Peter's post reminds me that anatomists sometimes tamper with their recipes by altering the proportions. We had an experience some time ago where they upped the methanol concentration to try and reduce formaldehyde exposure and they succeeded all right, but in doing so a couple of our measurements surpassed the TLV-STEL (250 ppm) for methanol and they went back to their original recipe. So if you are going to do monitoring, don't forget to test for methanol exposure in addition to formaldehyde.
Ethanol would be a better choice over methanol but we can leave that discussion for happy hour.
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**ROCHESTER.RR.COM
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Cadaver Discussion
That pretty much allows as much as 98% formaldehyde in the formulation. Sometimes I wonder what the authors of such SDS documents are thinking. (I know, it's the lawyers who are doing their thinking for them. Peter Zavon, CIH ---- "Nail wrote: Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
Penfield, NY 14526
> Many thanks for the information regarding cadaver labs.
> A bit of context: The issue appears to be the idea of converting a classroom into a cadaver lab without exhausting the air from the room directly to the outside of the building.
> Part of the on campus dialogue was the claim that the cadavers would not contain formaldehyde. The person making this claim produced a SDS that shows that the embalming fluid contains '1 to 100 % methanol, 1 to 100% phenol, and greater than 1 % formaldehyde'.
> John Nail
> Professor of Chemistry
> Oklahoma City University
Peter Zavon, CIH
---- "Nail wrote:
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post