Hi,
I guess Cacodylate is safe as long as you don't come into direct contact
with it, or dispose it off in a careless fashion. Aren't there
substances in biochemical labs which are a equally if not more harmful,
like acryamide or Ethidium Bromide, for instance?
But I agree that it should be done away with if possible, and in the
case of Cacodylate there is an equally effective and much safer option
in MES.
regards
Ganesh
Le 09/11/12 13:26, Frank von Delft a écrit :
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
and this is site says lethal dose is 0.5-5g/kg:
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
