Chemical Forums

General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: Borek on January 24, 2006, 08:43:19 AM

Title: Ohio fire: Failures with the classic flame test demonstration
Post by: Borek on January 24, 2006, 08:43:19 AM
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/13697803.htm (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/13697803.htm)

Mitch: if you think it should be posted in some other forum, please move.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: mike on January 24, 2006, 06:50:19 PM
I wonder what the experiment was?

"..an experiment using methanol.."??

What about fume cupboards, labcoats, and no naked flames? The same safety procedures should really be followed in school as everywhere else, closed shoes, long sleeves/trousers, safety glasses, labcoats, gloves, fume cupboards (or at least good ventilation).

And how much methanol did they even have in the classroom?? to burn all of those students? surely there should be a limit to the volume of flammable solvent allowed out in the open.

Safety first, think of the worst that could happen and make sure you prepare for it.

What in the world was the teacher thinking??
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: Borek on January 24, 2006, 07:02:16 PM
http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0123/6375527.jpg (http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0123/6375527.jpg)

The classroom doesn't look like a place where there was huge fire.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: mike on January 24, 2006, 07:09:18 PM
Were the students perhaps soaked in methanol from a spill or similar?
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: pantone159 on January 24, 2006, 11:32:04 PM
This New York Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-BRF-Lab-Fire.html

says that:

The flash fire occurred during a standard experiment to show how methanol, a clear, flammable liquid, changes color when heated, said Christopher Burner, dean of faculty.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: mike on January 24, 2006, 11:37:34 PM
changes colour when heated ???

I have not heard of this before. This means they were deliberately heating methanol, that is crazy!
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: Mitch on January 25, 2006, 12:20:54 AM
From clear to fire. I suppose.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: Borek on January 25, 2006, 12:15:21 PM
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/13706380.htm (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/13706380.htm)
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: pantone159 on January 25, 2006, 01:09:20 PM
That last article said they were using metal salts dissolved in MeOH for flame tests.  That makes more sense than just heating MeOH, as the NYT article seemed to imply.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: jdurg on January 25, 2006, 07:07:05 PM
That last article said they were using metal salts dissolved in MeOH for flame tests.  That makes more sense than just heating MeOH, as the NYT article seemed to imply.


Makes perfect sense as Methanol burns virtually invisibly which would make the color of the metal salt easier to see.  (It's actually a VERY pale blue color, but it's damned near impossible to see.  That's what also makes Methanol fires VERY difficult to deal with as you can't really tell exactly where the fire is).  Ethanol doesn't have as good an oxygen-carbon ratio so it burns a bit dirtier.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: mike on January 26, 2006, 09:21:19 PM
Ahh I see, this makes much more sense, this is a classic demonstration of the flame test.

Sounds like an unlucky accident. Although I do this demo at work and I always use a hood, keep the actual bottle of methanol closed and no where near the demo, and have sand and other "covers" ready to put over the fire (+ the usual fire extunguishers, fire blankets, shower etc etc)
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: hmx9123 on January 29, 2006, 01:06:21 AM
I could almost guarantee you that the demo was the classic one with the metal salts dissolved in the MeOH in a petri dish, then lit on fire.  The same accident occured here in California a number of years ago, badly burning several students and blinding one.  The teacher, instead of covering the methanol-filled dishes, let the fumes build up in the poorly-vented classroom, and when he went to light the dishes, the vapors from the MeOH were within the LEL and UEL, thus causing a fuel-air explosion.  Glass everywhere, big fireball, students burned, a real mess.  I have a xerox of the newspaper article somewhere.  Seem to remember a HS in Bakersfield, but could be wrong about that.
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: Donaldson Tan on January 29, 2006, 03:54:01 AM
WTF.. that is some scary s-h-i-t!!!
Title: Re:Ohio fire
Post by: DrCMS on February 08, 2006, 09:29:40 AM
If it was being done the way you describe it I would say it was not an unlucky accident but an obvious failure route just waiting to happen.  

In my job if i were to suggest taking a flammable solvent pouring it into open containers on an open bench and igniting it i'd get sacked.

To see the flame colours why not dissolve the metal salts in demin water and coat them on the end of a platinum wire and put them in the tip of a blue flame.  Thats how we did it at school.
You can see the colour without the dangers of the solvent.
Title: Re:Ohio fire: Failures with the classic flame test demonstration
Post by: mike on February 08, 2006, 06:31:43 PM
Quote
In my job if i were to suggest taking a flammable solvent pouring it into open containers on an open bench and igniting it i'd get sacked.

Is your job a firefighter? :D :D

I have done this demo before with no worries :)
Title: Re:Ohio fire: Failures with the classic flame test demonstration
Post by: DrCMS on February 09, 2006, 04:30:28 AM
No my job is the technical manager in a chemical company.  We handle tones of flammable solvent and reactive monomers daily because they are necessary for the properties of the finished materials.  If we can we switch to less hazardous reagents or solvents we do and if we can’t do that we design the process to fail safe.  If we can’t do that we don’t do it.

Why use flammable solvent in the demo if you do not have to?
The hazard is high even if the risk, done properly, is low so why do it?

I don't care if you’ve done it without incident 100 times that does not show it is safe.  
It only shows is that you can be 86% confident the failure rate is 1 in 50 or less.
Title: Re:Ohio fire: Failures with the classic flame test demonstration
Post by: mike on February 09, 2006, 06:11:07 PM
Quote
I don't care if you’ve done it without incident 100 times that does not show it is safe.
It only shows is that you can be 86% confident the failure rate is 1 in 50 or less.

You don't necessarily have to do it each time without incident (although this would be ideal) but you do have to make sure that you have prepared for these possible incidents.


Quote
Why use flammable solvent in the demo if you do not have to?
The hazard is high even if the risk, done properly, is low so why do it?

Because it looks cool!! :)

Having said this though you will be happy to know that we are actually running the demo with water slurries and bunsen burner.

I do agree with you on safety. I also think that if you were to factor in all the possible hazards and outcomes nothing would ever get done. Even in your job there is some degree of acceptable risk being taken by the company. As cynical as it sounds, sometimes it is cheaper to pay out compensation than to prevent the accident in the first place (I don't agree with this by the way, but I am sure that it is factored in by number crunchers all over the world.) Think about your exposure to flammable solvents, what is the safe working limit? who set this limit? are they actually working there or have they just come up with this number so that you feel better about working there.