Kathie Lambert and Donald Kyle have both kindly sent me copies of the
concentrate and working solution MSDSs in question (Thanks!!!). You may
download them at:

http://www.protonique.com/download/

Quite frankly, I don't find them the most informative MSDSs that I've
ever seen but they probably conform to the legal minimum. It may be that
the manufacturer may be afraid of scaring off potential users by giving
more information.

One point I should like to make is that because a substance has not had
a limit determined, such as the PEL, it does not necessarily mean that
it is harmless. It only means that no toxicity data is available for the
necessary authorities to fix a limit. The 2-amino-2-methyl propanol is
one of a large series of amines with one to three alkane carbons tagged
onto a nitrogen atom. I haven't found this particular one in my
database, so cannot give more info. Very few of them, other than the
straight, common, ones, such as MEA and DEA, have had toxicity studies
done, with PELs determined. (Those that have all have low PELs, so that
it must be assumed that this one does, as well, until scientific proof
to the contrary has been determined.)

This brings me to a more general statement.

Very few of us practitioners in the electronics industry have the
slightest knowledge of chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology or
environmental sciences. Yet we blithely use a whole arsenal of
chemicals, often in total ignorance of their potential hazards. As a
general rule, if the manufacturers don't lay their cards on the table,
then this situation will continue. The MSDS, as we have probably seen in
this case, may play down the danger. The IPC itself has suggested using
dangerous chemicals without sufficient appropriate warnings (e.g., the
so-called acetonitrile test, where the synonym of the substance used is
methyl cyanide. See http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/a0518.htm for an MSDS.).

I would suggest that the IPC may care to consider approaching suppliers
to our industry and asking them to start a "cards-on-the-table" policy
and being FULLY open and honest as to the potential dangers to operators
with little chemical knowledge and to the environment under normal use.
This would mean going farther than the strict minimal legal obligation.
In counterpart, the IPC could award a logo that the supplier could
publish on his data sheet that would inform the user that the safety
info given is good and reliable (this would have to be on a
product-by-product basis). Just a thought...


Brian

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------