fafety in the chemical loboratory

edited by MALCOLM M. RENFREW

University of ldaho MOSCOW. ldaho 83843

What Fate for Laboratory Safety Courses?

Kenneth G. Everett Stetson University, DeLand, FL 32720

Will S. DeLoachl University of North Carolina a t Wilmington, Wilmington. NC 28403

Over the past decade concern about safe- ty in college and university laboratories has risen to unprecedented prominence. A more enlightened awareness of hazards, the en- croachment of stricter state and federal reg- ulations, and the increase in accident-relat- ed lawsuits have all played a role in prompt- ing the current focus of attention. In response, articles appearing in this Journal have suggested a gamut of measures aimed at improving laboratory safety that include the appointment of departmental safety committees, departmental safety inspection teams, preparation and promulgation of de- partmental safety guidelines, the introduc- tion of a safety component into the reward schemes for students (grades) and faculty (salary, promotion, and tenure), intraduc- tion of more safety tips inta pre-lab discus- sions, informal safety seminars ( 1 5 ) , and, lastly, formal courses in laboratory safety, some excellent classroom-tested examples of which have been described (6-10).

Of these proposed measures it might have heen anticipated that formal courses in lab- oratory safety would face the greatest resis- tance to general implementation because, of course, they make the most direct claim upon the chemistry curriculum itself, a cur- riculum already so replete that a new course can hardly be introduced without effective- ly displacing an old one. So the situation reduces to the stultifying question: What do we now teach that can be dispensed with in favor of formal safety instruction? And the difficulty multiplies when it is realized that a safety course, to he generally effectual, would need to he taken by all chemistry majors; that is, it would have to be made a requirement for the major. I t can do little good to interject safety into the curriculum as just another elective course that only a few chemistry majors would have the time or inclination to take-unless we accede to the premise that only a few chemistry ma- jors need to know much about safety.

If we accept, however, the contrary view that all chemistry majors need thorough in- struction in safety, a little reflection will show that the approach of consolidating that instruction inta a single required course affords advantages of facility and ef- fectiveness unmatched by other measures. When the whole of a student's safety in- struction is fragmented into the various pre-

lab discussions of a half dozen different courses as is now common practice, empha- sis in each instance is put upon those safety concerns peculiar to the laboratory work of the course a t hand. If complete coverage is to be ensured, this system requires consider- able effort a t coordination among courses (e.g., eye protection in general chemistry, compressed gas cylinders and electrical safety in physical chemistry, radiation safe- ty in radiochemistry), and it usually ignores facets of safety practice that are not the direct responsibility of the laboratory stu- dent while in class but that will be of con- cern to him or her in his or her later career (e.g., hroader questions of toxicity, proper storage and disposal of chemicals, and the ethical and legal implications of laboratory safety). The greatest advantage offered by a formal course requirement, however, de- rives from the power of sanction thatattach- es to any course holding required status in the curriculum. Students recognize, for in- stance, that physical chemistry must be im- portant to a chemical education because it is required for the major. Can they, on the other hand, think good safety practice is important when they see it treated as an incidental in their coursesand relegated toa stature that elicits only passing and, all too often, perfunctory attention from their pro- fessors?

The advantages of a safety course require- ment are clearly substantial. But faced with a curriculum rendered practically impervi- ous by the surfeit of present requirements, it is difficult to imagine a scenario, short of legal injunction, under which safety might be interpolated into the undergraduate pra- gram aa aformalrequired course. l f suchcan happen, though, i t will irkely require uide- sprmd suooort in ACS.nu~rc,v~d deonrt- Gents with'the concomitan~ establishment of a anfery course requirement fur T ~ P ACS- certified degrec, our tlagship program, after which the requirement would disseminate into lower-level degree requirements and into departments not ACS-approved.

As an aid to judging the prospects for such a train of de\elopment we haw conducted an exhaustive su&y of the current state of safety course offerings among ACS-ap- proved departments. In the first phase of our investigation the catalogs of almost all schools (94%) on the most recently puh-

lished list of ACS-appnmd depnrtments ( 1 1 1 were searched fur LOUTSP offwings in chrm~rnl laboratory safety. To uhrnin addi- tional information, questionnaires were subsequently sent to all departments listing such courses.

Results and Discussion The current (1981-1988) catalogs of 546

of the 580 schools on the ACS-approved list were available in the microfiche files (12) used for this study. These catalogs were searched for courses that included instruc- tion in chemical laboratory safety as a major component. Thirty-four such courses were found among the offerings of 31 different chemistry departments. At present, then, ahmt sac of ACS-appruved departments list fc,rmal, tor-credit courses in snt'm.. This fir- - ure agrees exactly with a comparable one reported hy Pesta and Kaufman (13). In a national survey these authors mailed com- prehensive safety questionnaires to 2019 college and university chemistry depart- ments and found that of 272 schools re- sponding, 15, or 6%, offered safety courses. Thus it appears that the proportion of ACS- approved depar tments offering such courses is no ereater than that of chemistw departmmrs at lorye. In another mrerrsting comparison, Prsra and Kaufmnn r e p m that 2"~ of their respmdmts required a satrty course for the chemistry major, whereas we find that only 1% of ACS-approved depart- ments do so.

The 34 safety courses fall into three cate- gories: (1) courses primarily for undergradu- ate chemistry majors (22, or 64%, were of this type); (2) courses for graduate students in chemistry (6, or 18%); and (3) courses for secondary school science teachers (6, or 18%). Table 1 presents some of the catalog information on these courses.

Of the 22 courses for undergraduate chemistry majors, all of which dealt exclu- sively with laboratory safety, only five were designated as requirements for the BS ma- jor in chemistry. One was listed as required for the BA hut not the BS major. A more refined perspective on the curricular priari- ty accorded safety courses-even, note, in

(Continued on page A1 78)

Volume 65 Number 7 July 1988 A177

Table 1. Categories and Descrlptlons of Laboratory Safety Courses In ACS-Approved Departments

Type of Course (number found) Representative Titles Credit Prerequisites

Courses for Undergraduate Chemical Safety Chemistry Maiors (22) Chemical Laboratory Safety

Chemical and Laboratory Safety Safety in Working with Chemicals Safety in Chemistry Safety in the Chemicai Laboratory

1 sem. hr. (1 1) none (5) 2 sem. hrs. (5) 1 yr. general chem. (5) 3 sem. hrs. (6) 1 semester org. chem. (5)

1 yr. org. chem. (3) 24 sem. h n . of chem. (1) jr. or sr. status (1) a college chem. course and upper div. standing

(11 previous Or cment enrolimem in a lab. science

(11

Courses lor Graduate Studenta Chemical Laboratmy Safety 0 sem. hrs. (1) none listed (3) in Chemishy (6) Special Topics in Chemical Health and Safety 1 sem. hr. (1) grad. standing (2)

Seminar in Teaching Chemistry 2 sem. hrs. (2) qusnt.. 1 yr. wg. (1) 3 sem. hrs. (2)

Courses lor Secondary Schmi Techniques for High School Chemistry Laboratories 2 sem. hrs. (2) none listed (2) Science Teachers (6) Chemical Safety in lhe Teaching Laboratory 3 sem. hrs. (3) 20 sem. hrs. in chem. (1)

Chemical Hazards and Toxicity 4 sem. hrs. (1) sr. standing and majw or minor in chem. (1) Demonstration and Experimentation in Chemistry permission of insbucta (1)

certain education courses (1)

departments where they exist-is gained from a reading of some of the catalog course descriptions. The University of California a t Irvine, far instance, requires that for a chemistry major four chemistry electives must be taken beyond the core of hasic courses; however, it is specifically noted that the safety course may not be counted as one of those electives. At Bemidji State Univer- sity the safety course is accepted only as an elective for the BS major hut is required for the BA major as well as for all students with BA minors or BS physical science majors who seek teacher licensing. Such represen- tations reveal that the likelihood of taking a safety course tends to decline in proportion as the rigor of a student's chemistry pro- gram increases, manifesting the apparent sentiment that for the more serious chemis- try student there are more important things to learn than laboratory safety.

Of the six safety courses for graduate stu- dents, one, entitled "Special Topics in Chemical Health and Safety", did not ap- pear to be directed to or required of any particular audience. Of the other courses, four were designed to train new departmen- tal teaching assistants in the safety prac-

Table 2. Text and Reference Materials Used In Laboratory Safety Courses In ACS- Approved Departments

Materials Used. Number Reporting Use

Sefely h Acsdemic Chemishy Labwatories. Am. Chem. Soe. 6 Prudent Practices fw Handling Hazardous Chemicals in Labaratories. Nat. Res.

Council 4 Safety in Working with Chemicals. Green and Turk 2 J. Chem. Ed. articles. Am. Chem. Sac. 2 Notes aenerated bv instructor 3

'Materials repatsd only once are OM included.

tices requisite to proper conduct of their laboratory classes; one of these dealt only with safety; the other three treated safety along with several other topics relating to laboratory instruction. The remaining course, taught a t Purdue University "for a t least 40 years" (making it, by far, the long- est-lived course we found), aims to prepare new graduate students for hazards likely to be encountered in graduate research lahora- tories. All these courses were reauired for the respective groups of studentsaffected. (It should perhaps he noted that many, if

not most, graduate schools require prospec- tive teaching assistants to receive some kind of preliminary safety instruction, usually in the form of a seminar or workshop type of offering that carries no credit. Our own sur- vey of four schools in North Carolina that grant the PhD in chemistry-probably a typical group-showed that three required such training sessions.) Two of the six courses for school science

teachers dealt altogether with safety. The rest dealr generally with technique8 fi,r teaching high school chemistry laboratories

Table 3. Enrollment Data for Laboratory Safety Courses In ACS-Approved Departments

Type of Course Frequency of Offering Chem. Non-Chem. (number responding Average Number of once per alternate majors majors Fr. Soph. Jr. Sr. Qad.

to questionnaire) Studenta Enrolled year years (%I (%) ( 1 (%I (%I 1%) (%I

Courses for Undergraduate Chemistry Majors (13) 22

Courses lor Graduate Students in Chemishy (4) 23

Courses for Secondary School Science Teachers 121 4

11 1 85 15 9 29 30 24 8

4 - too 0 0 0 0 0 100

- - - - 0 0 0 0 100

A178 Journal of Chemical Education

hut olaced exoress emohasis uoon safetv. Two of the courses were for undtr~raduates and four forgraduatestuden~r<mlg, the for- mer being required for a teaching major, the latter not being listed as required for any particular programs.

In Tables 2 and 3 are presented results of interest from the mailed questionnaire. Of 31 auestionnaires distributed. 19 (61%) were completed and returned to us. Table 2 lwts course materials usrd for text and rafprenre pwposes.l'ahle 3shows profiles ofthe three categories of courses in regard to frequency of offering and types of students enrolled.

The comments volunteered on returned questionnaires reflect a curious range of vi- tality for the courses reported on. At a few schools safety courses have been particular- Iv well received. For examole. San Jose . . State ilnrversity's auccesx with a safety course that has heen required fur the chem- istry mapr led this year 10 its adoption into the requirements for the minor, as well as to requests from local industries to have the course taught to their personnel. At Michi- gan Technological University the success of a freshman safety course required of both chemistry and chemical engineering majors provided the impetus for development of a new course, "Safety in the Chemical Process Industry", offered a t MTU and Wayne State University for the first time in the fall of 1987; this course is expected soon to be made an additional requirement for all ju- nior or senior chemistry and chemical engi- neering majors. And at smaller Muskingum Collere. where the course is not now re- ., . quired hut la nevertheless popular with hid. c,m. chemistry, geolom, and physics major*, the dean has just suggested that i t he made a requirement for all students in the lahorato- ry sciences-quite a turnabout according to the instructor, who states that initially he "had trouble getting the course approved," and adds. "How times chanee"!

On thebther hand, ~lfrrdl 'niversity says itssafety coursr is "no longer offered". Met- ropolmn State College reports that its re- quence of three safety courses lies "dur- mant" for lack of auffirient enrdlment. The University of California at Irvine reports i t has now downgraded its 2-semestir-hour course, formerly required of all graduate teaching assistants, to a "TA Lab Safety Workshoo" that carries no credit. And Man- kato State University has had to intermit the offering i,f its course hecause the teacher retired, and they add that "we are working on a replacement, hut no optimism as yet".

Also reported on returned questionnaires, hut not aooearine in the tables. were the . . dates of origin of ihe various ro&res. As a measure of rhronological trend in inception of safety courses, the dates reported for the 22 courses for undergraduate majors are probably the most pertinent, inasmuch as all these courses, unlike the other two types, deal only with safety. The start-up dates for 12 of the 22 courses were reported, and all fall within the 1978-1984 span of years (ex- cepting the new course a t Michigan Techna- logical University, which does not yet ap- pear in their catalog).

Conclusions When i t is considered that only 6% of

ACS-approved chemistry departments now offer any kind of formal safety course, that only 1% of them require such a course for the

chemistry major, that after the introduction of the existing courses around 1980 the gen- esis of new ones has all but halted, and that these meager results are all that show from more than a decade of clamor about labara- tory safety, it seems reasonable to conclude that prospects for the general adoption of safety courses into the chemistry curricu- lum are poor. Chances that such a course could become a requirement far the major, even for the ACS-certified decree. look still " . mare dismal. The ostensible cause of this ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~-~ ~ ~~~

situstron is, again, an overcruwded rurrirw lum w t h no real room for n e ~ C U U ~ S ~ ~ . And although most academic chemists aver that safety instruction is important, they appear unwilling to sacrifice anything currently in the curriculum for the kind of discidined. comprehensive safety coverage afforded by a formal required course in the subject. The verdict seems clear, hut we hope it is not final.

In judgments of competing claims upon the curriculum, where i t is only a matter of deciding, for example, whether more or less polymer chemistry ought to be taught, so preponderant a verdict ought probably to settle the issue. The question of teaching laboratory safety, however, must he viewed in a fundamentally different light: here cur- ricular judgment must he made more on grounds of moral responsibility to the stu- dent and to the society he or she affects than on grounds of intellectual weight or academ- ic appeal; here the cost of negligence must too often be counted in ruined eyesight, in physical disfigurement, in limbs and lives needlesslv lost. To dismiss such costs is to dismiss the humanity of those ue teach,and ultimately to ~uhvprt the stature and prag- ress uf our discipline. Moral imperati\t, if not mere expedience in meeting the de- mands of a safety-conscious public, admon- ishes us to cast the teaching of safety into a more effective and forthright shape. That shape, we feel, is hest fitted by a formal course requirement for the major.

Acknowledgment The authors wish to express their thanks

to our many colleagues who responded so generously to the survey questionnaire used in this study.

Literature Cited 1. Kaufman, J. A. J. Chom.Educ. 1978,55, A337. 2. Stacy, G. W. J. Chom.Educ. 1979.56.91, 3. PalladIn0,G. J Chem. Educ. 1980,57,A311. 4. Barer, R. J. Chsm. Edur. 1384.61, A259. 5. Landgrebe. J. A. J. Cham. Educ 1985.62. A310. 6. Green, M. E. J Chem.Educ. 1974,51,A157. 7. Lowy, G. G, J. Chsm. Edue. 1978.55, A235, A263. 8. Nichollr. L. J. J. Cham. Educ 198%. 59, A30t. 9. Nagel, M. C. J. Chom. Edur. 1982,59,791.

10. Simpson. K. A. J. Chom. Edur. t9S7.64, Afi. 11. ACSCommitfeeonProfessionelTrsining198fiAnnual

Report, Chem. Eng. New8 1987.65(20), 59. 12. "College Catalogl on Miemfiche" (Listings far the

1987-1988 Colleeflan Year): The National Mierofllm Library: San Diego. CA. 1987.

13. Peste, S: Ksufman. J. A. J. Chrm. Educ. 1986, 63. A242.

'Current address: 115 Northlake Drive. Apt 210%. Orange City. FL 32763.

Volume 65 Number 7 July 1988 A179