From: Irene Cesa <irenecesa**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] iron pentacarbonyl
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 16:55:06 -0500
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Message-ID: CAKuxyXEz0Jx=WSpxbNuzFyubCKZ64pEkp6j9p4eSK0HpYbOCYw**At_Symbol_Here**mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To <31932F30-601E-4C78-B66D-9BEA4DAF77B4**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com>


Reading John Callen's remarks about caution when working with "boranes, carbonyls, and other pyrophorics" and mindful of the encouragement we often receive to share incidents that went awry, I was reminded of an incident that occurred when I was doing undergraduate research in carborane chemistry. (For any who might be keeping track, that would have been 1973-1975, or almost 50 years ago!)

I was preparing a carborane for use as a starting material. The synthesis, which had been reported in the English translation of the Soviet journal Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, stated that the compound "oxidized slowly in air." I had filtered the solid material, dried it under vacuum, and was in the process of transferring the material, still in a funnel, to a glove box. Just as I set the secondary container down in an adjacent fume hood to open the door to the glove box antechamber, the substance in the filter funnel spontaneously ignited, giving rise to a flamethrower-like torch. "Oxidized slowly in air" had apparently lost something in translation. The vagaries of memory being what they are, I have no recollection of how the fire was extinguished. I suspect it was by covering or smothering it to remove air. I was not injured and there was no damage, but the memory does linger.
Irene Cesa

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:10 PM John Callen <jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com> wrote:
Debbie,

My comment was based from the reactivity of iron pentacarbonyl as a flammable liquid, etc.

Please look at the warnings, especially "Prevention" in the attached link.

When I was in graduate research, I always took a very cautious and measured approach when I was working with or around others who were working with boranes, carbonyls and other pyrophorics, explosive & shock sensitive, etc. chemicals. That why I stated the use of an explosion-proof laboratory hood.

All My Best,

John


On Aug 3, 2022, at 15:01, Debbie Decker <debbie.m.decker**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com> wrote:

John Callen writes "...the meantime, Iron pentacarbonyl, as you know, is nasty stuff and should be used with extreme caution in an explosion-proof laboratory hood."

I'm wondering what you meant by the phrase "explosion-proof laboratory hood." This brings to mind for me Class 1, Division 1 electrical utilities to the hood, installed in a space with a similarly protected electrical system.

Is that your intent?

Debbie

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.