Guys, We have stated that mobile phones should not be used in a lab environment, as manufacturers state do not use in the vicinity of fuel or chemicals. Had a massive backlash to this as folks state that the risk is minimal. Must say, to some extent I agree, as if chemicals are stored properly and used properly there should be no risk. I would be interested to know what your mobile phone policies are? Thanks in anticipation for your help.

If the risk is minimal (and by definition there is a risk) then it can be removed altogether by not using them in the Lab? More to the point, if one is handling chemicals then not a good idea for the phone to go off in pocket as may just startle you or others! Loss of concentration pops into mind also. If the manufactures instructions are not followed then you may have a real problem should anything go wrong. One for the first rules of H&S .. Follow the manufactures instructions. Backlash or not, my thoughts are simple. No use of mobile phones in the lab. Zimmy

My personal feeling is that banning them is a bit OTT. As MB1 points out, unless you have zoned the room, the spark risk is minimal. As for distraction, what about the land line, the other users of the room, etc.? We do not ban them from laboratories on this site.

Sorry I am looking at this post on both the ISTR forum and the IOSH one. But if the lab isn’t zoned then there is no need to worry about the fire risks from a mobile phone. People tend not to use mobile phones in our labs because they are concerned over cross contamination issues especially in the microbiology labs or because they find them distracting (they are only too glad to get away from the things and to do some work!). I am not sure if you can have one rule for all labs for example some of our labs are pure instrument labs GLC and Mass Spec where there is no contamination issue. The same for the microscopic diagnosis labs.

There is a risk to H&S with mobile phones and concentration. Try using one in a car even hands-free and explain that to the police or perhaps to a mum. Again, do we follow the manufactures instructions or not? There are at least two recorded cases of people walking into the path of oncoming cars on motorways whilst on the phone as people tend to wander around when using them. So are people in a lab above this? How many smaller accidents have there been in labs during their use? I don't work in that field and it shows I guess but is looks like people are saying that forget the manufactures instructions and common sense. No offence intended. zimmy

If I have cyanide / asbetos / hydrofluoric acid / plutonium on my lab gloves - and my 'phone goes off in my pocket. Will I remember to wash my phone before I use it next time to avoid transferring the contamination to my face / mouth and eurghhhhhh!!! Chemicals are not just flammable. I would have thought that toxicity risks are potentially of more importance here? I certainly wouldn't allow anything in the labs where I worked previously which presented any significant forseeable route of transfer from hand to mouth [or home...] (no smoking, no eating or drinking...) For me its a very small and very logicial step to no mobile phone use!

Do we ignore (as stated in #1) the manufactures instructions? yes or no please.

So the answer is 'refer to the manufacturer' as we do not have sufficient information to go on? How can anyone other than the manufacture give any guidelines on this?

How does one make an RA without the correct information? The lab owner needs to pass on the information to the manufacturer so he can then say yes or no?

It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to assess whether the equipment should be allowed in the lab - it's the lab's responsibility. Same as on an msds the supplier of the substance may make suggestions about what PPE to use with it, but it is the lab's responsibility to assess what PPE to use given the way they are using the substance, and the lab is perfectly free to decide something different from what the supplier says, while the supplier has no obligation to do the lab's COSHH assessment for them.

Just to clarify, I was responding to Zimmy, not Jon (our posts crossed), and by equipment I meant phones.

ops should have read...I have no idea what the benefits of not banning then are..

I came onto this site to learn from my peers and to be fair, so far, so good. I know I come over a bit sharp or perhaps abrupt on times but that is just the my way of probing and seeking out the truth. I tend not to take things as carved-in-stone, preferring to get immersed in it all. No offence is ever intended to any one individual. It is an education being here and as far as I’m concerned, nothing is wasted. (Off topic, I'm working on a RA template and would like a volunteer to take a look at it)

If their use is being banned for safety purposes (ignition potential) then their presence should also be banned, or they should be off. Mobile phones, even when not being "used," are continually being polled by the mobile base. If their use is being banned for attention-wander, then again their presence is questionable. From my viewpoint, in a production environment, their presence is both a distraction to production and a safety problem. The phone owner/user has no say in the matter. They are not there to facebook their day away.

Ok this topic has gone a bit insane :) - however to try and help zimmy I thought I'd try and provide an answer as to how you would RA this. When risk assessing there are a range of factors - from Biological and chemical contamination (see Ian's post) to distractions - see many other posts, to the physical ignition risk (see other posts + mine :) ) It is up to you to decide control measures (if I made the phone i'd just tell you not to use it... easy) So how - well for the physical fire risk: 1 - You need to know chance of ignition, firstly you need to know ignition energies for vapours, MEL and LEL for the vapours and the likelihood, and areas, where these can occur (this gets technical) 2 - You need to assess sources of ignition if they have potential to ignite the vapours identified above. This may = hot surfaces or shorting electrical equipment. If number two then all electrical equipment not just phones should be removed and replaced with Ex equipment. Just to clarify - radiation from mobile phones is unlikely to present an ignition risk in this environment, you would need a large 'aerial' to induce a current into and phones really aren't that powerful (and when off receive no signal) - see BS6656 if you really want to do the maths. So - In summary - if you have flammables and are worried about ignition risks follow DSEAR guidance and apply to ALL potential sources of ignition. I would suggest this will not be a reason for banning phones though, this would arise from the other hazards identified in your RA. Phew :) I wanted to get Monday off to a good start.

You can say that again :) for me the answer to 2 = It depends - I have worked on chemical plants where we all carried phones as part of the emergency response plan. (all ex rated) I have worked in labs where phones are used, along side ipods etc, and in some where phones are banned. When I worked in a small lab making millions of low risk (ish) products, on my own, with hours spent waiting for the reaction to be ready I would have gone nuts without my phone. How about cordless phones? or fixed phones as well. all the labs I have ever worked in have had phones! I don't see a difference with mobiles. Cross contamination and distraction are my main concerns, but then this is also an issue with my computer, and can be managed. (Ian is the man for advice on this) There is no right wrong only greyness - I love H&S :)

There are fixed line phones available for use in areas where contamination is a problem. There are wall mounted and have huge press pads instead of buttons and speakers/microphones instead of a handset. They are used entirely hands-free - elbows are used to press jumbo buttons instead of fingers - in mortuaries and high security biology labs. Though generally used as an intercom for communication with those outside the hazard area then can be purchased with a full keypad for more extensive telephone communications. These take a little discipline to use effectively - elbows rather that fingers doesn't come naturally but if there isn't sufficient discipline to manage this then the individual must be refused access to the area for other more obvious reasons! The position of microphones needs thought, and might often be across a room to allow one person to talk while an assistant actually uses the control panel that is remote from the person speaking. This equipment is widely used in high risk areas.

I would suspect that the backlash was caused by the fact that mobile phones were freely used before the ban. Surely when in the lab, staff should be working and not using their phones unless it is business related. Any ban would come down to a HR issue regarding the use of phones at work. Which is probably easier to manage. Geoff

Remember also that many laboratories, even those of relatively lower risk, should have an emergency alarm system. Alarm activation points should be located at key locations and tested regularly. Sounders should be similarly located with care, and loud enough to 'wake the dead' but with instruction that anyone arriving to help in an emergency should use the phone and view the lab through appropriately located vision panels before rushing in. Gas, water and electrical stop points should be outside but must not cut off power to the fans of exhaust cabinets. Phones are great to call for additional supplies etc to be passed though an open door or supplies hatch, that may have safety venting and interlock features also. In the highest risk facilities, the internal handset is or can be set to auto-answer and functions rather like an intercom. This makes it easy for those outside to talk to the lab users without the later having to go over to the phone and 'answer' it. In an emergency situation this is especially important. The kit is available - and I have no doubt is very expensive. Forethought in planning call systems, phones, alarms, shut down facilities and vision panels for labs is often overlooked, even for the highest risk facility and generally seem to be added as an afterthought. Perhaps they should be more common