Hi Frank,
I think the lethal dose is lower than that..
It has acute toxicity (oral, dermal, inhalation) and is hazardous to the
aquatic environment.
Used as a buffer such as sodium cacodylate (less than 100-200 mM mostly).
I would read the Safety information and stick it on the screen :).. but
gloves might be enough for the tiny drops in crystal application. Apart
from that I don't know what is your policy about purchasing the powder and
storing it.. which might be a problem without even making the screen if you
are worried.
In one of the optimization screens of a condition with three components (Na
Caco is one), I couldn't get any crystals when this buffer was replaced
with another buffer (I tried a list of ten for buffer optimization covering
each a range of pHs), so yes it is sometimes critical.
It causes radiation damage when collecting data (keywords: Arsenic,
Arsenate..)... you will maybe need many crystals to collect a full
dataset.. for a small crystal you might not see the peak of Selenium in a
scan (covered because of the caco. use).
Regards


toufic el arnaout

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Frank von Delft <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> Anybody know
>     a) how hazardous is cacodylate?
>     b) does it really matter for crystallization screens?
>
> It seems by far the most hazardous component of the standard screens;
>  this 2011 paper seems to think so (bizarrely, I can't access it from
> Oxford):
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.**com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2818.**
> 1977.tb01136.x/abstract<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1977.tb01136.x/abstract>
>
> and this is site says lethal dose is 0.5-5g/kg:
> http://cameochemicals.noaa.**gov/chemical/4468<http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/4468>
> meaning 2ml of a 0.1M solution contains 1/10th lethal dose...? (Someone
> should check my maths...)  [Coarse screens come mixed 2ml per condition.]
>
>
> Has anybody done careful experiments that showed it really mattered for a
> given crystal -- or even an entire screen?
>
> So I'm inclined to toss it out entirely rather than make crystallization
> screening a "hazardous activity".  (We're being subjected to a safety
> review.)
>
>
> Thoughts welcome.
> phx
>

Reply via email to