FEATURE

An Environmental, Health andSafety class for undergraduateChemistry majors

By Mark R. Banister

INTRODUCTION

A University undergraduate student’seducation in safety issues is generallylimited to the minimal amountrequired for the activities performedin their laboratory classes. This is ofteninsufficient to address the safety andenvironmental needs involved in anyindependent research an undergradu-ate may perform and it also typicallyleaves the student to enter their work-ing careers in graduate school orindustry unaware of the significantenvironmental and safety-relatedissues they will face there. It was feltthat additional information on largersafety and environmental issues asso-ciated with chemistry laboratorieswould not only help emphasize theirimportance to the student, but alsoprovide a much-needed backgroundin these subjects, useful to the studentin the job market and workplace. Toprovide this information, CarnegieMellon University has piloted anEnvironmental, Health and Safetyseminar for Chemistry undergraduatestudents.

This article describes the genesis ofthe seminar, the various EH&S issuesthat are addressed within it, some stra-tegies used for instruction and an eva-luation of the seminar’s success for the3 years it has been offered.

Mark R. Banister, CIH, CHMM,is Manager of Chemical Safety andEnvironmental Compliance, andis affiliated with Carnegie MellonUniversity, Environmental Health andSafety, 5000 Forbes Avenue—FMSB,Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.Tel.: +412 268 1493(e-mail: markb2@andrew.cmu.edu).

20 � Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the

Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

COURSE BACKGROUND

The original idea for the seminar camein 1999, from Karen Stump, Directorof Undergraduate Studies in the Chem-istry Department at Carnegie Mellon.Karen’s familiarity with academia andmine with industry helped define thetopics to include in the course syllabus,looking at the needs of research che-mists in these two areas.

We had significant limitations in ourcourse design and implementation. Wehad a one semester, one credit class—meaning one 50-minute session foreach of 15 weeks. Due to the signifi-cant work and class loads our under-graduates face and the nature of theseminar structure, we could notrequire the student to perform workoutside of this 50-minute per weekamount. We also had the typical safetytrainer’s task of engaging students inwhat can be notoriously un-interestingsubjects. The seminar was and still is arequirement for Chemistry majors.

Our first class was offered in theSpring Semester of 2002, with 10undergraduate Chemistry majors,mostly sophomores. At this point intheir studies, most of the students willhave had their initial Chemistrylaboratory class, which includes athorough safety orientation addressingthe hazards of the materials they willwork with, reading labels and MSDS,and the use of personal protectiveequipment they are required to use.There were 25 and 23 students in the2003 and 2004 classes, respectively.

The department provides food forthe students each week. It is, I believe,well known in academia that feedingstudents is an invaluable support toeducation. Grades are determined onthe basis of attendance, participationin class, and the quality of the groupsafety project required. For every unex-

American Chemical Society

cused absence, the student’s grade islowered one level.

It is an on-going challenge to mini-mize lecture techniques and to maxi-mize student involvement in adiscussion as well as hands-on activ-ities. Fortunately, we have been prettylucky in coming up with strategies forboth.

I perform all of the instruction forthe seminar, with the exception of theguest presenters as noted. Karen per-forms all of the considerable adminis-trative functions, including arrangingfor classrooms, providing the food,reporting grades, keeping attendancerecords, and all of the other activitiesinvolved in a college class.

COURSE CONTENT

Week 1: Introduction

The syllabus outlining the content ofthe course is presented and the gradingcriteria are discussed, as noted above.A general safety discussion is pre-sented, providing examples and photosof various safety and/or environmentalincidents such as may occur with labssimilar to ours. These include injuries,spills, explosions and fires. Studentsreally enjoy pictures of lab accidentsand their aftermath!

Week 2: Regulations

Sadly, it is difficult to engender muchexcitement about the various regula-tions. We tried a new strategy this yearthat seemed to create some interest. Thestudents were given a list of agenciesand the focus of the agencies’ efforts.From this we talked about some specificthings the students do in the laboratoryand possible chemical incidents thatmay occur, and ask them to select theagency who they feel would be con-

1074-9098/$30.00

doi:10.1016/j.chs.2004.10.002

cerned in the situation. They seemed tolike this format and there was produc-tive discussion as to why a particulargroup would address the situation andwhy several agencies would have aninterest in the same thing.

Week 3: Chemical Storage

The students receive a brief lectureabout basic incompatibilities of che-micals and why such materials shouldnot be stored together. There is alsodiscussion of flammable and corrosivematerial storage. Then the class workstogether on a practice scenario pre-sented to them. This is a list of com-mon chemicals (including many of thematerials in their lab and part of thework they are currently performing)and the students are asked to identifythe categories of storage for the itemson the list. Again this helps with thediscussion as some of the finer points(i.e., acetic acid—storage with corro-sives or flammables?) play in the sce-nario.

Week 4: Fire Safety, Part 1

A guest presenter is involved in thisclass—the university’s fire safety officer.He discusses issues of fire safety both inthe dorms and public buildings(response to fire alarms), along withspecial attention to fire codes andlaboratories. Specific items includeproper storage of flammable materials,quantities of chemicals permitted, firesafety features present in their lab andthe importance of keeping aisles andfire exits clear.

Week 5: Fire Safety, Part 2

Again, the fire safety officer runs thisclass. There is a brief instruction on theproper use of fire extinguishers and theselection of the proper class. Then weall go outside to set things on fire andput them out. ALL persons mustdemonstrate proper use of the extin-guisher (including the teacher). Con-sidering that we are in Pittsburgh inFebruary, we haven’t had a weatherpostponement yet!

Week 6: Particularly HazardousSubstances

As we all know, the OSHA LaboratoryStandard has a provision for addres-

Chemical Health & Safety, March/April 200

sing the laboratory use of particularlyhazardous substances (PHS). At Car-negie Mellon, we require the prepara-tion of an SOP indicating the properuse, handling, protection and disposalof the material. After a brief discussionof why we do this, small groupsof students are formed and each isprovided with an MSDS for a PHSmaterial and a blank SOP form. Eachgroup then prepares the SOP and thenbriefly discusses their work before theclass.

Week 7: Lab Emergencies

The students receive the CarnegieMellon University procedure addres-sing the clean-up of small scale spills.We discuss the procedure, with specialattention to the decision of when toaddress the spill and when to call foroutside help. When we have a smallclass, individual students clean upspills of low hazard items with colorindicating acid/base sorbent, fuel soli-difier, vapor barrier pads, etc. Withlarger classes, this work is all demon-stration by the instructor and a fewvolunteers from the class. We alsodiscuss the university’s EmergencyResponse Guidebook, which is postedin every laboratory. This guidebookaddresses response actions for perso-nal exposures, plus large and small-scale spills of chemicals, biologicalor radiological materials. Finally acci-dent prevention strategies are dis-cussed.

Week 8: Fume Hoods

In a discussion of ventilation con-trols, we identify hood use as a pri-mary safety essential. We discuss howhoods operate and visit an adjacentlaboratory to watch them in action.We perform flow tests, open andclose sashes, and smoke test thehoods under various circumstances,to show the student the intricacies ofthe hood design and performance.Then we ask the class to help comeup with some rules that will make thehood work better (sash height, noovercrowding, work further inside,etc.). We can often find a poorly-working hood that will demonstratetheir performance as well. We ask forstudent assistance in the hood testing,to provide them with a feel for varia-

5

tions in flow under differing condi-tions.

Week 9: Waste Disposal

A representative from the university’swaste disposal contractor is the guestlecturer for this class. He talks aboutthe types of waste our laboratories gen-erate, how they are collected andremoved from campus. One of themost interesting aspects of the presen-tation is the discussion of where thematerials go. The class is always inter-ested in the ultimate fate of the materi-als, which the university ensures isdone in the most environmentallyresponsible fashion. At the end of theclass, techniques for waste minimiza-tion are discussed and are related tothe specific efforts by the undergradu-ate laboratories to implement them.

Week 10: Laboratory InspectionDiscussion

In the first of two sessions on thissubject, we discuss why lab inspec-tions are performed and we reviewthe inspection form the students willbe using for their lab inspections. Theinspection form is an abbreviated ver-sion of the one used by EH&S in itsannual audits, amended to removequestions the student may not knowabout or that may introduce some risk(i.e., handling chemical containers)and so would not be suitable for themto perform. The students are dividedinto groups of three or four andassigned a laboratory to inspect, inplace of the next week’s regular classmeeting. The laboratories selected forinspection are with researchers whohave agreed to the inspection and whorepresent a nice cross section of thetypes of labs (teaching and research)we have at the university. The studentsare to coordinate with the labresearcher and set up a convenienttime to inspect.

Week 11: Laboratory Inspection

The student inspection groups performtheir inspections in lieu of meeting inour regular classroom this week.

Week 12: Laboratory InspectionReports/Assign Final Projects

The inspection groups report theresults of their work and turn in their

21

We believe thatthe seminar

achieves its goalsof creating better

awarenessof the safety andenvironmental

checklists for review. During the pre-sentations, I frequently note items thatI need to address with the researchers.The students seem quite engaged inthis process, often identifying thingswe haven’t discussed in class but thatthey question as to whether they areproper or not.

For the second part of the class, thestudents are placed into groups ofthree or four for work on a final pro-ject. We instructors have identified sui-table safety or environmental projectsand printed them on slips of paper.Each group selects a project from thepool of possibilities. This is a samplingof the types of projects we identify:

aspects of a

� C

student’s chemistryand laboratory

22

reate a safety poster to be placed inthe undergraduate laboratory toencourage the proper selection ofsafety equipment.

activities.

� C reate a safety booklet for highschool students to use when theyvisit our labs in the summer.

� R

eview an experiment and suggestwaste to minimize the waste pro-duced.

� I

dentify a solution to a safety orenvironmental problem actuallyexperienced in the lab (for example,an on-going one is student placingthe wrong waste in a particularwaste container)

Weeks 13–14: Work on Final Projects

In lieu of meeting at the classroom, thestudent groups work on the final pro-ject assigned. It is understood that theyare to spend the equivalent of two 50-minute sessions on their work. Based

on the results, it is our suspicion thatthey spend well over this amount!

Week 15: Presentation of FinalProjects, Course Evaluation

At this final meeting, the groups pre-sent the results of their group project.The quality of the presentations wehave had in our three years of this classhas been quite high. Their perspectiveas students and their considerablecomputer abilities have been displayedquite well.

RESPONSE TO THE SEMINAR

At the final class of the semester, thestudents complete a critique form(anonymously) for the class and itsinstructors, as they do for all otherclasses at Carnegie Mellon. They areasked whether they felt the classgoals were clearly stated, was the classwell planned, was feedback encour-aged, was the level of difficulty appro-priate, was critical thought stimulatedand did the instructor communicateeffectively? They also rated the courseoverall. Each item was rated on a scaleof 1 to 5, with 5 being excellent.

For the 2002 class, the averageoverall class rating was 5.0 and the2003 overall rating was 4.7. We havenot yet received the 2004 class reviews.

Each student has the opportunity towrite additional comments on the formas well. We have been pleased at thevery favorable reviews received. Manystudents comment that they were una-ware of the detail, the scope and the

Chem

benefits of safety and environmentalissues and are pleased to know some-thing of them now. They tell us thatthey especially enjoy the various stra-tegies involving hands-on activities.

We believe that the seminar achievesits goals of creating better awareness ofthe safety and environmental aspectsof a student’s chemistry and laboratoryactivities. The class provides informa-tion and specific hands-on activitiesdirectly related to the student’s experi-ences at the university. It also empha-sizes the importance that theirpotential employers will place onsafety and environmental issues. Theformat of just one 50-minute class perweek, with little or no outside workrequired of the student, ensures thatthis additional, vital information canbe presented with minimal effortneeded by the class.

ical Health & Safety, March/April 2005