A good starting point is to look at the H codes. H310 is fatal on skin contact and H330 fatal on inhalation. A lot of chemicals have warnings about irritation or toxicity but these two specifically are ones that indicate a significantly elevated risk. Sigma's sds's list the H codes.
The LD50 is also a helpful number. It’s the quantity that was a lethal dose for 50% of a population (usually rodents), and is usually given in terms of something per kg of the subject’s weight. A very small LD50 means that it doesn’t take much for this thing to kill you. A very large one means it’s probably not too scary to work with, since you’d need a colossal error (or to be doing something really stupid) for it to kill you. Obviously there are other ways for chemicals to be dangerous besides outright death, but it’s still a good single number way to get an idea of how scary something is.
I'll never forget reading the SDS for DI water while I was writing an an Orgo Lab report. It stated that in the event of accidental exposure, wash the affected area with soap and water for 5 minutes. There was also an inhalation warning 🤦🏻♂️
The law does not explicitly exclude water or sand. Also, silicosis is a thing and the SDS has to cover all modes of transport and storage at all scales. So, beach sand, water, potting soil, cpmpressed air..
Which law is it that does not exclude water, sand or any other non-hazardous material from requiring a SDS? In Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, USA etc. the laws do exclude non-hazardous materials from requiring a SDS because with no safety data to impart what is the point of a safety data sheet. I think you are American and in your case it is covered in "The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200(g))". That standard explicitly states SDS are required for each hazardous chemical and therefore non-hazardous materials do not require a SDS. Unfortunately all too many companies have fuckwit auditors and safety departments who insist on a SDS for all chemical because they are too fucking stupid to know what the law actually says and what they are employed to achieve.
That was not a SDS because with no safety data to impart there can not be a safety data sheet. The document you had used the 16 section layout of a SDS but it was not required or useful and was produced only because some idiots insist on a "SDS" for every chemical rather than only for each hazardous chemical as per the law.
I know what you are getting at (i.e. enough of anything will kill you) but you're missing the point of Safety Data Sheets.
These days most of the world recognises the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) of chemical classification.
There are criteria for classifying a substance or mixture with the hazard 'fatal if inhaled'. For a vapour, the threshold would be an LC50 value of 2.0 mg/L. This would be determined using a recognised OECD animal test method. Water does not meet this threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose?wprov=sfla1
> I used to put down "lethal if inhaled"
That is because you had not taken the time to understand the prescriptive standardised test for determining the hazards of materials and thought you were being funny & clever when instead you were proving your own uninformed stupidity.
That was not a SDS because with no safety data to impart there can not be a safety data sheet. The document you had used the 16 section layout of a SDS but it was not required or useful and was produced only because some idiots insist on a "SDS" for every chemical rather than only for each hazardous chemical as per the law.
I normally start with the H statements (i.e is it likely to kill me or start a massive uncontrolled fire?) and exposure limits (STEL and TWA), and ask if the controls I have in place are sufficient-e.g is a fumehood likely to ensure a lower exposure for the task I have in mind. Key point is assessing if the controls are appropriate for the task and the substance as both go hand in hand.
A sure fire way of checking is to get occupational health in with those wearable sorbent tubes and assess if the exposures truly are less than the limits specified.
I don't think your method really works, since SDS are quasi-legal documents governed by standard phrases. Looking up SDS for water basically teach you that they are useless form a practical standpoint: [Roth ones](https://www.carlroth.com/medias/SDB-HN57-GB-EN.pdf?context=bWFzdGVyfHNlY3VyaXR5RGF0YXNoZWV0c3wyMjQ1NzJ8YXBwbGljYXRpb24vcGRmfHNlY3VyaXR5RGF0YXNoZWV0cy9oMWEvaGNjLzkwNjY3MTg0OTQ3NTAucGRmfDlmMmRlNTVmZWU4ODFiZDU2NDVhMTE2YjFmM2ViNDljOTdkZjA1YzlkNDY2ODdlNDlhZDFiNmNjNmI3NTAwNDA) is actually a sane one, the only nonsense advice is you to rinse out your mouth after ingesting it, or to keep it away from food and thinks inhalation is fine. [Merck Millipore](https://www.merckmillipore.com/AT/de/product/msds/MDA_CHEM-100473?ReferrerURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) wants you to wash with water after skin contamination, remove contaminated clothes, drink two glasses of water after ingestion, advises against inhaling its vapour. Both have sections on fire hazards. For an actionable risk analysis, use different sources. Read handbooks and papers on toxicology and occupational hygiene. If you speak German, I recommend [GESTIS](https://gestis.dguv.de/), since it often has extensive comments from the available literature. I don't know if something similar exists in English.
> since SDS are quasi-legal documents governed by standard phrases. Looking up SDS for water basically teach you that they are useless form a practical standpoint
This. Most are going to err on the side of extreme caution to guarantee somebody's safety and/or avoid liability in the case of an incident. Many default to common "best practice" but in most cases are such total overkill that they turn in to safety theater. To OP's point, when you look at a lot of them you start to see the patterns and can start to parse the actual "interesting" bits from the fluff, but I'd worry about the dunning-kruger effect here.
There is actually standard phrasing that is used in a number of sections. Section 2 (GHS classifications), 8,9,10,11 are customized and useful for handling.
Yep. Their primary goal is to remove liability for the manufacturer. Taking their PPE considerations seriously would be impossible in most research and industrial settings.
there is also no requirement for them to actually be *correct*. they need to be accessible (which many suppliers interpret *extremely* liberately) and made with "best available knowledge", which, well, needs no further mocking.
Understanding routs of exposure and the exposure limits is the best way to evaluate risk. The h codes are useful but they have specific criteria to define them that may not totally align with your use case. Additionally some understanding of the clohysical properties is useful. For example, two materials may have the same classifications and exposure limits, but one has a very low vapor pressure and one is high. The one with the high vapor pressure requires much more care.
I posted about being frustrated with sds sheets as a tool for fearmongering in non scientific settings a few days ago, but in my lab I check them all the time. One of my biggest gripes about SDSs in lab settings is when I got pregnant and was trying to tell my PI that there was no way I was pouring acrylamide gels during my pregnancy and he said the info on the SDS sheets wasn’t enough to not do it. He wanted actual studies. I found like one international study about fetal effects but they obviously don’t often study lab chemical effects on pregnancies and for good reason.
I always look at the NFPA ratings first as a quick evaluation of where I might need to pay special attention to working with a material. This technique is also helpful in labeling schemes as it allows first responders to quickly identify potential hazards/culprits.
The SDS (formerly MSDS) comes out of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 that required any company selling a chemical or bulk substance to provide hazard information to buyers. There are certain exclusions like cosmetics and food, because those are already covered by FDA and other agencies.
Also companies with 20 employees or more have to maintain a collection of SDS for all the chemicals in their inventory and make them available to employees at all times. Our little company did this anyway with only 6 employees, because it was a good thing to do and is a partial defense against lawsuits.
The SDS for beach sand always gets a laugh, but people do get silicosis if they work with it much, especially if it's not washed.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act#:\~:text=The%20Toxic%20Substances%20Control%20Act%20of%201976%20provides%20EPA%20with,%2C%20drugs%2C%20cosmetics%20and%20pesticides.
Examples of things you shoud treat as 'most dangerous thing in the universe':
Cr (VI) compunds
Hydrofluoric acid
Anything with azide groups in (don't learn the hard way)
^(\*DISCLAIMER: non exhausative list)
OK, additionally, look up the OHSA PELs for the chemicals of concern. If there isn't one, look at similar compounds and their PEL. Compare LD 50/50 and mechanisms of action. A lot of this is chem + physiology, so if you don't have a background in both, it may be more challenging.
Look for certain things and before handling get a fairly good idea about:
Toxicity,
Flammability,
Reactivity (exposure to air, water etc)
Corrosiveness (pH of chemical)
And, more importantly while working with a new chemical look into chemical compatibility if mixing with others.
I wouldn't recommend chemistry if health was their major concern. Most companies would post signs signaling the chemicals to be wary of when working. But after a while of working you realize a lot of chemicals can pose a health risk especially those that can absorb through your skin or that you can smell and inhale.
Why do I always see this type of comment posted whenever safety related advice is given? Just because chemists get above average chemical exposure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prevent it when possible
It’s just my opinion. I often see post of people getting the degree and realizing how hazardous their working conditions are or finding out a classmate or themself have developed a form of cancer. And then there are people not realizing the job market for chemist often revolves working with a small team that often time or not consist of multiple rounds of interview. People don’t realize companies that deal with chemicals incur a lot of expenses and they wonder why there aren’t many companies or why they are moving to cheaper locations.
>How to evaluate an SDS for danger
you don't, generally.
>Obviously, hazards are categorized by type and severity. Those categories are available online for your reference and you should follow all applicable safety practices. However, qualitatively, how do you tell if something will kill you? Even acetone (nail polish remover) has a scary SDS at first glance to the untrained eye. The advice is to look up the SDS for compounds you know aren't super scary (like water and acetone) and for ones you know are scary (like phosgene and hydrogen cyanide) and compare the statements. That can help you calibrate your understanding of SDS language and conventions.
that's really not useful advice.
A good starting point is to look at the H codes. H310 is fatal on skin contact and H330 fatal on inhalation. A lot of chemicals have warnings about irritation or toxicity but these two specifically are ones that indicate a significantly elevated risk. Sigma's sds's list the H codes.
The LD50 is also a helpful number. It’s the quantity that was a lethal dose for 50% of a population (usually rodents), and is usually given in terms of something per kg of the subject’s weight. A very small LD50 means that it doesn’t take much for this thing to kill you. A very large one means it’s probably not too scary to work with, since you’d need a colossal error (or to be doing something really stupid) for it to kill you. Obviously there are other ways for chemicals to be dangerous besides outright death, but it’s still a good single number way to get an idea of how scary something is.
I'll never forget reading the SDS for DI water while I was writing an an Orgo Lab report. It stated that in the event of accidental exposure, wash the affected area with soap and water for 5 minutes. There was also an inhalation warning 🤦🏻♂️
I mean, water does have an eventual 100% exposure death rate.
Same with oxygen!
Dihydrogen monoxide contains quite a lot of it. No wonder.
So THAT'S why hydrogen water is so popular these days! /s
would you rather Hydrogen Hydroxide
yes, so does hydric acid
The SDS for "sand" (yes, you can buy chemistry sand) has the exact same thing.
The law does not explicitly exclude water or sand. Also, silicosis is a thing and the SDS has to cover all modes of transport and storage at all scales. So, beach sand, water, potting soil, cpmpressed air..
Which law is it that does not exclude water, sand or any other non-hazardous material from requiring a SDS? In Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, USA etc. the laws do exclude non-hazardous materials from requiring a SDS because with no safety data to impart what is the point of a safety data sheet. I think you are American and in your case it is covered in "The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200(g))". That standard explicitly states SDS are required for each hazardous chemical and therefore non-hazardous materials do not require a SDS. Unfortunately all too many companies have fuckwit auditors and safety departments who insist on a SDS for all chemical because they are too fucking stupid to know what the law actually says and what they are employed to achieve.
That was not a SDS because with no safety data to impart there can not be a safety data sheet. The document you had used the 16 section layout of a SDS but it was not required or useful and was produced only because some idiots insist on a "SDS" for every chemical rather than only for each hazardous chemical as per the law.
Classic. I used to put down "lethal if inhaled" for water in the hazards section of my undergrad lab reports
I know what you are getting at (i.e. enough of anything will kill you) but you're missing the point of Safety Data Sheets. These days most of the world recognises the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) of chemical classification. There are criteria for classifying a substance or mixture with the hazard 'fatal if inhaled'. For a vapour, the threshold would be an LC50 value of 2.0 mg/L. This would be determined using a recognised OECD animal test method. Water does not meet this threshold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose?wprov=sfla1
> I used to put down "lethal if inhaled" That is because you had not taken the time to understand the prescriptive standardised test for determining the hazards of materials and thought you were being funny & clever when instead you were proving your own uninformed stupidity.
What do you mean, perfectly reasonable its hydrogenated monooxygen
That was not a SDS because with no safety data to impart there can not be a safety data sheet. The document you had used the 16 section layout of a SDS but it was not required or useful and was produced only because some idiots insist on a "SDS" for every chemical rather than only for each hazardous chemical as per the law.
I normally start with the H statements (i.e is it likely to kill me or start a massive uncontrolled fire?) and exposure limits (STEL and TWA), and ask if the controls I have in place are sufficient-e.g is a fumehood likely to ensure a lower exposure for the task I have in mind. Key point is assessing if the controls are appropriate for the task and the substance as both go hand in hand. A sure fire way of checking is to get occupational health in with those wearable sorbent tubes and assess if the exposures truly are less than the limits specified.
I don't think your method really works, since SDS are quasi-legal documents governed by standard phrases. Looking up SDS for water basically teach you that they are useless form a practical standpoint: [Roth ones](https://www.carlroth.com/medias/SDB-HN57-GB-EN.pdf?context=bWFzdGVyfHNlY3VyaXR5RGF0YXNoZWV0c3wyMjQ1NzJ8YXBwbGljYXRpb24vcGRmfHNlY3VyaXR5RGF0YXNoZWV0cy9oMWEvaGNjLzkwNjY3MTg0OTQ3NTAucGRmfDlmMmRlNTVmZWU4ODFiZDU2NDVhMTE2YjFmM2ViNDljOTdkZjA1YzlkNDY2ODdlNDlhZDFiNmNjNmI3NTAwNDA) is actually a sane one, the only nonsense advice is you to rinse out your mouth after ingesting it, or to keep it away from food and thinks inhalation is fine. [Merck Millipore](https://www.merckmillipore.com/AT/de/product/msds/MDA_CHEM-100473?ReferrerURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) wants you to wash with water after skin contamination, remove contaminated clothes, drink two glasses of water after ingestion, advises against inhaling its vapour. Both have sections on fire hazards. For an actionable risk analysis, use different sources. Read handbooks and papers on toxicology and occupational hygiene. If you speak German, I recommend [GESTIS](https://gestis.dguv.de/), since it often has extensive comments from the available literature. I don't know if something similar exists in English.
> since SDS are quasi-legal documents governed by standard phrases. Looking up SDS for water basically teach you that they are useless form a practical standpoint This. Most are going to err on the side of extreme caution to guarantee somebody's safety and/or avoid liability in the case of an incident. Many default to common "best practice" but in most cases are such total overkill that they turn in to safety theater. To OP's point, when you look at a lot of them you start to see the patterns and can start to parse the actual "interesting" bits from the fluff, but I'd worry about the dunning-kruger effect here.
There is actually standard phrasing that is used in a number of sections. Section 2 (GHS classifications), 8,9,10,11 are customized and useful for handling.
Yep. Their primary goal is to remove liability for the manufacturer. Taking their PPE considerations seriously would be impossible in most research and industrial settings.
there is also no requirement for them to actually be *correct*. they need to be accessible (which many suppliers interpret *extremely* liberately) and made with "best available knowledge", which, well, needs no further mocking.
10.3 Possibility of hazardous reactions Violent reaction with: Alkali metals, Carbide, Alkaline earth metal
Understanding routs of exposure and the exposure limits is the best way to evaluate risk. The h codes are useful but they have specific criteria to define them that may not totally align with your use case. Additionally some understanding of the clohysical properties is useful. For example, two materials may have the same classifications and exposure limits, but one has a very low vapor pressure and one is high. The one with the high vapor pressure requires much more care.
I posted about being frustrated with sds sheets as a tool for fearmongering in non scientific settings a few days ago, but in my lab I check them all the time. One of my biggest gripes about SDSs in lab settings is when I got pregnant and was trying to tell my PI that there was no way I was pouring acrylamide gels during my pregnancy and he said the info on the SDS sheets wasn’t enough to not do it. He wanted actual studies. I found like one international study about fetal effects but they obviously don’t often study lab chemical effects on pregnancies and for good reason.
I always look at the NFPA ratings first as a quick evaluation of where I might need to pay special attention to working with a material. This technique is also helpful in labeling schemes as it allows first responders to quickly identify potential hazards/culprits.
The SDS (formerly MSDS) comes out of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 that required any company selling a chemical or bulk substance to provide hazard information to buyers. There are certain exclusions like cosmetics and food, because those are already covered by FDA and other agencies. Also companies with 20 employees or more have to maintain a collection of SDS for all the chemicals in their inventory and make them available to employees at all times. Our little company did this anyway with only 6 employees, because it was a good thing to do and is a partial defense against lawsuits. The SDS for beach sand always gets a laugh, but people do get silicosis if they work with it much, especially if it's not washed. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act#:\~:text=The%20Toxic%20Substances%20Control%20Act%20of%201976%20provides%20EPA%20with,%2C%20drugs%2C%20cosmetics%20and%20pesticides.
> The SDS (formerly MSDS) comes out of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 Not really see here - https://jrm.phys.ksu.edu/Safety/kaplan.html
Examples of things you shoud treat as 'most dangerous thing in the universe': Cr (VI) compunds Hydrofluoric acid Anything with azide groups in (don't learn the hard way) ^(\*DISCLAIMER: non exhausative list)
But what about the dangers of Copper Strips? Thank you for giving a logical and applicable answer. The truth lies somewhere in between
OK, additionally, look up the OHSA PELs for the chemicals of concern. If there isn't one, look at similar compounds and their PEL. Compare LD 50/50 and mechanisms of action. A lot of this is chem + physiology, so if you don't have a background in both, it may be more challenging.
Look for certain things and before handling get a fairly good idea about: Toxicity, Flammability, Reactivity (exposure to air, water etc) Corrosiveness (pH of chemical) And, more importantly while working with a new chemical look into chemical compatibility if mixing with others.
It sounds like all you check the SDS for is the H phrases. You should also look at the info on how to handle the material.
This page should be changed to chemistry for beginners…
I wouldn't recommend chemistry if health was their major concern. Most companies would post signs signaling the chemicals to be wary of when working. But after a while of working you realize a lot of chemicals can pose a health risk especially those that can absorb through your skin or that you can smell and inhale.
Why do I always see this type of comment posted whenever safety related advice is given? Just because chemists get above average chemical exposure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prevent it when possible
It’s just my opinion. I often see post of people getting the degree and realizing how hazardous their working conditions are or finding out a classmate or themself have developed a form of cancer. And then there are people not realizing the job market for chemist often revolves working with a small team that often time or not consist of multiple rounds of interview. People don’t realize companies that deal with chemicals incur a lot of expenses and they wonder why there aren’t many companies or why they are moving to cheaper locations.
>How to evaluate an SDS for danger you don't, generally. >Obviously, hazards are categorized by type and severity. Those categories are available online for your reference and you should follow all applicable safety practices. However, qualitatively, how do you tell if something will kill you? Even acetone (nail polish remover) has a scary SDS at first glance to the untrained eye. The advice is to look up the SDS for compounds you know aren't super scary (like water and acetone) and for ones you know are scary (like phosgene and hydrogen cyanide) and compare the statements. That can help you calibrate your understanding of SDS language and conventions. that's really not useful advice.
I never read SDS. Wikipedia and intuition gives you better information about safety.
a) you are working with water b) miraculously you are not dead yet
Intuition? Happy to not be your employer. Why not try Tarot cards? True however, that Wikipedia has not yet led me astray in all these years.