4th National Symposium on Biosafety

Strategies for Safe Use of Chemicals in Animal Research

Douglas D. Sharpnack, DVM
R. Delon Hull, Ph.D.
Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science
NIOSH - M/S PO3/C26
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226
513-533-8122

NIOSH is the acronym for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH is a component of the CDC - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - and rightfully so, because NIOSH is a public health research organization. NIOSH is a valuable asset in advancing the health of the nation's workforce. Safety in the workplace, however, is not accomplished by a national organization; it is accomplished when everyone in the workplace - the veterinarian, the facility manager, the animal care technician, the investigator, the safety officer - makes safety a primary concern as they go about their duties.

In developing strategies for the safe use of chemicals in the workplace, one must first consider the scope of the problem. A brief survey of chemical use in the animal facility will be presented. The major portion of the presentation will focus on the solution - the strategies which might be employed to bring about the safe use of chemicals in the research facility.

The Problem

There are more than 80,000 chemicals in commercial use today. That's a daunting problem for organizations like NIOSH or OSHA that are concerned with chemical safety in all types of industries. Fortunately, an inventory of every chemical found in the typical animal facility will probably fit on 1 or 2 pages. If there are special rooms in the facility (for example, a histology lab with a significant number of reagents and buffers) it may take another page or 2. In general, however, it is a limited number of chemicals. In terms of relative risk of workplaces, animal facilities in general are not the most dangerous of places to work. In many manufacturing plants, for example, there is potential exposure to more chemicals, and more hindrances to engineering and other controls which might prevent these exposures. This is not to say that risks are always minimal. In certain animal facilities, toxicologic studies of the effects of chemicals can be extremely hazardous and necessitate vigilant controls and procedures to prevent illness and possibly even death.

For chemicals to be dangerous they have to interact in some way with the body. If those working in research animal facilities could continually wear fully-protective clothing and equipment, there would be no concern regarding chemical exposures. Of course, that is not practical - it is expensive, it can drastically reduce the comfort level of workers, and it can slow or inhibit productivity when workers perform certain tasks. Additionally, if workers perceive the measures to be unnecessary, compliance will be difficult to attain. The procedures adopted will inevitably allow some potential for exposure, often through human error or failure of engineering controls. When exposure occurs, the routes for interaction with the body include:

The respiratory and dermal routes of exposure are of most concern to those involved in animal research. Inhalation exposures can have harmful effects on the lungs, but many inhaled chemicals can also cross the thin barrier between the respired air and blood, where they are carried through the circulatory system to affect organs throughout the body. Dermal exposure, by splashes and spills, or exposure to vapors and gases, can result to injury to the skin, and, subsequent to the chemical's breeching of the dermal barrier, might cause systemic injury, as well. The oral route of entry is much less likely, especially since eating, drinking, smoking, and other practiceswhich might result in oral exposure have pretty much been banned from animal facilities. Ocular injury is of great concern, and certainly can occur in the animal facility. Iatrogenic exposures, such as needle sticks, are usually thought of as a threat with regard to infectious disease transmission. Pharmaceuticals or test chemicals in syringes do present potential for exposure, but serious injuries as a result of iatrogenic chemical injection don't appear to be a common problem.

Once exposure has occurred, there are a variety of health effects which might result. In low concentrations, there might be no effect of exposure to a chemical (with regard to health). But in many cases, the victim of chemical exposure will suffer either immediate or delayed effects, or both. Immediate effects - those that occur very quickly after exposure - are usually easy to associate with a specific chemical exposure. This is often more difficult for delayed effects. Workers might be exposed to multiple chemicals over many years at varying doses, they might move to a different job, or they might have underlying health problems which mask or confound the chronic effects of the chemical exposure. In the arena of occupational health research, correlating an exposure with a delayed effect is often difficult.

It may be 20 years or longer before diagnosis of a chemically-induced cancer is possible. Over two thousand chemicals are listed as potential carcinogens in various databases. Toxicity refers to direct injury to cells or tissues as a result of exposure to the chemical. A chemical might cause liver or kidney disease or affect reproductive organs. Often, exposure has to result in blood transport of the chemical for internal organs to be injured. Mutagenic effects result when a chemical has the capacity to change the structure of DNA in a way that changes the physiology of the cell. Chemicals that induce cancer are often mutagens. Chemicals that cause defects in fetal development are classified as teratogens. Some chemicals are allergenic. For example, dermal exposure to latex in surgical gloves is becoming a prominent problem for health care professionals. The drugs in your pharmacy are chemicals, as well. These chemicals produce desired effects when used appropriately, but accidental exposure can obviously have negative health outcomes.

In considering the scope of the problem of potential chemical exposure in the research facility, it is appropriate to take a mental "walk" through the facility to identify the sources of these toxicants. There are many sources of chemicals in a typical animal facility. Sources of chemical use common to most facilities include:

Sources which might be present in certain animal facilities, but not in others, include:

In the course of conducting animal research there is certainly potential for chemical exposures. Those involved must seek strategies to minimize these exposures and their subsequent health effects.

The Solution

So what is the solution to the problem? The solution to be offered in this presentation is more philosophical than technical in nature. Later talks in the session will address specifics, such as chemical management, procedures and practices, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. The solutions to many of our concerns about workplace safety lie in improving our knowledge base, and then changing the way we look at things - changing our philosophy - changing to a better paradigm.

The Solution - Profound Knowledge

The first half of the solution is to apply profound knowledge. Profound knowledge implies knowledge that is more than facts, but an understanding of the facts, how to apply them, and how to use them to convince others around you. When Edward Deming, the father of the movement known as total quality management (continuous quality improvement), used the term, he said it was the kind of knowledge that transforms an individual, that enables he or she to set an example, to be a good listener but not a compromiser, to continually teach others, to help others to move away from their current beliefs and toward a new philosophy. There are several key areas of knowledge which are relevant to using chemicals safely in the animal facility.

First, it is essential to have knowledge of what chemicals are present in your facility.

This not only means that you need an accurate inventory of all chemicals in the facility, but also that you need to have a good sense of where they are used and the relative risk that each poses to worers. You also need to know how your chemicals are used. Again, this doesn't simply mean that you can immediately access the appropriate SOP or the study protocol (although that is a worthy capability), but also that you are aware of how chemicals are actually used in practice in the facility. Managers need to listen to their employees, and coworkers to their peers, to find out actual procedures for using chemicals, and to identify potential problem areas.

One needs to know relevant laws and regulations. Later, in describing the better paradigm, the limitations of approaching safety solely in terms of passing inspections, or complying with laws and regulations, will be presented.

But a thorough knowledge of laws and regulations is important. One that seeks a career in laboratory animal care will not survive long if unable to ensure that their facility complies with regulations, or if unable to pass myriad inspections. Regulations provide a compass, or starting point for creating safe workplaces. A few of the significant regulations in the field are OSHA's regulations on occupational exposure to toxic substances in the laboratory, hazard communication, respiratory protection, and formaldehyde and EPA's regulations, such as the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) on hazardous waste, and the clean air and water acts.

It is important to know the resources that are available to you as you attempt to create safer work sites. Your institute's Health and Safety Officer is a very important resource. If you are a manager in an animal facility, and your relationship with your HSO is only that of inspector to inspected, you are missing a big opportunity to develop a collaboration for sound health and safety policies. Government and non-governmental agencies which provide publications and other forms of useful information provide another resource. Agencies like the CDC and NIOSH are research and consultation organizations.

They develop publications like the CDC/NIOSH Alert that provides advice on controlling exposures to nitrous-oxide during anesthetic administration, or the NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 52 on the use of ethylene oxide sterilizers in health care facilities. NIOSH also publishes a pocket guide to chemical hazards. A NIOSH publications catalogue can be obtained, other publications ordered, or advice sought for any work safety issue by calling 1-800-35-NIOSH. There are other agencies which provide information regarding safe use of chemicals. The American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienist publishes its own list of recommended exposure limits for chemical and physical agents. NIH, NRC, and others have also published useful documents (see references).

It is essential to know how to minimize chemical exposures in your facility. The tools available for accomplishing this are usually subdivided into personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls. Both are essential to a good chemical exposure control program. A later presentation (Dr. Everitt) in this session will discuss strategies for balancing these two elements. PPE includes face protection, lab coats, tyvek suits, gloves, shoe covers, boots, and other items. Engineering controls can be barriers, hoods, filters and special ventilation - often supplemented with area and personal monitors.

Finally, knowing how to effectively train - both for chemical use and for handling emergencies - is an integral part of a successful chemical use program.

As you develop a true knowledge of your facility, how chemicals are used, where the real risks occur, it will be obvious where training is needed. One key area for training is decontamination. Relying on the spill section of the MSDS gives a false sense of security. It is important that all employees, through prior training, have been provided an opportunity to rehearse what they will do in case of a spill or chemical release.

The Solution - A Better Paradigm

A paradigm is a way of looking things, a way of approaching tasks, a way of thinking. Strategies for working safely in any context - whether with chemicals, infectious agents, dangerous machinery - are built upon profound knowledge and a better paradigm. This better paradigm is not necessarily new, because many will recognize that in better moments, this is the model under which they do operate. Rather, it is a way of thinking about safety for which one needs to strive, and it begins with having the right goal. Stephen Covey, in his highly popular book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, says to "begin with the end in mind" (habit number 2). The principle is that if you want to be effective, you have to start by considering your goal, and work back from there. Our way of approaching safety will be shaped by the goal that we choose.

It is easy to say that our goal is a healthy workplace. On one level, it is very true that most everyone is concerned about safety of employees and coworkers. But often one slips into a different paradigm - the "meet the standards" paradigm. Animal research is a highly regulated endeavor. Not just in terms of safety, but in terms of how animals are cared for, how protocols are approved, how buildings are designed, what equipment is purchased, and on and on. It is very easy and natural for the goal to be set in terms of meeting the standards or passing the next inspection. The corollary is that we measure our success by whether our chosen goal is accomplished. If we have set our goal as meeting standards and passing inspections, we feel successful when that has been accomplished.

Instead, the goal should be to have healthy workers. Our measure of success, in tems of safe use of chemicals, should be the extent to which we and our coworkers or employees are free of work-related injuries. It is possible for managers to develop a false sense of "safety success" when they measure that success by their ability to meet standards and pass inspections. If success, instead, is defined as a decrease in the number of workers injured, many might have to re-evaluate. For example, there have been rules in place to prevent hearing loss in the workplace for many years. Workplaces have been developing hearing conservation programs for years, and many have been passing inspections based upon those programs. Yet studies show that hearing loss continues to be a significant occupational health issue. Poor results can be made to appear as good results if the goal is compliance with rules and regulations. That is why the better paradigm emphasizes results, rather than rules. Are we looking for a decrease in the number of accidents and injuries in our workplace? This is the idea behind performance standards. Whether in USDA regulations for care of nonhuman primates, or in the just-released revision of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, or in the New OSHA that is described on the OSHA's Internet Homepage, regulatory and rule-setting groups re saying that we should be measuring results, rather than focussing too much on rigid, one-size-fits-all processes.

Improvement in the health of workers may be a difficult thing to measure in a small animal facility. And,in part, that might be because you are in fact successfully striving for a healthy facility. A way to check under which paradigm you are working might be to think about the last breech of safety that occurred in your facility. Was the response to check the records to see if correct procedures had been documented? Or was there a concerted effort to find out what procedures were actually being used, and how to alter them to prevent recurrence. Ultimately, what drives this paradigm is a concern for people. It is important to pass the inspection and to follow the rules, and that might even be enough to accomplish the goal of a healthier workplace. But the better paradigm demands that we continually question whether the rules we institute are truly accomplishing the goal, because there is a genuine concern for employers and coworkers.

It is up to each of us to do our part in making our workplaces safer. For most, this will not require radical change as much as a higher sense of awareness of how we think about safety. What is my goal? Do I know my facility - the actual procedures, the concerns of workers? Do I have the knowledge needed to improve safety? Am I using all of my resources? Am I measuring my success in terms of the results, or in terms of compliance? It sounds intuitive, but somehow, when you are trying to fit 11 hours of work into 9 hour days, the paradigm can easily shift. The strategy for the safe use of chemicals in the animal facility requires a diligent effort to apply your professional judgement in a better paradigm.

Deming, W. Edward. 1993. The New Economics. M.I.T. Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.

Covey, Stephen. 1989. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

NIH Guidelines for the Laboratory Use of Chemical Carcinogens. 1981. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. 1994. DHHS Publication No. 94-116. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Prudent Practices for Handling Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories. 1981. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents. 1995. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH.

OhASIS HOME | Biosafety Information | Safety Manuals ||| Symposium Contents

Strategies for Safe Use of Chemicals in Animal Research

The Problem

The Solution

The Solution - Profound Knowledge

The Solution - A Better Paradigm

Selected References

Office of Health and Safety, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road N.E., Mail Stop F05 Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA Last Modified: 1/2/97
Send us your Comments.