> Requiring references is the norm in published scientific literature, why not this standard of quality and traceability in SDSs as a key source of information?
I think I can suggest the reason for this. The SDS did not begin existence as scientific literature, but as industrial safety information provided by the manufacturer for the _industrial_ user, and that in a much less formal era of the 1960s. There have been significant modifications since then but dragging it into the realm of scientific literature is clearly a herculean task still in progress and unlikely to be completed in the near future. That doesn’t mean you should not continue to seek that level, but there is little point in being incensed about the SDS not being at that level now or soon.
Peter Zavon, CIH
I concur with the need for more clarity around sources of data reported in SDSs from manufacturers and chemical suppliers. Requiring references is the norm in published scientific literature, why not this standard of quality and traceability in SDSs as a key source of information?
Just a note about the Safety & Hazard information in PubChem - this is sourced from many different agencies and other entities. These sources are documented under each entry with a link back to the original source.
The corrosive GHS symbol included for Pentadecafluorotoctanoyl chloride is from ECHA, for example. Specifically the source is the ECHA C&L inventory database, which compiles classification and labelling notifications from a number of companies as reported to ECHA per the CLP criteria (EU regulation).
PubChem is a service from the National Library of Medicine that provides information from other authoritative sources as reported. The motivation is to provide a starting point and where to link to find further information. It is incumbent upon the user to determine what information and source is relevant for their needs. PubChem is not an official classification entity for GHS or any other status of chemical substances.
I hope this may help generally. As a volunteer curator with PubChem, I am happy to have ideas for additional data and information sources.
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> on behalf of Stuart, Ralph <Ralph.Stuart**At_Symbol_Here**KEENE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 11:54
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Pentadecafluorooctanoyl chloride.
> >Could we have a webinar or discussion about the differences in SDS? I have faced those many times and depending on the manufacturer there are really big differences.
That would be a great topic to take up in a CHAS chat. We did begin this discussion in the March CHAS chat this year on Quality Data For Safer Experiments.q You can see the notes from this session at
However, a more focused discussion on assessing the fit of a SDS to answering a lab safety question would be a good topic for a group discussion. Do we have any volunteers to lead this discussion?
Thanks for this suggestion!
Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Environmental Safety Manager
Keene State College
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post