January, 1978 CORRESPONDENCE 32 Correspondence Correspondence is accepted on all matters of interest to analytical chemists. Letters should be addressed to the Editor, Proceedings of the Analytical Division, The Chemical Society, Burlington House, London, WIV OBN. Safety in Analytical Laboratories Sir, The series of articles you are publishing on matters concerning safety in the laboratory are very timely.. I believe that a word of caution is, however, desirable. The law, as it stands at present, is not as clearly formulated when applied to experimental laboratory work as it is when applied to factory operations. This derives from the long ex- perience of the Factory Inspectorate in dealing with the repetitive situations in industry. The same body have, as yet, much less experience in dealing with the hazards of the laboratory.In the event of an accident within the lab- oratory, judgement will need to be made on the basis of whether “reasonable” precautions have been taken. For this purpose, available docu- mentation will be searched, starting with appropriate law, passing through approved codes of practice, British Standards, etc., to articles making recommendations or any other form of publication in order to find “expert opinion.” I t is therefore important that any recommendations issued in the Proceedings of such a reputable organisation should be very carefully considered before publication.In this context the proposed Code of Practice on the Use of Gas Cylinders was extremely helpful, manifestly sensible and therefore “reasonable. ” I am, however, somewhat con- cerned that in none of the articles in the series does the standard fall below this.Recom- mendations intended for technicians and pupils of a school laboratory are not always appro- priate or “reasonable:’ when translated to the industrial or research laboratory. Once pub- lished they can set the norm for all laboratories, possibly to the great and unnecessary detri- ment of the smooth flow of work.I ,have been prompted to write this letter by the article on Basic Safety in Volumetric Analysis (Proceedings, 1977, 14, 225), in which I and a number of chemists in other local organisations have suspected an element of overkill. The article makes a number of recommendations designed to deal with all eventualities in all contexts and it is possible to visualise many occasions when these re- quirements would be totally excessive.A typical example may be found in 1.3. Am- poules, wherein it states : “All opening operat- ions ought to be done in a fume cupboard. . .” or alternatively, “and must be carried out behind a safety screen.’’ These requirements are not “reasonably” necessary for volumetric solution vials of, say, 0.1 N sodium hydroxide or 0.1 N hydrochloric acid.Particular objection is made to 3, Titrations. From consultation with several chemists, including staff of the local Polytechnic, it would appear that it is not obvious to the experienced (not inexperienced) operator that it is a dan- gerous practice to carry out a titration while wated.Dangerous is a very strong word to use in this context as it is hard to visualise a serious accident arising either by the tap pulling out and releasing into the lap the type of dilute solution used in titration or by being hit on the head with a burette. This rec- ommendation also appears to ignore all forms of titration equipment but the glass burette, e.g., piston burettes or automated equipment.There is a grave danger that this sort of loosely phrased set of recommendations will be used out of context by Inspectors attempting to justify a case. The general tone of this article would suggest that each and every analyst must regard his normal working uniform as consisting of goggles and/or eye shield, gloves, plastic or rubber, and aprons, plastic or rubber, together with a laboratory overall.I believe that there is greater poten-32 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY TRUST FUND PrOc. Andyt. DiV. Chem. soc. tial danger of accident to the encumbered analyst with goggles and gloves than to the well-trained analyst using the required care and delicacy of touch. There are clearly times when each attitude is appropriate ; we should, however, beware of producing documents which may be taken as having wider application than has been en- visaged.We may be left with a choice of taking so many precautions that work becomes impossible or of using common sense a t the risk of prosecution. H. Bennett Chairman, Safety Committee and Principal Scientific Oficer f o r Director of Research, The British Ceramic Research Association, Queens Road, Penkhull, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 7LQ The authors reply as follows- We would emphasise the point that the precautions referred to in the article are suggestions based on wide practical experience and are not necessarily intended to be recom- mendations.We appreciate, however, that they could possibly be construed as-such. In an article such as this, to be read by laboratory workers with a wide spectrum of experience and expertise, one must try to avoid the omission of any potential hazard, however apparently obvious.The precautions then to be taken must take into account the abilities of the operators involved. We are in full agreement that safety precautions, to be effective, must be readily seen to be reasonable and necessary. This applies most particularly to the wearing of protective clothing, where safety is enhanced by the use of the minimum amount considered necessary rather than the reverse. Regarding the specific point of not being seated when carrying out titrations, the suggestion is made more to cover the hazard due to accidental breakage of the flask con- taining the titrand, which is not necessarily dilute, rather than a hazard arising from spillage from the burette.