Campus Alert Archive
UMN

A solvent swap during an azide synthesis blows out a fume hood, injuring a grad student

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
MNhazmatemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed Threat

On the afternoon of June 17, 2014, a fifth-year University of Minnesota chemistry graduate student was burned and cut when his attempted synthesis of trimethylsilyl azide (TMS-azide) detonated inside a fume hood on the fourth floor of Smith Hall. The student had scaled up from published procedures to a 200 g batch and substituted polyethylene glycol (PEG) for the original solvent. The blast shattered all four sides of the fume hood, damaged an adjacent hood, and blew out an exterior window.

Alerts
3
Response
7 min
Killed
0
Injured
1
Institution
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
Public R1 · MN
All UMN cases →
~52,000 studentsSAFE-U
Official alert policy
Read when and how UMN says it will use SAFE-U: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

3 messages in sequence · 1 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

Some messages in this sequence are documented (their existence, timing, and channel are sourced) but their exact wording is not preserved in the public record. Those entries appear as placeholders; only confirmed text is displayed.

INITIAL ALERTSMS
Verified verbatim188 chars
U of M Twin Cities: CHEMICALSPILL/SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE..IF YOU ARE IN THIS BUILDING NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA.... updates and safety tips at z.umn.edu/alerts
Verify this quote
UMN Department of Public Safety SAFE-U Emergency archive (exact Everbridge message text)publicsafety.umn.edufind archived copies
Exact SAFE-U/Everbridge text preserved including CHEMICALSPILL/ all-caps path style and double periods
Canonical archive URL: publicsafety.umn.edu/safe-u-emergency-147 (node/791)
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

U of M Twin Cities: CHEMICALSPILL/SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE..IF YOU ARE IN THIS BUILDING NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA.... updates and safety tips at z.umn.edu/alerts

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: 'U of M Twin Cities' branded signature identifies the sending institution.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    2. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    3. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' branded signature identifies sender.
    4. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    5. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    6. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    7. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution/branded alert.
    8. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' branded signature.
    9. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the issuing institution.
    10. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    11. present: Branded 'U of M Twin Cities' signature identifies sender.
    12. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the issuing university.
    13. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the issuing institution.
    14. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    15. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    16. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' branded signature identifies sender.
    17. present: Branded 'U of M Twin Cities' signature identifies the sender.
    18. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    19. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    20. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' branded signature identifies sender.
    21. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    22. present: Signed 'U of M Twin Cities' as the issuing institution.
    23. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    24. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' identifies the sending institution.
    25. present: 'U of M Twin Cities' names the issuing institution.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard explicitly.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' as the specific hazard.
    2. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' explicitly.
    3. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    4. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' as the specific hazard.
    5. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific threat.
    6. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    7. present: States 'CHEMICALSPILL' as the specific threat.
    8. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the hazard.
    9. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific threat.
    10. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific threat.
    11. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' as specific threat.
    12. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' as the specific hazard.
    13. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    14. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    15. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    16. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    17. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' as the specific threat.
    18. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    19. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    20. present: States 'CHEMICALSPILL' explicitly.
    21. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' as the specific hazard.
    22. present: Names 'CHEMICALSPILL' explicitly.
    23. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    24. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific hazard.
    25. present: 'CHEMICALSPILL' names the specific threat.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives an exact building address.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' as location.
    2. present: Gives 'Smith Hall 207 Pleasant St SE'.
    3. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact location.
    4. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' as location.
    5. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives the address.
    6. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' as location.
    7. present: Names 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE'.
    8. present: 'Smith Hall 207 Pleasant St SE' given.
    9. present: 'Smith Hall 207 Pleasant St SE' gives exact building.
    10. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact address.
    11. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE'.
    12. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE'.
    13. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact address.
    14. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact location.
    15. present: 'Smith Hall 207 Pleasant St SE' gives exact location.
    16. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact location.
    17. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' as the location.
    18. present: 'Smith Hall 207 Pleasant St SE' gives exact location.
    19. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact location.
    20. present: Names 'Smith Hall 207 Pleasant St SE'.
    21. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE'.
    22. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE'.
    23. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' as location.
    24. present: Gives 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' as the exact location.
    25. present: 'SMITH HALL 207 PLEASANT ST SE' gives exact address.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' is an explicit protective-action instruction.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    2. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    3. present: 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
    4. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    5. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs protective action.
    6. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    7. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    8. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    9. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
    10. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
    11. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    12. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    13. present: 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' is explicit instruction.
    14. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
    15. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs protective action.
    16. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
    17. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    18. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
    19. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    20. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    21. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    22. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    23. present: Instructs to 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA'.
    24. present: 'EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' is explicit instruction.
    25. present: 'NEED TO EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY AND AVOID THE AREA' instructs action.
  • Timepresent20/25

    Final assessment

    Strong majority (19 of 24) read 'IMMEDIATELY' as conveying urgency and recency; a minority found no formal clock time, but the majority view of implied immediacy carries.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No clock time or date given.
    2. absent: No clock time or date is included.
    3. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    4. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    5. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    6. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys recency/urgency.
    7. absent: No clock time or date given.
    8. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys recency.
    9. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    10. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    11. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    12. absent: No clock time or date given.
    13. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    14. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    15. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    16. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    17. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    18. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    19. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    20. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    21. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    22. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    23. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
    24. absent: No clock time or date given.
    25. present: 'IMMEDIATELY' conveys urgency/recency.
  • Impactabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: no consequence or danger of the spill itself is described beyond naming it and ordering evacuation.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No stated consequence of the spill.
    2. absent: No statement of potential harm is given.
    3. absent: No stated consequence of the chemical spill's danger.
    4. absent: No stated consequence of the spill beyond needing to evacuate.
    5. absent: No stated consequence of the spill beyond needing to evacuate.
    6. absent: No stated consequence of the spill beyond naming it.
    7. absent: No stated consequence of the spill beyond the hazard name.
    8. absent: No stated consequence of the spill.
    9. absent: No stated consequence of the spill.
    10. absent: No stated harm or severity of the spill.
    11. absent: No stated consequence of the chemical spill.
    12. absent: No stated consequence of the spill.
    13. absent: No stated consequence of the spill beyond naming it.
    14. absent: No stated consequence or severity of the spill.
    15. absent: No stated consequence of the spill's danger.
    16. absent: No stated consequence of the spill itself.
    17. absent: No stated consequence of the chemical spill.
    18. absent: No stated consequence of the spill.
    19. absent: No stated consequence of the spill's danger.
    20. absent: No stated consequence of the spill beyond naming it.
    21. absent: No stated consequence of the chemical spill beyond naming it.
    22. absent: No stated consequence of the chemical spill beyond naming it.
    23. absent: No stated potential harm beyond naming the spill.
    24. absent: No stated consequence of the spill.
    25. absent: No stated harm or severity of the chemical spill.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

On the afternoon of June 17, 2014, fifth-year chemistry graduate student Walter Partlo was working in a fourth-floor lab in the University of Minnesota's Smith Hall when his preparation of trimethylsilyl azide (TMS-azide) detonated inside a fume hood. Partlo had scaled up from a published procedure starting from 200 g of sodium azide and had substituted polyethylene glycol (PEG) for the original solvent because the original solvent had been clumping. The solvent change introduced a critical hazard: PEG is a protic solvent that can react with azide to liberate hydrazoic acid, an explosively unstable compound. The blast shattered all four sides of the fume hood, damaged an adjacent hood, and blew out a window on the building's exterior. Partlo was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center with second-degree burns and glass-laceration injuries; he was released within days. UMN Department of Public Safety issued a SAFE-U emergency alert and Smith Hall's affected floor was closed pending an Environmental Health and Safety investigation. Department chair William Tolman published a detailed lessons-learned report on the DCHAS-L mailing list on July 18, 2014, an unusually transparent academic disclosure that was widely praised in the post-Texas-Tech, post-Sangji era of lab safety reform. The incident generated safety alerts at peer institutions including the University of Notre Dame.
Analysis

Key Findings

The proximate cause was a scale-up combined with an undocumented solvent substitution; the underlying cause was lack of hazard awareness about how PEG could react with the azide intermediate to form explosive hydrazoic acid
UMN Chemistry chair William Tolman's decision to publish a detailed lessons-learned summary on DCHAS-L set a new transparency standard for academic lab incident disclosure in the wake of the Texas Tech CSB investigation
The SAFE-U system, which had been the model for UMN emergency notification since 2009, was activated within minutes; the building reopened the same evening
Outcome
Graduate student Walter Partlo was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center with second-degree burns and lacerations from flying glass; he was released within days and returned to work the following week. No other personnel were injured. The University of Minnesota Department of Chemistry, led by chair William Tolman, conducted an internal investigation and disseminated a detailed lessons-learned report through the DCHAS-L mailing list and the CSHEMA community. The incident prompted a department-wide review of standard operating procedures for azide chemistry and informed lab safety practice nationally.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Student Paper
    Smith Hall explosion injures one (Minnesota Daily, June 17, 2014)
    mndaily.com
    archived copy
  2. News
    Small explosion at U lab leaves grad student with serious burns (Star Tribune)
    startribune.com
    archived copy
  3. News
    U of M chemistry lab explosion injures one (MPR News)
    mprnews.org
    archived copy
  4. Report
    Trimethylsilyl azide explosion and injury incident at University of Minnesota (DCHAS-L, William Tolman)
    ilpi.com
    archived copy
  5. Source
    Trimethylazide lessons learned (UCSD Chemistry safety page)
    www-chem.ucsd.edu
    archived copy
  6. Report
    Safety Alert: University of Minnesota Lab Accident (Notre Dame Risk Management)
    riskmanagement.nd.edu
    archived copy
  7. Official
    SAFE-U Emergency (UMN Department of Public Safety)
    publicsafety.umn.edu
    archived copy
  8. Official
    SAFE-U EMERGENCY — Smith Hall chemical spill (UMN DPS)
    publicsafety.umn.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "University of Minnesota Twin Cities: A solvent swap during an azide synthesis blows out a fume hood, injuring a grad student." Incident of June 17, 2014. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/university-of-minnesota-smith-hall-explosion-2014-06-17/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
lab-explosiontrimethylsilyl-azidesmith-hallsafe-uacademic-lab-safetyumnfume-hood-failuresolvent-substitutiontolmandchas-l
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion