acid burns

[pjlelec]

hi everyone 

my names paul my daughter who is 11 has just started high school, she was im chemistry class last week and spilt some sulphuric acid on herself while pouring acid from bottle to a test tube.

i have been told it was 1 molar acid they used but after the incident she heard 2 teachers arguing about the strength of acid it should of been .5 and they used 1.5 strength.

she has a burn on her hand about the size of a 2p coin and is blistering.

they had no gloves on only goggles 

what ppe would you need in a lab at school is 1 molar dangerous

 

sorry for all the questions just want to know some more info as school not helpfull and google doesnt bring anuthing up

 

thanks for looking 

 

Paul

[John Cuthber]

Unless it was boiling hot, 1M sulphuric acid wouldn't cause a burn to intact skin. (well, it might eventually, but you would wash it off when it started to sting.

[pjlelec]

they washed it off straight away for 5 mins 

she had light rash from it which turned dark over a few days 

skin was all ok before this 

should they of been wearimg gloves 

[studiot]

Did your daughter scratch at the site of the splash?
Not a good idea as that would rub the acid in.

You didn't say if the teachers immediately washed tha acid off?
Or did someone just wipe it off and then leave it?

1M is not that strong for a near adult, but what was an 11 year old doing with it and what was the supervision?

By way of contrast car battery acid is 4M to 6 M and would definitely burn straight away.

Here is a  company Health and Safety document which regards 1M as "corrosive to skin"

http://www.onboces.org/safety/msds/S/Scholar Chemical/Sulfuric_Acid_1.0M_740.00.pdf

 

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by studiot

[pjlelec]

[studiot]

Looks like she had a lucky escape.
Has anyone put some cream (eg Nivea) on it?

 

[pjlelec]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Did your daughter scratch at the site of the splash?
Not a good idea as that would rub the acid in.

You didn't say if the teachers immediately washed tha acid off?
Or did someone just wipe it off and then leave it?

1M is not that strong for a near adult, but what was an 11 year old doing with it and what was the supervision?

By way of contrast car battery acid is 4M to 6 M and would definitely burn straight away.

Here is a  company Health and Safety document which regards 1M as "corrosive to skin"

http://www.onboces.org/safety/msds/S/Scholar Chemical/Sulfuric_Acid_1.0M_740.00.pdf

 

 

she said she washed off straight away as thats what she was told before lesson started then teacher dried with paper towel

im not sure what the experiment was just said had to pour acid into a test tube thats when it got on her hand

it was a class full of kids 30 and 1 teacher 

should she of been wearing gloves handling this

 

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Looks like she had a lucky escape.
Has anyone put some cream (eg Nivea) on it?

 

that was day it happened im trying to upload 1 of day after as its alot darker 

 

doctor gabe her some cream 

thats it the day after 

thanks for the link its very helpfull

 

would them rules be same here in the uk

[John Cuthber]

When I was at school (and aged about 11 or 12) I annoyed the hell out of the metalwork teacher by taking things out of the acid bath with my bare hands. The bath was used to clean oxide scale off copper that had been annealed.

I knew that 10% sulphuric acid won't damage typical intact skin as long as you wash it off fairly quickly.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, pjlelec said:

should she of been wearing gloves handling this

Indeed yes.

Here are the relevant UK regulations

Control of substances hazardous to health or COSHH regulations.

https://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/yr12_practicals/Y12_Inorganic_2016_Final_version.pdf

[John Cuthber]

Those are not the regulations; these are

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2677/regulation/7/made

 

What you have posted is someone's interpretation of the regs. Specifically you posted an interpretation that says you should use sulphuric acid (which isn't volatile) in a fume cupboard.

It also says that you should wear gloves, but doesn't say what sort of gloves- would the ones my granny knitted for me do?

And it doesn't say you should use eye protection.

Now you might or might not agree with my assessment that intact skin is not troubled by 10% sulphuric acid over a period of a few minutes; but I'm sure you would accept that it's going to damage eyes a lot faster than it will damage skin.

 

What should have happened is that someone should have assessed the risk (It's the management of health + safety regs 1996 (as amended) I think, but feel free to look it up).

They could then  have made a reasoned judgement on what level of protection was appropriate and other things such as  whether or not the irritation caused by wearing  gloves all lesson exceeded the risk from the acid.

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It also says that you should wear gloves, but doesn't say what sort of gloves- would the ones my granny knitted for me do?

 

Gosh John, did you not read the regs you posted?

 

Quote

 Personal protective equipment provided by an employer in accordance with this regulation shall be suitable for the purpose.

Gloves are classed as personal protective equipment, so perhaps you should ask your granny about the suitability of her gloves.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Specifically you posted an interpretation that says you should use sulphuric acid (which isn't volatile) in a fume cupboard.

Did you read the instructions I posted

Specifically it does not say that.

The COSHH assement specifically says you should dispose of the acid in a fume cupboard.

Although

As to the use it says "add 10 drops of the acid with a pipette.

It does not say "pour out the acid from a bottle into a test tube."

We still don't know why the girl was doing this or, in truth, a good deal more about the circumstances.

I am more concerned about the circumstances that lead to the incident, than the incident itself which could have been more serious, and points to insufficient supervision IMHO.

The girl may also have more sensitive skin than you do, or did at her age.

When the students come to use a large volume (stil only 50 ml) of the acid they

Quote

Measure 1 M dilute sulfuric acid (50 mL) into a clean freshly rinsed, one litre volumetric flask.

not a small test tube.

 

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

And it doesn't say you should use eye protection.

Now you might or might not agree with my assessment that intact skin is not troubled by 10% sulphuric acid over a period of a few minutes; but I'm sure you would accept that it's going to damage eyes a lot faster than it will damage skin.

I do take your point about the eye protectors, but it may well be the case in that lab, as in all school and college labs these days, that eye protection is mandatory at all times so not specifically included in any instructions specific to one experiment.

So the eye protectors may have been there as a general precaution.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Gosh John, did you not read the regs you posted?

Yes, I did.

And you are right, they do tell you that gloves should be suitable.

That's why I posted them.

Why did you post something that doesn't say that gloves must be suitable?

 

Also it seems that they think the way to deal with almost everything is the same "In a fumehood dilute with water and flush down sink".

Well, my point was that there's no call for a fume hood  for dilute sulphuric acid; which might suggest that, rather than think about it, they have just copied + pasted the same  conditions.

Personally, I'd not wear gloves for use with dilute sulphuric acid. Other people might choose to do so. I would expect a school to err on the side of caution and tell kids to wear them. However it might be that the school is seeking to avoid spreading "chemophobia".

[pjlelec]

they was doing an experiment in class

im not sure why rhey where pouring from a bottle to a test tube i remember using a pipette when i was at school many moons ago

she had goggles on and thats all and got told to take her jacket off while doing this 

there was no contact from school when this happened we only found out when she left school and rang us.

i understand that the small amount of acid might not effect some people but would you say all of this sounds dangerous and could of been alot worse

thanks for all the replies and answering my questions

[John Cuthber]

22 minutes ago, pjlelec said:

would you say all of this sounds dangerous

No; I wouldn't. It sounds like the sort of thing we did all the time in high school chemistry.

Did you not have bottles like these when you studied science at school, 250 ml or so ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagent_bottle

 

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Gosh John, did you not read the regs you posted?

Yes, I did.

And you are right, they do tell you that gloves should be suitable.

That's why I posted them.

Why did you post something that doesn't say that gloves must be suitable?

 

Do I have to answer things twice?

 

9 hours ago, studiot said:

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And it doesn't say you should use eye protection.

Now you might or might not agree with my assessment that intact skin is not troubled by 10% sulphuric acid over a period of a few minutes; but I'm sure you would accept that it's going to damage eyes a lot faster than it will damage skin.

I do take your point about the eye protectors, but it may well be the case in that lab, as in all school and college labs these days, that eye protection is mandatory at all times so not specifically included in any instructions specific to one experiment.

So the eye protectors may have been there as a general precaution.

 

Wouldn't it just be so much easier if post numbering was reintroduced?

[John Cuthber]

Just now, studiot said:

Do I have to answer things twice?

No, just once will be fine.

Why did you post something that says "wear gloves" without saying what sort of gloves?

Also why did you label it as the regulations when it wasn't?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No, just once will be fine.

Why did you post something that says "wear gloves" without saying what sort of gloves?

Also why did you label it as the regulations when it wasn't?

I have also answered this.

It is not I but the regulations you posted that specifiy the gloves.

Yes, as you said, it was the interpretation of an old and very well repected University Chemistry department, no doubt assisted by a very able legal department,

The department of Chemistry at the University of Leeds.

There are you satisfied now?

[John Cuthber]

What the hell use is an instruction that says "wear gloves" without specifying what sort?

The answer to that tells you how able the legal dept at Leeds was.

 

It's unrealistic to assume that their legal crew is better than the one which wrote the regulations.

Why cite a poor interpretation of the rules, rather tan the rules themselves?

So, once again.

What were the thought process that led you, rather than saying "the regulations are" and linking to the regs; to write "the regulations are..." and linking to a not very robust interpretation of them?

I didn't ask what it was, or who wrote it, or what people they might have on staff.

I asked why you posted it; mislabelled as the regulations.

You have not yet answered that.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by John Cuthber

[hypervalent_iodine]

19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

No; I wouldn't. It sounds like the sort of thing we did all the time in high school chemistry.

Did you not have bottles like these when you studied science at school, 250 ml or so ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagent_bottle

 

I don't believe 11 years old is high school age. Personally, I would be wary of allowing primary school students to handle sulphuric acid, though (as you note) it should be perfectly safe if performed correctly. 

20 hours ago, pjlelec said:

they was doing an experiment in class

im not sure why rhey where pouring from a bottle to a test tube i remember using a pipette when i was at school many moons ago

she had goggles on and thats all and got told to take her jacket off while doing this 

there was no contact from school when this happened we only found out when she left school and rang us.

i understand that the small amount of acid might not effect some people but would you say all of this sounds dangerous and could of been alot worse

thanks for all the replies and answering my questions

 

Yes, in my opinion gloves probably should have been worn as an extra precaution, however it doesn't sound as though it was overly dangerous. How big was the bottle she was pouring from? 

[Juno]

2 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

I don't believe 11 years old is high school age. Personally, I would be wary of allowing primary school students to handle sulphuric acid, though (as you note) it should be perfectly safe if performed correctly. 

It is in the U.K. - I went to high school at 11.

[hypervalent_iodine]

1 hour ago, Juno said:

It is in the U.K. - I went to high school at 11.

Ah, fair enough. I didn't realise it started that young there. 

[studiot]

On 16/09/2017 at 7:40 PM, pjlelec said:

daughter who is 11 has just started high school, she was im chemistry class last week

Schools in England (Scottish, Irish schools start a little earlier) have just restarted so this child will be in her first couple of weeks of secondary school.

And yes an 11 year old could easily have started this year, that's nothing new. I started at 11, it depends upon your birthmonth.

However in my day we only did 'general science' in the first one or two years (can't remember which now) and very little practical at that.
There was not enough time on the timetable to separate the sciences.

I had a choice of German or Chemistry when the reduction towards GCE came.

But I return to the point about supervision.

This child has had now many Chemistry lessons?

A couple, three at most.
And she was asked to pour out a chemical that is listed as a potential hazard to health in the safety regs.

As I recall glass rods were taught for this process and a swift surf shows this is still the case.
Had this been done in this case?

Quote

Glass rod - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_rod

A glass stirring rod, glass rod, stirring rod or stir rod is a piece of laboratory equipment used to mix chemicals and ... This process is also used to pour a large-mouthed flask or beaker into a test tube. Glass rods can also be used to induce crystallization in a recrystallization procedure, when they are used to scratch the inside ...

Why is glass rod used in decanting? | Physics Forums - The Fusion ...

https://www.physicsforums.com › Physics › General Physics

24 Jun 2014 - 10 posts - ‎5 authors

Why should we not pour the liquid just directly. ... Please tell me any significance of glass rod other than to avoid any spills? ... but if you are pouring a highly corrosive chemical, like concentrated sulfuric acid, ... I am not sure the school will allow a 9th grader to perform experiments on his wish in its lab.

Why do you use a glass rod when pouring liquid? | Reference.com

https://www.reference.com › Science › Chemistry › Chem Lab

Glass rods are used when pouring liquids in order to avoid spills. ... edge of a beaker, it causes the liquid inside to flow along the rod and down into the. ... A: A micropipette is used to transfer small volumes of liquids in chemical, biological and ...

 

A word for John,

My apologies I'm still trying to get the hang of the new quote system here - it fights back and doesn't always behave as one might like or expect - and something obviously went badly wrong as the wrong quote was included in my reply to you.

No wonder you were a bit confused about it.