Report comment

So is Chemistry World written just for the American audience? The author provides details of American classification but fails to explore the findings of the European Chemical Agency. He also failed to contact the organisation than deals with safety in schools, namely CLEAPSS. Even the Daily Mail contacted CLEAPSS on reporting a girl being affected by this slime craze. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4275062/Schoolgirl-10-suffers-burns-rainbow-slime.html
The experiment first appeared (for me as a teacher) in a Nuffield A level chemistry special study to illustrate cross linking in the 1970s. But then the “edutainers” got hold of it, just to bring out the Yuk factor. Personally, I do not want my subject to be seen as Yuk, (nor as just explosions and fire either). Chemistry has supplied so much to our lives, we should celebrate it, although pointing out how it can be abused. Slime is a non-Newtonian liquid but so is cornflower and custard as stated. The children are not studying thixotropic properties at this level. It is not in the syllabus. Teachers claim they have no time to teach the syllabus and will find time for the Yuk factor.
Up to about 2010 there was no issue with slime making. In fact there were commercial products available in our toy shops but then the CMR hazard classification of borates was announced. I know that this caused a big argument. You can see all the comments here.
SVHC_RCOM_Disodium tetraborate anhydrous_pub.doc
The European directive on chemicals in toys (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/toys/safety/ ) does not allow CMR chemicals to be sold so slime making kits cannot be bought.
For schools, CLEAPSS and SSERC are constantly monitoring the situation and looking for alternatives. We found commercial eye-drop solutions from the pharmacist with sodium hydrogen carbonate present made an effective crosslinking reagent. There is boric acid in the pharmaceutical solution. So we can buy boric acid solution to put in our eyes but not buy solid boric acid (or borax) compounds, even 5 g, in chemistry sets.
Slime can be made at schools but handling it requires gloves because the pH is about 9.2 which will affect some people. (Remember, they are HANDLING IT not transferring by pouring or using a pipette as we do in the labs with liquids or using a spatula with solids). It should not go home because you do not know who is going to handle it at home, it will dry and the powders will come out. It is used in primary schools, usually by outreach visitors and secondary school visitors. CLEAPSS can assist here.
Then low and behold your star performer on your video uses his bare hands to manipulate it and does not wear eye protection. The substance is classified by some suppliers as causing serious eye irritation as well.
Some recipes on the web which teenagers are finding, use concentrated laundry gel. I looked at one and it contained 60% sodium carbonate which will certainly make the hands raw. So probably the Daily Mail got the emphasis wrong in their reporting. However, I think the CW reporting should cover both European and American hazard reporting. Your reporters should realise that schools sign up to body which monitors safety in schools which is used by HSE, the DFE and Education in Chemistry, the RSC publication for those in education.
CLEAPSS and SSERC in Scotland can only work on the information given by the toxicological experts at the European Chemical Agency and the comment “well it never did me any harm” will not wash (sorry about the pun!).
Why do I suddenly get an inferiority complex when I read articles on school chemistry and education in Chemistry World? I feel I being firmly put in my place.