Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:10:18 -0600
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: Alan Hall <ahalltoxic**At_Symbol_Here**MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Definition of "tepid"
In-Reply-To: <8EB66FFCD07EBA40B48271ABD10E080B070114F5**At_Symbol_Here**>

We beat this already dead horse to much more to death more times than  ;a factor of 10 to the 3rd power on the ANSI/ISEA Z-358.1-2009 American N ational Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment r evision committee for about 2 years.  I personally took it upon myse lf to investigate the issue, and the results are all over the place as to a temperature range.  We did make the best compromise we could for a consensus ("consensus = nobody totally agrees with it but all can at le ast stand it and anyway are tired of arguing about it, can't settle it an y further with data, and want to get on to the next issues").
What we did agree on in the revision committee was that we very much wanted to avoid recommending water temperatures that would likely cause hypotherm ia and we also very much wanted to avoid temperatures that could cause scal ding.
That said, the definition of "tepid" is rather like the definition of "ar t".  I know the first when I feel it on my skin or in my eyes and I know the second when it appeals to my aesthetic sensibilities.
Probably the best weasel-word definitition is "water that is neither too co ld nor too hot."
Too cold, chemically exposed persons won't stay in the shower long enough.  Too hot, they'll jump right back out.  In either case, an effective water decontamination will not occur and the risk of i njury (or even death with certain chemicals such as concentrated HF) is inc reased.  Too cold may be easier with eyewashes because to a certain extent cold water is soothing to the chemically-injured conjunctiva and cornea.  With eye or eye-and-face only exposure, hypothermia i s less of a risk.  With whole-body showers, however, this become s more of an issue, especially in cold environments.
Personally, I'd prefer a slightly more collapsed range of acceptable temp eratures, but if you are trying to comply with the Standard, then the 6 0-100 degree F range is what's there.
I'm sure we will revisit this issue for the next revision committee go-arou nd in the future, so any input D-CHAS members have on the issue would be appreciated and will be passed along for consideration.
Alan H. Hall, M.D.
Medical Toxicologist
Member, ANSI/ISEA Z-358.1-2009 revision committee


Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:53:22 -0500
From: barnold**At_Symbol_Here**XENOTECHLLC.COM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Definition of "tepid"
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU

60 F may be too cold and hypothermia could still be a concern for extended washing. However, 100F is just above body temp, it should be pretty good for an eyewash.



Brady P. Arnold

Engineer III / Safety Officer

XenoTech LLC

phone (913) 227-7143

fax    & nbsp; (913) 227-7199




From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS -L**At_Symbol_Here**] On Behalf Of Debbie M. Decker
Sent: Tuesd ay, August 16, 2011 10:26 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
S ubject: [DCHAS-L] Definition of "tepid"


I know we=92ve beaten this one to death already but I wasn=92t paying atte ntion and now I need the collective brain.  I found ANSI says that =93tepid=94 is between 60 and 100F.  But I seem to recall other advi ce that suggests this is too wide of a range - 60F is uncomfortably cold and 100F is far too hot for an eyewash.


What do you guys think?






Debbie M. Decker, Campus Chemical Safety Officer
Environmental Health and Safety
University of California, Davis
1 S hields Ave.
Davis, CA  95616
(530)754-7964/(530)681-1799 (ce ll)

(530)752-4527 (FAX)
Co-Cons pirator to Make the World A
Better Place -- Visit and join the conspiracy




This e-mail message, including any attachment, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and/or confide ntial information.  Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or dist ribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient of th is message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete and destroy all copies of the original message.

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.