Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi everyone, I’m looking for advice on the best approach to conduct COSHH assessments for a wide variety of chemicals used in a laboratory setting. Should these assessments be organized based on categories of hazard class (e.g., flammables, corrosives, toxic, and carcinogenic) or by functionality groups (e.g., solvents, reagents, and cleaning agents)? Or is there another effective method that ensures compliance and thorough COSHH assessments? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I don’t believe there is any requirement to categorise chemicals, though clearly it would be helpful when deciding on storage locations and ensuring incompatible chemicals do not mix. I would be tempted (without knowing more about your risk profile) to start with the most dangerous chemicals / highest volume and then work from there. HSG97 is worth looking at regarding compliance with COSHH. Edited by user 09 August 2024 15:23:26(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
 1 user thanked LancBob for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Pooja Your first post here, so welcome to the Forums. My starting point would be to ask the Lab Staff. They are the people who should have a reasonable understanding both of the reagents used and what chemicals are produced in reactions both as the intended end result and as intermediaries INCLUDING unintended intermediaries.
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The first thing to do is to abolish the idea that COSHH assessments are of chemicals.
COSHH assessments are of processes involving chemicals. This isn't just a pedantic point. These processes may result, depending on what you are doing, in chemical reactions producing new chemicals, in the intended or unintended generation of heat, in the emission of gases, in the forceful ejection of liquids and in the production of hazardous waste. You need to think not only about what you start with, but what you expect to end up with, what you might end up with instead, how you will get there and what could go wrong along the way.
There is all the difference in the world between standardised lab operations involving a well-defined sequences of steps with predictable outcomes, and novel lab experiments in which reactive chemicals are mixed together to produce uncertain reaction products for which, of course, you have no safety data sheet as you aren't even sure what they will be.
For this reason, first you need an understanding of just what is going on in that glassware or those crucibles and as Peter suggests, that will have to come from the technical staff.
Without that, it's really not possible to recommend whether similar processes can be grouped together for assessment on any basis, or whether individual assessment of each case is needed.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi everyone, @LancBob:
Thanks for your advice! I agree that starting with the most dangerous or high-volume chemicals makes sense. @Peter Gotch:
I appreciate the warm welcome and your suggestion to involve the lab staff. They certainly have the expertise to identify potential risks in processes. @Kate:
Your point about COSHH assessments focusing on processes rather than just chemicals is very insightful. It really clarified the need to consider the whole picture. Thanks again to all of you for your guidance! It’s really helping me refine my approach.
|
1 user thanked Pooja for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi Again,
As I’m leaning towards a process-based approach, I have a few more questions to explore further. Detailing the Process: When conducting a process-based COSHH assessment, how detailed does the description of the process need to be? Are we talking about including every single step and potential outcome, or can it be more general? I’m concerned about how practical this is, especially in a research lab where processes can be quite complex and varying. Handling Process Changes: How feasible is it to maintain these assessments if there’s a slight change in the process? In a research-based lab, procedures often evolve as experiments progress. Does each small change require a new assessment, or can we adapt existing assessments with minimal adjustments? Managing Multiple Processes: Given the number of different processes in a typical research lab, how realistic is it to conduct detailed process-based assessments for each one? Is there a point where this approach becomes too cumbersome, and if so, what alternatives might work better?
I’d appreciate any further thoughts or experiences you can share on managing these aspects effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well I'm not sure there is such a thing as a typical research lab.
On your three questions, my thoughts are:
1. You don't necessarily have to write the process down in intricate detail. But the person or team who does the assessment needs to understand what the process is and go through it systematically.
2. It can help to have a variation procedure. The way this would work is: if some variation to the usual process is contemplated, the proposed variation is recorded, justified and then signed off by someone with a defined level of authority, before it is carried out. After the variation has been performed, there is a review of how it went and a decision made based on any lessons learned.
3. The level of detail for each assessment should be proportionate to the risk involved in the process. They don't necessarily have to be all to the same level of detail. If carcinogens of any category are involved I would come down hard, likewise if hot corrosives are sloshing about. If you are dissolving sodium chloride in cold water, then I would find it hard to care.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.