Accidents in Texas High School Chemistry Labs
by Susan Ward and Sandra West

Little information concerning accident rates in secondary school science laboratories is available. Most states, including Texas, do not have a systematic means of collecting this data and few comprehensive studies have been reported. Although accident rates in chemistry laboratories have been examined in California, Illinois, Ohio, and New Jersey (Macomber, 1961; Young, 1970, 1971, 1972; Heintschel, 1982; Krajkovich, 1983) no data is available for Texas. Newspaper stories in Texas reporting mishaps in secondary science laboratories describe incidents involving both teachers and students. Such unofficial reports include a teacher dropping bromine, a student receiving serious burns from stolen potassium, and a teacher falling into broken glass and concentrated sulfuric acid. These accounts do not provide enough information to help teachers prevent future incidents. Recent laws, Texas Education Agency (TEA) requirements, and a more process oriented state curriculum increase the need for a more comprehensive data base from which wise decisions can be made. In reviewing the information available concerning science laboratory accidents, there appear to be either reporting discrepancies or there is a wide range of accident rates in that states surveyed. The study by the Ohio Department of Education reported 34.4% of the schools had no accidents in a year (Heintschel, 1982). However, only 81.4% of the Ohio schools reported using any laboratory activities during the year. Conversely, the New Jersey study reported 1.29 accidents per teacher per week (Krajkovich, 1983). Over fifty percent of the respondents reported a major accidents (one requiring a doctor's care) having occurred in their classroom during their teaching career. The most frequently cited accidents involved burns from hot glass, chemicals, or burners, and cuts from glassware. The New Jersey sample may not be a representative one because the sample consisted of educators who attended safety workshops. Krajkovich (1983) reported that New Jersey teachers with advanced degrees and the most experience have significantly fewer accidents. If this correlation is true across the nation, the growing problem of retaining chemistry teachers in the classroom may be a serious safety concern. The average length of time a chemistry teacher teaches is 5.9 years, with only 13% of the "dropouts" returning to the classroom (Murnane, Singer & Willett, 1988).
It has been the experience of the authors that unless careful time and consideration is given in responding to a safety survey, science educators tend to forget even major accidents. When one author interviewed a teacher in preparation for construction of the survey instrument, the teacher reported no accidents for the previous year. However, when reminded of an incident in which a protractor penetrated the lower eyelid of a student, the teacher honestly replied "Oh, yes, I forgot." When teachers work at such a hectic pace, it is easy to understand how even major incidents can be crowded out of the mind. This makes research on this topic difficult and great care must be taken to properly design procedures and instruments which sufficiently address these ubiquitous limitations of human responses. The questions must be clearly worded and stated in sufficient detail to stimulate the respondent's memory.

HISTORY
In light of the need for laboratory safety information, the Science Teachers of Texas Executive Committee, at the request of the 1986-1987 President Sandra West, established the STAT Safety Committee. The current committee, consisting of Susan Ward, Chair, Kamil Jbeily, Gene Porter, Sandra West, and Jim Wussow continues to serve as a resource for Texas science teachers. Texas science educators were facing the requirements of the Texas Hazardous Communication Act of January, 1986, in addition to laws concerning eye protection, the TEA requirement of 40% laboratory time, and new health and liability concerns. The difficulty of dealing with an informational turnover every two years, the new safety laws and concerns, as well as many other demands of their jobs, put Texas science educators in a tenuous situation.
In response to these needs the STAT Safety Committee provides workshops for science educators and administrators, curriculum materials for faculty and student safety instruction, an extensive instructional laboratory safety checklist (West & Pesthy, 1987), and ongoing research on safety in Texas science classrooms. As a component of the safety research program, a data base on the accident rate in secondary science laboratories is being established. The first step in building the data base was a pilot survey of Texas chemistry teachers. From the data provided in the chemistry survey, a subsequent more comprehensive survey covering all science subject areas will be made.

METHODS
A preliminary questionnaire with completion questions (Appendix A) was developed by the authors. This instrument was given to approximately 25 secondary teachers to complete. From their responses and from a review of previous survey instruments, a final questionnaire (Appendix B) with Likert type response was developed. Dr. Gonzalo Garcia, a statistician of Texas A&M University, provided recommendations in the preparation of the survey. The survey requested information such as number and types of accidents, class size, room size, access to safety equipment, and whether or not annual safety training was received. A separate form (Appendix C) was provided for descriptions of accidents and related comments. This questionnaire was mailed in May, 1989 to selected participants. By mid June a total of 102 surveys had been returned.
The data from the surveys was entered on disc using a software package for Macintosh called STATWorks. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

SAMPLE
A sample of 200 Texas secondary schools was selected from a list of mailing labels purchased from TEA. The sample was stratified by enrollment and geographically distributed throughout the state. The surveys were addressed to the chemistry teacher at each of the sampled schools.

RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes the chemistry teaching conditions reported by the respondents. Table 2 is a summary of the information received on chemistry classroom/laboratory facilities. Table 3 summarizes data on chemistry lab accidents provided by these teachers.

Conditions of Teaching Chemistry
Sixty-five percent of the chemistry teachers reported teaching three or more preparations in the 1988-89 school year. At least one class of physical science was being taught by 51% of the responding chemistry teachers. The average class size of chemistry classes tended to be low, that is, 82% reported average class sizes of 24 or less students. This may be due to the fact that 64% of the chemistry teachers responding were from schools with enrollments of less than 1000. Ninety-two percent of the teachers responded that administrative support for dealing with misbehavior in lab was strong.
The topic of safety training revealed some alarming results. The Texas Hazard Communication Act requires that annual safety training during the 1988-89 school years. Of the 61%, 44% of the teachers were from schools with enrollments of more than 1000. Are smaller schools neglecting the safety training of personnel?
The relationship between the lack of safety training and the number of accidents was of concern. Sixty six percent of the chemistry teachers who received training reported accidents, whereas 75% of the teachers who did not receive training reported having accidents in the laboratory.
Seventy percent of the teachers reported giving written and oral safety precautions to students prior to each lab activity. Additionally, 80% of the chemistry teachers reported giving their students tests on safety.
Thirty-nine percent of the teachers reported their school did not have a full time nurse in the building. A large proportion (35% of the 39%) of those buildings with no nurse were in schools of less than 1000.

Chemistry Classroom/Laboratory Facilities
The recommendations by the Texas Education Agency (Planning a Safe and Effective Science Learning Environment, 1989) and the National Science Teachers' Association call for 60 square feet of floor space per student, including storage and preparation areas. In the case of space consisting of combined classroom/laboratory, most recommendations call for 45 sq. ft. of working space per student. An alarming 69% of the chemistry teachers responded that they did not have rooms of adequate square footage for a class size of 24 students. Young (1972) reported a significant increase in accidents when the number of square feet per student decreased to less than 41 square feet per student. A study of high school science (Brennan, 1970) revealed that the higher the class enrollment and the smaller the laboratory space, the higher the frequency of accidents. It is of concern that 19% of the teachers reported average class sizes of 25 or greater.
Although the survey results indicate that high percentages of the chemistry laboratory facilities had the various safety equipment accessible, the Texas Education Agency's science safety document (Planning a Safe and Effective Science Learning Environment, 1989) very clearly states on page 15 "The Texas Hazard Communication Act requires other safety equipment in all science laboratories where hazardous chemicals are stored and used." Required safety equipment may include fire extinguishers, fire blanket, eye-wash fountains, safety showers, exhaust fume hoods, and chemical spill control kits depending upon the nature of the chemicals used. Even with the 99% compliance with goggles, 1% are not in compliance with the Texas Hazard Communication Act and the state goggle law (Texas School Law Bulletin, TEA Publication AD613001, Section 21.909, p 190), as important eye protection law. Further, of the schools reporting compliance with the goggle law, it was not determined whether the goggles met the requirement of the standards of Eye Protection in Public Schools, Texas State Department of Health, Health Regulation NO. 5, Section 5.5, pages 6-7.
Although 92% of the chemistry teachers reported have an eyewash available, this data could include inappropriate types such as portable squeeze bottles. Additionally, the data does not include information on whether EACH laboratory in the school has an appropriate eyewash as required by the Texas Hazardous Communication Act.
Also of concern is the low percentage (58%) of chemistry laboratories which have a safety shower available. Although it may be a costly item to add to an existing laboratory, some means of drenching the body should be provided. Only 63% of the teachers have access to an acid cabinet and only 59% have a flammable liquids cabinet.
One of the requirements of the Texas Hazardous Communication Act is the presence of an MSDS (Materials Safety Data Sheet) file in the building. Twenty three percent reported not having such a file and an additional 13% did not know if an MSDS file was present in the building.
Forty one percent of the chemistry teachers described their labs as being inadequately ventilated. Many in fact, had on occasion evacuated their rooms because of fumes.
Sixty four percent of the chemistry teachers reported having access to a phone which was located at a distance less than 100 feet from the lab. Similarly, chemical storage areas seem to be primarily (91%) located in appropriate areas, that is, separate from the classroom/laboratory.

Laboratory Accidents
According to the National Safety Council, about 32,000 school-related accidents occur each school year; about 5,000 of these are science-related. O'Neill (1975) estimates one major accident per 40 students per year in laboratory settings throughout the country. Of the 102 chemistry teachers responding, 60 included accident forms describing a total of 87 accidents which took place in high school science laboratories in the past five years. Twenty eight of the accidents reported by the teachers involved burns. Thirteen of the burns occurred while students were bending glass tubing, 12 occurred when students touched hot glassware iron rods, and three involved hot water.
Eighteen accidents involved cuts. Fourteen accidents occurred when students inserted glass tubing or thermometers into rubber stoppers, while four other accidents occurred while cleaning up broken glass.
Thirteen accidents were burns of the skin due to contact with acids or bases. Three of these were injuries to a teacher.
Nine of the accidents involved injuries to the eyes which included a dry chemical rubbed into the eye. Goggles were not being worn or had just been removed during lab clean up.
Specific procedures or reactions mentioned in the accident report were:
*Na + H20,
*KMn04 + H2S04 (Chem II Project),
*KC1 + S (exploded when ground in mortal and pestal,
*NaCN + HC1 (mixed by a student on a dare, resulting in respiratory problems),
*glowing splint passed over a beaker of acetone
*teach demonstration - production of H2, generating apparatus clogged and exploded.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Studies reveal that even among an experienced, highly educated group of science teachers accidents can and do occur. Kaufman (1989) investigated the causes of 1,000 chemical accidents that occurred in educational institutions. He found that the accident rate in schools was 10 to 50 times greater than the rate incurred in the chemical industry. Brennan (1970) revealed that the chemistry class is more prone than other classes to laboratory accidents. However, science teachers are becoming more aware of the need for closer scrutiny of safety aspects in school laboratories.
The results of this survey of Texas chemistry teachers were reassuring in some areas such as class size, administrative support, some safety equipment, chemicals stored separately, and the number of accidents. However, the areas of concern have grave safety implications. These areas include chemistry teachers having too many preparations; lack of required safety training and the relationship with greater accident rates; buildings without MSDS files or teachers who don't know if a file is available, lack of adequate ventilation; lack of acid cabinets, flammable liquid cabinets and showers; students who do not wear goggles until all cleanup is completed; lack of a school nurse in the building; and the lack of an accessible phone.
Only 54% of the respondents reported having any minor accidents during '89-'89. Only 24% of the chemistry teachers reported any major accident in the last five years that required sending the student to a nurse. In the California survey (Macomber, 1961) 148 chemistry teachers reported an average of 50 moderate to serious accidents/year which required more than minor first aid. Krajkovich (1983) reported 1.29 accidents/teacher/week. According to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics, 98% of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts, unsafe conditions or a combination of both.
An alarming number (65%) of chemistry teachers teach three or more preparations. Three or more preparations for a science teacher are very demanding. The 40% laboratory time requirement, while sound academically, is almost similar to teaching an additional course because of the large amount of time required for preparation of materials and equipment for implementing the labs.
It is of concern that 18% of the respondents have average class sizes of 25 or greater. Class size is considered a critical safety factor in science classes. California survey revealed an increase in moderate to serious accidents from 22% in class sizes of less than 20 to 40% in class sizes of 21-30 and 57% in class sizes over 30 (Macomber, 1961). Young (1972) found a significant increase in the accident rate when size was greater than 22. Brennan (1970) reported the higher the enrollment, the higher the frequency of accidents. Closely linked with class size of the laboratory. Smaller high school chemistry labs in Illinois (less than 41 square feet per student) had a significant higher increase in accident rates than larger labs (greater than 41 square feet per student) (Young, 1972).
The annual safety training seems to be a factor in reducing lab accidents. This training serves to remind science teachers of their responsibility for providing safe lab experiences.

RECOMMENDATIONS
A.School officials should make efforts to:
1.Provide adequate facilities.
Meet recommendations of TEA and NSTA concerning room size (45 square feet per student in a classroom/laboratory or 60 square feet including storage and preparation area). Meet recommendations concerning equipment.

2.Ensure that staff receive safety training annually.
Meet requirements for ANNUAL safety training as mandated by the Texas Hazard Communication Act of 1985, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 5182b. This includes more than cursory treatment of safety. A school district must "provide training for faculty, staff, and students who handle hazardous chemicals. At a minimum, this training includes interpreting chemical labels and MSDSs and providing information about the location of hazardous chemicals, their acute and chronic effects, safe handling of hazardous chemicals used by employees, use of protective equipment, and first-aid procedures" (Planning a Safe and Effective Science Learning Environment, 1989).

3.Reduce the number of preparations assigned to science teachers.
Two different science preparations should be the maximum to ensure safe conditions.
4.Meet class size recommendations.
TEA and NSTA recommend a maximum (not an average) of 24 students in ANY lab.

5.Make provisions for medical treatment in case of emergency, if a full time nurse is
not assigned to your building.

6.Allow time for safety as a part of the regular science curriculum.

B.Chemistry teachers should be concerned with the above information and the following additional considerations:
1.Put forth the maximum effort to ensure that students have proper and safe conditions
in the laboratory. Conduct regular inspections and inform administrators of the requirements
and recommendations which are not currently being met.
2.Document and report unsafe conditions if hazards exist. Do all you can to correct
the situation.

3.Be aware of your liability by conducting laboratory activities under unsafe
conditions.
4.Be aware of common accidents and ways to prevent them.
5.Report all accident and injuries.
6.Update your safety knowledge continuously by attending workshops and reading
your professional journals.
7.Share this article with your principal.

TABLE I

Conditional of Chemistry Teaching*

1.Number of preparations that respondents teach:

three or more - 65%
at least one class of physical science - 51%
four or fewer science classes - 25%
(This could include department heads & teachers who teach or coach in other areas)

2.Average class size of chemistry teachers responding:

less than 20 students - 46%
20-24 - 36%
25-32 - 19%

3.Administrative support for dealing with misbehavior in lab have support - 92%

4.Safety training

chemistry teachers who did not receive safety training during this school year - 61%
schools with enrollment of less than 1000 with no training - 44%

5.Safety instruction for students

teachers reported always giving written & oral safety precautions - 70%
teachers reported giving safety tests - 80%

6.Nurse in building
schools without - 39%
schools with enrollment of less than 1000 without - 35%

*items rounded to nearest whole number

TABLE II

Chemistry Classroom/Laboratory Facilities*

1.Size of room for laboratories:
did not have rooms of adequate square footage (45 sq.ft/student) - 69%
2.Safety equipment accessible:
eyewash available (This could include inappropriate eyewashes) - 92%
fire extinguisher - 97%
safety shower - 58%
goggles - 99%
fume hood - 83%
acid cabinet - 63%
flammable liquids cabinet - 59%
locked chemical storage area - 96%
limited student access to chemical storage - 95%
adequate ventilation - 59%
3.MSDS file in building
schools without - 23%
don't know if they have an MSDS file - 13%
schools with enrollment of less than 1000 without an MSDS file - 19%
4.Telephone distance from classroom/laboratory
greater than 100 feet away - 36%
5.Chemical storage area
separate from lab/classroom - 91%
in lab/classroom - 9%

*items rounded to nearest whole number

TABLE III

Lab Accident Data

1.Minor accident(s) in lab in '88-'89
teachers reporting accidents 53%
teachers reporting at least 5 accidents - 10%
2.Minor accidents in labs in last five years - 68%
3.Accident in last five years that required sending student to nurse
teachers reported - 24%
4.Type of accident (major or minor)
explosion - 4%
broken glass - 37%
burns from hot glass or spilled liquids - 50%
chemical spills - 8%
equipment - 9%
5.Accidents and safety training
accidents occurring in laboratories of teachers who did not have training - 75%
accidents occurring in laboratories of teachers who did have training - 66%

*items rounded to nearest whole number

References

Brennen, J. W. (1970). An investigation of factors related to safety in the high school science program . Dissertation, University of Denver. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED085179)

Brown, B. W. & Brown, W.R. (1969). Science teaching and the law. National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC.

Heering, F.C. (1977). Is school safety relevant? Educational Economics, March, p.20.

Heintschel, R.M. (1982). Science in Ohio's secondary schools. A status report.. Columbus, OH; Ohio State Dept. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED224708)

Kaufman, J.A. (1989). Personal communication.

Krajkovich, J.G. (1983). A survey of accidents in the secondary school science laboratory. New Jersey Science Supervisors Association. 26pp.

Macomber, R.D. (1961). Chemistry accidents in high school. Journal of Chemical Education. 38 (7), 367-368.

Marsic, D.H., Thornton, S.F. (1988). Safety tips; science teacher safety survey. Journal of ChemEd, 65 (5), p. 448-449.

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., & Willett, J.B. (1988). The career paths of teachers; Implications for teacher supply and methodological lessons for research. Educational Researcher 17 (6).

National Safety Council. 444 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL. 60611.

O'Neill, G.J. (1975). Television Series Program #1, Safety in the science laboratory. Sponsored by the N.E. Tennessee Section of the American Chemical Society in cooperation with WSJK, Knowville, TN.

Planning a Safe and Effective Science Learning Environment (1989). Austin, TX; Texas Education Agency.

Pipitone, D.A. & Hedberg, D.O. (1982). Safe chemical storage; a pound prevention is worth a ton of trouble. Journal of Chem Ed, 59 (4), A159-165.

U.S. Department of Labor

West, S.S. & Pesthy, C.S. (1987)). Science Laboratory Safety Survey. The Texas Science Teacher.

Young, J.R. (1970). A survey of safety in high school chemistry laboratories of Illinois. Journal of Chem Ed, 47 (12), A828-838.

Young, J.R. (1971). The responsibility for a safe high school chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chem Ed, 48(5), A349-356.

Young, J.R. (1972). A secon survey of safety in Illinois high school laboratories. Journal of Chem Ed 49 (1). 55.

Achknowledgement of Assistance

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and contributions of Cayla C. Cielencki, Jane Lassiter, Kenneth Heydrick, Shawn Russell, and Russell Ward in the completion of this project.

Return to Safety in Science Education.