Chemical safety -- a conversation with Dr. Neal Langerman

I had the occasion to interview (by phone) Dr. Neal Langerman, who has his own consulting firm, Advanced Chemical Safety.  He is a noted chemical safety expert, quoted in many news articles. I'm pretty new at this interviewing stuff, so I'll summarize just a few of the points that he made about laboratory and chemical safety. 

Any errors are mine and mine alone and not to be attributed to Dr. Langerman.

Good literature sources for chemical safety: He recommended (among other volumes) "Prudent Practices in the Laboratory", which is published by the National Academies for starters. The process-oriented (if I'm correct) volume "Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards" (available from eBay for only $435!) is another good reference and is expected to be online late this year. 

But what about my leisure suits?: Dr. Langerman recommended to me strongly that synthetic materials should NOT be worn (head-to-toe, inside or out) when dealing with pyrophoric compounds. He stood behind his "solid gasoline" quote, saying that if you measure the heat output from burning polyethylene or polypropylene, they are the same as gasoline. Synthetics also tend to melt before they burn, which adds to injuries. Food for thought for all us working chemists. 

Notable chemical safety statistics: In the course of our conversation, he mentioned a rather interesting statistic from the Chemical Safety Board: of the 2400 incidents reported to the Chemical Safety Board, 91 laboratory incidents resulted in injury, property damage or fatality. I find that to be a rather remarkable number, since it indicates that close to 4% of incidents (or 1 in 25) have serious (that is, potentially fatal) consequences.

UPDATE: Dr. Langerman e-mails to correct: in a recent three year period, there were ~2400 chemical incidents that caused injury, property damage or fatality. Of those, 91 were in a laboratory setting. So, that suggests that 4% of 'serious' chemical incidents happened in a laboratory setting. That 91 is still too high. My apologies to Dr. Langerman. 

Wow -- it's obviously the responsibility of all chemists to keep that number as low as possible. Thanks, Neal, for an educational conversation and be safe out there! 

Chemjobber C&EN index: 3/9/09

Industrial (non-academic, non-governmental) positions:
Total number of ads: 3
- Postdocs: 0
- Permanent positions: 3
- Ratio of US/non-US: 3/0
Area: 104

Governmental positions (US and others):
Total number of ads: 1
- Postdocs: 0
- Permanent positions: 1
- Ratio of US/non-US: 0/1
Area: 75

Academic positions:
Total number of ads: 13
- Postdocs: 2+ 
- Tenure-track faculty: 9+
- Temporary faculty: 4
- Lecturer positions: 2
- Staff positions: 1+
- Ratio of US/non-US positions: 13+/4+
- Area (square cm): 486

Qu est les boulot dans l'industrie?: Dude -- where are the freakin' industry jobs? There is one senior scientist position position at Honeywell in Virginia, one experienced physical chemist job in Nampa, Idaho (outside of Boise -- hope you like potatoes, dude) and the freakin' executive director position at IUPAC. Yeah, that's attainable -- maybe when you're tired of running ACS or something. 

The Efficiency in Advertising Award goes to: Gonzaga University, which advertised a tenure-track HHMI-funded assistant professorship in biochemistry with a mere 7.3 square centimeters and about 23 words. Way to save on the ad budget there, guys. The US government could learn something from you. 

Love Minnesota? Here's your chance: Four visiting professor-type positions in small-town Minnesota (up to three at St. Olaf's College and one at Gustavus Adolphus College) are up for grabs this year. Snow's fun. 

Small college of the week: Christian Brothers University in Memphis, TN (student population 1779, SA-LUTE!) is looking for two (count 'em, TWO) full-time tenure-track assistant professor positions in analytical, inorganic, engineering and/or forensic chemistry. Barbecue and Beale Street -- could be worse things in this world. 

Now < then

Derek Lowe (doubtlessly the Blogfather of the chem/pharmablogger set -- certainly for this one!) graciously commented replied to my e-mail as to "whether you thought that the current drought is better, as bad or worse than 1993-1994." His kind reply is as follows:

"I think it's probably worse now, although it's a high bar to clear. The difference is that there aren't a lot of new jobs (although arguably around the same as there were during that period), but the layoffs are far worse today. So the job seekers now seem to be at a high in my experience - we've never had a year or two like the last two since I've been in the industry. So yeah, I'd vote for "worst ever", and I probably made the switch sometime in the middle of last year or so."

Holy cow. So maybe the choice of "worst ever" wasn't so ahistorical after all. 

Working Chemist ACS Web Index: 3/8-3/14/09

This is the seventh post of Chemjobber's Working Chemist ACS Web Index. It is a measurement of how many jobs posted on the ACS Careers website are aimed at the bench-level chemist. Definitions/caveats at the end of the post.

Going through the 43 positions listed from March 8th through March 14, there are 17 new positions posted that are available to the working chemist. There are 11 connected to the pharmaceutical industry and 5 outside of pharma.

A healthy week for the WCWI -- a nice mix of pharma and non-pharma jobs. Pharma hiring is definitely picking up, which is good news for all of us. Let's hope it continues. 

Definitions/caveats: This index is primarily for chemists (at all educational levels) who have been working for less than 10 years and are still 'at the bench.' It counts only jobs that are lab-oriented and primarily non-managerial; obvious senior-level titles such as "Group Leader", "Research Fellow" or "Director" will not be counted. Academic jobs (professor positions at any level, any Ph.D.-level lecturer position, postdocs) are also not counted. Academic technician or staff positions are counted on a case-by-case basis. Engineering positions are not counted, unless they are open to chemistry degree holders as well. Jobs outside the US are not counted.

Meet the new poll, not the same as the old poll

So the old (and first!) poll was up for a while. Not that it's a surprise, but most people think the job market for chemists is either awful (40%) or the worst ever (36%). I put in that last option with some level of hesitation, because well, "worst ever" is kind of ahistorical and without context. That being said, it's pretty darn bad. 

It would be great to get an historical perspective on what Hillarycare did for the chemistry job market -- anyone care to offer one? 

Suffice it to say that the whole reason for this blog to exist is that the job market ain't so great. Let's think hope, folks. When will the job market recover? I will offer the ahistorical "Never", although again I hesitate.  

Critiquing the LA Times Sangji article, etc.

As I said before, there are a number of chemistry details that Kim Christensen of the LA Times did not pick up on in his informative and poignant article about the incident that claimed the life of Sheri Sangji.

Detail #1: It's not just UCLA that has safety protocol issues

Unfortunately, the talk in Mr. Ms. (my assumption) Christensen's article about safety lapses at UCLA are, unfortunately, par for the course in just about every single academic chemistry lab in the US. I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry three times in my life (counting the current position). There, personal protective equipment is a religion without par. You simply cannot be in the lab without wearing 1) safety glasses 2) a lab coat and 3) handling chemicals with gloves. At my current job, there are multiple kinds of gloves for various tasks. 

In my academic experience, the lab coat was worn for 1) really dangerous reactions, 2) washing dishes and 3) warmth. Lab glasses were commonly unworn.* I recall seeing a coworker of mine who was pressing solvent through a pre-packed silica column with a 10-ml syringe: no glasses, T-shirt and shorts. While there wasn't enough solvent for a fire, a drop or two of hexanes in the eyeball would have stung like hell. As Kyle would say, safety instructions in academic settings quite often amounts to "don't drop this on your balls." 

*As an exercise for the reader, check out the blog for National Lab Mustache Day (great idea, btw.) See how many of these photos were obviously taken in a lab environment, without proper PPE. While yes, yes, they weren't doing anything unsafe at the moment, I challenge you to find a similar picture from a major pharmaceutical company's labs. You won't. 

Detail #2: Lowering the hood sash wasn't going to help much

The suggestion that lowering the hood sash would have saved her torso is unlikely -- if it's open enough to catch her hands on fire (how far were they into the hood, anyway?), it's open enough to come out and hit your sweater/lab coat/whatever. 

Detail #3: Blast shields are for explosions, not fires -- and they're not just made of brass. 

The blast shield idea is especially ridiculous. First of all, a blast shield is not especially portable, since they weigh about 25 pounds and are difficult to lift into hoods (I've used them many times.) In addition, they are primarily made up of Plexiglas or some other clear safety material (unlikely glass) with a heavy brass bottom, not "a free-standing portable device made of brass that chemists put between themselves and potentially dangerous experiments". If the reporter had seen one, it is unlikely that he would have made this mistake. (I'm unable to find a picture online, but I will soon.) 

Detail #4: Cannulation: maybe safer, but definitely more difficult

Finally, Dr. Langerman suggests that cannulation ("The preferred method is to use pressure to push the liquid out of the source bottle into your receiver through a stainless-steel tube") is the correct method for transferring t-butyl lithium. While I agree with the expert that cannulation is indeed the most preferred method for doing so (I just did 600 mls of alkyl Grignard solution this past week), I suggest that cannulation with positive pressure may have been even more dangerous than the technique that Ms. Sangji was attempting. It is much harder to control (turning a knob of nitrogen pressure rather than using your hands), more difficult to successfully perform (how many working chemists have blown a N2 line trying to cannulate?) and done incorrectly, possibly more dangerous than simple and correct syringing. 

I cannot fault Mr. Christensen for these errors of interpretation -- he is not a chemist. 

Other UCLA incident news: 

"Most chemists I know, when they hear about someone getting hurt in a lab, immediately want to know all the details: How much material was she working with? What reaction was she trying to do? How was she trained? Was anyone else around? In Sangji's case, we should find out." - Jyllian N. Kemsley, C&E News, Feb. 23, 2009. (ACS registration NOT required -- free link!)

I thank Jyllian Kemsley from the bottom of my heart for stepping up and reminding the powers-that-be that the overall chemistry community wants to learn from these errors. 

Last, but not least:

It appears that Naveen Sangji, sister of Sheri, has reserved a Blogspot blog on this very topic. Nothing there, yet. Interesting...

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Kim Christensen is, well, a Mister. Duh! Chemjobber apologizes to the good Mr. Christensen. 

Working Chemist ACS Web Index: 2/15-2/21, 2/22-2/28, 3/1-3/7

This is the sixth post of Chemjobber's Working Chemist ACS Web Index. It is a measurement of how many jobs posted on the ACS Careers website are aimed at the bench-level chemist. Definitions/caveats at the end of the post.

We're a little behind due to Chemjobber's transition to life in Prairie City, Midwest, USA. Sorry for that.

Going through the 214 positions listed from February 15th through February 21, there are 61+* new positions posted that are available to the working chemist. There are 20 connected to the pharmaceutical industry and 41+ outside of pharma.

*(w/1 multiple position ad)

Going through the 78 positions listed from February 22nd through February 28th, there are 26+* new positions posted that are available to the working chemist. There are 8+ connected to the pharmaceutical industry and 18+ outside of pharma.

*(w/2 multiple position ads)

Going through the 170 positions listed from March 1st through March 7th, there are 32+* new positions posted that are available to the working chemist. There are 5+ connected to the pharmaceutical industry and 27 outside of pharma.

*(w/2 multiple position ads)

Looks like things are picking up a little bit for the Chemjobber WCWI. Hopefully this is a sign of the spring thaw in the job market. A big loud BOO to Kelly Scientific Resources, which is spamming the ACS Careers database with every job they have. Look, the ACS Careers website may reach a lot of people, but it's not going to find you a freakin' occupational nurse. (I am not kidding.) 

Definitions/caveats: This index is primarily for chemists (at all educational levels) who have been working for less than 10 years and are still 'at the bench.' It counts only jobs that are lab-oriented and primarily non-managerial; obvious senior-level titles such as "Group Leader", "Research Fellow" or "Director" will not be counted. Academic jobs (professor positions at any level, any Ph.D.-level lecturer position, postdocs) are also not counted. Academic technician or staff positions are counted on a case-by-case basis. Engineering positions are not counted, unless they are open to chemistry degree holders as well. Jobs outside the US are not counted.

Chemjobber C&EN index: 3/2/09

Industrial (non-academic, non-governmental) positions:
Total number of ads: 6
- Postdocs: 0
- Permanent positions: 14+
- Ratio of US/non-US: 11+/3
Area: 927

Governmental positions (US and others):
Total number of ads: 3
- Postdocs: 1
- Permanent positions: 2
- Ratio of US/non-US: 3/0
Area: 381

Academic positions:
Total number of ads: 8
- Postdocs: 0
- Tenure-track faculty: 7
- Temporary faculty: 1
- Lecturer positions: 1
- Staff positions: 1
- Ratio of US/non-US positions: 9/1
- Area (square cm): 407

It's Merck's turn now: Merck has a full-pager this week for new chemists at all levels of experience. Looks interesting -- hopefully this is a trend where the big guns will open the floodgates. Hopefully. 

UPDATE: Too late! This comment on "In the Pipeline" says that all interviews in Rahway are canceled due to the SP merger. 

The boy (or girl) stood on the burning deck?*:  Bridgestone Americas Center for Research and Technology (Akron, OH) is looking for what appears to be an entry-level PhD synthetic chemist. While I would not cast aspersions on any industrial job at the moment, I would find a job doing R&D in the automotive sector to be um, precarious. Presumably, there is still a need for tires, although the latest reports indicate that very few new vehicles are being sold.

*Explanation for overly pretentious literary reference here.  

This week in wasteful government spending: While I tend not to get super-upset about PORK AND WASTE in GOVERNMENT!, I do think it's amusing that Argonne National Labs bought three ads this week, all about the same size. Two were for director level positions (10+ years of experience, etc.) and the third? A postdoc in 'synchotron-based biogeochemistry'. While it's obviously difficult to get exposure to such a specialized field, I would expect that a small line-item ad would have done the trick. 

Small college of the week: Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, AR (student population 1448, SA-LUTE!) is looking for a tenure-track analytical chemistry professor. You "must support the mission of the university", which I'm guessing is a reference to the school's Southern Baptist roots and creed. So if you wish to work for the institution that graduated Mike Huckabee (and who wouldn't?), this position might be for you. 

Chemjobber C&EN index: 2/23/09

Industrial (non-academic, non-governmental) positions:
Total number of ads: 3
- Postdocs: 0
- Permanent positions: 21
- Ratio of US/non-US: 20/1
Area: 800

Governmental positions (US and others):
Total number of ads: 3
- Postdocs: ?+
- Permanent positions: 2+
- Ratio of US/non-US: 2+/0
Area: 304

Academic positions:
Total number of ads: 15
- Postdocs: 2+
- Tenure-track faculty: 8
- Temporary faculty: 2
- Lecturer positions: 4
- Staff positions: 1
- Ratio of US/non-US positions: 16+/1
- Area (square cm): 702

Genentech leads the way, or do they?: So the industrial ads are pretty slim pickings for this week, but Genentech has a full-page ad this particular week. They've been running the same ad for quite some time ("BECAUSE - Our CAUSE is Mike and his cancer" with a picture of a patient) with different levels of staffing. They need folks at all levels and all departments (DMPK, etc.). While I've heard varying things about their small molecule efforts, it sounds like they have a unique culture. (Don't all companies?) I suppose there's also the question of whether it is a "true ad" or they're just fishin'. Anyone out there know? 

Savannah River, FTW: Savannah River has posted a subtle ad in the back pages, advertising their multiple bench-level positions (*and post-doctoral positions) for many different areas in the physical sciences. While I might quibble with their self-description as "the nation's premier applied science laboratory" (eyebrow-raise), I commend them in their efforts to hire chemists and singlehandedly end the Great Whatever of Ought-Nine. 

Small college of the week: Cooper Union (student population 918, SA-LUTE!) is a small college in downtown Manhattan (East Village, for all youse New Yorkers out there.) If you have a desire to be a professor of physical chemistry (with a computational chemistry bent) at an excellent undergraduate institution, this position sounds pretty good, IMHO.