fdnjj6
Banned by request
Posts: 114
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pissed
|
|
Carcinogens
So, carcinogens are my least favorite thing to deal with alongside NOx gases.
What are your opinions on them?
I treat things that are suspected carcinogens with full PPE, respirator, constant glove switching, full body clothing, goggles, etc.
The problem is that in the end I still get a slight exposure at some point.
I just made nitrotoluene for a benzocaine synthesis and I'd say there were 5-7 instances where I was able to smell it but I only smelled it for about
1-4 seconds since I right away took action. So let's say a total exposure of 1 minute spread out over 6 hours in increments. Just judging from the
strength of the smell I'd say it could've been anywhere from 10-200 ppm. That's just going off of the fact that at a low ppm, a faint odor should be
present, and that the odor was only picked up from when the glassware was already washed a few times or since with the separation and stuff I had a
fan on high, outside, and wasn't shoving my face in there or in the way of the fan's stream.
It's pretty volatile and it's odor threshold is very low (0.05mg/L) and it's odor is very distinct so I felt comfortable working with it with high
precautions. However, things like likely/confirmed carcinogens are always a risk. I know they vary but how bad is it? Limiting exposure to what I
thought was very acceptable (backed up by literature and studies, since the allowed limit for an 8 hour work day is 2-5 ppm of continous vapors, and
looking at the actual carcinogenic potential for nitrotoluenes) and since I will only need to work with it 2 more times (one isomer separation with
almost no exposure and another reaction where the exposure should be minimal to none as well) and since all of the times there is minimal exposure.
What are your thoughts on carcinogens? Where do you draw the line? How do you decided whether to work with one or not (ethanol is a confirmed
carcinogen but a weak one, however, the weak part is not mentioned, yet something like dichromates are pretty damn bad)?
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1114
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
There are so many compounds that are carcinogenic. They each have there own exposure pathway and associated risk. You just need to understand the
reagents and products you are working with and associated risks.
|
|
|
fdnjj6
Banned by request
Posts: 114
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pissed
|
|
Yea but the issue is how do you find that out? I mean ethanol is an obvious one but nitrotoluene is hard to figure out how bad it is.
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1114
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
Here are some resources, they cover most things you will work with in the home lab.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/default.html
https://echa.europa.eu/oel
|
|
|
fdnjj6
Banned by request
Posts: 114
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pissed
|
|
Thanks. I know the MSDS shows that nitrotoluene is relatively toxic but I'm scared of the cancer risk. Do you think the aforementioned exposures are
something to worry about?
|
|
|
mackolol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 458
Registered: 26-10-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Funky
|
|
I think not. You would have to work with nitrotoluene on some basis, let's say 2 hours a day to actually take cancer risk in mind. Brief and
infrequent contact with this kind of chemical is nothing to worry about. But yet again, you could be hit by a thunder at any moment, with cancer is
the same thing ...
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7976
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Just look at it as to smoking cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes is known to increase the risk of cancer. But what do you think will happen if you smoke a
single cigarette (not per day, but in total)? Do you think that this will cause cancer? Each cigarette adds up a little chance (and still it is a
chance, not every strong smoker gets cancer). It is exactly the same with carcinogenic chemicals. Even the nastier ones (e.g. dichromates,
tetrachloromethane) do not introduce a serious risk if you inhale a speck of dust or a whiff of vapor just a few times. The single cigarette I
mentioned above leads to much more bad chemicals in your body than the few whiffs of nitrotoluene you had in your experiment.
Things become risky if you expose yourself to carcinogenic chemicals every day, but I would not worry about an occasional whiff of some or other
carcinogenic compound. It is important to work cleanly and to clean up your workspace after each experiment session. Avoid spreading dust of
carcinogenic compounds and wipe your workbench with a humid tissue after an experiments session. Also, do not eat and drink during experimenting and
do not use your kitchen for experiments.
I see no need to wear full body "armor" if you do experiments, unless you work on an industrial scale.
|
|
|
Swinfi2
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 19-2-2018
Location: England
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic
|
|
I was pretty concerned about a failed dioxane synthesis, I had to strap on my gas mask and turn off heating as my poorly ventilated shed and 10m in
every direction stunk of acetaldehyde... That stuff is pretty bad but even when cleaning the tar from the flask and the low boiling solvent plus tar
pressure vessle made it volcano up my arm, I stayed calm and washed off the crap... I'm not a blob yet... probably. I hope...
But at every stage I knew, smells funny -> mask (fix it and/or evacuate)
Contamination on self/clothes -> wash and clean immediately.
Sure I should have planned better to avoid it but reacting in the right way is also a good limiting factor for that type of risk.
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
I saw a study concerning if there is an increased risk of cancer associated with the work as a chemist.
They came to the conclusion that there isn't.
I find this pretty relieving.
Don't know where to find this study again though(but I think it was linked on kilomentors blog).
|
|
|
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
Posts: 591
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
|
|
I feel as long as you are careful you minimize your contact. In everyday life we encounter all sorts of carcinogens.
Diesel exhaust is a major carcinogen and we walk through cities with all sorts of delivery trucks burning diesel.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diesel-exhaust-a...
Cigarettes are another one, here people walk up and down the streets with cigarettes in their hands. There are many more, we will never escape it.
But the great thing is when the carcinogen is in your hands, you are in control of the substance. You now know your exposure rather than all of the
unknowns we encounter out of our control.
|
|
|
fdnjj6
Banned by request
Posts: 114
Registered: 20-2-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pissed
|
|
Okay thanks for all of the replies. I had felt like it wasn't a biggie but I was still concerned. I used to keep glassware in my room since the
experiments I did never used anything worse than nitric acid, but now that my glassware has come in contact with more serious chemicals, I'll begin to
store them in the garage in a container, maybe even put the container inside of a bag. I washed the glassware really well but I don't trust it. It's
probably for the better anyway haha.
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
- Alcohol, Europeans consume about 10 liters pure ethanol per year (acetaldehyde anyone?)
- Cigarettes, a lots of them, most are chain smokers
- All particulate matter and smoke in the air from human and natural activity
- UV radiation and background radiation
- BBQ food, roasted to a very aromatic degree
- And all the other stuff in our daily lives
And people just drop dead from cancer? Well, yes, about 30% of people will eventually succumb to cancer - but while being 80 years old. And this is
today, the people in their 80's now were born in 1940's, and when they lived the good part of their lives, unfiltered cigarettes were a staple,
benzene was common paint solvent, asbestos was put into everything, food was of lower quality and contained aflatoxins and gasoline was leaded. Every
single of these are pretty much unheard of today.
Just the perspective here, not to argue those chemicals are safe! I do believe exposure to minute amounts and timeframes of even some of the more
toxic nasties has pretty much zero effect on our DNA in the long run. It would be a crude human experiment, but I wouldn't be surprised even if people
were subjected to major quantities of Class I carcinogens one two few times and their lives were to be followed for the rest of their life, they
wouldn't show much difference for the control. A major shot of radioactive exposure increases cancer risk by parts per thousand in statistics. It's
the constant exposure that takes it's toll.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
