Safety Emporium eyewashes
Safety Emporium eyewashes

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

About This Archive  |   DCHAS-L 2022 Index   |   DCHAS-L Yearly Index   |   DCHAS-L Home Page

About This Archive

DCHAS-L 2022 Index

DCHAS-L Yearly Index

DCHAS-L Yearly Index

DCHAS-L Home Page
From: Irene Cesa <irenecesa**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] iron pentacarbonyl
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 16:55:06 -0500
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Message-ID: CAKuxyXEz0Jx=WSpxbNuzFyubCKZ64pEkp6j9p4eSK0HpYbOCYw**At_Symbol_Here**mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To <31932F30-601E-4C78-B66D-9BEA4DAF77B4**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com>

Demystify: 

Reading John Callen's remarks about caution when working with "boranes, carbonyls, and other pyrophorics" and mindful of the encouragement we often receive to share incidents that went awry, I was reminded of an incident that occurred when I was doing undergraduate research in carborane chemistry. (For any who might be keeping track, that would have been 1973-1975, or almost 50 years ago!)

I was preparing a carborane for use as a starting material. The synthesis, which had been reported in the English translation of the Soviet journal Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, stated that the compound "oxidized slowly in air." I had filtered the solid material, dried it under vacuum, and was in the process of transferring the material, still in a funnel, to a glove box. Just as I set the secondary container down in an adjacent fume hood to open the door to the glove box antechamber, the substance in the filter funnel spontaneously ignited, giving rise to a flamethrower-like torch. "Oxidized slowly in air" had apparently lost something in translation. The vagaries of memory being what they are, I have no recollection of how the fire was extinguished. I suspect it was by covering or smothering it to remove air. I was not injured and there was no damage, but the memory does linger.
Irene Cesa

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:10 PM John Callen <jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com> wrote:
Debbie,

My comment was based from the reactivity of iron pentacarbonyl as a flammable liquid, etc.

Please look at the warnings, especially "Prevention" in the attached link.

When I was in graduate research, I always took a very cautious and measured approach when I was working with or around others who were working with boranes, carbonyls and other pyrophorics, explosive & shock sensitive, etc. chemicals. That why I stated the use of an explosion-proof laboratory hood.

All My Best,

John


On Aug 3, 2022, at 15:01, Debbie Decker <debbie.m.decker**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com> wrote:

John Callen writes "...the meantime, Iron pentacarbonyl, as you know, is nasty stuff and should be used with extreme caution in an explosion-proof laboratory hood."

I'm wondering what you meant by the phrase "explosion-proof laboratory hood." This brings to mind for me Class 1, Division 1 electrical utilities to the hood, installed in a space with a similarly protected electrical system.

Is that your intent?

Debbie

--- 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
--- 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