pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Article

RAMP: A Safety Tool for Chemists and Chemistry Students

David C. Finster*

Cite This: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

ABSTRACT: RAMP is an acronym for the process “recognize

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

hazards, assess risk, minimize risk, and prepare for emergencies”.

This paper describes these four steps in the context of
undergraduate instruction about chemical health and safety.
Downloaded via UNIV FED DA BAHIA on November 1, 2020 at 18:47:41 (UTC).

KEYWORDS: First-year Undergraduate/General, Second-year Undergraduate, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Safety/Hazards,

Mnemonics/Rote Learning, Laboratory Management

■ INTRODUCTION
RAMP is an acronym for:
• recognize hazards
• assess risk
• minimize risk
• prepare for emergencies
This system was first introduced in a safety textbook in 20101
and has been well-received by the American Chemical Society
(ACS) safety community. RAMP is currently featured on the
ACS Web site,2 in recent publications,3−5 and has served as an
organizing principle for various ACS publications.6−8 The ACS
Web site describes RAMP as a tool that is “simple, structured,
flexible, scalable, collaborative, and transferrable”. This paper
describes the RAMP process and highlights some challenges in
its use both as a teaching tool for chemistry students and for
benchtop chemists.
RAMP is a linear process that leads to safer experimentation in
the chemistry laboratory. However, its application allows for
some iteration inasmuch as the realization of the “final” risk
encourages reflection upon earlier steps (see Figure 1).
Redesigning an experiment is often necessary to get to an
acceptable risk level. More dramatically, if it is determined that
an experimental risk cannot be adequately minimized or some
possible emergency could arise that cannot be adequately
contained, perhaps the experiment should not be done as
planned. Most chemists strive to get risk to an acceptable level.
Thus, there are feedback loops embedded in a successful RAMP
application.
All chemicals have hazards associated with them. In some
instances, we might consider the hazard to be so slight as not to
be seriously considered. Water is an example of such a chemical.
(This statement assumes that water is a solvent or reagent under
ambient conditions. High temperature and/or high pressure
steam would present additional and obvious hazards.) Similarly,
some compounds such as elemental nitrogen have little direct
hazard except when under high pressure or the situation where
nitrogen gas displaces enough oxygen in a room to lead to
asphyxiation. The first lesson here is that one must consider all
aspects of the use of chemicals under the experimental
conditions.
For most chemicals it is easy to identify their associated
hazards. While Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs) have long
served this purpose, their conversion to Safety Data Sheets
(SDSs) and the use of the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) now makes
hazard identification even easier.9 GHS hazard information is
available on properly labeled chemical containers and in SDSs in
the form of signal words (“warning” and “danger”), pictograms,
and hazard statements. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requires GHS training for all employ-
ees working in chemically related fields.10 Similar GHS training
should be taught to students in higher education institutions.
In addition to the GHS, National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) “fire diamonds” (Figure 2) have long been used in
academic and nonacademic settings. This hazard information
can be useful to chemists but since their intent is to inform
firefighters, the information can also be misleading. For example,

■
the health (blue diamond) rating of a chemical is based on the
RECOGNIZING HAZARDS health effects of a substance under f ire conditions. Thus, even if a
The first step in RAMP is the task of recognizing hazards
associated with an experiment. Hazards generally arise due to an Special Issue: Chemical Safety Education: Methods,
intrinsic nature of a chemical, reaction conditions, or the use of Culture, and Green Chemistry
equipment. A useful definition of hazard is “the potential to do Received: February 5, 2020
harm”. Doing harm is usually thought of as harming a person but Revised: May 8, 2020
physical damage to room or building must also be considered as
a form of harm.
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
A J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 1. RAMP process.
Figure 2. NFPA fire diamond. Reproduced with permission of NFPA
from NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards
of Materials for Emergency Response, 2017 edition. Copyright 2016,
National Fire Protection Association. The classification of any
particular material within this system is the sole responsibility of the
user and not the NFPA. NFPA bears no responsibility for any
determinations of any values for any particular material classified or
represented using this system. For a full copy of NFPA 704, please go to
www.nfpa.org.
chemical poses a low health risk at ambient conditions if the
products of pyrolysis or combustion generate a substance or
substances with a high health risk, the fire diamond health risk is
based on the latter. This is a good example of needing to know
how a hazard rating is determined.
An even richer source of hazard information is PubChem.11
PubChem entries about chemicals list a very wide variety of
information about hazards and other information. Further, the
provenance of information is directly linked if one wishes to
check a source. This can be a useful teaching tool to encourage
students to realize that “information comes from somewhere”
and is not simply “known”. PubChem also produces Laboratory
Chemical Safety Summaries that supply exactly the information
one seeks when trying to identify chemical hazards.12
Hazards also arise in experimental procedures such as mixing
two chemicals a reaction. One must anticipate reaction features
such as exothermicity, the generation of gases, or the generation
of products with hazardous properties. A bit more chemical
detective work may be necessary in these situations and
B https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
experienced chemists will find this analysis easier than a
chemistry student would.
It is worth noting that some of the hazard information will be
new language for chemistry students. Terms such as “cryogen”,
“lachrymator”, “pyrophoric”, and “teratogen” and data such as
an “LD50” (lethal dose, 50%) or “PEL” (permissible exposure
limit) will need explanation. Table 3.1.2.1 in the second edition
of ref 13 and Guidelines for Chemical Laboratory Safety in
Academic Institutions provide lists of safety-related words for
college students (ref 7, pp 12−13). Even the definitions for
common terms such as “flammable” and “corrosive” need to be
understood so that risk assessment and minimization can be
thoughtfully considered.
Finally, the use of equipment can sometimes present hazards,
and this may be highly dependent upon the skill and experience
of the chemist. More about this issue follows in the section on
“Assessing Risk”.
■ ASSESSING RISK
Assessing the risk posed by various hazards is surely the most
difficult step in the RAMP process. Ultimately it requires a
careful consideration of experimental conditions and good
judgmenta skill usually only developed over time. The length
of this section in this paper reflects the degree of complexity and
nuance in this step.
First, the terms “hazard” and “risk” must be properly defined.
These terms are often confused or incorrectly used interchange-
ably by both chemists and chemistry students.
As defined above, a hazard is something that can cause harm.
For chemicals, hazards are intrinsic. For example, concentrated
(15.8 M) nitric acid is a corrosive hazard, and cyclohexane is
very flammable. Cyanide is very toxic, but vitamin C has very low
toxicity as illustrated by the LD50 values for these chemicals. For
each chemical, the hazard per se does not depend upon the
amount of the chemical. However, for solutions the hazard may
well depend upon concentration: 15.8 M nitric acid is more
hazardous than 0.1 M nitric acid.
Risk is the probability of harm arising from exposure to a
hazard. We can conceptually view this as
Risk = (probability of exposure)
× (severity of consequence of the hazard)
Some examples illustrate this equation:
• A capped bottle of 15.8 M nitric acid sitting undisturbed
on a benchtop presents a significant hazard, but very low
risk.
• A 0.01 M solution of NaOH represents a modest hazard
(depending partly upon the route of exposure since
ingestion, skin exposure, and eye exposure present
different risks). Pouring this solution into a buret without
using a funnel presents a modest chance of spilling the
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
solution. The combination of hazard and probability
presents a moderately risky experimental step.
• Carrying an open 4-L beaker containing 3.5 L of
concentrated sulfuric acid down a hallway presents a
very high degree of risk since the hazard is high, and the
likelihood of a spill of a significant volume is high.
• Having 2 drops of cyclohexane near an open flame
presents a fire hazard but the risk is quite low (since the
low quantity could lead only to a tiny, momentary fire).
However, having 2 L of cyclohexane near an open flame
presents a high risk.
• Generating a small amount of SO2 inside a properly
functioning hood presents a much lower risk than
generating a large quantity of SO2 on an open benchtop.
The hazard is the same, but the probability of exposure
changes.
There are protocols for the quantitative assessment of risk,14
but in most situations chemists rely on their experience and
judgment to more simply categorize the hazard and the
probability of exposure as “low”, “medium”, or “high”. We can
combine these ideas in a plot shown in Figure 3 to make a
judgment about risk level.
Figure 3. Risk assessment based on level of hazard and probability of
exposure.
It is easy to define the overall risk level in Figure 3 at the upper
right as “high” and at the lower left as “low”; the characterization
of other combinations may be open to discussion. Ultimately, at
the end of some risk assessment one is left with the decision:
“shall we accept the risk and proceed with the experiment or
should we make some changes to reduce the risk level?” This
decision will also be influenced by the additional RAMP steps of
“minimizing risk” and “preparing for emergencies”.
Two additional questions remain regarding this process. First,
when judging the probability of some exposure, it stands to
reason that the overall skill level of the experimenter plays an
important role. An experienced chemist with “good hands” may
be able to complete a lab procedure with a low chance of mishap
and exposure. Experienced teachers know that the same
experiment in the hands of 24 students in the third week of
general chemistry is almost certainly going to result in an
exposure. Thus, while we often like to posture science as a
venture that is “independent of the researcher” in this instance
that is not always true.
Second, another decision point is encountered when
considering the level of “acceptable risk.” In an ideal world, we
might decide that any risk level higher than “low” (or even
“almost zero”) is “too high” to justify performing the experiment
as planned. There may be circumstances, though, that justify
medium, or even, high risk. For example, for either good or bad
reasons, a time pressure or high cost might cause someone to
C https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
accept a procedure with a higher risk than preferred.
Experienced researchers know that their work cannot advance
unless they accept some risk and do their best to minimize those
risks when planning an experiment. Research would never be
done if experiments were required to be risk-free.
Yet another complication arises in the interpretation of hazard
information while we assess risk. How does one interpret an
LD50 or a PEL in terms of assessing the toxic severity of a risk? It
is easy to say that Chemical X with an LD50 of 3 mg/kg is more
hazardous than Chemical Y with an LD50 of 500 mg/kg;
comparing these chemicals is easy. When judging the risk of just
one of these, the challenge is more problematic. Otherwise
stated, at what LD50 is a chemical “safe to handle”? Similarly, the
use of a PEL (or any occupational exposure value) assumes that
there is a measurement of, for example, the lab atmosphere
concentration of a substance. This is very rarely the case. And
what occupational exposure limit for a substance creates a
sufficient inhalation risk to warrant working in a hood? Thus,
even though some hazard information is readily available,
estimating the probability of exposure and judging the severity of
the hazard is not always easy. Given these uncertainties, it is
prudent to work in a hood any time there is an inhalation hazard.
As noted above, the decision to do, or not do, an experiment
as planned will also depend upon risk minimization and
preparation for emergency considerations that will be discussed
below. However, it is easy to see that assessing risk will be the
most complicated step in the RAMP process, and likely the one
with the highest degree of uncertainty.
The possible complexity of risk assessment belies the initial
characterization of RAMP as a “simple” process. Sometimes it is,
sometimes it is not. To be sure, in order to teach RAMP to
chemistry students, instructors must be mindful of their ability
to judge information and situations new to the students.
Teaching RAMP is not a process that can be adequately
addressed in a single 15 min prelab discussion in general
chemistry. It needs to be addressed continuously and in a spiral
fashion with plenty of opportunity for practice.15,16
■
MINIMIZING RISK
Once the hazards of an experiment are identified and the risks
are evaluated, it is incumbent to consider how these risks can be
minimized. Risk minimization is generally easier to accomplish
than risk assessment. Figure 4 shows the Hierarchy of Controls17
as an inverted pyramid with the most effective strategies for risk
minimization at the top and the least effective (or reliable) at the
bottom. This top-to-bottom order implies, in ideal situations,
the desirability of implementing risk minimization options.
Avoiding Hazards through Elimination or Reduced Scale
The best way to minimize risk is to eliminate the hazard. An
example of this would be to consider the risk associated with a
reaction at high temperature and pressure. Using a catalyst to
reduce the temperature and pressure will reduce the risk
perhaps to almost zero.
Another version of elimination is simply reducing reaction
scale when possible. Reducing the amounts of reagents and
solvents will reduce associated risks such as the severity of a fire
or explosion. Similarly, running a reaction five times at “low
scale” rather than once at “high scale” will be safer even if
somewhat less time efficient. A dramatic example of this is the
explosion of a shock-sensitive material produced on a much
larger scale than directed.18
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 4. Hierarchy of controls pyramid. Image reprinted from The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
NIOSH is a research agency that is part of the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Reference to specific commercial products, manufacturers,
companies, or trademarks does not constitute its endorsement or
recommendation by the U.S. Government, Department of Health and
Human Services, or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Material on the Hierarchy of Controls is available on the agency Web
site for no charge. See ref 17.
Avoiding Hazards through Substitution
Of almost equal effectiveness in risk minimization is to substitute
a hazardous chemical or process with a less hazardous one. A few
examples are
• If a solvent is flammable, perhaps it can be replaced with
another solvent that is less flammable or nonflammable
but still has the needed reactant and product solubility
characteristics. (Caution is needed here. Replacing a
flammable solvent of low toxicity with a nonflammable
solvent that is a carcinogen might replace one hazard with
a different one.)
• To precipitate a cation, one might use an anion of low
toxicity (such as carbonate) instead of an anion of high
toxicity (such as cyanide).
• Rather than using high temperature to overcome an
activation energy barrier, perhaps UV light or a microwave
oven could be used.
Using substitution requires a careful re-examination of the
revised experiment using RAMP.
Avoiding Hazards through Engineering Controls
In a laboratory, engineering controls usually refer to having and
using chemical hoods. The main purpose of hoods is to remove
gases and vapors in order to remove inhalation hazards and/or
remove fugitive gases and vapors that increase the chance of fire
or explosions. While hoods are not designed to contain
explosions, it is likely that a hood will lessen the effect of an
explosionparticularly if the sash is fully closed as it should be
except when interior access is needed.
Using a chemical hood properly is critically important.
• Is the hood on?
• Is it working with the proper flow rate?
• Is the interior of the hood sufficiently uncluttered to make
its use effective?
D https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
• Is the apparatus inside the hood correctly positioned to
effect proper capture of fugitive gases and vapors?
• Is the sash down?
Using equipment improperly may lead to a situation of false
security.
Avoiding Hazards through Administrative Controls
When one starts to work in an academic or nonacademic lab,
there is a wide range of behaviors that helps to minimize exposure
and risk. These are characterized as administrative controls. A
typical list of lab rules applies to most lab situations:
• No eating and drinking in the lab.
• No food storage in lab refrigerators designed for and
containing lab chemicals.
• Wear appropriate PPE.
• Keep lab benches tidy and keep safety areas clear near
eyewashes, showers, and emergency response equipment.
• Dispose of chemicals properly.
• Clean glassware after use.
• Wash your hands if there is some skin exposure to
relatively benign chemicals and wash your hands when
leaving the lab. If skin exposure presents a serious hazard,
know what actions to take immediately.
• Label all containers in the lab.
• Be wary of transferring chemicals to phones, computers,
and other lab equipment.
• Know where emergency exits and fire alarms are located,
and what to do in an emergency.
In some laboratories, there will be additional lab-specific
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). New lab personnel
need proper training on SOPs and it is unwise to rely upon
informal word-of-mouth transfer of these SOPs from experi-
enced chemists to new chemists. The “local culture” of the lab
may or may not explicitly or implicitly enforce these rules.
Posting rules and using check-off lists are wise strategies.
Chemists need to take responsibility for their own safety and
make sure they understand the hazards and risks that they might
encounter. Anytime a chemist or experimenter is unsure about
the safety of their work, they should stop until they consult with
more experienced workers about known hazards.
Avoiding Hazards through Use of Personal Protective
Equipment
Personal protective equipment (PPE) involves the availability and
proper use of equipment such as safety goggles, gloves, and lab
coats. Other PPE, such as hearing protection or safety glasses for
use with lasers, may be required in some laboratories. PPE is the
“last line of defense” between a hazard and a person. It is critical
that the right equipment be used (such as making sure that the
correct glove material is selected for a particular hazard) and that
it be used properly with appropriate training. The use of PPE is
very common and most students get trained on this use early in
their education.
In summary, there are many ways to minimize risks. Lab
personnel need to know about, and consider, all these options
and know how to implement them properly. It is reasonable that
chemistry students can only learn about risk minimization over
long periods of time as they are exposed to increasing risks
throughout a well-designed laboratory curriculum in many
courses.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
PREPARING FOR EMERGENCIES
Postincident review of lab mishaps almost always leads to the
conclusion that a particular episode was entirely avoidable if
hazard recognition, risk assessment, and risk minimization steps
had been conducted. (Rare exceptions to this are instances of an
unanticipated power failure, for example.) Thus, we begin with
the premise that all incidents are avoidable and lab emergencies
should not occur. However, equipment failure and procedural
mistakes can and do occur. Novice chemists and chemistry
students might make mistakes that experienced chemists easily
avoid. It is important that lab personnel should therefore be
vigilant about preparing to respond to both possible events and
unanticipated events.
At some early point in a student’s chemical education in the
lab there should be general training about the use of eye washes,
safety showers, and fire extinguishers. Additionally, one part
should be some training on addressing spills in the lab. Some
spills are fairly trivial and easy to remedy; others may involve
more hazardous substances or larger quantities that will require
personnel with more training to respond.
In the RAMP protocol, the step of “preparing for
emergencies” is intended to have chemists carefully review all
aspects of an experiment to anticipate what mishaps might occur
and to be ready to respond quickly to emergencies. Sometimes
that response might be to address the emergency in order to
mitigate damage and to prevent exposure and personal injury. In
other instances, the response might be simply to leave the lab
and notify the proper authorities when the situation cannot be
easily remedied by lab personnel. It is a good idea to create or
review a written plan for various situations so that one will be
able to act quickly and safely. Thinking about possible mishaps
can feed back into experimental design, hazard recognition, risk
assessment, and risk minimization as shown in Figure 1. In
academic laboratories, local rules may dictate what is expected,
or not expected, of students. Life safety considerations should
always override the protection of property.
In some instances, a hazard will be sufficiently unique that
taking special precautions for emergency response will be wise
and necessary. One example is the use of HF solutions. In this
situation having an appropriate medical remedy (calcium
gluconate gel) is appropriate. Similarly, having gloves of the
appropriate material is important for some solvents and
hazardous solutions.
■
PEDAGOGY CONSIDERATIONS
Upon first review, the understanding and application of RAMP
appears “simple” (as the ACS characterization states). And in
some instances, it is simple. However, the steps of risk
assessment and risk minimization can lead to complexities and
judgments that are anything but simple. It is clear that mastery of
the RAMP process involves considerable education in chemistry
and in chemical health and safety.
Every chemistry department must have an OSHA-required
Chemical Hygiene Officer (CHO) but at some institutions this
may be a person with limited professional training about lab
safety. In some locations there may be access to chemical health
and safety (CHS) or environmental health and safety (EHS)
professionals who can be invaluable as partners in experimental
design and RAMP stages. But many smaller institutions do not
have these resources. It is therefore necessary for faculty to play
an appropriate role to properly instruct undergraduate students
in the basics of chemical health and safety. The ACS Committee
E https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
Article
on Professional Training surely takes this position. They require
that “laboratory safety education and training is an ongoing
process and therefore must be integrated into every laboratory
course”.19
To implement such a program with regard to RAMP, it is
possible to show the RAMP process to students in introductory
courses and demonstrate how it was implicitly used in
experimental design for “cookbook” experiments in early lab
courses. These experiments usually have a preliminary section
about “safety precautions” that lists hazardous substances and
indicate appropriate PPE. It is also common in colleges and
universities to have some prelab safety session already
embedded in laboratory courses. It is possible to show how all
aspects of this existing instruction already fit comfortably into
the RAMP protocol. In this regard, RAMP becomes an
organizing principle for safety education.
As students progress in a four-year curriculum, it is
appropriate and necessary to have them take part in exercises
in experimental design where they can apply the RAMP process.
Of course, in student research projects within courses or
independent study, the application of RAMP is necessary.
Institutions may wish to design their own templates for RAMP
analysis, or even have students invent such a template. These
latter exercises will allow students a more intimate review of
RAMP and lead to the realization of some of the complications
discussed above with regard to risk assessment and risk
minimization as well as the iterative nature of the RAMP
process.
■
SUMMARY
This paper describes the use of RAMP in the undergraduate
programs at colleges and universities. However, its organiza-
tional simplicity and flexibility also make it appropriate for use in
high school, graduate programs, and the chemical industry.
RAMP provides a tool for the design of safe chemistry
experiments. This applies to undergraduate course-based
experiments as well as research experiments at the under-
graduate and graduate school environment. By learning and
using RAMP, students can become proficient at designing their
own experiments.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
†
David C. Finster − Chemistry Department, Wittenberg
University, Springfield, Ohio 45501, United States; orcid.org/
0000-0002-2884-450X; Email: dfinster@wittenberg.edu
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
Notes
The author declares the following competing financial
interest(s): D.C.F. is the coauthor of the textbook, Laboratory
Safety for Chemistry Students, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 2016.
†
D.C.F. is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Wittenberg
University.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Hill, R. H., Jr.; Finster, D. C. Laboratory Safety for Chemistry
Students; Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2010.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

(2) American Chemical Society. Safety Basics & RAMP. https://

www.acs.org/content/acs/en/chemical-safety/basics.html (accessed
2020−05−08).
(3) Stuart, R. B.; McEwen, L. R. The Safety “Use Case”: Co-
Developing Chemical Information Management and Laboratory Safety
Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (3), 516−526.
(4) Hill, R. H., Jr. Undergraduates Need a Safety Education! J. Chem.
Educ. 2016, 93 (9), 1495−1498.
(5) Finster, D. C.; Jackson, P. Comprehensive Undergraduate Safety
Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00121
(6) ACS Committee on Chemical Safety. Safety in Academic Chemistry
Laboratories, 8th ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC,
2016. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/
committees/chemicalsafety/publications/safety-in-academic-
chemistry-laboratories-students.pdf (accessed 2020−05−08).
(7) ACS Committee on Chemical Safety. Guidelines for Chemical
Laboratory Safety in Academic Institutions, 2016. https://www.acs.
org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/
chemicalsafety/publications/acs-safety-guidelines-academic.pdf (ac-
cessed 2020−05−08).
(8) ACS Committee on Chemical Safety. Guidelines for Chemical
Laboratory Safety in High Schools, 2016. https://www.acs.org/
content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/chemicalsafety/
publications/acs-secondary-safety-guidelines.pdf (accessed 2020−05−
08).
(9) United Nations. Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labeling of Chemicals, 8th ed., 2019. https://www.unece.org/
trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev08/08files_e.html (accessed 2020−
05−08).
(10) U.S. Occupational and Safety Health Administration. A Guide to
The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of
Chemicals (GHS). https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/
ghsguideoct05.pdf (accessed 2020−05−07).
(11) PubChem Home Page. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
(accessed 2020−05−08).
(12) Laboratory Chemical Safety Summaries. https://pubchemdocs.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/lcss (accessed 2020−05−08).
(13) Hill, R. H, Jr.; Finster, D. C. Laboratory Safety for Chemistry
Students, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2016; p 138.
(14) ACS Committee on Chemical Safety. Identifying and Evaluating
Hazards in Research Laboratories, ACS Committee on Chemical
Safety, Washington, DC, 2015. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/
acsorg/about/governance/committees/chemicalsafety/publications/
identifying-and-evaluating-hazards-in-research-laboratories.pdf (ac-
cessed 2020−05−08).
(15) Sigmann, S. B. Chemical Safety Education for the 21st Century
Fostering Safety Information Competency in Chemists. J. Chem. Health
Saf. 2018, 25, 17−29.
(16) ACS Committee on Professional Training. ACS Guidelines for
Bachelor’s Degree Programs, pp 17−18. https://www.acs.org/
content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-
acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf (accessed 2020−
05−08).
(17) The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH). Hierarchy of Controls. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/
hierarchy/default.html (accessed 2020−05−08).
(18) U. S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Texas
Tech University Chemistry Lab Explosion. https://www.csb.gov/file.
aspx?DocumentId=5671 (accessed 2020−05−08).
(19) ACS Committee on Professional Training. Safety Supplement,
2017. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/
committees/training/acsapproved/degreeprogram/laboratory-safety.
pdf (accessed 2020−05−08).

F https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX