LABORATORY GLASSWARE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Introduction:
While
assessing laboratory management practices throughout the University
of Vermont campus, via routine inspections and waste disposal procedures,
it has become increasingly obvious that laboratories are depending on
glassware materials in large quantities. Numerous amounts of beakers,
flasks, pipets, etc.... are used for various experimental analyses,
tests, and procedures as needed for the research that is being done.
The variability of the latter causes a wide spectrum of usage. That
is to say all of the different departments and labs on campus are using
glassware for different purposes. Thus, a wide range of waste must be
cleansed from the glassware before reuse. What the Environmental Safety
Facility is looking to do is assess any possibilities of waste source
reduction revolving around glassware washing techinques. More specifically,
reducing waste sources arising from the chemicals and processes being
used to clean the glassware. Source reduction being any practice that
reduces the amount of contaminant entering a wastestream or the environment
prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal, while reducing public health
and environmental hazards.
If
current glassware washing methods produce some hazardous wastes, perhaps
a more environmentally sound method of cleansing glassware could be
found. If a new method proved to be more economically feasible and environmentally
friendly, maybe an exchange of some sort could be worked out. Thus reducing
or eliminating current methods that utilize or produce hazardous chemicals
(e.g acid washes, benzene, residue by-products, etc).
Where did we start?
In
order to know how we are going to approach reducing source contamination,
it is imperative to find out what is presently being done in UVM campus
laboratories concerning glassware washing.
- 155 self designed surveys
were distributed to UVM lab technicians toward the end of March and
included a flexible April 16 deadline.
- By April 30, sixty-five
surveys were returned representing a 42% return.
- All returned surveys were
collected and answers to all fields were entered into a simple database.
Using
the database, it was possible to analyze and group the various responses
for each field. The answers to survey questions are comprised of "Yes/No",
multiple choice and short answer replies. The following is a general
break down of the received information.
Out
of the 65 returns, 32 were from Given medical building. This represents
a significant return from one source as it comprises a major portion
of the sample. Other scientific buildings that are known to have numerous
amounts of laboratories are misrepresented by the survey results. For
example Cook, Marsh, Aiken, Terrill, and Rowell are represented by only
one response each.
| Given: Medical Building
(32) |
Stafford: Microbiology
and Molecular Genetics (6) |
Hills: Plant and Soil
Science (2) |
Aiken: School of Natural
Resources (1) |
Colchester Research
Facility (4) |
Marsh Life Sciences
(1) |
| Baird (4) |
Cook Physical Sciences
(1) |
Terrill: Animal, Food
& Nutritional Science (1) |
Rowell: Allied Health
Sciences (1) |
North Prospect St.:
VT Cancer Research (2) |
Given Medical Alumni
(5) |
What did we find
out?
Significant findings from
the survey:
- The majority of the laboratories
are used for research purposes
- Laboratories reuse glassware
and are responsible for cleaning it themselves.
- Usually, less than 25
pieces of glassware are used daily.
- Glassware is washed daily
or as needed by the laboratory.
- Laboratory by-products
and residues are commonly rinsed away into the sink
- The majority of laboratories
wash glassware by hand
- Glassware management practices
are not usually specific to the research being done.
- A majority of the laboratories
would be willing to change to a more environmentally sound alternative.
In an attempt to discover
significant sources of waste generated by laboratory experiments, a
number of questions were asked revolving around experimental by-products
and other types of materials that are routinely poured down the sink.
The response to the latter was quite overwhelming as it included a wide
range of laboratory materials. Constants among laboratories included
buffer solutions, autoclaved media, and diluted general lab chemicals.
It may be futile to attempt any measures to reduce waste from all UVM
research laboratories revolving around glassware managment. However,
it may be advantageous to focus on a specific aspect of glassware washing
that is a significant source of hazardous waste as well as a laboratory
safety concern.
Chromic Acid
It
was decided that the scope of the glassware project would be narrowed
to focus on informing laboratories about the dangers of using harsh
acids to clean glassware. In this case, we had received a couple of
survey returns from laboratories still using chromic acid and chromerge
to clean glassware. Historically, chromic acid and cleaning agents using
chromium are effective in that they make cleaning stubborn residue off
of glassware easier. However, using chromic acid on a regulatory basis
for cleaning purposes is cause for concern as it is unsafe, hazardous
to the environment, and is costly to dispose of. The issue then arises,
"Are these the only laboratories on campus still using chromic
acid? Are there more? Are they knowledgeable of the safety and evironmental
concerns using chromium compounds? What can we do to inform them?"
Chemsource Flyer
Working
through Chemsource advertisements, glassware information could be relayed
to laboratories on a flyer distributed
throughout campus. This flyer would provide the forum for informing
laboratories about chromic acid use and possible alternatives. The flyer
would act as a fact sheet as well as an opportunity for labs to respond
if they were interested in glassware cleaners that were more environmentally
friendly. Not only would the ESF be willing to provide MICRO*, a cleaning
solution, but we would also be willing to investigate alternatives suitable
for specific research needs.
One
of the major problems we have run into in the past and currently is
locating an up to date list of personnel working in laboratories around
UVM. To get around this problem we attempted to distribute flyers to
laboratory rooms instead of actual personnel. To do this, a list was
generated using the fume hood inspection database. Logic being that
any room on campus with a fume hood is a working laboratory because
fume hood inspections occur every year.
A
number of responses from the Given Medical Building requested samples
of MICRO cleaning solution. Ten, 8oz MICRO samples were acquired from
Cole-Parmer. These samples were then distributed to the laboratories
interested along with instructions and a letter requesting trial usage
and to respond whether or not the product met their needs.
