Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0500
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ILPI <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Subject: Safety Clearinghouse [Was: Cryogenics face shield?]
In-Reply-To: <00be01cac162$e23ec240$a6bc46c0$**At_Symbol_Here**>

Exactly my point.  In academia at least, and no doubt in industry, but *perhaps* to a lesser extent, folks rely on their own personal experiences to guide their thought processes on safety.  Someone with my experience of no harm/injury might erroneously conclude that liquid N2 is No Big Deal, fail to establish/observe the proper safety protocols, and be injured as a result. 

That's why I mentioned some central "gold standard".  Now, as someone pointed out off-list, who is an "authority" and could one even reach consensus on an issue like gloves that we've been discussing?  That's an excellent point.

That's why some centralized aggregation of safety procedures/protocols/data would be useful, so that folks could get an idea what is the norm in industry and academia for various topics and be able to compare/contrast.   A "universal resource" might not have a single definitive opinion of its own, but offer several different (but clearly codified)  schools of thought.  A clearinghouse would be a better description of what I'm thinking about.

So, just to hammer this home again, many of us are blind on certain areas of safety because we have never encountered an issue, nobody has warned us of issues, and we never conceived there could be an issue.  And we will never realize it until we face a serious accident or chance upon a useful posting on DCHAS.

If a safety clearinghouse existed, then maybe, just maybe, someone would find out that hey, there is a hazard to _________ (cyrogens and eyes, insert whatever topic here) that they never thought about and here are some consensus opinions and links to ______ (cryogen safety at Cornell, for example).


On Mar 11, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Erik A. Talley wrote:

I know someone that was temporarily blinded by a cryovial in LN2 and that isn=92t all that uncommon. We created an update on LN2 use after a few incidents here.
If you Google/Bing =93Nunc Cryopreservation Manual=94 you will find some good guidance on cryosafety.
Our procedure is at:
We require goggles.
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**] On Behalf Of ILPI
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:05 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Cryogenics face shield?
This is another one of those topics that telegraphs the safety disconnect between academia and industry.
I have 15 years of experience using liquid nitrogen at four major research institutions (on a daily basis for many of those) and I don't recall anyone *ever* using a face shield when working with liquid nitrogen, and that includes filling 200 liter dewars from the larger building supply dewar and the NMR lab techs who do the routine N2/He fills.  At *best* safety glasses were used, and I can distinctly recall seeing folks doing Dewar fills without any eye protection - after all, they weren't in the lab anymore, they were down by the loading dock or in a basement somewhere for the big fills, and safety glasses are only required in labs, right?
Of course, in those 15 years I never saw or heard of an incident involving liquid nitrogen that required any sort of first aid treatment.  I did see a second degree frostbite burn on someone who carried a block of dry ice without gloves, personally found out that sticking my head way down into the dry ice chest to get the last block is not a good idea, and saw (as you all know) plenty of fires and explosions, but no issues with liquid N2.
Now, I'm not saying that liquid N2 is harmless and that you don't need face shields or other protection (insulating gloves, even ear plugs for Dewar transfers).  Although one could probably argue face shields are overkill, that's not the point of my comment.
The point is that the academic research community is often blind to best practices.  The safety culture of academia is undermined by the transient nature of the staff (grad students showing new grad students how they learned to do things "safely").  We saw that with the UCLA tragedy and I can all but guarantee that there are still labs that use improper transfer techniques for pyrophorics because that's the way they've always been done in those labs.  How do we unlearn bad habits that come about through inertia or oversight?  How do academics prepare students for a job in industry when they've never held industrial jobs themselves?
It's almost like we (i.e. industry, academia, chemists, biologists, safety admins etc.) need a peer-reviewed and maintained "Wikipedia of Research Safety" that researchers everywhere could *easily* turn to as a gold standard of sorts.   Want to know the safe way of doing a particular procedure or the dangers or a particular chemical?  Go there.  Want to know how formalin is handled at other institutions?  Go there and find a concise listing.  Forget random web searches, we need one central location with definitive answers.
I'd say that the DCHAS community's response to the UCLA incident was an excellent first step in that direction.  And there are many other individual resources out there that could be linked to for further information.    I wonder if something like I describe would be fundable through ACS/NSF/NIH etc.?   Would there be a support for a Safety Initiative that could underlie the thousands of individual efforts made by colleges, universities, and businesses alike?  Something that would not just make safety compliance easier but better?   I guess that's all a whole new thread....
Rob Toreki
  ==================== ========================= =========
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust.  Visit us at
esales**At_Symbol_Here**  or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012

A lab tech writes:
Do you have a recommendation for an appropriate face shield that people
should be using when working with LN2? I've been searching the web and it's
hard to find a specific recommendation for a face shield to be worn with
cryogenics. I don't see any guidelines on OSHA that point to any
particulars and nothing on the Cryogenic Society of America's site either.
I would appreciate your assistance.

Does anyone have any favorites they'd like to recommend?

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH
Environmental Safety Manager
University of Vermont
Environmental Safety Facility
667 Spear St. Burlington, VT  05405

fax: (802)656-5407

Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust.  Visit us at
esales**At_Symbol_Here**  or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012

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.