safety

Thinking Outside the Box: 10 Considerations For Balance Stability

ABSTRACT:

Stability of your weighing balance is paramount when it comes to collecting reliable data for project. As the old adage goes, “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.”. Depending on the problem, taking obvious action for a seemingly obvious solution may not result in success. 

The purpose of this paper is to inspire thought and dialogue regarding those “not so obvious” sources of balance stability issues. Below, you may find 10 prompt questions that will hopefully guide one in resolving those pesky head-scratchers: 


1 – Is the work surface causing instability? 

Placing leveling pads on the bottom of the legs of the workbench or table is a useful tactic to prevent inaccurate readings caused by wear-and-tear of the leg undersides. 

Additionally, the mass of the work surface affects the severity of data noise caused by vibration. The relationship between mass and vibration (kinetic vibration energy) can be illustrated by applying Newton’s law of Kinetic energy: 

Although a rare case and dependent on region, buildings sinking into the soil has the potential of being a problem. In regions near fault lines, there may be a slight change in elevation that could impact measurements at high sensitivities. 

2 – How is data reproducibility affected when weighing operations are conducted inside an enclosure or fume hood? 

Vibration interference caused by an enclosure fan is commonly-cited disturbance in the lab. What are some ways where the vibration can be reduced? 

3 – What can cause vibrational interference? 

Other than an enclosure fan, other equipment in the vicinity of your balance may be vibrating through the materials between them. Some pertinent examples are floor-mount grinders, tablet grinders, etc. 

At higher sensitivities, foot traffic near the operation could lead to error. Vibration may travel from the floor and through to the legs of the workbench or other work surface. The end result could be loss of powder or error due to disturbance of the powder. 

4 – How can the construction of the enclosure affect weight measurements? 

Depending on the construction of your work surface, you may experience measurement error caused by electrostatic interference. As the diameter of testing material continues to shrink, particulate is becoming increasingly susceptible to the electrical charge of the surrounding environment. 

Static dissipation is a critical consideration during the design of our products. Chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSM) gloves are a component of our EHA (Hybrid Isolator Series) and Butyl gloves are a component of our END (Nitrogenema) Series. The base of the Hybrid Isolator Series is phenolic and the superstructure of the Nitrogenema Series is composed of static dissipative acrylic. 

5 – What are factors that contribute to static interference? What are some control methods you could employ for abatement? 

In the powder world, static electricity is more than just that annoying winter zap when you touch a doorknob. In the lab, employees’ clothing/personal protective equipment, laboratory furniture, and even the construction of the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system servicing are some factors that could lead to product loss and erroneous measurements. 

We recommend that you keep the balance where it is upon sitting it on the work surface or inside the enclosure. Moving the base across a surface, especially if the surface is made of material different than the base, may cause enough static charge to interfere with your measurements. 

6 – How does organization of equipment inside the enclosure affect results? 

Depending on the type of enclosure and equipment you’re using, your balance may shift over time. Multiple uses of the balance over a long period of time may cause the balance to shift towards the enclosure face. In turn, air moving over the airfoil can blow some of the powder off the balance. At higher sensitivities, it could even bias measurements due to the force onto the weigh boat and/or the pan. Flow Sciences recommends that the balance be placed at least 6 inches behind the base airfoil. 

7 – How can the balance be oriented to achieve optimal data reproducibility? 

Organization of your equipment inside the enclosure can incur interference due to air currents moving around equipment. Just like a scale that is too close to the enclosure face, interference may be caused by air currents moving around other equipment. Vibration from other equipment, such as capsule machines, can cause vibrational interference. Flow Sciences recommends organizing your equipment such that these interferences do not occur. Don’t forget to consider putting your equipment at an angle; it just may work in a pinch. 

8 – What are the moisture-retaining properties of your powder? 

If you’re shrugging your shoulders over lousy regression lines, it may not be you or your equipment. It could be the powder itself absorbing moisture from the atmosphere. At higher sensitivities, hygroscopicity has a tendency to rear its ugly head. What could you do to prevent this kind of interference? 

Additionally, product purity is negatively impacted by its own hygroscopic properties. Flow Sciences recommends performing your operation in a closed, controlled environment purged of oxygen. For example, a contained environment enclosure with automated nitrogen purging cycles, such as Flow Sciences, Inc.’s Nitrogenema Glove Box. 

9 – Have you checked your certification results and calibration certificates recently? 

Sometimes, the solution to the problem is not where we have our “mental crosshairs” set. Lab managers place much trust on their lab equipment. But, have you checked your certification results recently? Have any calibration certificates expired? 

10 – Is there anything going on outside the lab building? 

Do you live near an airport? Just like dropping an object onto the exterior of the enclosure negatively affects balance measurements, that humming of the plane is a vibration itself. Is that annoying jackhammer actually sabotaging your weighing operation? 


CAMERON FAULCONER, IH-MESH
Industrial Hygienist / Product Manager

Cameron Faulconer is an Industrial Hygienist with a wide breadth of experience, spanning between commercial manufacturing, to home residences. His inspiration for his choice of career is communicating the value of preserving the health and safety of employees using the most effective and efficient means possible. Therefore, Mr. Faulconer found his place in the “Engineering Controls” rung of the hierarchy of hazard controls.

As a problem solver, Mr. Faulconer believes that the best safety solutions are created through consultative conversations with those who seek solutions. He believes communicating information derived from these conversations to be critical to the continued understanding of the toxicological impacts of the work environment.

His personal motto is “protecting the safety and health of employees from what can and cannot be seen with the naked eye”.


How Does the FSI Fume Hood Stack up on The Top Ten Lab Worker Needs?

Abstract:

Lab Manager magazine1 recently published a feature entitled Survey Says. In this article was a section called What You Need to Know Before Buying a Fume Hood.”   Ten factors were named in over half the lab managers surveyed. We will review and analyze these factors and discuss how Flow Sciences addresses them. Whatever we’re doing, most of our customers seem to like it a lot!

Introduction:

In the December 2018 Lab Manager, the article Survey Says, cites the top ten things managers look for in a chemical fume hood:

We decided to look at this “top ten list” and see how the Flow Sciences fume hood stacks up. We discovered that these sought-after qualities really lead to a shopping list of features, most of which are standard on the Saf T Flow hood…..read on!


Top Ten features reviewed:

1 – Performance of Product:

Before performance can be discussed, Flow Sciences always asks our customer what application is being undertaken in the fume hood.

This is very important. Most containment manufacturers have valuable and worthwhile tests they perform on standard product. These tests may be generally useful, but not relevant if the customer, for example, requires a hood with a larger than standard sash opening. Or if the chemicals being used in the hood have unique characteristics that require special linersor wash-down systems.

Many lab managers may not realize that these factors, if not considered, will lead to poor performance or dangerous conditions. Once special needs are considered, Flow Sciences can provide testing information on standard product, or run tests on the modified hood and document the effectiveness of the modifications.

Both of the non-standard products shown above had outstanding containment both on ASHRAE 110-2016 and the “HAM” test developed by Tom Smith of 3-Flow and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 2.


2 – Durability of product.

Flow Sciences believes fume hoods should have a minimum serviceability of twenty years. If lightly used, most fume hoods made in the US will last this long. If hoods must be moved or modified within this time period, or if they are heavily used, or used for applications different than those specified, they may not last one year, or never work at all!

We illustrate below several design “weak points” of many common fume hoods sold today and better ways to design a more robust product.

        A – Fume hood sash system. Such a system should work reliably, need few service adjustments, and never break down. Shown below are examples of an inferior and a good sash counterbalance system:

        B – The fume hood support frame should be a stand-alone heavy-gauge system! If equipment collapses or a fire breaks out, such a system prevents hood collapse if key liner panels get broken!

        C – Flexible Plumbing is important today. It used to be plumbing in fume hoods was hard- piped. Such plumbing had solders which could rattle loose in shipping and leak when hooked up to pressurized services in the lab. Newer plumbing is flexible with no welds at all! This system hooks up quickly to mated pressurized fittings in the field. Also this flexible system allows service gasses to be changed or modified if research requirements change!

        D – Flexible Counter Top Design! This top actually slides out for replacement or repair. The lift-up airfoil allows cords to be routed to outlets without resting on the airfoil top where the sash will run into cords every time it is closed!


3 – Safety and health features. The primary purpose of a chemical fume hood system is user safety. Features of design and construction should work as a system to assure this. We recommend any fume hood demonstrate safety by compliance with at least five published standards:

 

        A – ASHRAE 110 2016. The use of a gas diffuser inside the fume hood and a mannequin with a breathing zone detector to assure that less than 0.05 ppm (Parts per million) of tracer gas gets into the breathing zone of the mannequin during a five-minute test.

        B – The Human as Mannequin Test. Cited earlier, the test uses a gas diffuser and simple lab equipment inside the fume hood which is manipulated by a test subject with a breathing zone sensor. A pass/fail reading of less than 0.05 PPM (parts per million) should again be used.

        C – The UL 1805 Standards. Widely accepted in the US and Canada, UL 1805 sets forth both a physical testing regimen for safety glass, epoxy work tops, and liner materials and an outline for internal wiring of the fume hood. Most major fume hood manufacturers comply with these standards, products in conformity must have a UL 1805 compliance tag visible somewhere on the fume hood exterior.

        D – Surrogate Powder Containment and Balance Stability data for fume hoods involved in pharmaceutical weighing and dispensing procedures. More and more fume hoods are involved in procedures where pharmaceutically active compounds are manipulated. These materials do not diffuse in the same way vapors and gasses do. If such materials are used in a fume hood, containment data regarding powders must be provided using an appropriate test room and collection equipment. Procedures should reflect the types of manipulation to be used by the customer.

        E – ISO 9001:2015 Certification of the manufacturing facility. All materials and procedures must be trackable and verifiable to assure construction material, flame spreads, certifications, and other assembly issues relevant to the safety and durability of the equipment are solidly documented.


4 – Easy to Clean. Any chemical fume hood should be easy to clean. For scrupulous cleaning, fume hood components must be chemically resistant and easy to access for cleaning.

 

A – Chemical resistivity. All paints must be certified against the SEFA (Scientific Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association) standard set forth in SEFA 8-M-2010. In this standard, paints are tested against scratching, abrasion, and chemical resistivity. Liners must meet NFPA Class A flame spread requirements.

        B – Access to all exposed surfaces. All exposed surfaces inside the fume hood containment area must be completely accessible for cleaning. Illustrations below show how this is achieved in the Flow Sciences product:


5 – Ergonomic ease of operation. Several features help satisfy this criterion. The glass top panel allows complete vision of the hood interior. Great for tall distillation columns or thermometers on tall equipment. The chain drive sash is easier to move up and down than any other system and does not wear out. Either bright T-5 fluorescent lighting or high output LEDs are available for clear vision of the very deep 25 7/8” hood interior. Base cabinets or a table for seated work are available. We also have built in a very stable anchoring system for scaffolding. All our standard hoods come with this anchoring system. To maximize flexibility needs inside a lab, Fume hoods are available in 1’ width increments from 3’ to 8’.


6 – 7 – 10 – Value for Price Paid, Low operating costs, Cost of ownership

 

These three lab manager survey questions are so interwoven, that the author will lump them together for analysis. The sixth and seventh issues, value and operating cost, cannot accurately be discussed as separate items. When one purchases a fume hood, the hood purchase price is just the tip of the iceberg4 as far as operating cost.

As seen in the graph above from an article written last year, a “low cost” hood inherently consumes more energy than a hood designed to save energy by exhausting less air. Over just five years, the engineered hood (red line, higher first cost) has consumed $30,000 of energy, while the low cost hood has consumed $64,000! (This is not a good way to save $2,700 on purchase price!)

 

In fact, even asking someone to evaluate hood price/value and energy savings separately is a fatal error! The author invites anyone interested to read the cited article and the various mathematical inputs that fostered the graph shown above.

 

So value, properly evaluated, must include energy efficiency!

 

Let’s now look at the tenth survey questioncost of ownership.  This tenth item on Lab Managers survey list is clearly also part of the discussion we are now having regarding value and energy efficiency. The author regards valueand energy efficiency as inputs into discerning cost of ownership!

 

Here’s the headline: Cost of ownership will always favora contemporary, engineered energy-efficient fume hood! As an example, the Flow Sciences energy-efficient hood has remarkable containment down to 60 FPM at an 18” sash opening. Check out these containment graphs:

6’ Fume hood containment at 60, 80, and 100 FPM:

The bottom line? This fume hood persistently shows comparable very low control levels on the ASHRAE 110-2016 test regardless of face velocity within the 60 FPM to 100 FPM range!

FINALLY, a hood that can operate at very low face velocity without diminished containment capability! Engineering and design make a difference. Engineering and design save exhaust. Engineering and design yield the lowest cost of ownership!


8 – Service and Support. This issue is really important and is underrated on the list by the rankings provided. A lab safety item like a fume hood cannot even begin its life without being “checked out” after installation to be sure it is functioning properly. One must use knowledgeable resource people who can compare how a fume hood is supposed to work with how it is actually Knowledgeable service at Flow Sciences begins with “ask Robin”. Through this contact person, a high level of service and customer support are achieved by referencing telephone questions to the appropriate engineer. This service has received the highest customer reviews. Our 800 service number is part of the fume hood label!

This may be why our best customers keep coming back with additional orders, while praising our customer service! 6


9 – Warranty.  All mechanical and electrical components of the Saf T Flow fume hood are guaranteed against defects for a period of one year from the date of receipt. A warranty form and card are included with manuals for each unit sold.

 

In addition to this rather limited issue, Flow Sciences has always “gone the extra mile” with our customers on answering questions, providing information on replacement parts, or sending out safety videos or other materials that may have been lost after the product was delivered and installed.


Summary:

 

The Flow Sciences Saf T Flow fume hood is a laboratory safety product. We have shown here how it addresses laboratory managers’ ten top criteria for a successful safety product. These fume hoods perform the tasks lab managers identify as important. They are durable, safe, easy to maintain, and ergonomically designed. They are of very high value and exhibit a very low cost of ownership compared to similar products. These fume hoods are impressively warranted to do their intended job. And Flow Sciences has an exemplary record of post-sale customer support.

 

As long as our customers keep smiling, we will keep providing the finest containment equipment in the industry!


Footnotes:

 

  1. Lab Manager Magazine, 12/2018, p57
  2. Side-by-Side Fume Hood Testing, Human-as-Mannequin Report, 2004, California Energy Commission, Sartor, Sullivan, Bell, Smith, et.al., p9
  3. On June 17, an explosion in a chemistry lab at the University of Minnesota injured graduate student Walter Partlo. He was making trimethylsilyl azide, starting with 200 g of sodium azide. The incident originated in lack of hazard awareness, school representatives say, and the department response focuses on identifying hazardous processes and communication. http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2014/07/more-details-on-the-university-of-minnesota-explosion-and-response.
  4. The Fume Hood Product Life Cycle, A Cost of Ownership Analysis, Haugen, 2018, https://www.flowsciences.com/fume-hood-product-life-cycle/
  5. Typical email praise: ” I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have dealt with many technical support and parts associates in our industry over the years and none have been more helpful or pleasant than Robin Williams. I have never been disappointed in the high quality service that Flow Sciences provides. I look forward to meeting both you and Robin at the upcoming CETA conference in Memphis.

Have a great day!”


DR. ROBERT HAUGEN
Director of Product and Technology Development

Robert K Haugen  currently designs chemical laboratory containment equipment and develops new relevant technologies for Flow Sciences Inc.in Leland, North Carolina. He has also held positions at Kewaunee Scientific, Jamestown Metal Products, and St. Charles Manufacturing in similar capacities for 31 years. Previously, he did analytical chemical work at the University of Illinois (DNA, wastewater, and crop research) and Lawrence Livermore Labs in California (nuclear weapons research).

Dr. Haugen began his career as a curriculum writer for the Illinois Office of Education, developing texts on energy, urban management, and industrial pollution topics.

He received all his degrees from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, and is currently a member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the American Chemical Society, and the National Fire Protection Association. He has participated in the development of both ASHRAE 110-1995 and the current 2016 update.


Fume Hood Fires…Smoke, Heat, and (Finally) Illumination!

ABSTRACT:

  1. A fire breaks out in your fume hood.
  2. What do you do?
  3. Should you put it out? Should you run? Should you turn off the hood fan?
  4. Should you activate the building fire alarm?
  5. Wait a minute! Are YOU on fire????

Very little exists in one place to answer these questions. Policies actually differ. Accountabilities are sometimes unclear. This White Paper examines all these issues in as clear and direct way as possible. One thing is clear: these questions need to be thoughtfully addressed before the fire starts!


The Historical Perspective:

 

UCLA had a tragic safety episode in 2008. A fume hood lab fire killed Sheri Sanji, a research assistant. Any lab safety incident, including a fire, is likely preventable. Fire is a very publically visible symptom of poor lab safety. It is up to those engaging in research to assume front-line responsibility for their own safety. Fire is one kind of accident that occurs in fume hoods; many other misadventures are also possible inside such a containment area.

Michael Wrightcorrectly analyzes the proper safety perspective for such tragedies: “Our own (safety) investigations are about causation and prevention, not guilt. We believe in accountability, and we support civil and criminal penalties where they are appropriate – as I would argue they are here (UCLA). But that’s not our goal. The real issue is how we prevent such tragedies in the future. And from what I have seen, academic labs have a ways (sic.) to go. I don’t know any industrial lab director who would claim that he or she is not responsible for safety. PI’s (Principal Investigators) are equally responsible.  We won’t make progress where they don’t acknowledge it.”

Unfortunately, many laboratories are not organized effectively to collect safety data, let alone improve adverse conditions.

Chemical fume hoods found in high school, junior college, and college chemistry labs are found to have many more accidents than hoods in commercial labs.2

One study by Dow, DuPont, and Corning cites an OSHA report concluding a college researcher is eleven times more likely to be hurt than a researcher in a commercial lab. Reasons pertain to cultural differences between how educational and commercial labs operate, safety priorities taking second place behind academic research goals, and countermeasures only being considered after something goes wrong.

John K. Borchardt confirms the differences between academic and commercial lab settings and their respective safety records on lab fires and accidents in 2013: 3

“Industrial and government labs generally have good safety records based on personnel training, safety inspections, and maintenance of equipment. However, the frequency of academic research laboratory accidents is more than ten times that in industrial labs.”

Chart 1 shows the types of lab accident incidents reported and the frequency of their occurrence. Explosions and thermal burns were the second most frequent type of incident, encompassing injuries caused by exposure to extreme heat such as from a burner or hot water.

Chart 2 shows the types of injuries resulting from these lab incidents. Burns and lacerations together accounted more than one-half of all reported injuries.

The dominant percentage of burns and lacerations in lab accidents are significant. Burns and lacerations are typical in fume hood fires. We can anecdotally fathom this situation from the ten examples cited in the chart below:

Ten Fume Hood Fires and Explosion Examples Located by Google:

# Date Location Casuelties Cause Remedies in Future Web Address
1 12/28/2008 UCLA 1 Dead Improper Procedure, lack of Protective clothing, Uninformed Assistants Drills, more visible equipment, train personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheri_Sangji_case
2 1/7/2010 Texas Tec. 1 Serious injury Making too much chemical, PI uninformed of SOP, removed explosive compound from hood to grind, BOOM Use SOP, wear lab coat, wear gloves & lab coat & eye protection https://www.depts.ttu.edu/research/integrity/CSB-response/downloads/TTU_EHS_accident_report.pdf
3 10/27/2011 Texas Tech 0 Injuries Explosion of acid waste storage bottles stored under fume hood Do not allow acids and organic solvents to be mixed in same bottles http://today.ttu.edu/posts/2011/10/statement-concerning-second-laboratory-accident
4 11/13/2015 UC Berkeley 1 Injury Explosion of a drypowder while being scraped from filter per SOP Follow SOP and scrape while wet. Wear protective gear and double-glove, fix SOP. https://ehs.berkeley.edu/lesson-learned-dry-scraping-causes-chemical-explosion
5 3/16/2016 U Hawaii, Manoa 1 injury, arm amputation Post Doc Investigator ignited 49 L tank with explosive gas mixture of

O2, CO, and H2 with spark

15 safety violations & $115K fine. See the article for details!

Virtually all SOP’s ignored

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/09/University-Hawaii-fined-115500-lab.html
6 Spring 1997 U Kentucky 1 student minor injury halogenated organicsolvents were involved, but the exact cause may never be known. Do not mix solvent and nitric acid (see footnote 5) http://www.ilpi.com/safety/explosion.html

 

7 9/29/2011 U of Maryland 2 Students 1st and 2nddegree burns Waste acids mistakenly added to an organic reagent bottle. Do not re-purpose reagent bottles as waste containers. Upgrade SOP. Have instructor review before experiment. http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2011/09/explosion-at-the-university-of-maryland/

 

8 4/26/07 U Cal Irvine 1 student, first degree burn and cut as he raised FH sash Explosion of diethyl ether and toluene derivatives on a hot plate. Tolunesulfonochloride SOP needed improvement. Temperature too high on hotplate.

Find alternate for diethyl ether.

https://www.ehs.uci.edu/salerts/AlcoholTosylationExplosion.pdf

 

9 3/2012 Texas Tech U 0 Injuries Sulfur-Metal reaction in waste bin on floor outside fume hood Properly segregate waste materials. Improve SOP’s. Consult with EH&S https://www.depts.ttu.edu/research/integrity/lessons-learned/march-2012.php
10 6/24/14 Oak Ridge Nat. Lab 0 Injuries; 6 evacuated Spontaneous hotplate activation ignited a fire in hood while unattended. Another possibility is postulated below using a photograph of the incident in question Unplug equipment when not in use. https://opexshare.doe.gov/lesson.cfm/2014/6/24/4332/Deflagration-and-Fire-from-Malfunctioning-Lab-StirrerHot-plate/?responsive=false

 

This information can be summarized as follows:

1. Fume hood fires are a significant problem mostly found in institutions of higher learning and academic research.

2. Based on post-accident analysis, reasons for accidents include:

  • Little or no training of lab personnel on operating critical research and safety equipment
  • Little knowledge of the properties of the chemicals involved
  • Poorly formulated or non-existent SOP’s
  • No peer (or supervisor) review of proposed procedures
  • Little knowledge of required yields or separation procedures
  • Poor or non-existent in-lab supervision of the student/researcher
  • Poor monitoring and disposal of lab waste
  • Poor lab attendance record-keeping which blurs accountability
  • Failure to keep reacting materials inside the fume hood containment area
  • Failure to properly remove discarded chemical waste from the fume hood or underlying base cabinets
  • Failure to institute safety procedure changes after any given accident. Three of the ten accidents in the chart above all were similar and all occurred at the same institution within three calendar years.

3. Finally, we need to step back from any procedure before it is done and ask four questions:

  • What, exactly, are we doing?
  • How are we doing it? Can experiment be done in a short period, or will several staged sessions be required?
  • What could go wrong?
  • Where are safety resources?
    • Extinguishers; which should be regularly inspected and assigned to the work area accordingly by fire class (e.g. A, B, C, D, etc.)
    • Fire Blanket
    • Drench shower
    • Fire alarm
    • Master power switch and gas shut-off
    • The exit; should always remain unlocked and accessible

 

Going back to the questions posed in the abstract, none can be answered without having a safety plan similar to the one outlined above. 4


Answers to Abstract questions:

 

What do you do? Should you put it out? These questions are addressed in the bulleted list from the previous section. If a clear list of materials and an understandable procedure have been established, many difficulties will have already been defined and anticipated, including whether extinguishing the fire itself is a good idea.

Should you run? You should probably walk to some or all of the items in the list, depending on contingencies already considered in the planning stage of the experiment.

Should you turn off the hood fan? Fire and facility ducting practices in different areas of the USA affect the answer to this question. Some areas require hood exhaust fans be automatically disabled if duct smoke or heat is detected. In many other places, local codes require ducts be heat-isolated and fans remain operating during smoke and heat detection. Checking with mechanical personnel at your facility will help determine procedures to be used in a given facility.

Should you activate the building fire alarm? Know fire alarm activation policies, but in cases of an active fire in a lab, the answer to this question will most often be yes.

Wait a minute! Are YOU on fire???? Here, we really need to step backward a bit, ANY experiment with fire dangers present, should never be done solo. Using a fire blanket or other personal protection usually requires two people to be effectively carried out. The one death outlined above occurred with other individuals in the same lab working on other projects (e.g. UCLA, line one on table above). These individuals were not informed about the nature of the disaster-destined procedure and predictably participated ineffectively in the emergency.


Footnotes:

  1. Michael Wright, Director SHE, United Steelworkers 10/5/2018, American Chemical Society CHAS web conference
  2. Jon Rvans, Royal Society of Chemistry, Safety First?, 2014, https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/safety-first/7413.article
  3. Running Your Labs Like a Business, John Borchardt, 2008, Lab Manager Magazine, https://www.labmanager.com/business-management/2008/07/running-your-lab-like-a-business#.XBkYj1xKiM9
  4. SUPPLIMENTAL: EduRiskTM provides education-specific risk management resources to colleges and schools, and is a benefit of membership with United Educators (UE) Insurance, 2014, https://edurisksolutions.org/WorkArea/DownloasAsset.aspx?id=1894…135

 

  1. University of Kentucky Fire (Chart, Item 6)



DR. ROBERT HAUGEN
Director of Product and Technology Development

Robert K Haugen  currently designs chemical laboratory containment equipment and develops new relevant technologies for Flow Sciences Inc.in Leland, North Carolina. He has also held positions at Kewaunee Scientific, Jamestown Metal Products, and St. Charles Manufacturing in similar capacities for 31 years. Previously, he did analytical chemical work at the University of Illinois (DNA, wastewater, and crop research) and Lawrence Livermore Labs in California (nuclear weapons research).

Dr. Haugen began his career as a curriculum writer for the Illinois Office of Education, developing texts on energy, urban management, and industrial pollution topics.

He received all his degrees from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, and is currently a member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the American Chemical Society, and the National Fire Protection Association. He has participated in the development of both ASHRAE 110-1995 and the current 2016 update.