Peter's post reminds me that anatomists sometimes tamper with their recipes by  altering the proportions.  We had an experience some time ago where they upped  the methanol concentration to try and reduce formaldehyde exposure and they  succeeded all right, but in doing so a couple of our measurements surpassed the  TLV-STEL (250 ppm) for methanol and they went back to their original recipe.  So  if you are going to do monitoring, don't forget to test for methanol exposure in  addition to formaldehyde.

Ethanol would be a better choice over methanol but we can leave that discussion  for happy hour.

W.  

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of  pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**ROCHESTER.RR.COM
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:43 PM To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
  Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Cadaver Discussion
  
  That pretty much allows as much as 98% formaldehyde in the formulation.  Sometimes I wonder what the authors of such SDS documents are thinking. (I know,  it's the lawyers who are doing their thinking for them. <g>)
  Peter Zavon, CIH
  
  Penfield, NY 14526
  
   ---- "Nail wrote:
   > Greetings,
   > Many thanks for the information regarding cadaver labs. 
   >  
   > A bit of context: The issue appears to be the idea of converting a classroom  into a cadaver lab without exhausting the air from the room directly to the  outside of the building.
   >
   > Part of the on campus dialogue was the claim that the cadavers would not  contain formaldehyde. The person making this claim produced a SDS that shows  that the embalming fluid contains '1 to 100 % methanol, 1 to 100% phenol, and  greater than 1 % formaldehyde'.
   >
   > John Nail
   > Professor of Chemistry
   > Oklahoma City University