• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

SAFETY GUIDE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY IABORATORY By ERNEST HARRY KRIVOHIAVEK Bachelor of Science Central State College Edmond, Oklahoma 1950 Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August, 1960 SAFETY GUIDE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY IABORATORY Report Approved: Dean of the Graduate School ii Acknowledgement The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Henry P. Johnston, for his counsel and criticism which have been extremely helpful during the writing of this report. The writer also expresses his appreciation for the helpful guidance of Dr. James H. Zant for his advice and recommendations under whose supervision this seminar report has been prepared. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION • • • • 1 II • FOR STUDENT SAFETY • • 5 III • TEACHER BEWARE • • • 12 IV. THE STORAGE ROOM • 19 V. IDEAS FOR USE IN THE LABORATORY 24 VI. HIGH SCHOOL LABORATORIES CAN DO WITHOUT THESE 27 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCWSION • 31 BIBLIOGRAPHY ••••••••• 33 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Few places in the high school are as potentially dangerous as the chemistry laboratory. That more students have not been injured is a tribute to the teachers. For it is the neglect of observed facts about chemical handling, use and storing that makes many high school chemistry laboratories hazardous. It is the purpose of this report to review a number of the observed facts so the inference will be beneficial to high school chemistry teachers. It is imperative that chemical safety be built upon two solid foundations; an understanding of the laws of chemistry and physics that govern the elements and their compounds, and a well organized plan for all the situations that may result from the chemical behavior or misbehavior of elements and compounds. To the teacher, the safety education of the students is as much his responsibility as the chemical education of students. For this the teacher needs to implant in the students a frame of mind which dictates "safety" at all times. One science teacher in a private high school wrote: "For the past 12 years I have watched with great concern the action of my beginning class in chemistry. Would there be amoung this group one who would suffer irreparable damage to his body, through some needless and preventable accident? How tragic, if when time is short, 1 2 I failed to point out some hazard and an accident occurred which would deprive one of our youngsters of an equal chance in life."1 Not only this, but the need is pointed out by the fact of the death of a 42-year old junior high school teacher or the burning of another teacher, let alone the students involved. The careless handling or use of chemical substances does produce serious consequences. To the manufacturers, money lost because of accidents includes not only that due to liability for compensation and disability payments under existing workmen's compensation laws, but also the losses from diminished production as a result of the worker's absences. The gen- eral increase in the number of personal damage suits based on accidents in other than industrial locations is noted and it is the opinion of the manufacturers that educational institutions will soon feel this trend. In the case of state institutions such damage suits might be directed against the individual instructor, since a state organization could not 2 be sued without consent. An example of this is the decision of the Superior Courts of the state of California indicating very clearly that school districts, under the California statutes, are liable for accidents in laboratories and shops where negligence on the part of employees can be shown, In one 1. John S. Shaw, "Is the School Laboratory a Frankenstein," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 21 (1944) pp 539-542 2. William B. Cook, and Alfred J. Perkins, "Sa;f'.ety in Chemical Laboratories," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 31 ( 1954), pp 95, 96 and 144 ~ 3 case, Counsel for the plaintiff in his closing arguments, (in a verdict of fifteen thousand dollars, with two thousand to his father for medi- cal expenses) stated that school districts are liable for any injury to a student caused by the negligence of a school employee. The attorney presented with telling effect (on the jury) the seriousness of the injury to the boy in the loss of his eye and the consequent effect on his whole life, and argued that it is the duty of school authorities to have in mind the inexperience and lack of skill on the part of young boys, and eliminate from the course of study all things which constitute a hazard, saying that "it is better to leave a boy uneducated rather than to blind him. 113 We cannot deny the force of this argument from a moral and social standpoint at least, and also must admit that the same argument made by able counsel is likely to result in a verdict against the school district in similar cases when the injury is as serious as the loss of an eye. If a state institution can not be sued then the suit can be directed against the teacher for failing to protect the student against his own carelessness. It has been particularly noticeable in reports of cases of accidents as passed upon by the Appellate or Supreme Court that in practically every case the injured student has denied having received any instruction or cautions leading to decisions against the school dis- tricts. It is apparent (from these court decisions) that the instructor's 3. Park Lovejoy Turrill, "Public Liability and Chemical Education," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 10, (1933) 4 word alone is not sufficient to establish the fact that warnings to each pupil at the beginning of each year were given. The student should be required to pass a satisfactory written examination with his answers signed and preserved on file, in case of necessity, to prove that he had been warned. For even though we attempt to make certain that students are prevented from performing unauthorized experiments we cannot be every­ where at the same time. CHAPTER II FOR STUDENT SAFETY For student safety a thorough presentation on laboratory safety at the beginning of laboratory work is time well spent. This presentation might come under the three headings: 1. Observe rules of safety 2. Familiarize the student with the surroundings and 3. Use plain old-fashioned common-sense. A laboratory teacher has a great responsibility for the safety of his students. In observing regulations for safety, a rule·such as: "No 'horse-play' can be tolerated" should head the list. Chemicals and ap­ paratus must be treated at all times with care and respect. Laboratory accidents are usually the result of carelessness or ignorance, or both. The student that is permitted to do so can cause serious burns, injury­ cuts, blindness, poisoning, suffocation not only to himself, but also to his classmates as well. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that teach­ ers refuse to tolerate students who do not resist jostling or who move carelessly in respect to others. The instruction in the use of tools and special equipment can be illustrated and introduced as the need for the equipment is presented in the different experiments. This more properly is laboratory technique and in the continual teaching of proper techniques, students gain safety habits. It takes continual vigilance. 5 6 In becoming familiar with the surroundings, teach the students to check glassware for chips, to locate exits, safety showers, fire extin- guishers and the safety chart as well as the proper use of each. The use of plain old-fashioned common-sense is difficult to teach, but by illustrating the right way and the wrong way of laboratory tech- niques, this can be done. In contrasting the right way with the wrong way, Fredric Walker gives the following: The Right Way The Wrong Way 1. Make sure that the bore of 1. Do not attempt to force glass the stopper is of the proper tubing into a bored hole in the size for the glass tubing to be rubber stopper considerably smaller used. in diameter than the outside di­ ameter of the glass tubing. 2. Fire polish the end of the glass tubing to be used. 2. Do not insert glass tubing with jagged or rough ends. 3. Use glycerin or soap and water on the glass tubing as 3. Do not grasp the rubber stopper an aid in inserting it into in such a manner that the end of the stopper. the glass tubing will strike the hand holding the rubber stopper as 4. Grasp the rubber stopper the end of the glass tubing passes between the thumb and index through this stopper. finger in such a manner that the glass tubing will not come 4. Do not hold the glass tubing a in contact with the hand when considerable distance from the end it passes through the stopper. to be inserted. This puts a lateral strain on the glass, which will 5. Grasp the tubing with the cause it to break easily. other hand as near the end to insert it as is convenient. 6. Insert the fire-polished end of the glass tubing into the bored hold of the stopper gently twisting the tubing or the stopper as f~rce is exerted with both hands. 4. Fredric Walker, "Safety in Chemical Laboratories", Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 11, (1934) pp 506-09 7 Safety in the laboratory, as with safety in general, is largely a matter of thinking before you act.

Load more

  38

Copy Link