I appreciate the thoughtful discussion so far. Speaking strictly from my perspective as someone who approaches this topic from a hazard-analysis and data-driven standpoint, I remain very cautious about the use of stools or fixed seating in academic teaching laboratories.

From an ergonomics perspective, I have not found published data indicating that standing for the duration typical of academic lab periods constitutes a significant ergonomic hazard for students. While ergonomics is sometimes cited as a justification for seating, I have likewise not located studies demonstrating that seating in chemistry teaching labs measurably reduces ergonomic stress or prevents long-term musculoskeletal issues. In fact, prolonged or static sitting—particularly on stools that are not ergonomically designed—can itself contribute to discomfort or chronic strain. I have also not found evidence that the presence of seating decreases the likelihood of chemical spills or exposures; if anything, increased proximity between a seated student and the benchtop may increase the severity of spill consequences. To be clear, this does not mean such data definitively does not exist—only that, to my knowledge, it has not been documented in the publicly available literature - and I am not seeing anything from a quick google search.

What is well supported by data across many occupational contexts is that slips, trips, and falls (STFs) are consistently among the top categories of workplace injuries. This is reflected in national injury statistics, human-factors research, and safety-program models such as SafeStart, which highlights problems with balance, traction, and grip as common contributors to incidents. In instructional laboratories—where space is tight, foot traffic is high, and equipment access must remain unobstructed—introducing stools that were not part of the original lab design can add exactly the kinds of obstructions and tripping hazards we typically try to engineer out. 

Regarding accommodations for students with disabilities, my perspective—reinforced by my mother’s long career in special education—is that accommodations should be individualized rather than universally applied. Designing a lab around universal seating in anticipation of potential accessibility needs is not aligned with standard best practices for individualized accommodations.

Finally, if we consider the contributing factors identified in the SafeStart model—eyes not on task, mind not on task, moving into the line of fire, and problems with balance, traction, or grip—several of these can be exacerbated when clutter, obstructions, or confined movement paths are introduced into an instructional space. In many labs, stools increase exactly these issues. If one did want to provide seating, a safer alternative might be to place a limited number of chairs along the wall, away from the work area, so students can rest without adding additional hazards to the primary workspace.

Given all of this, my overall view is that stools or seating in academic teaching laboratories introduce multiple potential hazards, offer limited demonstrable benefit, and should be approached with extreme caution unless specifically required for an individual accommodation.

Stephen Taylor, Ph.D.
Executive Director

The Laboratory Safety Institute

www.labsafety.org

Stephen Taylor | LinkedIn

PS. Be sure to take our Safer Science Self-Assessment to see how your organization stacks up!
K-12: Safer Science Self-Assessment
Small University, College, Community College: Safer Science Self-Assessment

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:00 AM Jonathan Klane <jklane1**At_Symbol_Here**asu.edu> wrote:

Adding to Marta's very helpful reply, I wonder if there are other risk factors we're not discussing.  Specifically, are there observable differences in human factors that might make one of these scenarios less prone to having a spill in the first case? 

These could be both internalized ones for an individual and external ones from others around the individual doing the experiment. A few potential factors could include:

Internalized (by the individual):

• greater preparations before committing to sitting vs. standing and retrieving items forgotten or piecemeal 
• greater focus due to creating their own area directly in front of them 
• moving away takes greater thought and a more purposeful movement (pushing backwards away) vs. standing and twisting, turning, sidling, etc.

External (from others): 

• the chair creates a barrier around the person 
• seen as less prone to disturbing them vs. sidling up to someone to speak or ask a question
• if bumped, less prone to movements from the static seated weight in the chair/on the stool

It would make for an interesting study (likely ethnographic).  If anyone is interested in discussing it, feel free to reach out.

All my qualitative best,

Jon

Jonathan Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CSP, CHMM, CIT

Storytelling Consultant 

I help organizations turn critical messages into stories that move people to act

PhD candidate, Human + Social Dimensions of Science + Technology

College of Global Futures

School for the Future of Innovation in Society

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 2:58 PM Gmurczyk, Marta <00001fa03b1fa040-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**lists.princeton.edu> wrote:

Dear Dr. Murphy:

I’m ACS staff and directed the production of the RAMP video series at

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLG7h7fPoH8IZ6i2rfDK0zVoompXayRL_

 

For context:

• The high school series was filmed in the small ACS studio because we couldn’t secure a high school lab. The host introduced safety concepts while seated at a desk. I recall that many high school labs have stools around benches, so some students may work while seated. Hopefully, that assumption wasn’t too far off, but indeed it might have been better if we had asked the host to stand while simulating chemistry experiments.
• The college series was filmed in the general chemistry lab at Wittenberg College, where the host and student models performed activities while standing.

 

As always, despite multiple reviews, we noticed a few safety issues after publishing the videos. 😊 These videos were released quite some time ago, and a few concerns have since been brought to our attention. I appreciate your comment—we have not heard it before, and it prompted me to dig deeper into the topic, especially since none of us SMEs considered the differences between seated and standing lab benches during filming.

Based on my research, here’s a summary of my conclusions regarding seated versus standing benches and their impact on spill risk in teaching laboratories. I’ll be following this discussion closely to learn from others.

 

 

Chemical Safety and Spill Risk

Lower benches for seated work can increase the likelihood of chemical contact if spills occur, because the torso and lap are closer to the work surface. This is a valid concern, so it is crucial to review this risk with the students and make sure they understand how to minimize exposure to spills. These best practices include:

• Position chemicals away from bench edges and high-traffic areas.
• Use spill trays and secondary containment for containers.
• Keep the workspace organized to prevent accidental tipping.

Regardless of bench height, proper PPE (lab coat, gloves, goggles) and engineering controls (fume hoods, splash shields) remain essential.

 

OSHA and ACS Guidance:

• OSHA emphasizes ergonomic adjustments (chair height, posture, footrests) and alternating between sitting and standing to reduce musculoskeletal strain.
• ACS RAMP principles (Recognize hazards, Assess risks, Minimize risks, Prepare for emergencies) may  apply here: seated benches aren’t inherently unsafe, but risk assessment should consider spill scenarios and proximity to chemicals and emphasize controls.

 

Summary

• Seated benches aren’t less safe by design, but they require extra attention to spill prevention and ergonomic setup.
• Standing benches may reduce spill contact risk but can increase fatigue and ergonomic strain during long tasks. ( think about the students with special needs)
• The safest approach is task-based bench design: precision work at seated benches with containment measures, and general or heavy work at standing benches. 

 

I am curious what others think.

 

Marta Gmurczyk

ACS Senior Portfolio Manager, Safety Programs

 

 

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> On Behalf Of Murphy, Dr. Ruth Ann
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 2:37 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Subject: [EXT] [DCHAS-L] Seating(?) in Chemistry Labs

 

[Actual Sender is owner-dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**princeton.edu]

Good Afternoon, All,

 

Are seated work benches in chemistry labs considered as safe as those where the students stand?  On the one hand, the ACS RAMP videos show the lower work table; however this arrangement seems more likely to lead to chemical contact from spills.

 

Thank you!

 

Best Regards,

Ruth Ann

 

 

Ruth Ann Cook Murphy, Ph.D.

Professor of Chemistry

University of Mary Hardin-Baylor

900 College Street

Belton, TX  76513-2599

Phone 254.295.4542

Accepting Christ is life's greatest decision; following Christ is life's greatest adventure.

 

 

 

                       

 

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org