Showing posts with label laboratories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laboratories. Show all posts

Monday, July 21, 2014

CDC admits to poor lab safety measures

Lax safety measures in labs could lead
to staff exposure to dangerous microbes.
Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spent much time completing a report that would let the public see how the sloppy handling of anthrax by scientists at its headquarters had potentially exposed dozens of employees to the deadly bacteria.

But then he got a call about another accident, this one just as disturbing, if not more so — and no one in the agency’s top leadership had been informed about it earlier, though the C.D.C.’s lab had been told about it more than a month before.

C.D.C. workers had somehow shipped a dangerous strain of avian influenza to a poultry research lab run by the Department of Agriculture. Known as H5N1, the virus had killed more than half of the 650 people who had been infected with it since 2003.

The recent revelations have created a crisis of faith in the federal agency, prompting calls for an independent body to investigate such episodes in the future, as well as for sweeping changes at the agency and to a sprawling web of research labs that has grown after the 2001 terror attacks led to an intensified focus on microbes that could be used as biological weapons.

Dr. Michael Bell, a 19-year C.D.C. veteran who has been appointed by Dr. Frieden to a new position overseeing laboratory safety, said in an interview that he was most concerned about the “potential for hubris” among researchers who grow so inured to the daily grind of working with deadly microbes that they cease to follow safety protocols.

The agency both conducts that research and is charged with ensuring that other labs adhere to federal safety standards.

The agency’s internal investigation of the troubling events found that senior staff members had failed to write up a plan for researchers to follow in the anthrax study.

It also faulted scientists who neglected to review the existing literature before working with the deadly pathogen, and found that the agency was ill-prepared to respond to a potential exposure episode.

“It is ironic that the institution that sets U.S. standards for safety and security of work with human pathogens fails to meet its own standards,” Richard H. Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, wrote in an email . “It is clear that the C.D.C. cannot be relied upon to police its own select-agent labs.”

Dr. Frieden has closed the agency’s flu and bioterror laboratories and has banned all shipments from the agency’s highest-security labs while safety protocols are reviewed — a move that could freeze work at many public-health labs that rely on such shipments

Later this month, the C.D.C. will invite outside experts to form an external advisory group on lab safety. But some experts say that the agency should not police itself.

Dr. Frieden said the idea of an independent investigative agency was “certainly worth exploring.”

The anthrax accident occurred on June 5 in the agency’s bioterrorism rapid response lab. C.D.C. researchers in Atlanta had been preparing to test a faster way to identify dangerous substances. The lab used a virulent anthrax strain in the test when a weaker one would have worked.

The work was conducted in area classified as a “three” on the biosafety scale, with four being the highest security level. Such labs work with microorganisms that may lead to serious illness or death if inhaled, and follow strict safety guidelines: Workers wear safety hoods that filter air and typically work with infectious materials in special ventilated boxes called biosafety cabinets.

On June 2, according to the report, a lab supervisor called a scientist at another lab who had done similar work on a different bacterium, brucella, which can cause fevers and swelling in humans.

The written protocol for preparing brucella for the test was sent to the bioterrorism lab, and the supervisor told a scientist to follow it while preparing eight dangerous pathogens, including anthrax. But anthrax forms hardy spores, while brucella does not.

In addition, the brucella protocol required that bacteria be killed in a bath of formic acid for 10 minutes, and that small samples of it be incubated for 48 hours to be sure it was dead.

But a mix-up occurred when the instructions were conveyed over the phone. The scientist incubated the test samples for only 24 hours before sending the bulk of the bacteria to less-secure labs. Some of the bacteria were not filtered to remove spores.

After 24 hours, one scientist tried to sterilize the test plates in a high-power steam autoclave. But its door was stuck, so the plates were returned to the incubator. It was an inconvenience that would prove extremely lucky.

Over the next few days, scientists in two other labs where breathing equipment was not used agitated the bacteria and sprayed them with compressed gas, which could have blown spores into the air.

On June 13, one scientist checked the incubated plates and saw that anthrax was growing. If the door to the autoclave had opened properly and, as the report noted, the plates had been sterilized, “the event would not have been discovered.”

The troubling finding was reported immediately, according to the report. Rooms were closed off, and floors, tabletops, equipment and door handles were decontaminated.

Lab tests would later determine that the chemical bath would have killed any live, growing anthrax sent out of the lab, but not all the dangerous spores. Staff exposure, the report concluded, was “not impossible,” but “extremely unlikely.”

By looking at videotapes and the use of door key cards, managers tried to figure out who might have been exposed. They discovered another safety violation: staffers often “piggybacked,” following colleagues through doors without using their own cards.

Ultimately, 62 employees were offered vaccines and antibiotics. None have shown signs of illness related to anthrax exposure.

The near miss should have been reported immediately to top leadership, but was not.

Dr. Frieden said the delay shocked him because the agency’s flu lab is renowned in its field.

The report recalled other errors. In 2006, the agency accidentally sent live anthrax to two other labs, and also shipped out live botulism bacteria.

Both Dr. Frieden and his predecessor, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, replied in letters over their signatures that the problems would be fixed.

The agency’s report suggested that fewer labs should be handling dangerous microbes.

Source: New York Times
This article has been edited for length.

Concerned about the air quality at your place of work? Electrocorp has designed industrial-strength air cleaners with activated carbon, HEPA and UV germicidal filtration to remove dangerous pollutants from the air. The air cleaners remove or neutralize bacteria, viruses, mold spores, fine particles, VOCs, odors, gases and fumes. Find out more about Electrocorp's laboratory air purifiers and contact Electrocorp for a free consultation. 

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Air contaminants vanishing into walls hamper lab experiments

Models of particle pollution have
been inconsistent, researchers say.
Models trying to predict airborne particle pollutants have been inconsistent over the past decade.

Some airborne particles can vanish into the walls of laboratory chambers, which could explain discrepancies in air pollution experiments. The findings of a new study suggest that models of particle pollution have been off for about a decade.

For their tests, researchers evaporated toluene, an ingredient of car exhaust that can form secondary organic aerosols, in a Teflon chamber.

Unlike previous researchers, they added “seed particles” such as ammonium sulfate. Adding these particles increases the aerosols that form when toluene vaporizes.

When there are no seed particles, the vapors end up sticking to or dissolving into the chamber walls, said Chris Cappa, an assistant professor at the University of California, Davis, and co-author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.

“The walls of these chambers act as a sponge for the vapors,” Cappa said.

The findings of a new study suggest that models of particle pollution have been off for about a decade.

Cappa said that previous lab studies have underestimated secondary organic aerosol formation by about two to four times.

These aerosols, which are a byproduct of volatile organic compounds from vehicles and the burning of fossil fuels, are a major part of fine particle pollution.

Known as PM2.5, these particles can penetrate people’s lungs and disrupt their heart.

The discovery could explain why models that have tried to predict particulate levels from emissions inventories have not jibed with levels actually measured in the air.

“Accounting for such losses has the clear potential to bring model predictions and observations of organic aerosol levels into much closer agreement,” the authors wrote.

Laboratory models are often used to estimate regional air quality. And in the past 20 years, scientists have incorporated aerosols into climate models, too, because they can scatter or absorb radiation from the sun.

Aerosols that scatter sunlight would have a cooling effect, while those that absorb it have a warming effect.

The study was limited in that only one compound was tested. However, Cappa said the results should hold true for other aerosol precursors and the researchers plan on testing more.

The experiment doesn’t mean that regional air pollution is underestimated because scientists also use observations from the atmosphere.

“It’s not quite fair to say we’ve been underestimating impact of air pollution, but from a modeling standpoint we’ve been limited in our ability to properly set up strategies for improving air quality,” Cappa said.

Source: EHN

Poor indoor air quality in labs can affect results, staff health and well-being as well as performance. Electrocorp has designed air cleaners for laboratories that remove airborne contaminants without any dangerous by-products. Contact Electrocorp for more information.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

OSHA Updates Guidance on Hazardous Chemical Exposures in Labs

From OHSOnline:

"OSHA is issuing a technical amendment to the non-mandatory appendix in its standard on occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories, 1910.1450, which is known as the OSHA Laboratory Standard. Published Jan. 22 in the Federal Register, the amendment takes effect upon publication. It was made in order to include contents from a 2011 National Academy of Sciences publication.

Adhering to the hierarchy of controls is the third general principle listed in the technical amendment, following minimization of chemical exposures/risks and making an accurate assessment of the risks.

The hierarchy of controls principle discusses engineering controls, administrative controls, and various types of eye, face, hand, and foot PPE, along with protective apparel.

The Laboratory Standard requires laboratories to have Chemical Hygiene Plans, which the standard defines as "a written program developed and implemented by the employer which sets forth procedures, equipment, personal protective equipment and work practices that are capable of protecting employees from the health hazards presented by hazardous chemicals used in that particular workplace."

  • The amendment says a lab's plan must be readily available to workers and should include these topics:
  • Individual chemical hygiene responsibilities
  • Standard operating procedures
  • Personal protective equipment, engineering controls and apparel
  • Laboratory equipment
  • Safety equipment/
  • Chemical management
  • Housekeeping
  • Emergency procedures for accidents and spills
  • Chemical waste
  • Training
  • Safety rules and regulations
  • Laboratory design and ventilation
  • Exposure monitoring
  • Compressed gas safety
  • Medical consultation and examination

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

VIDEO: Dangers of Formaldehyde in Indoor Air

Formaldehyde is a chemical widely used by industry, in laboratories, as embalming fluid, and as a sterilizer.

Are your employees protected? Contact an Electrocorp air quality expert to customize an air cleaning solution for your business.

Video uploaded to YouTube by Paul Cochrane: