RISK HAZARD ASSESSMENT

IN THE GENERAL
CHEMISTRY LABORATORY
SUSAN D. WIEDIGER AND AMANDA HYETT*
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE
*NOW AT NOKOMIS HIGH SCHOOL, NOKOMIS, IL

PRESENTED 24 MARCH 2015

249 NATIONAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
TH

DENVER, COLORADO
OVERVIEW
•  BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
•  HAZARD AND RISK
•  INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
•  EXPERT AND NOVICE
•  RISK HAZARD ASSESSMENT (RHA)
•  STRUCTURE OF STUDY – EVERY SECTION, EVERY WEEK
•  PARTICIPANTS – GEN CHEM STUDENTS, TAS, LAB PROS
•  FINDINGS
 HAZARD AND RISK

•  HAZARD-POTENTIAL TO CAUSE HARM; AN OBJECT OR

SITUATION THAT IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF HARM

•  RISK-THE LIKELIHOOD OF HARM OCCURRING

Definitions were adapted from various sources including ACS SACL2 (2003), OSHA CFR 1910.1200(c), Prudent Practices
i(1995), and Safety in Physics Education (AAPT, 2001)
 INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

•  INSPECTIONS: IN-PERSON SNAPSHOTS OF A SETTING

•  AN INDIVIDUAL OR TEAM WALKS THROUGH A LABORATORY
EVALUATING SETTING AND SOMETIMES BEHAVIORS

•  MANY VARIATIONS: TEAM COMPOSITION, CHECKLISTS,

CONSEQUENCES

•  ASSESSMENTS: EVALUATION OF AN EXPERIMENT

•  FORMALIZED PROCEDURES FOR NEW RESEARCH PROJECTS
•  RISK ASSESSMENT DONE BY A TEACHER PLANNING A LESSON
•  ASSESSMENT DONE BY STUDENTS AS PRE-LAB OR IN CLASS

Wiediger (2007)
Hill and Finster, Laboratory Safety for Chemistry Students, 2010
 NOVICE AND EXPERT APPLIED
•  SCIENCE AS APPRENTICESHIP MODEL
•  STUDENTS ARE NOVICES IN NEARLY EVERYTHING
•  TAS ARE JOURNEYMEN IN CHEMISTRY BUT MAY BE NOVICES IN
INSTRUCTION
•  TAS IN THE MIDDLE GROUND: STUDENTS ! TAS ! LAB PROFESSIONAL
(LAB PRO)
•  COGNITIVE OVERLOAD DUE TO ONE TASK AFFECTING THE OTHER
•  ARE TAS QUALIFIED ENOUGH TO BE THE EXPERT?
•  KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THEIR SPECIFIC CONTENT AREA
•  CONCRETE VERSUS FORMAL KNOWLEDGE: CONTENT, TEACHING, SAFETY

Robinson and Samarapungavan (2001)

EDUCATIONAL GOALS
•  TEACH STUDENTS ABOUT RHA
•  DEVELOP GREATER SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IN STUDENTS

THE CHALLENGE
•  DO TAS HAVE ENOUGH EXPERTISE TO GUIDE STUDENTS ON
THIS TOPIC?

RESEARCH QUESTION
•  HOW DO RHAS OF STUDENTS, TAS, AND LAB PROS DIFFER?
WHAT DID WE DO?

•  HUMAN SUBJECT REQUIREMENTS

•  INITIAL VIDEO EXPLAINING THE PROJECT TO THE STUDENTS
•  INFO FORMS TA & LAB PRO, PLUS FINAL INTERVIEWS
•  RHA FORM WITH STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
•  TRIGGERED BY LAB PRO ARRIVAL
•  TWO RANDOM STUDENTS EACH WEEK, PLUS TA
•  CONCLUDED IN REPORT-OUT TO CLASS
•  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USING EXCEL AND SPSS 21
 WHO WERE OUR PARTICIPANTS?
•  STUDENTS (N = 318, 71% PARTICIPATION)
•  RANGE IN AGE FROM 18 TO 37, MEAN 19.2, MEDIAN 18
•  52% FEMALE
•  YEARS OF CHEMISTRY: 6.3% <1; 68.9% 1-2; 24.8% >2
•  <10% HAD LAB EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE OF COURSEWORK
•  TEACHING ASSISTANTS (N=9, 82% PARTICIPATION)
•  RANGE IN AGE FROM 23 TO 31, MEAN 26, MEDIAN 26
•  56% FEMALE
•  PRIOR SAFETY EXPERIENCE PRIMARILY UNDERGRADUATE COURSEWORK AND
GRADUATE STUDENT ORIENTATION SESSIONS

•  LAB PROFESSIONALS
•  MORE EXTENSIVE SAFETY TRAINING; ONE COURSEWORK, ONE HAZWOPER
•  FACULTY (44) AND LAB MANAGER (26)
 RHA FORM

Physical  
Hazards  are  
obstacles  or  
things  that  
lead  to  slips,  
trips,  or  falls  
 RHA FORM

Behavioral  
Hazards  are  
people  ac9ons  
(like  distrac9on  
or  horseplay)  
that  increase  
risk  
 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION FREQUENCY
percent answering yes,
that hazard is present  
Observer  

Behavioral*
Corrosive*
Electrical*

Reactive
Physical
•  FOUR

Toxic*
0.000  

0.078  

0.140  

0.021  

0.193  

0.017  

0.000  
Fire
 N
CATEGORIES
 
HAD
Student  

DIFFERENCES
152   77.0   15.8   64.5   48.0   16.4   55.3   21.7  
STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT
AT THE 0.05
TA  

177   64.4   10.2   71.2   48.0   11.9   39.5   39.5  

LEVEL (CHI
SQUARE)
Lab Pro  

172   83.7   18.6   74.4   61.0   9.9   46.5   52.3  

 120
Toxic Hazard

% saying yes
100

TOXIC 80

60 student
(STUDENT>LAB PRO>TA) 40 TA

20 Pro

•  STUDENTS ORIGINALLY CATEGORIZED ACIDS AS TOXIC,

REGARDLESS OF CONCENTRATION

•  EXPLICIT CAUTIONS ABOUT TOXICITY ON FIRST PAGE OF

EXPERIMENT WERE UNDERSTOOD (FERROFLUID,
PRECIPITATION)

•  TOXIC HAZARDS IN OTHER LABS (DENSITY, SIXBOTTLE) WERE

LESS FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED

•  CHEMICALS FROM OTHER LABS IN THE ROOM WERE MORE

CONSISTENTLY IDENTIFIED AS HAZARDS BY LAB PRO
 120
Behavioral Hazard

% saying yes
100

BEHAVIORAL 80

60 student
(LAB PRO>TA>STUDENT) 40 TA

20 Pro

•  TAS WERE MORE AWARE OF GENERAL ISSUES, SUCH AS

MOVING AROUND THE ROOM AND WORKING WITH
GLASSWARE

•  LAB PRO WAS MORE AWARE OF STUDENT SPECIFIC ISSUES,

SUCH AS GOGGLES, HAIR, AND GLOVES
 RISK MANAGEMENT RATINGS
Electrical* Fire Physical Corrosive Reactive Toxic* Behavioral*
Student    Observer  

0.000   0.462   0.153   0.071   0.092   0.000   0.000  

rating  

rating  

rating  

rating  

rating  

rating  

rating  
mean

mean

mean

mean

mean

mean

mean
N  

N  

N  

N  

N  

N  

N  
116   4.60   24   4.88   98   4.63   71   4.78   25   4.46   84   4.91*   33   4.55  
TA  

114   4.75*   18   4.78   126   4.51   85   4.68   22   4.68   69   4.49   70   4.29*  

Lab Pro  

144   4.52   32   4.94   127   4.57   105   4.86   16   4.94   80   4.55*   90   3.89*  

•  THREE CATEGORIES HAD DIFFERENCES STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE

0.05 LEVEL (KRUSKAL-WALLIS)
•  SIGNIFICANT PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (DONE POST-HOC) ARE MARKED
WITH AN ASTERISK ON THE “TOP” MEMBER OF PAIR
TOXIC
6
Toxic Hazard

Avg. Managment Rating

5

(TA<LAB PRO<STUDENT) 4

SIGNIFICANT : 3 student

STUDENT (HIGH) 2 TA

1 Pro

FROM TA AND PRO 0

•  TAS AND LAB PRO MORE AWARE OF PROBLEMS WITH

DISPENSING TOXIC SUBSTANCES (FERROFLUID,
PRECIPITATION, SIX BOTTLE)
•  STUDENTS PERHAPS HAVE A SENSE OF SECURITY THAT PPE IS
ALL THEY NEED

•  SOME TAS WANTED MORE PPE

 BEHAVIORAL
6
Behavioral Hazard

Avg. Managment Rating

5

(LAB PRO<TA<STUDENT) 4

SIGNIFICANT: 3 student

LAB PRO (LOW) 2 TA

Pro
1
FROM STUDENT AND TA 0

•  STUDENTS TENDED TO FOCUS ON NOT EATING THINGS AND BEING CAREFUL

•  TAS FOCUSED ON WARNING PEOPLE ABOUT HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND
BEING CAREFUL

•  TAS WERE ALSO MORE SENSITIVE TO OVERALL FLOW ISSUES

•  LAB PRO WAS MORE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ISSUES AND GOT PROGRESSIVELY
GRUMPIER ABOUT GOGGLES AND CLOTHING

•  SPECULATIONS
•  STUDENTS DO NOT FOCUS BEYOND THEMSELVES – LIMITED SAFETY CULTURE
•  TAS ARE FOCUSED ON CLASS AS A WHOLE NOT INDIVIDUALS
•  TAS ARE COGNITIVELY OVERLOADED WITH CONTENT, TEACHING, AND SAFETY
 RE-CAP
HOW DO STUDENTS, TAS, AND LAB PROS DIFFER?

•  SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES •  STUDENTS TENDED NOT TO NOTICE

IN RECOGNITION OF EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS
ELECTRICAL, CORROSIVE,
•  STUDENTS CONFUSED ABOUT CHEMICAL
TOXIC, AND BEHAVIORAL
HAZARD DEFINITIONS (TOXIC)
HAZARDS

•  SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES •  TAS WERE SOMETIMES LESS CONSISTENT

AS A GROUP
IN EVALUATION OF RISK
ASSOCIATED WITH •  TAS FOCUSED ON GENERAL BEHAVIORAL
ELECTRICAL, TOXIC, AND ISSUES
BEHAVIORAL HAZARDS •  TAS LESS AWARE OF INDIVIDUAL
BEHAVIORS

•  TAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT

SELECTION OF PPE FOR LAB
SUMMARY…
GOALS AND QUESTIONS
•  WERE THE STUDENTS MORE AWARE?
OF GENERAL RISKS AND HAZARDS, YES;
OF BEHAVIOR CONNECTIONS, NO
•  ARE THERE “RIGHT” ANSWERS?
YES FOR PRESENCE OF HAZARDS, NO FOR RISK
•  ARE THE TAS ADVANCED ENOUGH TO SERVE AS EXPERTS?
MOST… FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT BEHAVIORAL
EXTENSIONS
•  ADJUSTING CATEGORIES ON RHA
•  INSTITUTIONALIZING
•  PREPARING TAS PRIOR TO LAB
SPECIAL THANKS TO……

•  DR. MYRON JONES

•  MR. KENNY RODGERS
•  STUDENTS AND TAS OF CHEM 125A
•  CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
•  DR. MARK BELTZ—TATE & LYLE NORTH AMERICA
 REFERENCES
•  AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. SAFETY IN ACADEMIC CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES, VOLUME 2:
ACCIDENT PREVENTION FOR FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS (7TH ED.). WASHINGTON, D.C., 2003.
•  AAPT APPARATUS COMMITTEE. SAFETY IN PHYSICS EDUCATION, AAPT, COLLEGE PARK, MD, 2001.
•  HILL, JR., ROBERT H. AND DAVID C. FINSTER, LABORATORY SAFETY FOR CHEMISTRY STUDENTS, WILEY,
NEW JERSEY, 2010.
•  HILLSON, DAVID, AND RUTH MURRAY-WEBSTER, UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING RISK ATTITUDE
•  NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. PRUDENT PRACTICES IN THE LABORATORY: HANDLING AND
DISPOSAL OF CHEMICALS. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, WASHINGTON, D.C., 1995.
•  OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, HAZARD COMMUNICATION 1910.1200
(ORIGINAL STANDARD 1994, WEBPAGE REVISED 201)
•  RENIERS, GENSERIK L.L, KOEN PONNET, AND AN KEMPENEERS, “HIGHER EDUCATION CHEMICAL LAB
SAFETY INTERVENTIONS:: EFFICACIOUS OR INEFFECTIVE?” JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY, JAN/FEB (2014) 4-8
•  ROBINSON, WILLIAM, AND ALA SAMARAPUNGAVAN. "IMPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE
RESEARCH FOR MODELS OF THE SCIENCE LEARNER." JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION. 78.
(2001): 1107.
•  SUSAN D. WIEDIGER. “PATTERNS FOR CHEMICAL EDUCATION: A NEW WAY TO CONNECT RESEARCH
TO PRACTICE,” THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR, 12(5), (2007) PP 370-373.