Evaluations using test queries of chemical hazards databases and databanks

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This paper consists of short reports on three projects which evaluated online chemical hazards services. Two were studies of bibliographical databases and one a study of databanks. Test queries were used in the evaluations. The chemical hazards bibliographic databases studied were HSEline, CISDOC, Laboratory Hazards Bulletin (LHB), Chemical Hazards in Industry (CHI), Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), Safety Science Abstracts (SSA), EMBASE, BIOSIS, MEDLINE and CASearch. The main conclusion reached was that whilst all the databases included relevant references none provided comprehensive coverage for the test queries. HSEline produced the highest number of relevant references and LHB and CHI also performed well, but most of the other databases were useful for some of the queries. The chemical hazards databanks compared were RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances), HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank), OHMTADS (Oil and Hazardous Materials - Technical Assistance Data - system), BAKER, CHRIS (Chemical Hazards Response Information System) and CESARS (Chemical Evaluation Search and Re trieval System). The main conclusions of the evaluation were that HSDB gives the widest subject coverage and has the longest datasheets. Its coverage of animal toxicology is as good as that of RTECS. HSDB is the best source for human toxicity information and has the same amount or more information than BAKER and CHRIS on emergency actions. RTECS concentrates on toxic effects and has little information on physical/chemical properties, manufacture, emergency han dling, chemical reactions or explosive properties. OHMTADS does not contain first aid procedures but gives concise infor mation on other emergency actions. BAKER and CHRIS are useful for substance identification, waste management and emergency spill procedures.