Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May-June issue

JCHAS coverHere’s what’s in the May-June issue of the Journal of Chemical Health & Safety:

Editorial: How did I survive? by Harry J. Elston

Letter to the editor about “rainbow” demonstrations; from Scott Owen, Marshfield Fire & Rescue Department, and William C. Penker, Sycamore Consulting Group

Dissolution rates of five inorganic mine ore inorganic elements in synthetic lung fluid; David S. Adams, Jordan C. Koyle, Leon F. Pahler, Matthew S. Thiese, and Rodney R. Larson (University of Utah)

Investigation of injury/illness data at a nuclear facility: Part II; Michael E. Cournoyer, Vincent E. Garcia, Arnold N. Sandoval, Gerald L. George, David C. Gubernatis, and Stephen B. Schreiber (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

Protective equipment for small-scale laboratory explosive hazards. Part 2. Shielding materials, eye and face protection; Chris Murray, Peter Jenkins, and Stephen Miller (AWE)

Methacrylonitrile; by William E. Luttrell and Joshua T. Dilley (Oklahoma Christian University)

Rules, Regulations and Codes for Drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, NextGen Air Transportation, Unmanned Air Systems; by David Rainer (North Carolina State University)

Adjusting to the arbitrary; by John DeLaHunt

Sewers and vent systems; by Dennis C. Hendershot (AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety)

Little safety hazards; Peter C. Ashbrook (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

Safety & ethics; Neal Langerman (Advanced Chemical Safety)

Author: Jyllian Kemsley

Share This Post On

1 Comment

  1. Given the recent post here about the explosion at UC Berkeley*, the article in this issue by Murray, et al., “Protective equipment for small-scale laboratory explosive hazards. Part 2. Shielding materials, eye and face protection” is very timely.

    Part 1 of this series covers hand and body PPE for explosive hazards and is well worth reading, in addition to the cited references (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871553214000954#). Noteworthy are the conclusions that:

    0.3 g of explosive (the smallest sample size tested) is capable of significant injury to an unprotected hand. The unprotected hand in their experiments is a ballistic gelatin-filled nitrile glove. Recall that this was considered to be adequate PPE in the SOP used in the UC Berkeley explosion. Results with the test gloves at this scale showed varying degrees of protection, suggesting this explosive scale is borderline. The authors recommend a 0.2 g limit in cases where PPE is relied upon for protection from an explosive.

    At 1 g scale (the same as in the Berkeley explosion) the authors conclude “…damage to an unprotected hand would be severe. All of the gloves were penetrated, as were the wrist protectors and apron samples.” and “It is clear that whilst the level of damage at the 1.0 g scale can be much reduced, full protection is not credible with any of the PPE tested in this paper.”

    Bottom line: Unless one is working at very small scale (<0.2 g), there is no adequate PPE for hands-on explosives work in a typical chemistry lab.

    * http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2015/06/lesson-learned-eye-protection/