JefferyH
Hazard to Self
Posts: 97
Registered: 7-5-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How carcinogenic is benzene really?
What is the consensus here? I have to work with some and no other reagent will do (no toluene, xylene, etc). Should I be wearing a ventilator mask?
The room I work in has it's air totally replaced/cleaned/filtered once per minute.
I've heard differing opinions on this greatly. Some people say that it was only labeled carinogenic because it used to be found in drinks and drinking
it could make you sick. Other people say inhaling the fumes can give you cancer. Other people say as long as you don't lather your skin with it you
should be fine (based on the fact that people used to wash their hands with it? Yet many of them don't have cancer.)
The opinion I encounter most is that it only has the carcinogenic status because of the FDA and its past occurence in food (from decomposition of
benzoic acid), and that it is no more carcinogenic than toluene or any other similar hydrocarbon. Though, I don't really know what "makes" it
carcinogenic. Any solvent entering into the body is bad, but benzene is far more stable than something like Toluene or Xylene so I don't see how it
could be more carcinogenic than those.
Edit: Yes I've read the threads here...but all opinions seem to differ.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=29711
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=11925
One of those threads stated it was merely a matter of correlation, and that it was declared carcinogenic after a correlation study of people who had
been exposed to it for 5-20+ years. There was also the list of known carcinogens which someone claimed Benzene was at the bottom..... so am I more
likely to get cancer by inhaling second hand ciggarete fumes?
[Edited on 13-7-2014 by JefferyH]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Benzene is known to increase the risk of cancer, but this does not make it instant death in a bottle.
It is all a matter of doses and frequency of exposure. I look at it like smoking cigarettes. Each cigarette you smoke increases the risk of cancer
somewhat, but if you smoke a few cigarettes in your life and then do not smoke again, the risk can be neglected. The same is true for working with
benzene. If you use it for some experiments and these experiments are just something for a short period of time (e.g. a few days, and you only get a
few whiffs per day), then I would not worry very much. If you expect to work with benzene on a day by day basis for a long time (months, years), then
I certainly would try to avoid every exposure.
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2753
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Online
Mood: Mildly disgruntled scientist
|
|
I know people that used it for years with no problem. As stated above, it is a minor carcinogen, so no worse than smoking one cigarette, and much
less addictive. If you use it for a simple project, it is unlikely to create any great risk. Most chemicals are like that, asbestos, benzene, DCM,
silica gel and others are all labelled as cancer suspect or carcinogen, but are much less dangerous that compounds which are known to cause mutations
quickly, such as aminonapthelenes, alkyl iodides etc, N-mustards, and most older anti-cancer drugs. Some of those can cause issues with much smaller
exposures over shorter times. But even those are not fast, many take years of use to create a risk.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4619
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Dr.Bob  | | most older anti-cancer drugs. Some of those can cause issues with much smaller exposures over shorter times. But even those are not fast, many
take years of use to create a risk. |
There's some cruel irony in that...
Anti-cancer drug... may greatly increase risk of cancer.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You might as well wear a respirator unless it impairs your ability to work. I know my current boss (pharmacology) freaks out about toluene
(competitive inhibitor of benzene genotoxification), but when I worked in synthesis there were all kinds of open solvent drums just venting into the
general labspace, for whatever that's worth....
Not just the pharmaceutical treatments, either!
|
|
|
NexusDNA
Hazard to Others
Posts: 104
Registered: 23-11-2013
Location: Brazil, under an umbrella
Member Is Offline
Mood: Liberated from cocoon
|
|
Benzene is undoubtedly carcinogenic for prolonged exposure, but working with it in the lab with safety equipment is thought to be harmless. Here is a short documentary about the correlation between benzene and leukemia in China.
I believe you may have already seen it before, but research suggests that metabolites such as epoxides of benzene and phenol are responsible for the
carcinogenic properties of these compounds. Here is a [rather inconclusive] study on rat liver DNA.
Bromine, definitely bromine.
|
|
|
Manifest
Script Kiddie Asshole
Posts: 229
Registered: 7-12-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well think of it this way, alcohol is a carcinogen. When you stand around other people smoking you are breathing in carcinogens.
You have a greater chance of being killed in a road accident than developing cancer from short exposure to benzene.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
More recent review here as well: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=29...
[Edited on 14-7-2014 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447593/
provides a comprehensive explanation of aplastic anemia and
leukemia. The recommended exposure on a 15 minute interval is
5 ppm (which is pretty darn low). You are much more likely to get
aplastic anemia than leukemia. Consistently high level exposure to
benzene will kill you from aplastic anemia well before you get
leukemia. As the article states the danger is linear. Meaning
that the longer you are exposed and the higher the level of exposure
the greater the risk.
Very few compounds are 'known carcinogens', many are 'suspected'.
The fact that benzene is a 'known carcinogen' should indicate it is
much more likely to cause cancer than other things.
But as others have stated the risk from occasional low level exposure
is minimal. Another consideration is your familial risk. If you have
family members with cancer, it may be advisable to further reduce
your risk by staying away from potential carcinogens.
|
|
|
Ascaridole
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 11-9-2013
Location: Hawaii, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Searching for glass....
|
|
I don't think benzene is that dangerous. If you are careless and irresponsible yes it can be dangerous but so is aniline and may indicators. Be
responsible and always use PPE.
Now dimethyl sulfate... that is some dangerous stuff...
Ascaridole, the masked bandit of chemistry!
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone |
Very few compounds are 'known carcinogens', many are 'suspected'.
The fact that benzene is a 'known carcinogen' should indicate it is
much more likely to cause cancer than other things.
. |
Or it means that benzene has been studied more carefully (possibly because it's widely used and a "prototype" aromatic chemical) or that it causes an
obscure cancer that highlights the cause.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | | Quote: Originally posted by macckone |
Very few compounds are 'known carcinogens', many are 'suspected'.
The fact that benzene is a 'known carcinogen' should indicate it is
much more likely to cause cancer than other things.
. |
Or it means that benzene has been studied more carefully (possibly because it's widely used and a "prototype" aromatic chemical) or that it causes an
obscure cancer that highlights the cause.
|
Here is the complete list on 'known carcinogens'.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/listedsubstanceskno...
Benzene has been well studied but it does not cause an 'obscure'
cancer. The specific type of anemia it causes is fairly unique.
Benzene is pretty carcinogenic but as any cancer doc will tell you
there also has to be a genetic predisposition. Unfortunately
scientist no longer run experiments on humans so making definitive
links is harder for more recently studied chemicals.
Finding a substance is a suspected carcinogen usually uses rat or
tissue models. These can break badly. Saccharin for example which
is known to cause bladder cancer in rats but the mechanism leading
to tumor formation in rats does not occur in normal humans (not
saying it can't in abnormal humans).
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I was pointing out that one of the reasons why a chemical might be a "known" rather than "suspected" carcinogen is that it causes an obscure cancer
(for example oat cell carcinoma and Bis chloromethyl ether).
I didn't say that benzene caused an odd cancer.
However acute myeloid leukemia is relatively rare and strongly associated with benzene exposure.
I'm guessing you didn't really mean to say "Unfortunately scientist no longer run experiments on humans so making definitive links is harder for more
recently studied chemicals."
Once a material is a strongly suspected carcinogen it is usually treated pretty much the same as a known carcinogen.
So there's not much incentive to do the additional research that would offer final "proof" of carcinogenicity
|
|
|
Ascaridole
Hazard to Self
Posts: 67
Registered: 11-9-2013
Location: Hawaii, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Searching for glass....
|
|
Any chemical should always be treated as if hazardous. Especially in the case of home experimenters. Assuming a reagent that may not be normally toxic
or carcinogenic as safe may be a fatal mistake.
Purity is most times unknown and what may be 98% acetone may very well contain 2% formaldehyde or any number of other unknown chemicals. All chemicals
should be treated with respect and handled responsibly. Naturally certain chemical should be handled with more care depending of their inherent
hazards but treating acetone as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) is a bad practice.
At my lab even if a chemical is of known purity from a reliable source I always tell my workers to treat it as if the impurities could be hazardous.
Always better to be safe than filling out an EH&S report for an accident.
Ascaridole, the masked bandit of chemistry!
|
|
|
Pyro
International Hazard
Posts: 1305
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Gent, Belgium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
according to the wiki page in benzene if you work an entire life at 40h per week with an exposure of 1ppm of benzene in the air, you will have a 0,5%
bigger chance of getting leukemia. (thats +-83200 hours of exposure, assuming a working life is 40 years (20-60))
so our few hours experimenting with benzene should hardly be a problem
all above information is intellectual property of Pyro.  |
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
