The various resins used for coverslip mounting and plastics embedding for
both light and EM are all skin sensitizers - some more than others.
Generally, the lower the viscosity, the higher the sensitizing hazard. The
MSDS sheets are generally written with industrial-sized quantities in mind,
so if it has a hazard for breathing fumes, they are thinking about vat
quantities, not 500 ml's. Amount of exposure should also be considered -
small exposures over decades add up. So, a fume hood should be considered.
Skin contact is certainly a problem and not all gloves will protect you.
Catalogs, such as Fisher, have charts showing which gloves are best for
which chemicals. Latex is certainly the worst for chemicals.

Try this site for more info:
http://www.bestglove.com/

Tim Morken
CDC, Atlanta

Tim Morken
DVRD/IDPA
Roybal 1/2328
404-369-3964 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mehew David (RJF) Burtonh-tr
[mailto:David.Mehew@queens.burtonh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:26 AM
To: HistoNet Server (E-mail)
Subject: DPX New risk statements.


Hello,
Has anyone who uses DPX as a mounting medium noticed that on new bottles and
the accompanying hazard data sheets there are two new risk statements?
Dibutyl phthalate (the plasticiser used) now carries warnings that state -
may cause harm to the unborn child and possible risk of impaired fertility
(R61 and R62 in the European system). Does anyone know whether the standard
procedures used when mounting (gloves, extraction etc) are sufficient to
remove any risk? Should we stop using it? Is there a suitable safe(r)
alternative?

Dave Mehew