Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A review and critique of academic lab safety research


Over the past ten years, there have been several high-profile accidents in academic laboratories around the world, resulting in significant injuries and fatalities. The aftermath of these incidents is often characterized by calls for reflection and re-examination of the academic discipline’s approach to safety research and policy. However, the study of academic lab safety is still underdeveloped and necessary data about changes in safety attitudes and behaviours has not been gathered. This Review article critically examines the state of academic chemical safety research from a multifactorial stance, including research on the occurrence of lab accidents, contributors to lab accidents, the state of safety training research and the cultural barriers to conducting safety research and implementing safer lab practices. The Review concludes by delineating research questions that must be addressed to minimize future serious academic laboratory incidents as well as stressing the need for committed leadership from our research institutions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Baudendistel, B. Investigation Report University of California, Los Angeles, Case No. S1110-003-09 (Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Los Angeles, 2009).

  2. 2.

    Technical Bulletin AL-134: Handling air-sensitive reagents (Sigma Aldrich, 2012).

  3. 3.

    Benderley, B. L. California investigation report explains what went wrong for Sangji. Science (2012).

  4. 4.

    Allen, K. A young lab worker, a professor and a deadly accident. Toronto Star (2014);

  5. 5.

    Benderly, B. L. Danger in school labs. Sci. Am. 303, 18–20 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Grabowski, L. E. & Goode, S. R. Review and analysis of safety policies of chemical journals. J. Chem. Health Saf. 23, 30–35 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Langerman, N. Warning to all principal investigators. J. Chem. Health Saf. 19, 42–43 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kemsley, J. N. University of Hawaii fined $115,500 for lab explosion. Chem. Eng. News (2016);

  9. 9.

    Pinghui, Z. Three students die in blast at Beijing university laboratory. South China Morning Post (2018);

  10. 10.

    Van Noorden, R. A death in the lab. Nature 472, 270–271 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Texas Tech University laboratory explosion (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2010).

  12. 12.

    Kemsley, J. N. 10 years after Sheri Sangji’s death, are academic labs any safer? Chem. Eng. News (2018).

  13. 13.

    Hunter, K. et al. Guidelines for chemical laboratory safety in academic institutions (American Chemical Society, 2016);

  14. 14.

    Kaufman, J. A. Killed in lab accidents: Memorial Wall. Lab Safety (2019).

  15. 15.

    Miller, A. J. M. & Tonks, I. A. Let’s talk about safety: Open communication for safer laboratories. Organometallics 37, 3225–3227 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Young, J. A. How “safe” are the students in my lab? Do teachers really care. J. Chem. Educ. 60, 1067–1068 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Accidents in waiting. Nature 472, 259 (2011).

  18. 18.

    Jorgensen, E. F. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Research Laboratory Safe Behavior Survey (RLSBS). J. Chem. Health Saf. 24, 38–43 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Peplow, M. & Marris, E. How dangerous is chemistry? Nature 441, 560–561 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hellman, M. A., Savage, E. P. & Keefe, T. J. Epidemiology of accidents in academic chemistry laboratories. Part 1. Accident data survey. J. Chem. Educ. 63, A267 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Van Noorden, R. Safety survey reveals lab risks. Nature 493, 9–10 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ayi, H.-R. & Hon, C.-Y. Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. J. Chem. Health Saf. 25, 6–12 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Simmons, H. E., Matos, B. & Simpson, S. A. Analysis of injury data to improve safety and training. J. Chem. Health Saf. 24, 21–28 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sieloff, A. C., Shendell, D. G., Marshall, E. G. & Ohman-Strickland, P. An examination of injuries and respiratory irritation symptoms among a sample of undergraduate chemistry students from a Public Northeastern University. J. Chem. Health Saf. 20, 17–26 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Probst, T. M., Barbaranelli, C. & Petitta, L. The relationship between job insecurity and accident under-reporting: A test in two countries. Work Stress 27, 383–402 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rathman, T. L. & Schwindeman, J. A. Preparation, properties, and safe handling of commercial organolithiums: Alkyllithiums, lithium sec-organoamides, and lithium alkoxides. Org. Process Res. Dev. 18, 1192–1210 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Mikula, H. et al. Practical and efficient large-scale preparation of dimethyldioxirane. Org. Process Res. Dev. 17, 313–316 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Morandi, B. & Carreira, E. M. Iron-catalyzed cyclopropanation in 6 M KOH with in situ generation of diazomethane. Science 335, 1471–1474 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Busura, S., Khan, F., Hawboldt, K. & Iliyas, A. Quantitative risk-based ranking of chemicals considering hazardous thermal reactions. J. Chem. Health Saf. 21, 27–38 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Frontier, A. Laboratory techniques and methods to improve your experimental skills. Not Voodoo (2019).

  31. 31.

    Lowe, D. How not to do it: Tertiary butyllithium. Science Mag (2007).

  32. 32.

    Snyder, S. A. Essential Reagents for Organic Synthesis (eds Fuchs, P., Bode, J., Charette, A. & Rovis, T) (Wiley, 2019).

  33. 33.

    Urben, P. G. Bretherick’s Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards 7th edn (Elsevier, 2017).

  34. 34.

    Bertozzi, C. R. Ingredients for a positive safety culture. ACS Cent. Sci. 2, 764–766 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Huising, R. & Silbey, S. S. Constructing consequences for noncompliance: The case of academic laboratories. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 649, 157–177 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hendershot, D. C. Process safety: Is safety “common sense”? J. Chem. Health Saf. 19, 35–36 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kemsley, J. N. Learning from UCLA. Chem. Eng. News 87, 29–34 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Schmidt, H. Anatomy of an incident—Multiple failure of safety systems under stress. J. Chem. Health Saf. 25, 6–11 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Cournoyer, M. E., Trujillo, S., Lawton, C. M., Land, W. M. & Schreiber, S. B. Anatomy of an incident. J. Chem. Health Saf. 23, 40–48 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Phifer, R. Case study – Incident investigation: Laboratory explosion. J. Chem. Health Saf. 21, 2–5 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Reason, J. The contribution of latent human failures to the breakdown of complex systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 327, 475–484 (1990).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Young, J. A. How complacency can jeopardize safety. Chem. Health Saf. 6, 5 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Wu, T.-C., Liu, C.-W. & Lu, M.-C. Safety climate in university and college laboratories: Impact of organizational and individual factors. J. Saf. Res. 38, 91–102 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Steward, J. E., Wilson, V. L. & Wang, W.-H. Evaluation of safety climate at a major public university. J. Chem. Health Saf. 23, 4–12 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Schröder, I., Huang, D. Y. Q., Ellis, O., Gibson, J. H. & Wayne, N. L. Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers. J. Chem. Health Saf. 23, 12–23 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    McEwen, L., Stuart, R., Sweet, E. & Izzo, R. Baseline survey of academic chemical safety information practices. J. Chem. Health Saf. 25, 6–10 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    King, M. F. & Bruner, G. C. Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol. Market. 17, 79–103 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. (Dryden Press, 1957).

  49. 49.

    Wardlaw, M. J. Three lessons for a better cycling future. BMJ 321, 1582–1585 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Finkelstein, E. A., Strombotne, K. L., Chan, N. L. & Krieger, J. Mandatory menu labeling in one fast-food chain in King County, Washington. Am. J. Prev. Med. 40, 122–127 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Ménard, A. D., Houser, C., Brander, R. W., Trimble, S. & Scaman, A. The psychology of beach users: Importance of confirmation bias, action, and intention to improving rip current safety. Nat. Hazards 94, 953–973 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Bretherick, L. Chemical laboratory safety: The academic anomaly. J. Chem. Educ. 67, A12 (1990).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Hill, R. H. Make safety a habit! J. Chem. Health Saf. 25, 12–17 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Darley, J. M. & Latane, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 8, 377–383 (1968).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Leggett, D. J. Identifying hazards in the chemical research laboratory. Process Saf. Prog. 31, 393–397 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Stuart, R. Emergency response training for laboratory workers. J. Chem. Health Saf. 17, 29–32 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Mogielnicki, R. P., Stevenson, K. A. & Willemain, T. R. Patient and bystander response to medical emergencies. Med Care 13, 753–762 (1975).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Shotland, R. L. & Heinold, W. D. Bystander response to arterial bleeding: Helping skills, the decision-making process, and differentiating the helping response. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 49, 347–356 (1985).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Hill, R. H. & Finster, D. C. Academic leaders create strong safety cultures in colleges and universities. J. Chem. Health Saf. 20, 27–34 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    West, S. S., Westerlund, J. F., Stephenson, A. L., Nelson, N. C. & Nyland, C. K. Safety in science classrooms: What research and best practice say. Educ. For. 67, 174–183 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Withers, J. H., Freeman, S. A. & Kim, E. Learning and retention of chemical safety training information: A comparison of classroom versus computer-based formats on a college campus. J. Chem. Health Saf. 19, 47–55 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Nelson, D. A. Incorporating chemical health and safety topics into chemistry curricula: Past accomplishments and future needs. Chem. Health Saf. 6, 43–48 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Fivizzani, K. P. Where are we with lab safety education: Who, what, when, where, and how? J. Chem. Health Saf. 23, 18–20 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Wood-Black, F. Incorporating safety into the general chemistry curriculum. J. Chem. Health Saf. 21, 14–21 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Crockett, J. M. Laboratory safety for undergraduates. J. Chem. Health Saf. 18, 16–25 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Bradley, S. Integrating safety into the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. J. Chem. Health Saf. 18, 4–10 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Burchett, S., Pfaff, A., Hayes, J. & Woelk, K. Exploding misconceptions: Developing a culture of safety through learner driven activities. J. Chem. Health Saf. 24, 36–42 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Matson, M. L., Fitzgerald, J. P. & Lin, S. Creating customized, relevant, and engaging laboratory safety videos. J. Chem. Educ. 84, 1727–1728 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Karapantsios, T. D., Boutskou, E. I., Touliopoulou, E. & Mavros, P. Evaluation of chemical laboratory safety based on student comprehension of chemicals labelling. Ed. Chem. Eng. 3, e66–e73 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Reniers, G. L. L., Ponnet, K. & Kempeneers, A. Higher education chemical lab safety interventions: Efficacious or ineffective? J. Chem. Health Saf. 21, 4–8 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Gallion, L. A., Samide, M. J. & Wilson, A. M. Demonstrating the importance of cleanliness and safety in an undergraduate teaching laboratory. J. Chem. Health Saf. 22, 28–31 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Alaimo, P. J., Langenhan, J. M., Tanner, M. J. & Ferrenberg, S. M. Safety teams: An approach to engage students in laboratory safety. J. Chem. Educ. 87, 856–861 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Kennedy, S. & Palmer, J. Teaching safety: 1000 students at a time. J. Chem. Health Saf. 18, 26–31 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W. & Gadegaard, H. Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE 11, e0155895 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Staehle, I. O. et al. An approach to enhance the safety culture of an academic chemistry research laboratory by addressing behavioral factors. J. Chem. Educ. 93, 217–222 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    McGarry, K. A. et al. Student involvement in improving the culture of safety in academic laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 90, 1414–1417 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Ritch, D. & Rank, J. Laboratory safety in the biology lab. Bioscene 27, 17–22 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Kapin, J. M. Beyond chemical safety— an integrated approach to laboratory safety management. Chem. Health Saf. 6, 20–22 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Shariff, A. M. & Norazahar, N. At-risk behaviour analysis and improvement study in chemical engineering laboratories. Int. J. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2, 51–55 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Wyllie, R., Lee, K., Morris-Benavides, S. & Matos, B. What to expect when you’re inspecting: A summary of academic laboratory inspection programs. J. Chem. Health Saf. 23, 18–24 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Ferjencik, M. & Jalovy, Z. What can be learned from incidents in chemistry labs. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 23, 630–636 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Young, J. A. The professional practice of chemical safety. Chem. Health Saf. 6, 41–42 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Marendaz, J.-L., Friedrich, K. & Meyer, T. Safety management and risk assessment in chemical laboratories. CHIMIA 65, 734–737 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Camino, F. E. Make safety awareness a priority: Use a login software in your research facility. J. Chem. Health Saf. 24, 22–25 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Nitsche, C. I., Whittick, G. & Manfredi, M. Collecting reaction incident information: Engaging the community in sharing safety learnings. J. Chem. Health Saf. 25, 2–5 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    LaPierre, J. It’s 1:30 a.m.-Do you know who’s in your laboratories? Chem. Health Saf. 6, 31–33 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Mulcahy, M. B. et al. College and university sector response to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board Texas Tech incident report and UCLA laboratory fatality. J. Chem. Health Saf. 20, 6–13 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    National Research Council. Prudent practices in the laboratory: Handling and disposal of chemicals (The National Academies Press, 1995).

  89. 89.

    Bayer, R. Lab safety as a collateral duty in small colleges. J. Chem. Educ. 61, A259 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Kaufman, J. A. Safety in the academic laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 55, A337 (1978).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Scherz, P. Risk, prudence and moral formation in the laboratory. J. Moral Educ. 47, 304–315 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Ashbrook, P. Laboratory safety in academia. J. Chem. Health Saf. 20, 62 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Ashbrook, P. C. Hazard assessment. J. Chem. Health Saf. 21, 35 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Ashbrook, P. C. Accountability. J. Chem. Health Saf. 20, 48 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Czornyj, E., Newcomer, D., Schroeder, I., Wayne, N. L. & Merlic, C. A. Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop Safety By Design – Improving safety in research laboratories. J. Chem. Health Saf. 25, 36–49 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Backus, B. D. et al. Laboratory safety culture: Summary of the chemical education research and practice – Safety in chemistry education panel discussion at the 46th Midwest and 39th Great Lakes Joint Regional American Chemical Society Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, on October 21, 2011. J. Chem. Health Saf. 19, 20–24 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Langerman, N. Laboratory safety? J. Chem. Health Saf. 16, 49–50 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Langerman, N. Reactive chemistry incidents in laboratories. J. Chem. Health Saf. 16, 23–26 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    McCroskey, J. C. in Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods (eds Daly, J.A., Friedrich, G.W. & Vangelisti, A.L.) 471–479 (Erlbaum Associates, 1990).

  100. 100.

    One injured in lab explosion at UCLA. Los Angeles Daily News (2019).

Download references


ADM and JFT would like to thank the University of Windsor for salary support for the preparation of this work. We would also like to thank C. Houser, K. Soucie, M. Bondy, J. Hayward and D. Cavallo-Medved for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information




A.D.M. wrote the draft of the paper; both A.D.M. and J.F.T. conducted the literature search and analysis; both A.D.M. and J.F.T. revised the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. Dana Ménard or John F. Trant.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

The investigation report prepared by California’s Division of Occupational Safety & Health relating to the laboratory accident at UCLA in 2008 that led to the death of Sheharbano Sangji.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ménard, A.D., Trant, J.F. A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nat. Chem. 12, 17–25 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing