Quote:
Originally Posted by rat156
Sorry to pick Peter, they're just called SDS now. They are available for all products sold in Australian retail outlets from the manufacturer, usually their website, so a couple of minutes on the internet should be enough to find one.
But ...
The information available in one of these things is usually too much for laypeople. For your reading pleasure I've attached the one for HCl from the Diggers HCl. There's a lot of information in it, just mostly useless.
People are FAR better off just reading the bottle, there are clear instructions for the type of PPE that people should use.
As for this particular case, I'm pretty sure that Lewis has generated Chlorine, probably some left over hypochlorite from some bleach in the grout, add HCl, hey presto, Chlorine gas.
Luckily the effects of Chlorine gas exposure are mostly repairable, unless you get a really big lung full, in which a pulmonary oedema is a distinct possibility.
I'm not a fan of (M)SDSs I use some very nasty chemicals every work day, the SDS are in the lab for legal compliance, no one looks at them unless we are checking to see if they are in date.
Cheers
Stuart
|
Hi Stuart,
Yes, I totally agree.
You are correct that they are now known as SDS by Worksafe Australia, however, they are also know as PSDS (P being for Product), as well MSDS (still in common use), depending on point of origin, it seems. But that is mere semantics anyway.
Yes, these safety data sheets can be technical, however, I totally disagree that they are useless for the layperson, as you state, as the pertinent section on use of Personal Protect Equipment (PPE) and the hazards associated are VERY relevant to anyone using chemicals of any nature. Labels are well and good, but often hard to read or do not contain all the necessary info.
But, I do agree that not all of the SDS available are that informative either, some a very lacking whilst others are too detailed. I only know that I ALWAYS refer to them, as to have some information is better than none. To advocate that they are just useless is dangerous, or just careless. After all, unless we are chemical engineers, how else will we know. The only section I personally look at, these days, on an SDS (MSDS) are its hazards and appropriate PPE, not the scientific data, which most people would not understand, in that I do agree.
Furthermore, I do agree that the SDS can be useless too. I know that using Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (MDI) requires an air-line respirator system, under Austrlian legislation, however, the MSDS did not state that. I prevented the possible deaths of two people who were going to use MDI within a confined space without the use of airline and were going to use a particle filter respirator instead. Fortunately, at the time, I had to understand legislative requirements. Using chemicals in confined spaces is dangerous any time.
Many years ago, it was through the use of an MSDS that I discovered that using 'methyl ethyl ketone' (commonly known as MEK) was really nasty stuff. We changed the process to eliminate the use of this solvent altogether and introduced steam baths. It was a great solution and was much more economical in the long run anyway, not to forget that it is environmentally friendly too.
I understand that you use many dangerous chemicals, as it is part of your job. The average person doesn't have a hope to gain that level of understanding and that is where an SDS is most useful. After all, we can't afford to pay an expert to advise us each time we use a new chemical.
Cheers Peter