The news story is a reminder that the physical and chemical limitations of PPE are often determined through analytical techniques. Guiding the testing and verification of PPE are methods issued by nationally recognized standards organizations. Because not all laboratory coats are tested, industrial hygienists should consult with the manufacturer prior to recommending a certain coat. Following are a few things to consider when consulting with manufacturers:

The possibility for reuse or laundering of a laboratory coat depends greatly on the material composition. If a laboratory coat is coated with a material such as polyethylene, laundering will erode the protective coating and result in diminished protection. In recent years there has been a string of high profile laboratory accidents at U.S. institutions including Texas Tech University, University of Hawaii, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Some of these incidents were severe enough to cause significant property damage or even death. Reports on several of these accidents specifically mention laboratory coats.

In the University of Hawaii case, a researcher lost an arm in an explosion that probably resulted from accidental ignition of gases that were being mixed in an ungrounded container. An investigation found that the researcher’s notes indicated that she had asked a number of safety-related questions prior to the incident, including whether she would need a flame-proof lab coat. No answer to this question was recorded in the notes. Although a laboratory coat would not have prevented this incident, a post-accident report notes the importance of flame-resistant laboratory coats when working with a highly flammable gas and that researchers can underestimate the necessity of PPE when they don’t appreciate the hazards present.

At UCLA, a researcher was severely burned, and later died, from ignition of a pyrophoric compound. The researcher wasn’t wearing a lab coat, and her synthetic sweater caught on fire and melted onto her skin. A flame-resistant laboratory coat should have prevented the ignition of the researcher’s clothing.

Not all recent laboratory accidents have been as serious as these, but they nonetheless highlight the necessity for proper laboratory coats. A graduate student at Northwestern University, for example, described an incident in which he was burned on the arm by triflic acid. He noted that if he had been wearing his laboratory coat the acid wouldn’t have contacted his skin.

Not surprisingly, these incidents aren’t restricted to colleges and universities. Several newsworthy laboratory accidents have occurred in high school chemistry classes and demonstrations over the past 10 years. Some have led to large explosions and sent numerous students to the hospital for severe burns. These incidents have drawn so much attention that the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) issued a report, “Key Lessons for Preventing Incidents from Flammable Chemicals in Educational Demonstrations,” that notes the importance of performing a hazard review, detailing safety precautions, and utilizing appropriate PPE including “lab coats or clothing made of flame-resistant material.” CSB cites an incident from 2006 in which a high school student was burned over 40 percent of her body during a chemistry demonstration. In 2013, the former student was interviewed for a video produced for CSB in which she states that she believes the accident was entirely preventable and specifies a “lack of safety gear” as a contributing factor to her injury. A complete risk assessment should be performed prior to initiation of any laboratory research. The risk assessment should determine associated hazards and necessary mitigation strategies. Since not all hazards can be predetermined, the risk assessment should be reevaluated through the life of the research project. Training, including on the use, limitations, and proper wear of laboratory coats, should be provided for all employees. This approach to personal protection depends on employees properly wearing and maintaining the PPE, and their willingness to don the laboratory coat when working with chemical, biological, and physical hazards. The employees’ decision to wear protective equipment is often related to their personal perception of risk. Prevention programs that focus only on the use of PPE are dependent on human behavior and should be supplemented with written PPE policies where employees gain additional knowledge about the importance of PPE and institutional PPE requirements, and become more actively involved in their own safety. The author Stephen Covey is quoted as saying, “accountability breeds response-ability.” In the realm of personal accountability, we are all responsible for ensuring we maintain workplace safety. However, in most research settings the principal investigator is held directly accountable for personnel safety. Ultimately, the accountability should extend upward in the institution all the way to the organizational leader. In reality, a combination of individual responsibility, in addition to organizational accountability, may be the better approach to enforcing policies on worker protection than a dependence on individual human behavior alone. Laboratory coats should be inspected for defects prior to use to ensure that there are no holes, rips, or tears that could allow hazardous substances to enter the coat and come into contact with the person wearing it. If defects are found, the laboratory coat should be disposed of appropriately in accordance with the hazards present. The material compatibility of laboratory coats should be verified prior to use by third-party analysis. Laboratory coats should never be worn in areas where food is stored or consumed. Indeed, all PPE must be removed prior to exiting the laboratory into shared common spaces to prevent contamination of clean spaces. Laboratory coats should never be taken home to launder. The hierarchy of controls provides guidance on injury and infection prevention by describing measures to address the potential for exposure to hazardous substances. The use of PPE is the least preferred technique, although it is warranted under certain circumstances—for example, when elimination of the hazard is not technically feasible. For PPE to be effective, it must be appropriate for the hazard at hand, fitted properly, be in good repair, and—most importantly—be worn correctly by the employee. Specific to the use of laboratory coats, the style and composition must be considered. Laboratory coats composed of natural and synthetic materials offer varying degrees of protection to chemical and biological agents. Although not mandated by law, test methods are available to ensure the selected laboratory coat is suitable for the anticipated hazards. Not all manufacturers subject their product to integrity tests; therefore, industrial hygienists should ensure the selected laboratory coat is protective for the working environment.