5.2 The Toxicology Audit:
Students taking toxicology come from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, and the Audit is a hands-on study which the student can tailor to their own professional needs, making it an important part of their transcript and employment applications. Experiential work is often highly regarded when applications for employment are being made.
For the Audit, the student chooses an operation, industry or premises with the aim of assessing and reporting on aspects of the:
• production, handling, transport, storage and use of poisonous substances
• hazard associated with products and processes
• existing safety precautions and the improvement of these procedures
Fundamental to the audit is the identification of a suitable premises or operation by the student. There are many premises to choose from because almost every type of human activity has its associated chemicals, many of which are toxic if humans are exposed to them in the wrong way or at the wrong dose. A horticulture student might, for example, select a flower nursery with its multitude of herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers, while a medical science student might want to choose the hospital pharmacy or oncology research unit to carry out the audit. An environmental health practitioner might chose a chemical manufacturing plant, service station or hardware warehouse, while an animal scientist might chose a horse unit with its range of drenches and other treatments, or even a unit in which poisonous snakes are handled. You will find managers and staff to be generally supportive with regard to your assessment and if you require a letter of introduction from the University, this is available. While University laboratories have their share of poisonous substances, these premises have been over-studied by toxicology students, with similar, repetitive reports being presented each year on the same conditions and hazards. Because of this lack of originality University laboratories are seen to offer a situation with minimal original investigation potential for the Audit, and are likely to receive lesser recognition during the marking process than audits carried out in more original or challenging settings. Your own home is also not a suitable subject for the audit, but a business in which you work or a high school which you attended might be. You are covered by university insurance while carrying out this work but should you enter areas which are not normally public domain, or well-covered by safety requirements of the operation under consideration, then a risk assessment form submitted to your lecturer is a requirement. Please note that there will be no marks awarded for completion of this document.
It is essential that a real premises or operation is studied; it is not adequate to give generalisations about a generic type of premises or operation as actual hazard depends very much on local conditions.
5.2.1 Suggested approach
While the detailed approach will be left up to the student, it is recommended that at least the following steps be followed in order for the audit to be complete. Please visit the Study Planner for the suggested timeline:
i. Think of a number of premises which might give you access to information relating to substances used or stored. Visit a number of these places and make contact with the person in charge to assess feasibility of an investigation. Sometimes it is better to build up cooperation in a stepwise fashion, and this likely to be more productive if the student presents themselves in a professional way (eg: making an appointment, introducing themselves confidently with a handshake, having read up on the situation so that intelligent questions can be asked and time is not wasted, and dressing like a professional).
ii. To develop a background knowledge, carry out a literature search to orientate yourself to the process and substances at the premises. This could be done by calling-up abstracts of some relevant papers from the e-collection on the Library site (Science Direct and Scopus are useful).
iii. When premises are selected take an inventory of all the substances at the premises which may be toxic. Keep in mind that almost all substances can be toxic but this is dose dependent. Think laterally because some common substances which might be taken for granted are hazardous when the risk (the product of probability and consequence of exposure) is great. Plan your visits with lists of items you want to see to ensure the visits are efficient and systematic. Draw up questions for your contact person in the industry, some of which could be Emailed for them to answer when convenient. Keep in mind that questions relating to their personal feelings or beliefs are unacceptable as these would require UWS Ethics Committee approval, and that information obtained should be of an objective or factual nature only relating to substances handled, processes used, etc. In this regard asking for handouts or manuals on process or products could be productive.
iv. The name, telephone number or email, and name of the business relevant to this contact person must be provided. A mark will not be returned for the work unless this contact information is provided in the front of the Audit, after the cover sheet.
v. Select four substances which pose the greatest risk to employees or the public (probably not both) under the pertaining environmental and operational circumstances, for study in detail. Your reasons for selecting these as the most hazardous will need to be carefully explained in the audit, and reasoning should not be based on intrinsic toxicity alone. This concept will be explained during the course of the lectures/modules. You will need to build a knowledge of the toxicity and health impacts of these substances, as well as a knowledge of how they should be handled. Do not merely draw on MSDSs in this process, although they can provide a useful starting point. You will probably need to revisit the premises to see how they actually are handled. Please note that this is not a social survey or personal opinion survey in which staff are subjected to assessment or required to complete a questionnaire, which would require ethics approval. Information should be gained from your contact person and from your direct observations.
vi. Carry out separate short reviews of three relevant journal papers (they could be on the substances or on process, handling, physiological effects, case studies of poisoning, etc.) These reviews should be included in your submission as an Appendix, clearly indicated so they can be easily identified by the marker. It is not necessary to reference or cross-reference the reviews, which should be carried out separately. The four reviews do not have to relate to the four main substances. One, for example, could be on general hazards in that industry, another on worker exposure to general hazards in that industry, and two on the chemistry or pathophysiology of relevant chemicals. Each review should be in three sections, which will be treated equally for marking purposes:
a. a summary, being a précis of the content of the paper (do not merely copy the abstract, though abstracts can be useful in guiding your summary)
b. analysis of the content, being a critical evaluation of the paper’s strengths and weaknesses. Some guidance can be obtained by considering if the six interrogative questions addressed in the report (who, what, where, how, why, when)? Did it clearly articulate information to the reader? Were there any flaws when compared to other sources? It is not necessary to reference your three journal reviews.
c. relevance of the paper to your chosen field of investigation for the audit. Each of these three sections carries equal marks, and equal attention should therefore be given to each. See Procedures for guidelines on this type of reporting.
Abstracts from each paper (but not the entire paper) should also be submitted in a separate Appendix.
vii. Complete the Audit report for submission by the deadline indicated in the Study Planner.
5.2.2 Material to include
In summary, the Audit report should include:
i. A comprehensive list (inventory) of all hazardous chemicals found in the operation or on the premises, or in the section or operation studied, with trade names, generic names, toxicity data (eg: TLVs, LD50s) where available, and uses in the premises.
ii. A list of four which appear to present the greatest risk with a well motivated discussion explaining why these four were chosen, with regard to the local setting (this should include a discussion of their intrinsic toxicity, the potential for exposure, the existence of -sensitive- individuals (eg: children, pregnant women), or any special circumstances relating to handling, storage, production practice or use which make them particularly hazardous in that local setting. It is important that discussion relating to their choice refers to the local setting, and is not merely based on general concerns.
iii. A description of the:
a. chemistry of each of the four substances, their groups and individual nature, physiological reasons for their toxicity, etc
b. the potential route into the body in that specific industry,
c. potentially effected organs or tissues (‘targets’), given exposure action on relevant bodily structures or functions. Comments on their action on Most Sensitive Individuals (MSIs), such as pregnant women, and Most Exposed Individuals (MEIs), such as chemical handlers. In this regard information in Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), which are produced for every chemical supplied by bulk suppliers, can give useful guidance. Do not, however, merely -lift- information from MSDSs as they are lay documents written in a very abbreviated style and most parts of the audit required consideration and discussion of a range of information.
d. Uses of the substances in the actual premises or operation, with details of production, handling, storage and transportation procedures, and possible hazards presented.
e. A set of guidelines for hazard reduction in those specific premises (ie: not in general).
iv. Three journal reviews relevant to the selected substances, or to other aspects of the Audit.
v. Any diagrams or photographs (which you have been permitted to take at the premises) to illustrate points made in the Audit.
vi. Do not forget to include the supportive sections of a report, such as title, table of contents, introduction, and (very important) references used. When you are writing the report try to imagine you are writing it to a management person or client who has asked for the Audit to be carried out, as the Audit will be marked from this professional perspective.
vii. The audit should be typed in Times New Roman 12 point script, with single spacing.
viii. It is essential you use the Assignment Submission Checklist when submitting so that marks are not lost for late submission caused by submission errors.
5.2.3 Marking Schedule for the Audit
The University requires that for transparency to students, and to expedite marking of long essay-type questions, Marking Schedules are established and used to guide the marking process. In terms of UWS requirements it is only necessary that a “box tick” be provided with each section with a final grade. In Toxicology, however, some specific marking comments are also returned to support the learning exercise.
The following Marking Schedule to be applied to the Audit assessment, indicates the criteria and sub-descriptors which will be used in assessing assignments and providing a mark. When the Schedule is returned to the student with marks, the student should examine their own work in association with marking comments indicated by the relevant field of the schedule, to understand why they have attained the awarded mark.
Audit Marking Schedule. Student name: SN:
Criteria Does not demonstrate the required level of achievement in addressing the relevant criteria
(Mark in range 0-2.9) Only partially demonstrates the required level of achievement in addressing the relevant criteria
(Mark in range 3.0-4.9) Addresses most or all of the relevant criteria, offering substantial and generally convincing discussion
Mark in range 5-7.4) Thoroughly addresses all relevant criteria, offering excellent and highly convincing discussion
(Mark in range 7.5-10)
Orientation, as shown by title, introduction, description or depiction of site or operation, extent of engagement, contact details, and general substance inventory.
(weighting=1, nominal mark=10) Orientation to operation/premises incomplete or very weak suggestive of substantial problems relating to investigation or engagement, under-standing of factors of toxicological relevance, or ability to con-
struct logical poisons inventory Orientation to operation/premises lacks clarity suggestive of problems relating to investigation or engagement, understanding of factors of toxicological relevance, or
ability to construct logical
poisons inventory Orientation to operation/premises is clearly shown suggesting good investigation and engagement, good understanding of factors of toxicological relevance, and
ability to construct logical
poisons inventory Orientation to operation/premises is very well shown suggesting excellent investigation and engagement, understanding of factors of toxicological relevance, and ability to construct
logical poisons inventory
Hazard identification, as shown by selection of main 4 based on:
a. intrinsic toxicity (access to, and use of, measures)
b. exposure potential (environmental and operational factors). (weighting=1, nominal mark=10) The Audit does not present adequate information on intrinsic toxicity, or exposure potential in terms of environmental and operational factors, and/or does not integrate this information in identifying relative hazard The Audit does not clearly identify information on both intrinsic toxicity, and exposure potential in terms of environmental and operational factors, and is unable to integrate this information well in identifying
relative hazard The Audit clearly identifies information on both intrinsic toxicity, and exposure potential in terms of environmental and operational factors, and integrates this information well in identifying
relative hazard The Audit exhaustively identifies information on both intrinsic toxicity, and exposure potential in terms of environmental and operational factors, and integrates this information exceptionally well
in identifying relative hazard
Risk characterisation, as shown by chem. and pathophys. properties of main 4, exposure routes, disposition, health impacts, case records, etc.
(weighting=1, nominal mark=10) Main 4 are not characterised, or are inadequately characterised, in terms of chemical and pathophysiological properties, exposure routes, disposition, health impacts, etc.
Main 4 are only partially characterised in terms of chemical and pathophysiological properties, exposure routes, disposition,
health impacts, etc. Main 4 are well characterised in terms of chemical and pathophysiological properties, exposure routes, disposition,
health impacts, etc. Main 4 are exceptionally well characterised in terms of chemical and pathophysiological properties, exposure routes, disposition,
health impacts, etc.
Risk management, as shown by:
a. general measures
b. local measures relating to specific substances, environment, and procedures
(weighting=1, nominal mark=10) Risk management is not dealt with, or is very poorly dealt with, in terms of general and local measures Risk management could be better dealt with in terms of general and local measures Risk management would be satisfactory in terms of general and local measures Risk management is excellent in terms of both general and local measures
Report substantiation, shown by quality of referencing, journal revs., general relevance to premises, etc. (weighting=1, nominal mark=10) Audit lacks quality or completeness in one or more of the areas of referencing, journal reviews, or
relevance to actual premises Audit lacks quality in terms of one or more of the areas of referencing, lit. reviews, and relevance to actual premises Audit is a quality product in terms of referencing, lit. reviews and relevance to actual premises Audit is a product of outstanding quality in terms of referencing, lit. reviews, and relevance to actual premises
Mark /50 ......................Mark/40..........................
Comments: