The Nomex is more expensive, but the fire resistance does not fade. I have seen some literature on all but the human toxicity of the treated FR coats. Thanks,Robin Robin M. Izzo, M.S.Associate Director, EHSPrinceton University609-258-6259 (office) Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.~ Mark Twain -----Original Message-----From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Russell VernonSent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:01 PMTo: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDUSubject: [DCHAS-L] Flame Resistance & Lab Coats So the discussion in the UC Lab Safety world now includes flame retardant lab coats and human/environmental potential consequences. I would greatly appreciate being pointed toward information that would help us more intelligently discuss these concerns: How good are FR coats in a real flammable liquid fire? How does that compare to non-FR lab coats?Are the treated cloth lab coats inferior to the "Nomex" type? Do the modern treated FR coats demonstrate any human toxicity or environmental adverse effects? Literature that may help us in answering these kinds of questions is what I am asking you to help me find. Sincerely,-Russ Russell Vernon, Ph.D. Director Environmental Health & Safety University of California Riverside 900 University Ave EH&SRiverside, CA 92521 www.ehs.ucr.edu russell.vernon**At_Symbol_Here**ucr.edu direct 951.827.5119 admin 951.827.5528 fax 951.827.5122 after hours emergency contact UCPD 951.827.5222 ________________________________________From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] on behalf of Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [secretary**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG]Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:50 AMTo: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDUSubject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines from Google (12 articles) From: Melissa Charlton-Smith <charltonsmith**At_Symbol_Here**wvwc.edu>Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines from Google (12 articles)Date: January 25, 2013 1:33:49 PM EST >Nitric acid is aqueous, so how can it be flammable (in the Tripoli >story) Possibly someone who KNOWS told the reporter that it's an oxidizer and at certain concentrations can cause combustion in contact with combustible materials.....and the reporter took the short root to "it's flammable".
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post