The Editor’s Spotlight for the May / June 2017 issue of the Journal of Chemical Health and Safety is shining on:
Using bowtie methodology to support laboratory hazard identification, risk management, and incident analysis by Mary Beth Mulcahy, Chris Boylan,
Samuella Sigmann, and Ralph Stuart.
This is based on a technical program workshop which Mary Beth and Chris led at the 2016 San Diego ACS National Meeting and describes how a graphical tool for organized laboratory risk assessment and incident information can support a strong laboratory safety culture.
The abstract is:
Hazard prevention and control systems for specific laboratory processes must be readily shared between lab workers, their colleagues, and lab supervisors. In order for these control systems to be effective in a transferable and sustainable way, effective risk management communication tools must be present. These tools need to be adaptable and sustainable as research processes change in response to evolving scientific needs in discovery based laboratories.
In this manuscript, the application of a risk management tool developed in the oil and gas industry known as a ‘‘bowtie diagram’’ is assessed for application in the laboratory setting. The challenges of identifying laboratory hazards and managing associated risks as well as early experiences in adapting bowtie diagrams to the laboratory setting are described. Background information about the bowtie approach is provided and the technique illustrated using an academic laboratory research scenario. We also outline the role bowtie diagrams could play in a proactive safety culture program by facilitating hazard communication and maintaining hazard awareness across a wide spectrum of stakeholders.
What Have We Learned & Where Are We Going: Post-Settlement in the University of California
Organizers: D. Decker, J. Palmer
Hours after the White House released its FY18 budget, ACS issued a press release opposing the budget.
ACS media quotes opposing elimination of CSB funding:
Additional ACS actions:
- ACS, along with several other organizations sent a letter to Congressional appropriators urging them to include FY18 funding for U.S. CSB (see links to letters below)
- ACS is working with AIChE on a webinar to be recorded on 4/25 featuring CSB Chair Vanessa Sutherland and representatives from AIChE and ACS speaking about the role of CSB and its important mission in promoting safety in the chemistry enterprise.
- ACS is working on developing a Congressional “Dear Colleague” letter to generate congressional support for CSB FY18 funding.
- CSB will be taking part in the ACS Board of Directors Legislative Summit on April 25 – goal is to foster greater collaboration between CSB and ACS
Information Flow in Environmental Health & Safety
At the Spring, 2017 ACS national meeting, the Divisions of Chemical Information and Chemical Health and Safety co-sponsored a program on Information Flow in Environmental Health and Safety. The symposia presented a variety of use cases for chemical information tools that range from lab-specific to very general. Links to the PDF versions of the presentations are provided below.
Best Practices in Selecting & Presenting Safety Training Content
Technical presentations from the March, 2017 national American Chemical Safety meeting.
At the Spring, 2017 ACS national meeting, CHAS members Ralph Stuart and Sammye Sigmann made presentations in the Division of Chemical Education technical program on topics related to undergraduate research safety. Sammye’s presentation was entitled:
Integrating Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment into Course-based Undergraduate Research (CURE)
Ralph’s (which Sammye co-authored) was entitled:
Providing laboratory safety education to REU audiences.
In addition, they co-authored a poster for Sci Mix. An overview of the poster and a link to it are provided below.
In 2016, the ACS Division of Chemical Education (CHED) updated their “Safety Guidelines for Chemical Demonstrations”. The Guidelines are available at the CHED web site. Look at DCHAS web site to see how these guidelines align with the “5 Key Questions”.
This poster provides a quick overview of the five key safety questions that anyone planning chemical demonstrations or experiments should ask and answer prior to work. It is also important to be aware that local jurisdictions may require more extensive planning for some demonstrations and so for everyone’s safety – check with the local Fire Department for help with planning your demonstration.
The Five Key Questions are:
- What specific chemical or physical reactivity hazards are associated with the way I’m using these chemicals?
- What type of ventilation do I need?
- What personal protective equipment do I need?
- What emergency response protocols will be needed if something goes wrong?
- What will I do with the waste?
Sigmann, S.; Stuart, R.
Assessing Risk: Five Key Questions for Safe Research and Demos. inChemistry Magazine, 2016, September/October, 6-9.
The DCHAS Agenda Book for the San Francisco 2017 meeting can be downloaded. Additional reports can be found here:
- the Councilor’s report is downloadable here.
- The programming committee report downloadable here
- Past-Chair Report
- CANN Report
PubChem LCSS Update – March 2017
The PubChem database, hosted by the US National Library of Medicine, includes a wide variety of data on over 90 million chemical compounds. PubChem’s goal is to make this data accessible to chemists, chemical safety professionals, chemical educators and others working with laboratory chemicals. Data are reported from multiple sources, allowing users to compare and determine the best use of this data in their work. The data are also organized to facilitate downloading in a variety of formats as well via programmatic access for reuse in local software applications.
In addition to structural, physical and toxicological raw data, the PubChem collection includes chemical safety information from national and international agencies. For human browsers, this chemical safety information in PubChem is organized into a data view based on the Laboratory Chemical Safety Summary (LCSS) format described in “Prudent Practices in the Laboratory“. This LCSS view chemical and physical properties and safety information for compounds that have Globally Harmonized System designations publicly available. The number of records with this chemical safety information has increased from 3000 in 2015 to more than 103,000 today. LCSS data provided by PubChem are intended to support, but not replace, laboratory risk assessments, Safety Data Sheets and institutional guidance for safe laboratory practices and procedures.
Notably, the data compiled by PubChem includes safety information beyond that generally provided by Safety Data Sheets. This additional information is found in sources such as the NIOSH Pocket Guide, CAMEO and European Chemicals Agency, among others. There are also specific incompatible reactions reported from the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), sourced from Sigma Aldrich Safety Center notes, the National Fire Protection Association Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Bretherick’s Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards and others.
LCSS data can be viewed online, or downloaded either by individual compound or in bulk. In this way, PubChem information can be used to support electronic safety tools such as institutional chemical inventory management systems or laboratory-specific personal protective equipment guidelines. More information about this feature can be found here.
Traffic to the safety information in PubChem has increased over 80% in the past year. The PubChem staff are interested in continuing to improve the usability and accessibility of this information to the laboratory community. To this end, representatives of the ACS Divisions of Chemical Information (CINF) and Chemical Health and Safety (CHAS) are working with the PubChem staff to identify additional sources and uses for health and safety data. Efforts are also underway to improve annotation of the data and enable more specific data retrieval options. We welcome ideas for organization and presentation of the data. To participate or provide comments, contact the CINF safety representative, Leah McEwen at email@example.com or the CHAS secretary, Ralph Stuart at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Editor’s Spotlight for the March / April 2017 issue of the Journal of Chemical Health and Safety is shining on:
An exposure assessment of desktop 3D printing by Tracy L. Zontek, Burton R. Ogle, John T. Jankovic, and Scott M. Hollenbeck
A preliminary hazard analysis of 3D printing included process monitoring in two working environments; a small well ventilated materials development laboratory with a Makerbot printer (polylactic acid filament) and a poorly ventilated lab, home-like in terms of room size and ventilation with a Da Vinci XYZ printer (acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene).
Particle number, size and mass concentration were measured within the printer enclosures, breathing zone, and room simultaneously. Number concentrations were elevated above background typically in the 103 – 105 particles/cm3 range. During printing >99% of the aerosol number concentration was within the ultrafine particulate (UFP) and nanoscale size range. Condensed aerosol emissions from the Da Vinci XYZ printer was examined by Fourier infra-red spectroscopy and suggested isocyanic acid and n-decane as two possible chemical components. Light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy with energy dispersive analysis by X-ray identified individual and aggregated particles highly suggestive of combustion, accompanied by a variety of metallic elements.
Adverse health effects associated with 3D printing related to chemical vapor off-gassing in well ventilated space appears to be low. At this point the significance of ultrafine particle emission is under growing suspicion in its relationship to inflammatory, pulmonary, and cardiovascular effects. Preliminary recommendations for particulate control developed from this analysis are based on good industrial hygiene practice rather than compelling adverse health effects.
You can download the complete article here. An exposure assessment of desktop 3D printing