• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Disconnect between IBC and SDS

Example 1:
Acute
Inhalation LC50 Rat >1,000 mg/m^3, 8 hours
Oral LD50 Rat 2,840 mg/kg

Does not look like it meets toxic?

Greater than three hours?

I made a little progress last night. I found my HMEX CD and a computer that still has a CD-Rom drive. The Example 1 material is not a compound and was in the HMEX database. HMEX indicated that it is not toxic.

Example 2 is also not a compound and was in the HMEX software. This product is toxic according to HMEX.

Unfortunately, the other 4 materials are either multi-chemical compounds or are not in the software.
 
If you click on the person picture top right/ your profile

Go to account upgrades

And go to the bottom it will tell you if you are an up to date paid sawhorse and when it expires
Sawhorse.JPG
I'm able to attach and see images, according to my Account Upgrades I'm paid up... seems the only thing off is the title under my name
 
I made a little progress last night. I found my HMEX CD and a computer that still has a CD-Rom drive. The Example 1 material is not a compound and was in the HMEX database. HMEX indicated that it is not toxic.

Example 2 is also not a compound and was in the HMEX software. This product is toxic according to HMEX.

Unfortunately, the other 4 materials are either multi-chemical compounds or are not in the software.


Well I hit 50 %!!!

Can you look on hmex at the individual ingredients and see if they are toxic by themselves, might give you an indicator
 
Side note::

http://specsandcodes.typepad.com/the_code_corner/control-areas/

Not sure if RGLA can help you classify

If there is a supplier of the compounded materials, they may know, because the question may have come up before.

I told myself that I wouldn't spend time on this today as I'm preparing for a meeting on another project, but here I am...

I have read through all of RGLA's keynotes, code corners over the years. Today, I revisited this article that you linked. I think this is going to get me on the right track. DOT.JPG

RGLA references Section 14 and the DOT classifications. I'm thinking that this will take the conversions out of the equation if the DOT has already done this. If this is the correct direction to go, now I just need to know how to correlate DOT classifications to the IBC.
 
% * %

YongMNLad,

If you have not already obtained the e-mail address
to Mr. Stripling and still want it, then send me a PM
and I will provide it to you.


% * %
 
Side note::

http://specsandcodes.typepad.com/the_code_corner/control-areas/

Not sure if RGLA can help you classify

If there is a supplier of the compounded materials, they may know, because the question may have come up before.

Short update. Reading the small-print caption in RLGA's High-Hazard Occupancies Code Corner, it seems you are able to translate the USDOT numerical classification to the IBC classification.

If anyone has a resource for this translation, it would be greatly appreciated.
 
The classification of hazardous materials to determine if they are classified as a Toxic or Highly Toxic is dependent on a review of the toxicity data. My source that I use is Sax’s Handbook of Dangerous Industrial Chemicals. Currently I have the 11th edition and it costs about $800. One can use the internet to look for this information but Sax’s produces the best work and references peer-reviewed toxicity data.

If you don’t have an understanding of the recognized pathways for toxins, factors that influence toxicity, or how LC50 or LD50 is derived (and can be misused), one should seek technical assistance. Commonly, everyone says call a Fire Protection Engineer. However, if you’re being asked to evaluate the hazardous material(s) I’ve found that a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) has the required knowledge to make a determination in these matters.

The codes are NOT misaligned with the safety data sheets (SDS). The toxicity values in the IFC and IBC are based on toxicity exposure limits based on OSHA regulations for poisonous materials. A common misunderstanding is how the measurements equate to exposure of the human body to a toxin. The IFC regulates toxic and highly toxic materials based on the hazardous material being inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested. The measurements are expressed using the following values:

-INHALATION: Parts per million (PPM) or milligrams/cubic meter (mg/M^3). Either PPM or mg/M^3 are applied when evaluating the volume of a substance per unit volume of air of a toxin administered to a test animal that meets the species and weight requirements. Note that PPM is mathematically 1 micro liter of gas per 1 liter volume of air so mathematically they are equivalent and can be converted from one to another. However, this is dependent on the molecular weight of the gas or mist. These values are used to determine LC50.

- ABSORBTION: milligrams/square centimeter (mg/M^2). Area is the driving factor because this measurement can be used to determine the amount of a toxin is required over the area of the test animal the toxin was administered to cause 50% of the test animals to die (LD50).

- INGESTION: milligram/kilogram (mg/Kg). The mass of the toxin and the weight of the test animal are measured and used as part of the reproducible experiments to determine the mass of toxin that causes 50% of the test animals to die (LD50).

One cannot establish a limit for a hazardous material without establishing the desired or undesired response. In the IFC the response is expressed as LC50 or LD50 and it is a time-exposure dependent value. That’s why the IFC sets the measurement based on a 1-hour exposure. As you found, LC50 values can be normalized to one-hour based if the measured results were for a different time period. We use to have these values in the 2000, 2003, and 2006 editions of the IFC Appendix because the code was changed to reference a Compressed Gas Standard for the classification of gases. I’ve included them below:

Normalization Factor

Time (hrs) Multiplier

0.5 0.7
1 1
1.5 1.2
2 1.4
3 1.7
4 2
5 2.2
6 2.4
7 2.6
8 2.8


Please note you cannot normalize an LD50 value for absorption because the measurement is based on the area of exposure. The same holds true for ingestion because the measurement is based on the weight of the doses and the test animals.

I’m not sure how else I can help you other than by classifying the hazardous materials. That would be awesome for you but I’m busy working for a little jurisdiction in Texas. If you have more questions ask, but I don’t come around here much because I’ve got other things more fun in my life like my job, going to the gym, cooking, and drinking bourbon.
 
& * & * &
" YongMNLad asked: Random question, how was the term "Sawhorse" selected? What's the meaning behind it. "
The term "Sawhorse" was created by the Forum owner [ as I remember it ],

in an effort to provide some sort of creative title \ benefit to those who
desire to participate on this Forum, by having a Paid Subscription to it.
The term Sawhorse is a play-on-words that relates to the type of Forum
this is [ i.e. - construction stuff ], and ones participation by membership
of "supporting" this valuable resource. :cool:


& * & * &
 
I thought maybe ICE had suggested the term, when jar asked for suggestions.

But.......I can't say for sure.
 
$ ~ $ ~ $

**fatboy**, I'm not sure about who actually came up with the
suggestion......Maybe **ICE** DID suggest it first......If so,
my mistake, and my humble apologies to **ICE**........We
can say that **ICE** and Jeff contributed to the suggestion
of identifying the Paid Subscription members as Sawhorses.

Whoo Hoo **ICE** and Jeff !


Either way, I still like the suggested title of becoming a
Sawhorse. :D

$ ~ $ ~ $
 
& * & * &

Alright, let's try this again !.......A previous Forum
member named **brudgers** came up with the suggestion

of identifying those who have a Paid Subscription to this
Forum, ...as a Sawhorse !.......Thanks **Francis Vineyard** !


I wonder if **YongMNLad** is still reading this Topic.


& * & * &
 
Top