How to tell whether a substance contains any chemicals?

Factual Questions
1

This one is mostly but not entirely a ridiculous question. My employer requires all sorts of extra forms and other paperwork if we buy a product that contains any chemicals. But, obviously, any product that is substantial (meaning not for example downloaded computer programs or telephone consultation) is going to be made entirely of chemicals, as is its packaging, as am even I.

The thing is, general consensus is to go along with this, because any questions will no doubt create more paperwork. So what we do, in effect, is try to judge whether someone looking at whatever object or package gets delivered to us gets a “chemically impression”. If it lists things that sound like chemical names, that would be a red flag. Well, unless you were supposed to eat it - for some reason that exempts things. I know if I let it slip that I had brought several kilograms of benzene, toluene, and xylene on site, and that I had done it without asking anyone, without even using a labeled container, there would be a huge to-do, and Tyvek-clad emergency workers from several nearby plants would accost me demanding to know where I had left it. If I then pointed to my car’s gas tank, I’d be magically transformed into a pariah.

Seriously, how in the world does anybody think we’re supposed to answer this question? Is there something sensible lying somewhere behind it? I mean, I’ve been getting by, and all, but I always feel like some kind of a cheat when I say “Nope, no chemicals in this!”

2

Maybe you could ask the person in charge for a specific list of chemicals they are worried about, or ask them to define ‘chemicals’ for you.
Beyond that, I think it’s a losing battle. If someone won’t allow you to have anything with ‘chemicals’ you’re not going to win. Maybe you could bring in an MSDS for everything on their desk and ask them if they really feel it’s necessary to declare everything that has chemicals…ya know…since everything has chemicals.

3

You need to define “chemicals” other than “chemically” (Be especially careful about drinking dihydrogen monoxide.)

Are you looking out for materials that are: Inflammable? Poisonous? Reactive? Mutagenic? Covered under California’s Proposition 65?

Not meaning to sound flip, but there are a lot of ways things can be dangerous and without knowing what your employer is looking out for, we can only guess.

Prop 65 may at least be useful as there is a defined list of substances known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

4

Maybe just go by the HMIS? As in, maybe, if a substance rates a two or higher on anything it’s “chemical”?

An even easier metric - if you receive an item and it comes with an MSDS, it’s a “chemical”.

5

Missed the edit,

Make sure any shipping or receiving you do is legal both locally and federally. You correctly point out that gasoline would be “chemical” but most people are familiar with it and everyday consumers interact with it daily. That doesn’t mean you can legally just ship a gallon of gasoline through normal shipping methods.

6

Different states have different sorts of regulations, your employers are probably just trying to comply with whatever states are relevant. Like gotpasswords mentioned, the typical definition of hazardous chemicals include anything that’s flammable, toxic, reactive, or corrosive.

<rant> So I learned about the local state regulations that define a “toxic” chemical during the mandatory lab safety training sessions. Apparently they define any chemical with an LD50 between 500 mg/kg and 5 g/kg as mildly toxic. You know what’s got an LD50 below 5 g/kg? Fucking everything. Table salt has an LD50 around 4 g/kg, so it can’t be tossed in the dumpster, and instead has to be labeled with hazardous waste stickers and . Unless it’s meant for food, which means it’s ok to toss out without scary hazardous waste stickers. And you’re not allowed to dilute a toxic substance so that it’s safe to pour down the drain. But if you have saline solution intended for some other use, it’s ok to pour that down the drain. I think.</rant>

7

You don’t say anything to suggest why your employer might be concerned about “chemicals”. But if you have any idea about what is motivating his concern, that should be your guide in deciding which chemicals he really wants to have reported, and which he doesn’t. You could then either use that as your rule of thumb in applying his directive in a half-way rational manner or, preferably, find a tactful way of suggesting that he actually modify his directive along these lines.

8

Which state? That’s just ridiculous. The regulations, not the LD50s. I did a quick calc, and I’m pretty sure that if I ate a lb of table salt (which fits my LD50) I’d have a good chance of dying ;D

9

Rhode Island. Massachusetts has some similarly ridiculous hazardous waste regulations, but it’s been a while since I’ve had to hear them in any detail.

10

Having a MSDS doesn’t necessarily mean the substance contains chemicals. I used to have to provide them upon request for organic fertilizers which were mainly fish pellets. They are there to describe the properties of the substance, such as melting point, flammability, possible eye irritation, disposal methods, many other points that are mentioned in the Wiki article.

Napier, you should just request a MSDS for every substance you buy for the company, then you should be covered and can determine further hazard handling issues from those. And believe me, even if you are buying a bag of dirt, the seller can provide you with a MSDS. Look at the packaging on most substances and you can usually find where it says ‘MSDS available upon request’, often you can just print them off the company’s web site.

They need to be filed in an organized form in a book. Someone needs to be designated as responsible for the book. The location of this book(s) should be known by all employees of the company and there should be a sign stating where the are so guest or fire fighters can find them. If someone gets the substance in their eyes or has a skin reaction you need access to these quickly. Or if there is a fire the firefighters are going to want to know what is in the area before going in.

There are many requirements that govern MSDS and you can be fined quite heavily by OSHA for not following them. There are also storage and containment requirements for some substances, such as acids.

This is probably what your employer is trying to take care of. It can be a big job if your company uses a large number of ingredients/substances.

11

In case you thought I was kidding, here is a MSDS for plain dirt:

http://www.lafargenorthamerica.com/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb31dc0f28d19ef/SoilMSDS5.pdf

12

Oh, I’m fully aware of the silliness of many MSDS. I could pull from my files no fewer than than five different MSDS for calcium carbonate.

Which is pretty silly when you can just walk into any drugstore and buy a carton of Tums, to eat.

13

What is even sillier, on the bottom of the 4th page (there are 5 pages) on the MSDS for dirt where it shows all the regulatory information, you will see that dirt IS considered to be a hazardous chemical by OSHA/MSHA and has to be included in a company’s hazard communication program. Soil. Dirt.

Crystalline Silica, (that is the sand in the dirt) is also shown to be classified as a cancer causing agent under California Proposition 65, if airborne and respirable.

Companies really do have to cover their asses in every possible way in an attempt to comply.

14

Were I in the OP’s shoes, I would just be honest and report the chemicals in everything. Eventually the problem will sink in through the skull of someone actually able to fix it.

15

Unless after all that work is done preparing the report the recipient says “Thanks” and tosses it in a file with all the others. Never reviewing it, never looking at it, never putting it into a database, never thinking about how much work (and money) went into creating that report…never giving it a second thought.

16

Chronos, you could be talking about a great deal of work. How many chemicals go into a computer?

Joey P, these things do go into a file with the others. I’m not aware they get reviewed or looked at usually. I think they wind up in a database, but that’s similar to winding up in a file. I don’t know who does all these things or which plants they actually sit in, or if they’re even subcontracted out or something.

It’s funny - if I buy a bottle of, say, a cleaning compound, I’ll decide whether to start a paperwork trail depending on whether the seller sounds friendly or standoffish, or on how colorful the bottle packaging is. Most things packaged in brown glass get paperwork, though I have a brown glass bottle of myrrh in my desk drawer, the sniffing of which is calming to me. Most things packaged in tubes don’t. If I am buying elemental copper, I might do the paperwork, and might not. If I buy alloy 101A oxygen-free electrolytic copper, I don’t do the paperwork. Alloy 101A actually IS just elemental copper. If I am buying 2" by 2" copper bar that is 99% pure, I don’t do the paperwork, but if I bought some 99.999% pure copper, I would. I have bought, for example, gold and tantalum and rhodium and nickel, all as sheetmetal or foil, and actually put some effort into asking the local authorities whether I had to do the paperwork or not; they actually conferred in larger and larger groups trying to get me an answer and then the whole thing just kind of petered out, so I went ahead and did it.

And the MSDS thing is messy, yes. I have a Borden’s Skin Cream MSDS that says avoid prolonged skin contact, and a rubbing alcohol MSDS that says in case of skin contact you must see a doctor. I know that water kills around 5000 American children a year in unguarded swimming pools - wonder how scary its MSDS looks. The worst thing about all this paranoia is that some substances really are horribly dangerous, but since the documents seem to suggest that almost everything is dangerous, it’s hard to get useful information. Official channels will seem to advise against everything. I wind up trusting Wikipedia instead. That can’t be good!

I guess I will proceed as before, on the basis that the question doesn’t make sense as asked, and use the same old judgement that I always did - poke around a little bit, and if I’d tell my grandkids not to touch it because it’s dangerous, I’d also get a MSDS for it.

17

I’d start with the ones in the human body: Selenium, sodium chloride (aq.), hydrochloric acid, potassium chloride, sodium chloride, hydroxyapatite, and so on, and so forth.

(“Who’s got two thumbs and enough strong acid to frighten a moron? This guy!”)

18

We’re not allowed to order those, because of some dumb HR thing…

19

If your employer is hung up on “chemicals”, you can totally blow them away by listing everything that may be hazardous, namely, everything!

Go to the cafeteria and show them the highly toxic Chlorine (Atomic numer 17, Atomic weight 35.4), fatal at around 1000 ppm and extremely aggressive—combined with sodium metal (Atomic number 11, Atomic weight 23), which is very reactive, and combines explosively on contact with water. Each of these chemical elements are extremely dangerous, yet sit in an unlabled container at practically every table—the salt shaker.

And, of course, there’s always DHMO—DiHydrogen MonOxide—deadly in many forms:

If your employer wants paperwork on any substance which contains “chemicals”, you could probably quickly disabuse them of this policy by making a detailed list of everything in the workplace!

20

While funny (:D), this is disingenuous. There’s a world of difference between elemental sodium metal or chlorine gas and the sodium and chloride ions.

It’s worth a laugh, but it doesn’t really mean much in industry. Yeah, we all get the joke but the joke is more for teasing the scientifically ignorant populace than it is for reality.