I agree – I see a lot of “kits” in biology and frankly the MSDS is useless!

It is practically impossible to know what is in these produc ts and how to dispose of the waste.

I am keeping the MSDS though!!

That might work in chemistry labs where c hemicals are single substances for the most part, but not in other workplac es where the products are complex mixtures of stuff.  You'll need all the information on the MSDS to track down manufacturers that are out of business, ingredients whose source is not identified, and other data .

For example, having a list that includes a mineral substances such as talc, clay, titanium dioxide, etc., does not tell you if the talc is from upstat e New York mines and contains asbestos, the clay is high in free silica, or the titanium dioxide is from lead-contaminated anastase ores.

My advice is to keep the MSDSs if you are talking mixtures.

Monona

In a message dated 2/23/2011 9:01:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**ROCHE STER.RR.COM writes:

There are many good reasons to retain older MSDS, and several have been mentioned in this conversation - b ut OSHA does not require that.  As noted, any record that identifies t he materials used, and when and where used can serve the function required by OSHA.  As part of the Hazard Commu nication standard you ought to have an annual list of the materials in use by each group. That list should provide the required information.
 
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY

PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com