Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:53:02 -0500
Reply-To: "Samuella B. Sigmann" <sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**APPSTATE.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Samuella B. Sigmann" <sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**APPSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: FW: [DCHAS-L] Working with chemicals and anosmia
Comments: To: Steve
In-Reply-To: <000501c98cc0$95f6f8d0$c1e4ea70$**At_Symbol_Here**net>

I just wanted to thank everyone that responded to my question concerning anosmia.  There are also issues of confidentiality and the ADA that we are working through (which is one reason that my question was somewhat vague).  In case this ever comes up with any of you, I will post the protocols that we put in place for this worker when they are finalized.


Steve wrote:

Let me give my thanks to everybody who has taken the time to critique my original posting. I even got an ‘off-line’ (tongue in cheek?) reply reminding me that I had been ridiculously over-inclusive by my use of the word “all” volatiles…OK, most aqueous mixtures are innocuous—unless you happen to fall asleep and drown in them. (Thanks, Doc). If I might ask for the indulgence of a follow-up to the original posting, I would like to re-state the case and also correct the spelling error of “REL” (too much ethanol exposure, perhaps).

Smelling a chemical is a trailing indicator. A safe, healthful lab needs procedures in place to reduce or eliminate exposure to most (I said “most”, Doc) volatile reagents. There is no one procedure that can address all exposure situations. The chemists need to be trained to recognize that many reagents have poor warning properties, have undetectable properties and can have adverse health effects with repeated exposure at sub-detectable or sub-regulated levels.

This topic was eating on me for the better part of the day, today and I continued to return to the analogy of exposure to ionizing radiation: No human can sense the exposure but no human can escape the deleterious effect of exposure. Radiation sickness is the trailing indicator. Safeguards need to be established to safely handle those materials. That’s where you establish safe handling techniques, engineering controls, perform sampling and monitoring and conduct appropriate training. Radioactive isotopes are regularly handled and the safety record is fairly good. Why should chemical handling be any different?

And, just for the record, our chemists routinely handle aqueous mixtures of various active pharmaceutical actives. Among those are female hormonal agents, which, as you can imagine have incredibly low OELs. You can bet that they (especially the males) are scrupulous in the usage of PPE, fume hoods and VBEs and they avoid any practice that would cause those mixtures to become airborne even when they are handling aqueous solutions/suspensions. So far, we have had no over-exposure symptoms among our people.

I hope that Sammye has had her question answered.

James S. Bonnell

Manager, Environmental Services

Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., subsid. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


The Washington Post's Style Invitational asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition


Don’t always believe what you think.

Samuella B. Sigmann, NRCC-CHO

Lecturer/Safety Committee Chair

A. R. Smith Department of Chemistry

Appalachian State University

525 Rivers Street

Boone, NC   28608

Phone: 828 262 2755

Fax: 828 262 6558

Email: sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.