For many lab managers, the real threat isn't a lack of safety rules—it’s the silent creep of routine. Even in labs with extensive documentation and robust policies, it is remarkably easy for staff to fall into a "workflow autopilot," where the diverse hazards of everyday work become background noise. The true challenge lies in ensuring that researchers don't just follow a baseline habit, but actively stop to evaluate if their standard gear matches the specific risk on their bench today.
Complacency often leads to a dangerous disconnect: staff may be over-protected for low-risk tasks, leading to dexterity issues and "safety fatigue," while remaining under-protected against high-risk, task-specific hazards. To bridge this gap, lab managers must move beyond a policy that merely looks good on paper and foster a strategy rooted in the actual, quantified risk of each task. This means treating PPE not as a primary solution, but as equipment worn to minimize exposure to specific hazards after higher-level controls have been exhausted. Transitioning to this data-driven model is essential for building a robust safety culture where protection is viewed as a professional investment rather than a compliance checklist.
Moving beyond blanket policies with hazard risk assessment
Establishing a protective strategy requires identifying all workplace hazards through a comprehensive assessment of work practices, equipment, and environment. Jason Nagy, PhD, laboratory safety support coordinator at Sentara Health, explains that the shift away from broad mandates requires a granular focus. "Moving away from a blanket PPE policy begins with an understanding of the specific risks associated with a bench or even a single task," says Nagy.
This granularity cannot be achieved through casual observation. Instead, it requires a structured approach to identifying the dangers inherent in daily operations—a process that often reveals hidden hazards that might otherwise be overlooked. A formal walkthrough survey should evaluate several categories of danger: impact, penetration, compression, chemical, heat, cold, harmful dust, light radiation, and biological agents.
By documenting every step of a laboratory process, a manager can identify exactly where current PPE may fall short. Nagy notes that while it is easy to remember that a face shield is required when loading samples on an analyzer, "other hidden risks may also exist when staff perform instrument maintenance or even when disposing of instrument waste.” He adds, "By evaluating every step of a process, managers can pinpoint exactly where additional protection is required and provide it when needed."
Furthermore, it is crucial that both staff and leaders understand the technical requirements behind the gear they select. Regulatory standards often mandate higher levels of protection than what is traditionally used on the bench. For instance, a manager might assume standard safety glasses are sufficient for working with open specimens. However, Nagy points out that "OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard mandates chin-length face shields or a goggles and mask combination to protect not just the eyes, but their nose and mouth." When the logic behind these regulations is clear, the team is better equipped to make informed safety decisions. "When staff understand the why behind these requirements, they are more empowered to make safer choices," says Nagy.
Hierarchy of controls and the role of personal protective equipment
In safety management, PPE is often described as the last line of defense. This is because PPE does not eliminate the hazard; it merely creates a physical barrier between the worker and the hazard. If the barrier fails—through a tear in a glove or a poorly fitted mask—the worker is immediately exposed.
Lab Safety Management Certificate
The Lab Safety Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
According to the hierarchy of controls, lab managers should prioritize elimination, substitution, and engineering controls before relying on PPE. Engineering controls are particularly effective because they function independently of the user’s behavior. "Engineering controls like biological safety cabinets and chemical fume hoods are the gold standard because they provide a physical barrier that separates staff from hazards without any additional effort by the user," explains Nagy.
Implementing these controls can also reduce the need for more restrictive, uncomfortable gear that requires significant administrative oversight. For example, respiratory protection programs are notoriously difficult to manage, requiring medical clearances and fit testing. Nagy notes that engineering controls "remove the need for various types of additional respiratory protection like N95 masks and respirators, which require annual fitting testing, can be uncomfortable to wear at times, and can leave staff unprotected if not maintained or worn properly." By investing in superior engineering controls, lab managers can simplify their safety protocols and improve their staff's daily experience.
Interested in lab health and safety?
The science of glove compatibility and breakthrough times
One of the most persistent myths in the lab is that nitrile gloves are a universal shield against all liquid threats. In reality, chemical resistance varies widely among materials and even among different brands of the same material. The metric that matters most for lab managers is breakthrough time—the time it takes for a chemical to permeate the glove material at a molecular level.
"Managers should never assume that a glove used in the clinical lab is a universal shield," says Nagy. For common solvents like acetone or xylene, the breakthrough time for a standard four-mil nitrile glove can be surprisingly short, sometimes occurring in just a few minutes. "The truth of the matter is that many of the nitrile products worn throughout the lab are not recommended for use with several chemicals, one such being acetone," explains Nagy. "Therefore, it is essential to know the performance specifics of your gloves to ensure protection and avoid a false sense of security."
To manage this risk, leaders must look beyond the generic label on the box. "Some glove manufacturers will provide glove breakthrough times or permeation rates on the back of the box for common chemicals, including some cytotoxic drugs found in hospital settings," notes Nagy. However, a high rating for one type of chemical does not guarantee protection against another. "Leaders cannot assume that just because a glove is highly rated for a chemotherapeutic drug, that it will provide protection for other common lab chemicals," Nagy warns.
When a specific chemical is not listed on the packaging, lab managers should take a proactive approach to verification. "Reach out to the manufacturer or distributor directly and request a product specification sheet," suggests Nagy. "If they cannot provide one, then it may be time to look at other products." Creating a comprehensive list of all chemicals used in the lab through a hazard risk assessment is the best way to ensure that the gloves provided are truly compatible with the tasks performed.
Building a safety culture from compliance to commitment
The ultimate goal of any safety program is to transition the team’s mindset from "I am wearing this because it is a rule" to "I am wearing this because I understand the hazard." Shifting human behavior is a slow process that requires consistent leadership. "Shifting a person’s motivation can be difficult, but not impossible. It just takes time," says Nagy.
A culture based solely on the fear of punishment is inherently fragile. "Staff who only wear PPE to avoid punishment will often cut corners or refuse to wear them when working alone or when a manager isn't looking," explains Nagy. These individuals often fail to recognize the immediate and long-term consequences of risky behavior. Therefore, the responsibility falls on the lab manager and the safety team to provide meaningful training that emphasizes the personal impact of safety.
This cultural shift begins the moment a new employee enters the facility. "This starts at new hire orientation, where the manager can emphasize the consequences of the hazards rather than just the rules of the lab," says Nagy. This is also the ideal time to clarify that PPE usage is an expectation of employment and to discuss the outcomes of non-compliance.
Ongoing education is equally vital to maintaining a high laboratory safety culture. "Frequent discussion of safety during huddles, including near misses, great catches, and safety incidents, brings reality to the consequences of not wearing PPE," Nagy suggests. These conversations should extend to the hidden costs of safety failures, which affect everything from the organization's reputation to its financial health. As Nagy explains, "their poor safety choices can influence the ability of the lab to purchase reagents, new instruments, or even offer annual raises." When staff recognize that safety is a shared resource, the environment matures. "When staff see safety as an investment in their own professional future, the culture shifts from compliance to commitment," he says.
