Cole-Parmer Blog

Monitoring the pulse of science.

Archive for the ‘Safety Tips’ Category

Alcohol v. H1N1. Alcohol 1, H1N1 0.

Posted by Cole-Parmer on December 28, 2009

Bacdown® Gel No-Rinse Skin Sanitizer, 16 oz With the amount of bottles of alcohol-based hand sanitizer available for public use at hospitals, schools, day-care facilities and malls now outnumbering the billions of viruses and bacteria on even the dirtiest of human hands, you may be wondering if this stuff actually works.

Is it better than hand washing? Does it create mutant strains of alcoholic germs? Might my retirement savings have actually increased had I invested in the makers of Purell last year?

In fact, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are tremendously effective in preventing the spread of the seasonal flu, H1N1, colds and other viral- and bacterial-based diseases; and sales are through the roof.

There are in fact few negative consequences about this hand-sanitizer mania sweeping the country, although the gels do have their limitations.

Wash or squirt?

Most respectable public health experts will tell you that hand washing with ordinary soap and water is the most effective way to remove germs from your hands. But “effective” is a questionable term. The recommendation calls for hand washing with soap and warm water for at least 20 seconds to create a full lather and to reach all crevices of your hands and wrists, as advocated on Sesame Street yet rarely put into practice.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill most types of bacteria, viruses and fungi in a few seconds. While rubbing your hands with sanitizer for 15 seconds is ideal, poor hand-sanitizer use still beats poor hand washing.

And people seem to use hand sanitizers often — so much so that, from a public health standpoint, although proper hand washing is technically superior than alcohol gels most of the time, hand-sanitizer mania will likely be a more effective means to reduce disease transmission. Studies have shown how hand sanitizers reduce gastrointestinal illnesses in households and curb absentee rates in schools and workplaces.

Trash the sink?

Alas, you can’t rely solely on alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Alcohol can kill bacteria but not necessarily clean your hands. That is, it does not remove dirt, which includes organic material such as blood or feces. Soap and water must be the first choice in restrooms.

Also, there are a few key germs that alcohol doesn’t kill well, such as the norovirus or E. coli, which is why soap and water is best during cooking, too.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are best precisely where you see them the most, in hallways, offices and other public areas. They can rid your hands of germs you just picked up before you inadvertently shove them into your body via your nose, mouth or eyes.

Alcohol kills bacteria usually by dissolving its cellular membrane. It’s a serious killer, like fire or bleach, and germs don’t develop resistance to it. Also, the alcohol evaporates quickly after killing the first layer or so of germs on your skin. This means that, although benevolent bacteria are killed, enough remain on lower levels or elsewhere up the arm to re-colonize. Fast evaporation, coupled with moisturizers, also means this won’t dry out your skin.

Anti-bacterial soap, ironically, is largely considered the worse thing you can use to kill germs. This is because antibacterial agents kill many but not all bacteria and then linger on the skin to enable the remaining bad bacteria to develop a resistance.

Watch out for the cheap stuff

To be effective, alcohol-based hand sanitizers must contain at least 60 percent alcohol. Some cheaper brands contain less and are no better than water. Worse, they offer false protection.

Sixty percent pure alcohol can pack a punch if ingested. Fortunately, as reported in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine in 2006, even hospital workers using hand sanitizers all day long do not absorb discernable levels of alcohol into their blood.

There is a small risk that a child could drink or lick an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. That’s something parents and teachers need to monitor. Only a few reports of poisonings have been reported. Even alcoholics will have a rough time abusing this because the gels taste rather bad. I prefer not to reveal how I know.

View our complete selection of:

Hand Sanitizers (http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_index.asp?cls=56777&referred_id=5618)

Hand Soaps (http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_index.asp?cls=56778&referred_id=5618)

Article compliments of Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience’s Bad Medicine Columnist.  Fighting the Flu: Do Hand Sanitizers Work?   Posted: 27 October 2009 09:49 am ET.  http://www.livescience.com/health/091027-hand-sanitizers.html

Posted in Public Service Announcement, Safety Tips, eNews | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IS YOUR WORKPLACE LOUD? Read how employers can minimize hearing loss.

Posted by Cole-Parmer on December 18, 2009

Approximately 30 million American employees are exposed to excessive workplace noise, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Workers run the risk of hearing loss if they are exposed to an average of more than 85 decibels (dB) over an 8-hour workday. OSHA takes excessive noise seriously, and its regulation CFR 1910.95 requires employers in noisy workplaces to:

  • Reorganize equipment, facilities, and/or tasks to reduce noise levels.
  • Monitor individual and work area noise levels and report high levels to employees.
  • Test employee hearing, with annual follow-ups.
  • Provide hearing protection where needed.
  • Provide training in the selection, proper fit, and use of hearing protection

Workers should be aware that there are many other sources of loud noise that can cause permanent hearing loss as well. iPods and cell phones are often used at dangerously high volumes and of course, rock concerts are off the charts in terms of loud noise. Holding annual hearing protection training is a good opportunity for employers to remind their workers about the risks associated with recreational noise.

Louise Vallee, vice president, Chubb & Son, spoke at Safety 2009, this year’s American Society of Safety Engineers conference. “Baby Boomers have attended rock concerts and engaged in noisy recreational activities for nearly 50 years,” she said. Recent studies indicate that close to 40 million baby boomers are experiencing some degree of hearing loss—twice as many as expected. Vallee added that corporate executives must be educated about recreational hearing loss issues, which further support the need for hearing conservation programs for the workplace.

In addition, The National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) has petitioned OSHA to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for noise. A letter from the group cited the fact that nearly 22 million American workers are exposed to hazardous noise on a daily basis and that occupational hearing loss continues to plague diverse industries.

Citing research from NIOSH and other sources, the association claims that American workers face a considerable risk of noise-induced hearing loss from working long term under the present limits.

If workplace monitoring determines that employees need to wear hearing protection, such as earmuffs, earplugs, canal caps, or a combination thereof, employers should enforce the use of the proper personal protective equipment. Also, they should help their employees to get a good fit to provide the most protection.

The hearing protection training should include instructions to take these preventive measures:

  • Keep ear protectors clean; wash them regularly according to manufacturer’s instructions.
  • Wash your hands thoroughly before inserting earplugs.
  • Inspect your ear protectors before putting them on. If they’re loose or cracked, report it.
  • Workers also need to recognize the symptoms of hearing damage. Tell your workers to let you know immediately if they experience the following symptoms:
  • Noise or ringing in ears
  • Trouble hearing people when they speak
  • Trouble hearing certain high or soft sounds
  • Needing a higher volume on the TV or radio—high enough that other people complain

Article compliments of Safety.blr.com. 

View Cole-Parmer’s complete line of hearing protection equipment:  http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_index.asp?cls=7514&referred_id=5618

Posted in Public Service Announcement, Safety Tips, eNews | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Finding flu vaccine information in one easy place

Posted by Cole-Parmer on November 12, 2009

Google has recently added flu vaccine information to Google Maps.   Read below for more info.

This year, it’s especially important to have clear information on what you can do to prepare for the flu season. With this in mind, we are happy to share a new feature for the U.S. which allows you to more easily find locations near you for getting both the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccine. After expanding Google Flu Trends to a total of 20 countries and 38 languages, allowing more people to see near real-time estimates of flu activity, we began brainstorming with the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services (HHS), their flu.gov collaborators and the American Lung Association on the flu shot finder and other ways Google can be helpful to people this flu season.

You can check out the flu shot finder at www.google.com/flushot. The same tool will also be available shortly on www.flu.gov and the American Lung Association websites. It’s important to note that this project is just beginning and we have not yet received information about flu shot clinics for many locations. In addition, many locations that are shown are currently out of stock. We launched this service now in order to help disseminate information about locations where vaccines are available, and also to make more vaccine providers aware of the project so that they can contribute.


Especially given slower than expected vaccine production, we think it’s important to bring together flu shot information in a coherent manner. We’ve been working with HHS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state and local health agencies to gather information on flu vaccine locations across the country, particularly for the H1N1 flu vaccine (both the nasal-spray vaccine and the shot). At the moment we have data for locations of flu vaccine directly from 20 states and counting. We are also continuing to add information from chain pharmacies and other providers in all 50 states; today, you’ll find results from chains such as Walgreens, CVS and PDX participants, such as Kmart, Duane Reade, WinnDixie and Giant Eagle.

Of course you should still call flu vaccine providers ahead of time to find out more about availability and eligibility for the two vaccines.

We hope to continue providing you with relevant information to help keep you and your loved ones healthy.

Posted by Roni Zeiger, M.D., Product Manager and Jennifer Haroon, Product Marketing Manager.    11/10/2009 09:15:00 AM

Re-posted via courtesy of Google:  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/finding-flu-vaccine-information-in-one.html

Posted in Cool Tools, Public Service Announcement, Safety Tips | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Oh sh*t, it’s on fire. Using a chemical compatibility database can save your job, and your life.

Posted by Cole-Parmer on November 9, 2009

See if your materials pass the Chemical Compatibility test! 

Chemical Compatibility Database

When you are working with potentially hazardous chemicals, chemical compatibility is a crucial part of product selection, especially when selecting tubing, pumps, fittings, flowmeters, and other products. Using this database, you can be assured the materials that your products are made from will not be negatively affected by chemicals in the fluids or gases.

Our interactive online Chemical Compatibility Database is a smart, simple, and quick resource for finding the safest materials for your application. With its straightforward, easy-to-use interface, you’ll find definitive answers for all your chemical compatibility needs. It’s no wonder that this database is one of the most utilized tools on the Cole-Parmer Web site!

To see if your materials interact with the chemicals you wish to use, simply select your material and chemical used. If you have multiple materials or chemicals, you can select “All” to view a complete list of chemical effects. Click Submit to determine the compatibility level.

You can also refine your search by using the Compatibility Level option to see which materials have “A-Excellent” compatibility with a certain chemical.

For your safety, Cole-Parmer generally recommends those materials which have an “A-Excellent” compatibility with the selected chemical. You should never use a material with a chemical that has “D-Severe” compatibility.

Don’t forget to bookmark the Chemical Compatibility Database—this simple and important tool is guaranteed to help keep your workspace safe!

Chemical Compatibility Database

Posted in Cool Tools, Public Service Announcement, Safety Tips | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stop! Don’t drink that water. Check out this brief article on Water Testing.

Posted by Cole-Parmer on November 6, 2009


Water testing is the continous sampling of various liquid streams and the analysis of their quality. These liquid streams include watercourses such as rivers and lakes, groundwater, recirculated cooling streams, boiler feedwater or condensate, and process effluents.

Water testing is not only a vital element of preserving a safe public drinking supply and a healthy environment, it can also improve industrial process efficiency for better products at reduced cost.

Our selection of water testing equipment includes test kits for bacteria and chemical compounds; colorimeters; multiparameter meters for measuring pH, ORP, conductivity/ salinity/total dissolved solids (TDS), dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature; and turbidimeters.

Bacterial Test Kits

Eliminate time-consuming culture/plating techniques for convenient bacterial counts and assays.

Colorimeters

Measure the light absorbed by your sample after it reacts with a reagent that produces a color change. Since the intensity of absorbed light is proportional to the concentration of the compound, colorimeters accurately indicate the concentration of various compounds in your sample. Many colorimeters work with specific test kits for easy analysis. This reduces operator error, whether in reading color changes or in measuring reagents.

Multiparameter Meters

Measure pH, ORP, conductivity/salinity/total dissolved solids (TDS), and/or dissolved oxygen (DO)/biological oxygen demand (BOD).

Test Kits for Chemical Compounds

Contain prepared reagents and standards that let you easily determine the concentration of specific compounds in the sample. We offer titrimetric and colorimetric test kits for several compounds including ammonia, chlorine, carbon dioxide, heavy metals, and many others.

Colorimetric test kits:  These tests determine the concentration of a substance. The higher the concentration of a substance, the darker the color developed in the test.

Other elements can interfere with the accuracy of the tests. Read kit instructions for appropriate adjustments.

Titrimetric test kits: The concentration of a substance in a sample solution can be determined by titrimetic tests. After the sample is treated with an indicator, a standard titrant is added until a color change indicates a completed reaction. The amount of titrant used coresponds to the concentration of the substance being tested.

Turbidimeters

Turbidity in water is caused by suspended and colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, and plankton and other microscopic organisms.

Quantify the turbidity of your sample by measuring the light scattered at a 90¡ angle to a source light beam. The meter compares the light scattered by sample particulates to light-scattered in a fluid with known turbidity and displays the measurement in nephelometric turbity units (NTU). The presence of dissolved, color-causing substances that absorb light may cause a negative interference.

Turbidimeters with scattered-light detectors located at 90° to the incident beam are called nephelometers. Nephelometers are relatively unaffected by small differences in design parameters and therefore are specified as the standard instrument for measurement of low turbidities. Poor measurement technique can have a greater effect on measurement error than small differences in instrument design.

Determine turbidity as soon as possible after sample is collected to ensure examination under original conditions.

  1. Gently agitate samples to ensure a representative measurement. If storage is required, cool to 4°C to minimize microbiological decomposition of solids.
  2. Keep cells scrupulously clean, inside and out, and discard if scratched or etched. Never handle them near the instrument’s light beam.
  3. Fill cells with samples and standards—allow sufficient time for bubbles to escape. Because small differences between sample cells can significantly impact measurement, use either matched pairs of cells or the same cell for both standardization and sample measurement.

Coagulation-Flocculation Jar Test of Water: This is a general procedure for the evaluation of a treatment to reduce dissolved, suspended, colloidal, and nonsettleable matter from water by chemical coagulation-flocculation, followed by gravity settling. The practice provides a systematic evaluation of the variables normally encountered in the coagulation-flocculation process. The coagulation-flocculation test is carried out to determine the chemical, dosages, and conditions required to achieve optimum results. The primary variables to be investigated using the recommended practice include, (but are not limited to): chemical additives, pH, temperature, and the order of addition and mixing conditions.

Significance: This jar test permits the evaluation of various coagulants and coagulant aids used in the treatment of water and waste water for the same water and the same experimental conditions. The effects of concentration of the coagulants and coagulant aids and their order of addition can also be evaluated by this practice.

View our complete selection of Water and Industrial Liquid Sampling products.
View our complete selection of Water Purification products.
View our complete selection of Water Testing products.

Related Articles

Good Laboratory Practices for Taking Turbidity Measurements
Water Purification

Posted in Public Service Announcement, Safety Tips | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Biowarfare Threat Detection

Posted by Cole-Parmer on November 4, 2009

It’s 7:45 a.m. Just your average Tuesday morning. You’re waiting in line for the coffee machine at work when the sudden shriek of a fire alarm splits the air. A puff of white powder from an envelope in the mail room across the hall has coworkers streaming out the exits as a call goes out to the local emergency response team. It will be up to these first responders, with their handheld bioagent detection devices, to determine if this scare is a hoax or the real deal.

Biowarfare Agent Detector

 

Biowarfare agent detection kits have become one of local government’s most coveted weapons in the war on terrorism. They are carried by emergency units likely to be first on the scene—from fire departments, police and sheriff’s personnel, emergency medical teams and HAZMAT units, to Federal emergency management teams and privately hired corporate security professionals. They are designed to address the second step in a biowarfare incident response: identifying whether there is a credible threat posed by the incident while field samples are sent to a lab for next-day confirmation.

 

A credible threat is defined as the presence of a biowarfare agent in sufficient quantity to represent a threat to people who come into contact with the substance. A single infectious dose (I.D.) of anthrax is approximately 10,000 spores, or 10 nanograms, which is about 1/100th the size of a single speck of dust. Clearly, locating this amount in an average size room is virtually impossible. However, in the case of actual bioterrorism activity to date, as well as the many thousands of hoax incidents that occur much more frequently, the amounts used have been much larger. For example, the letter sent to Senator Daschle’s office in October 2001 contained approximately 2 grams of material, the equivalent of about 200,000 infectious doses.

 

To ensure accuracy of results, detectors such as the new BioWarfare Agent Detection Device (BADD™) carried by Cole-Parmer, are rated to detect at least 1/4 of a speck of dust (250 micrograms) and have been found capable of identifying anthrax spores in amounts as small as 1 nanogram, or 1/1000 of a speck of dust without generating false positive results from “close cousin” bacteria such as Bacillus globigil.

 

These self-contained, first response kits operate much like a home pregnancy test. They rely on a simple swabbing of the suspicious powder or liquid, which is then diluted with a special diluent and placed, in droplets, into a self-contained cassette-type test strip. The results, positive or negative, are available and visible to the human eye in three to 30 minutes, depending upon the concentration of the sample tested.

 

In the case of the BADD detector, which is capable of testing for ricin and botulinum toxins, and three strains of anthrax (Ames, Vollum, and Sterne), two test lines containing antibodies specific to the biowarfare agent being tested for “light up” when the agent is present in the sample—thus signaling a “positive” reading. If only one “control” line appears in the detection device window, it signifies a “negative” reading.

 

Although not as sophisticated as the $10,000- to $100,000-per-unit electronic reader systems used by the military and others, these sensitive test kits are easily transported, and provide all necessary materials to collect and test multiple samples in the field. Moreover, at roughly $50 per test, they are reliable and cost-effective, allowing wide deployment and use at minimal cost.

 

[As for the Federal government's recommendations, recent guidelines from the General Services Administration targeted specifically for mail handling at Federal agency mail rooms stated that handheld assay tests may produce unreliable results in certain circumstances and recommended that all samples be sent to certified laboratories for processing. However, as of August 2, 2002, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) withdrew its support of the ban, and directed fire departments and other first responders to follow the Centers for Disease Control guidelines for handling potential exposure to anthrax, and strongly advised fire departments to not rely solely upon handheld devices. These guidelines are consistent with the recommendations of all the major field detection device manufacturers.]

 

View our complete selection of Bacteria test kits
View our complete selection of Biowarfare Agent Detection Devices (BADD)

 

Posted in Public Service Announcement, Safety Tips | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »