Journal of Environment and Safety

Transcription

1 Journal of Environment and Safety, Vol. 7 No. 2, (2016) 141 Journal of Environment and Safety The Academic Consociation of Environmental Safety and Waste Management, Japan Investigation of safety facilities and safe practices in chemical laboratories of a Saudi university Mohsin Abbas *, Adel M. Zakaria, Mansour A. Balkhyour Faculty of Meteorology, Environment and Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdul-Aziz University A designed checklist was personally administrated to investigate the laboratory safety facilities and safe work practices in chemistry laboratories (n = 68) of a university in the Kingdom Saudi Arabia. Overall mean percentile for practices in the checklist which were adopted was found to be 45% for all eleven safety elements surveyed, namely general work environment (75%); personal protective equipment (61%); emergency planning, equipment (55%); chemical storage & chemical labeling (50%); emergency planning (46%); fume hood and chemical handling (45%); waste and hazardous waste management (43%); safety training/awareness (43%); electrical safety (38%); lab safety documents (18%) and compressed gas (18%). However, special areas of concern, such as laboratory posting, inspection and proper use of a fume hood, availability of chemical waste containers, updating chemical inventory, availability of SDS, availability of the spill kit, segregation of chemicals by hazards class and safety training were studied. Existing areas with poor performance should be addressed with the involvement of top management, laboratory safety training programs and strict monitoring with continuous evaluation. Keywords: Chemical safety; Laboratory Safety; Laboratory inspection, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 1. Introduction Laboratory safety must be a top priority, 1) especially in chemistry laboratories which involve the use of chemicals for experimental work. The use of chemicals in a university s laboratories may be hazardous or become hazardous upon reactions. Chemicals are important for enhancing quality of life. However, with this advantage there are also disadvantages if we use chemicals with a lack of care and competency. 2) So, there is a need to equip university s laboratories with adequate safety facilities and to make sure laboratory staff (technicians, researchers and students) adopt safe work practices. University s laboratories are assumed to be safe work venues due to small quantities of chemical used in the labs. However, due to the underestimation of their potential risks, James Kaufman estimated that the rate of accidents in the academic labs is 100 to 1000 times greater than at Dow or DuPont. 3) Langerman (2009) concluded that the academic labs are unsafe venues for work and study after analyzing 94 lab incidents identified by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and other recently published labs incidents. 4) The Saudi Ministry of Education is responsible to ensure the health and safety of workers and students in Saudi universities. As an initiative to implement and promote workplace health and safety standards the 3rd Received 19 October 2015; accepted 3 December 2015 Advance publication in J-Stage 29 December 2015 *Corresponding author : myousaf@stu.kau.edu.sa DOI : daikankyo.e15rp Academic Consociation of Environmental Safety and Waste Management,Japan safety scientific forum with the title of Occupational and Health Safety in Higher Education Institutions was organized on February, The Saudi Ministry of Education also developed laboratory safety guidelines for Saudi universities to improve their laboratory safety level. It is also mandatory for all the Saudi universities to adhere to the laboratories according to the developed laboratory safety guidelines in order to ensure the health and safety of workers and students in the campus. There is a dearth of studies about the university s laboratory safety assessment so this study was instituted to investigate the safety facilities and safe work practices of laboratory staff (technicians, researchers and students) in one of the universities in the KSA. 2. Materials and methods The survey inspection checklist was adopted from the Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards 5) sample inspection checklist with revisions appropriate to KAU. Survey inspection checklist used in this study comprised of eleven safety elements; General work environment (GWE); Lab safety documents (LSD); Emergency planning (EP); Emergency planning equipment (EPE); Personal protective equipment (PPEs); Chemical storage & chemical labelling (CSCL); Fume hood and chemical handling (FHCH); Compressed Gas (CG); Electrical safety (ES); Waste and hazardous waste management (WHWM) and Safety training / awareness (STA). Each safety element has a number of safety items ranging from seven to twelve. Three types of questions were asked categorically during the survey such as Yes, No and not applicable (NA) if the safety item does not apply. The designed

2 142 checklist was filled personally by a respondent in each selected chemistry lab. Prior to the survey, chemistry laboratories were selected based on extensive chemical usage (primarily organic solvents) or storage inside the laboratory. The answers of all the safety items were either personally observed or obtained from the lab staff such as lab technician, student or researcher available in the lab during the survey. A total of eight academic departments (chemistry, biological sciences, biochemistry, environmental sciences, pharmacy and chemical engineering) and five research Excellency centers covered which have total sixty eight chemistry labs took part in the survey and the survey was carried from November, 2014 to April, Results and discussion The results of GWE in the chemistry laboratories were positive compared to other ten safety elements with an average 75% of the laboratories adopting the safety items of GWE (Table 1.). Safety items such as adequate ventilation, adequate illumination and proper lab layout responses were high, but minimized storage of combustible materials had low response. Safety items such as housekeeping and unobstructed aisles and passageways showed more than 70% positive response on the average and this can be associated with good campus management and teaching classes in the laboratories. The high response of GWE is mainly due to the good academic infrastructure and facilities. The results of LSD in the chemistry labs showed the poorest results as compared to the rest of the safety elements. Two possible scenarios can be expected, first is the lack of LSD and the second can be the lack of knowledge about the existing LSD. There was no a single lab with the presence of any lab accidents or lab injuries recorded and 56% of laboratories surveyed had updated chemical inventory (Table 2.). Lab safety manual with rest of LSD safety items are vital for documenting necessary information but it was deficient and just 10% of the laboratories have it. A low response rate was observed for the availability of safety data sheet (SDS) which is mandatory. Most importantly the absence of the chemical database inventory system to track the consumption of chemicals was observed. The results of EP were not satisfactory. Only an average of 46% of all the surveyed chemistry labs (Table 3.) had indicated a positive response to the questions in this category. Safety item such as food refrigerators labeled Food only no chemicals found a mean average of 0%, which indicate poor laboratory safety labelling. Other safety items regarding building evacuation routes, emergency instructions poster and emergency contact numbers also expressed poor results. These safety signage are crucial in case of emergency. Average of 55% for all surveyed chemistry labs (Table 4.) indicated a positive response to EPE. Chemical spills cannot be ruled out in a chemistry lab but just 4% of labs had spill kits/ cleanup material. The inspection of emergency planning equipment such as emergency shower/ eyewash, fire detectors, fire alarms and fire sprinkler was Table 1 Summary of General Work Environment (GWE) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University General Work Environment (GWE) % chemistry Laboratories (n =68) Ventilation is adequate in work area Illumination is adequate in work area Housekeeping is good in work area Lab layout is proper No evidence of food or drink in active laboratory areas Aisles and passageways are clear and unobstructed Storage of combustible materials minimized Mean ± SD 75 ± ± Table 2 Summary of Lab Safety Documents (LSD) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University Lab Safety Documents % chemistry Laboratories (n =68) Updated Lab safety Manual is available Updated Chemical hygiene plan is available Updated Emergency action plan is available Updated Spill response guide is available Lab accidents and injuries records are maintained Safety data Sheets are available (MSDS) Updated Lab chemicals inventory are available Mean ± SD 18 ± ±

3 143 also poor. EPE such as fire extinguishers had positive results as compared to other safety items of this safety element. According to the Saudi building codes employees assigned fire-fighting duties shall be trained to know the locations and proper use of portable fire extinguishers or other manual fire-fighting equipment and the protective clothing or equipment required for its safe and proper use. 6) The use of PPEs in the survey chemistry labs found at an average of 61% (Table 5.). Proper clothing and the use of lab coats showed positive results as both safety items hold more than 80%, but the availability of hand protection (gloves) in order to deal with chemicals, hot objects, sharp objects, etc. showed below average as 49% response rate. Despite the availability of PPEs, wearing of PPEs was found to be lacking among the laboratory technicians and students. Wearing of PPE should be enforced and encouraged through by the departmental heads as poor STA results in Table 11 can relate with less use of PPE. The results of CSCL had an average positive response of 50% (Table 6.) as this aspect of laboratory safety can be Table 3 Summary of Emergency Planning (EP) results of chemistry labs in one of the university in the KSA. Emergency Planning (EP) Exits are illuminated and unobstructed Emergency exits are unobstructed Emergency and alternative exits doors are not locked Emergency instructions or In case Emergency are posted Emergency contact numbers are posted on labs doors Building Evacuation Routes posted Food refrigerators labeled Food only no chemicals Emergency equipment labeled with highly visible signs Mean ± SD 46 ± ± ± 26.1 Table 4 Summary of Emergency Planning Equipment (EPE) results of chemistry labs in one of the university in the KSA. Emergency Planning Equipment (EPE) Emergency shower/ Eyewash is unobstructed Eyewash unit and safety shower inspection up-to-date (twice in a year) First Aid kit is available and visible Spill kit/ cleanup materials provided and adequate Fire extinguishers mounted and unobstructed Fire extinguishers fully charged with tamper indicator in place Fire extinguisher inspection up-to-date (6 months) Fire alarm pull stations unobstructed Fire detectors, fire alarms and fire sprinkler are functional Fire detectors, fire alarms and fire sprinkler inspected regularly Mean ± SD 55 ± ± ± 0.6 Table 5 Summary of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) results of chemistry labs in one of the university in the KSA. Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) Eye and face protection is available when dealing with chemicals Appropriate gloves are available for all hazards in the laboratory Hearing protection (e.g., plugs and muffs) is available in noisy operations Shoes are appropriate to the hazard (closed toed shoes) Hand protection (gloves) is available when dealing with chemicals, hot objects, sharp objects, etc. Clothing is appropriate to the hazards posed in the laboratory Lab coats are available during work Mean ± SD 61 ± ± ± 8.5

4 144 crucial to avoid emergency situations. Poor results (12%) was found in terms of segregation of chemicals by their hazard class. This can lead to the mixing of incompatible chemicals during work increasing liability laboratory accidents. Labelling of chemical storage cabinets (25%), refrigeration unit (3%) and the use of flammable storage cabinets (38%) were also observed to be poor, which point to a lack of proper chemical storage framework and can be solved through raising safety knowledge of laboratory staff and enforcement at departmental level. Lack of proper knowledge about the labelling of chemicals may cause an accident. 7) Positive results in terms of adequate shelving, labelling of chemical containers, storage of corrosive chemicals, prohibition of glass chemicals on the floor and expired chemicals disposal can relate with proper lab layout and safety awareness accordingly. Poor results in terms of the use of flammable storage cabinets for flammable chemicals and unventilated environmental chambers for volatile chemical can be due to an underestimation of their associated risks. Fume hood is an integral item of chemistry laboratory for safe chemical handling, but we found below average results (45%) of FHCH (Table 7.). It was observed that fume hood used for chemical storage, which can minimize the efficiency of the fume hood. The results of sash adjustment and its appropriate adjustment were not satisfactory. It is a standard practice that when the fume hood is not in use, their sashes should be closed or lowered and it should be adjusted at or below the 18 inches mark indicated on the Standard Operating Configuration sticker posted on the hood face and chemicals or equipment placed at least 6 inches from the sash. Chemical handling performance was found to be satisfactory as proper use of secondary containment and closing of chemical container after chemical transfer are good safe work practices. The use of CGC was limited to selected chemistry labs (pharmacy, chemistry and biochemistry) as 65% chemistry laboratories don t have compressed gas facilities (Table 8.) In another study made by Kristopher et al., ) limited use of CGC was found and these are mainly in the selected laboratories (chemistry, pharmacy and biochemistry). The results of ES had an average of 38% (Table 9.). Table 6 Summary of Chemical Storage & chemical Labelling (CSCL) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University Chemical Storage & Chemical Labelling (CSCL) Not Yes No applicable Shelving adequate for chemicals loads imposed Chemical containers clearly labeled with contents Chemicals are segregated by hazards class such as flammable, corrosive and oxidizers etc. Refrigeration units label with No Food tag Chemical storage cabinets are labelled properly Corrosive chemical stored below eye level Volatile chemicals are stored in unventilated locations labs Glass chemicals are not stored on the floor Expired or chemicals not used are disposed of as hazardous waste (e.g. Peroxide forming chemicals) Large/heavy chemical containers stored on lower shelves Flammable storage cabinets used for flammables storage Mean ± SD 50 ± ± ± 15.6 Table 7 Summary of Fume Hood and Chemical Handling (FHCH) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University Fume Hood and Chemical Handling (FHCH) Fume hood is functional Fume hood is not used as permanent storage for chemicals Chemical fume hood has been tested within last year Fume hood vents (baffles) unobstructed Fume hoods used with sash in appropriate position Sash is closed when not in active use Chemical containers kept closed after chemical transfer Chemicals and equipment are at least 6 inches from the sash Secondary containment used near sinks and drains Mean ± SD 45 ± ± ± 1.0

5 145 The labelling of high voltage equipment showed poor results as compared to all other safety items of ES. This is an indication of poor safety performance of the surveyed labs in terms of safety labelling. Lab staff were found to be unaware of the use of ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) or residual current device (RCD) used in wet areas. The use of extension cords may not be a permanent solution as compared to permanent wiring but only 32% of the lab surveyed observed in it. The results of unobstructed circuit breaker panels was found to be satisfactory as compared to all other safety items of the ES safety element. Poor results in terms of ES can relate to poor maintenance of electrical supplies and this can be addressed through the university s maintenance program as well as notification by laboratory staff to the management whenever a fault is detected. The performance in terms of WHWM was found to be below average as only 43% of surveyed chemistry labs had proper WHWM (Table 10). Poor results was observed in the Table 8 Summary of Compressed Gas (CG) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University Compressed Gas (CG) Toxic, flammable, corrosive gases used in chemical fume hood Cylinders stored by hazard class and chemical compatibility Gas cylinders stored upright and secured from tipping with chains Cylinder carts used for transport Regulators compatible with gas cylinder Protective caps in place while cylinders are in storage Gas cylinders are properly marked as to their contents Empty or unused gas cylinders promptly returned to Mean ± SD 18 ± ± ± 8.2 Table 9 Summary of Electrical Safety (ES) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University Electrical Safety (ES) Not Yes No applicable Flexible cords in good condition Cover plates in place for outlets and switches Circuit breaker panels are unobstructed Multi plug adapters have overload protection No extension cords used Ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) or Residual Current Device (RCD) used for wet areas Guards/covers in place for electrophoresis devices High voltage equipment labeled appropriately Mean ± SD 38 ± ± ± 24.9 Table 10 Summary of Waste and Hazardous Waste Management (WHWM) results of chemistry labs in a Saudi University Waste and Hazardous Waste Management (WHWM) Proper management of hazardous materials and waste Liquid chemical waste is not dispose of in the sink Waste containers are always sealed Waste containers labeled with the contents, Hazardous Waste Storage limited to <55 gallons of hazardous waste Containers are compatible with waste Separate disposal containers available for broken glass Waste is segregated and stored appropriately away from drains All hazardous chemical waste is arranged to be picked up by safety department Mean ± SD 43 ± ± 0.8

6 146 following areas: liquid chemical waste is not disposed of in the sink (9%), labelling of chemical waste containers (15%) and separate disposal container availability for broken glass examined (34%). The response rate for the picking of hazardous waste by safety department or by any outside company was 50%. Storage limited to <55 gallons of hazardous waste results was observed to be satisfactory (97%) as compared to all other safety items of WHWM. According to the Saudi Presidency of Meteorology and Environment (PME) hazardous wastes from research and lab activities would require special handling and safe disposal. 9) The results of STA were not satisfactory (43%) although it is an important contributing factor to maintain safe work practices among the lab staff (Table 11.). Safety items such as safety training and its documentation, information about the chemical hygiene plan, how to clean chemical spill, and information about assigned assembly area had poor responses. This can be attributed to the limited laboratory safety knowledge of the laboratory staff. This however, can be resolved through the university s laboratory training program and continual evaluation of laboratory staff accordingly. The training program can cover the following areas; laboratory orientation, what to do in Table 11 Summary of Safety Training/ Awareness (STA) results of chemistry labs in one of the university in the KSA Safety Training/ Awareness (STA) Workers have attended appropriate safety training Workers have attended a laboratory orientation Training records is documented Laboratory personnel know What to do in the event of an emergency, such as fire, injury, including evacuation routes? How to clean up chemical spills? Where is the location/contents of the Chemical Hygiene Plan? Who is the Chemical Hygiene Officer and Safety Manager for the department? What an MSDS is and where to find them and other safety information? What type of personal protective equipment to use and when to use it? What to do with chemical waste? What are the most hazardous materials they use and what precautions to take? Their assigned assembly area? Mean ± SD 43 ± ± ± 1.27 Overall averageof each answer Safety training/ Awareness (STA) Waste and hazardous waste Electrical Safety (ES) Compressed Gas (CG) Fume hood and chemical handling (FHCH) Chemical Storage & chemical Labelling Personal Protective Equipments (PPEs) Emergency Planning Equipment (EPE) Emergency Planning (EP) Lab Safety documents (LSD) General Work Environment (GWE) Fig. 1 Summary of all eleven safety elements results of chemistry laboratories in a Saudi University

7 147 the event of emergency, knowledge about SDS, use of appropriate PPEs. Based on previous organizational and past experience lab staff were aware about the type of PPEs use and precautions regarding most hazardous materials used in the lab. Only 28% of the lab staff know how to do cleanup of chemical spills. Overall limited STA was observed among laboratory staff, which can addressed with the involvement of academic leaders of the university. Overall, the average results of the occupational health and safety status was found to be 45% for all safety elements surveyed. Fig. 1 shows the results summary of all eleven safety elements explaining occupational health and safety status in the selected university. 4. Conclusion The investigation of safety facilities and safe work practices in chemistry laboratories showed average response of 45%. This indicates the serious attention needed by the university s administration to ensure safe work practices and availability of safety facilities in chemistry laboratories. It was mentioned that academic leaders can play a vital role in creating strong safety cultures in colleges and universities. 10) Poor performance in terms of LSD (17.9%), ES (37.5%), STA (42.2%) WHWM (43.1%), FHCH (44.6%) and EP (45.5%) would need to improve and be given priority. Although there are positive performance in the areas of GWE (75.2%), PPEs (61.3%), EPE (55.1%) and CSCL (52.0%) but their current performance cannot be considered as an ideal one for a laboratory safety performance of a university. This is an alert to the university management to initiate a chemical laboratory safety promotion with the prioritises in the demonstrated in the present study. Some areas of major concerns which need strict monitoring and facilitation were labelling and safety signage, inspection and proper use of fume hood and flammable storage cabinets, availability of chemical waste containers, updating chemical inventory, availability of SDS, availability of spill kit, segregation of chemicals by hazards class, minimize use of extension cord, safety training for chemical spill cleanup and emergency planning etc. Based on this study further monitoring can be useful to improve areas of concern in the surveyed chemistry laboratories. The evaluation of laboratory staff for safe work practices can also be useful to develop a vigorous laboratory safety culture in the university. Acknowledgements We acknowledge the cooperation of University s Deanship of Graduate studies and laboratory staff of the surveyed academic departments and research Excellence centers to conduct this survey. References 1) Hill Jr, R. H.: The emergence of laboratory safety, Journal of Chemical Health and Safety 14(3), 14-19, ) Office of Research and Development: Framework for an EPA chemical safety for sustainability research program, docs/cssframework.pdf, Last modified in ) Shariff, A. M., Norazahar, N.: At-risk behaviour analysis and improvement study in an academic laboratory, Safety science 50(1), 29-38, ) Langerman, N.: Laboratory safety?, Journal of Chemical Health and Safety 16 (3), 49-50, ) National Research Council (US) Committee: Prudent Practices in the Laboratory, Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards, US, National Academies Press, ) The Saudi Building Code National Committee: The Saudi Building Code (SBC) 5B Fire safety training, %85%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8% AA%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D9 %8A%D8%A9%20%D9%85%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84 %D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82.pdf. 7) Wiediger, S.D., Hutchinson, J.S.: The significance of accurate self-assessment in understanding of chemical concepts, J Chem Educ. 79(1), , ) Van Ryan Kristopher R.Galarpe, Norma C. Lamela, Ria Alcantara: Preliminary evaluation of laboratory practices in Cebu Doctors University, Philippines, Journal of Chemical Health and Safety 20(4), 25-30, ) Hill Jr, R. H., Nelson, D. A.: Strengthening safety education of chemistry undergraduates, Chemical Health and Safety 12(6), 19-23, ) Kretchman K.: Exposure assessment in a laboratory environment, Chemical Health and Safety 9(1), 10-14, 2002.