DCHAS-L Archives, Aug 25 2014 - Re: [DCHAS-L] Cadaver labs and formaldehyde

We looked into the possibility of plasticizers, which leaves the cadaver’s blood vessels nicely color-coded for teaching purposes, but the prep work is extremely dangerous and the prep room would have cost a fortune in controls. I believe Queen’s University was and may be still using this technique.

We’ve been using Infutrace for over a decade, mostly in animal anatomy. We haven’t had any problems to report but the users aren’t crazy about it due to the fact it doubles up the preservation prep work. This is because it is a formalin replacement solution, not a substitute, so you still have to do a formalin-based perfusion, but then after the specimen is fixed you have to repeat the process to purge out all the formalin-based embalming solution. Despite our best efforts we haven’t been able to find out the exact ingredients because they have all been in exempted quantities under our Hazardous Products Act. In other words there are no hazardous ingredients, at least not above the thresholds specified in the Act i.e. 1% if the ingredient is a carcinogen and 0.1% if it has other toxic effects.

From our discussions with the supplier we believe the Infutrace is a blend of buffer solution(s) mixed with some sort of polymer resin. While this is clearly not enough info to do one’s own risk assessment we were comfortable in concluding that it has to be safer than the phenol-methanol-formaldehyde triumvirate used in classic embalming fluid.

Monona cites some really good examples of situations where products like PCB’s and Halons of known toxicity were replaced by compounds of unknown (untested) toxicity, with disastrous results. Another classic one is the replacement of degreasers over the years, starting with carbon tetrachloride, then methylene chloride, then TCE, then PERC, but all of those substitutions had one thing in common – they were merely replacing the offending compound with their evil cousins (similar compounds). Great lessons learned. I don’t think we’re making the same mistake with our choice of Infutrace but Monona is right (as always!) to say that you should always conduct your risk assessment before choosing a substitute.

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU]On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:30 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Cadaver labs and formaldehyde

Wayne, Thanks for the study. Clearly it shows that Infutrace reduces the amount of airborne formaldehyde and does it better than the other product. There's nothing there about the hazards of the replacements.

So dang, what is it? Have tests been done for skin absorption, glove permeation, and or for any significant chronic hazards? All I see on the MSDS is sparse acute data. And if we knew the structure of the ingredients, we might even be able to make some guesses about chronic toxicity.

I keep thinking of the endless progressions of substitutes that had significant hazards of their own. I go back a long way to the 70s when industry replaced banned PCBs with PBBs (polybrominated biphenyls) with a disastrous accidental food chain human exposure in Michigan. Next they stuck an oxygen in between the PBB phenyl groups and we have the polybrominated diphenyl ethers to contend with. And when the EU banned many of these, Chemtura created a replacement unregulated chemical called Fire Master 550 which is untested but whose structure is identical to diethylhexyl phthalate except for four bromines on the benzene ring. This leaves the business end of DEHP free to do its thing while making the molecule even more persistent in the environment.

I won't bore you with a litany of these stories, but I no longer accept any replacement chemical with unknown hazards.

If you want to talk plasticizers, I'm in leaving tomorrow for a university building planning project in Aberdeen, SD. I will be incommunicado until I'm back in my NYC office on Sept 1 (yes, I'll work Labor day unless the union asks this decrepit old lady to march with them).

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

actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com www.artscraftstheatersafety.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Wood <wayne.wood**At_Symbol_Here**MCGILL.CA>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 10:49 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Cadaver labs and formaldehyde

Good point Monona, it is always wise to assess the hazards before embarking on a quest to substitute one chemical product for another.

Infutrace (and Perfect Solution) have been around for a while and so far the assessments are promising:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18058900

These are formaldehyde “replacements”, and not plasticizers. I know very little about the plasticizers but if any of you do, please share.

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU]On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:02 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Cadaver labs and formaldehyde

Well, I'm between trips so I haven't seen all of this thread, but I'm disappointed. If HOCH is replaced in anatomy labs, where is the information about the replacements?

I got the MSDS (2012) for Infutrace (Sasco Chemical) and it is proprietary, unregulated and untested for chronic toxicity. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have any chronic toxicity. I have a problem with exposing students to a large volume of an untested, unidentified chemical. And worse--it may be a plasticizer as suggested which means it's going right through those thin surgical gloves. And if it plasticizes a stiff, it can plasticize a live body as well.

The MSDS recommends Neoprene gloves, but there's no information on thickness, how long they should be used, etc. And usually students attacking a cadaver use thin surgical gloves.

I don't think we need to go into the many "safe" plasticizers that later have been found to be a big problem in even miniscule amounts. I don't understand how people can justify recommending a chemical product for a purpose like this without knowing what it is, what is known about it and, more importantly, what is NOT known about it.

A risk assessment is needed here.