RE: DPX New risk statements.
This site condenses the information very well, and includes a lot of chemicals
in use in the lab.
On 20 Mar 2003, at 11:40, Morken, Tim wrote:
> 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:
> Tim Morken
> CDC, Atlanta
> Tim Morken
> Roybal 1/2328
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mehew David (RJF) Burtonh-tr
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:26 AM
> To: HistoNet Server (E-mail)
> Subject: DPX New risk statements.
> 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)
> Dave Mehew
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>