Formaldehyde (FA) is a ubiquitous organic preservative used in several industries and represents an occupational health hazard. Short-term exposure to FA can increase oxidative stress and cause a decrease in conduit vessel function. These decrements in vascular function may extend to the arterial architecture, predisposing individuals to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of an acute 90-minute FA exposure period (259 ± 95 ppb) on indices of arterial architecture. Arterial stiffness and carotid distensibility as determined by central pressures, augmentation index (AIx), and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) (n=13F, 24 ± 1 year) as well as carotid stiffness and intima media thickness (IMT) (n = 9F, 23 ± 1 year) were assessed prior to (Pre-FA) and immediately following (Post-FA) exposure to FA in human cadaver dissection laboratories. Central pressures and cfPWV (Pre-FA: 5.2 ± 0.8 m.s-1, Post-FA: 5.2 ± 1.1 m s-1) were unchanged by acute FA exposure (p > 0.05). Carotid stiffness parameters and distension were unchanged by acute FA exposure (p > 0.05), although distensibility (Pre-FA: 33.9 ± 10.5[10-3*kPa-1], Post-FA: 25.9 ± 5.5[10-3*kPa-1], p < 0.05), and IMT (Pre-FA: 0.42 ± 0.05 mm, Post-FA: 0.51 ± 0.11 mm, p < 0.05) decreased and increased, respectively. Individual Pre- to Post-FA changes in these markers of arterial architecture did not correlate with levels of FA exposure ([FA]: 20-473 ppb) (p > 0.05). Our group previously found vascular function decrements following acute FA exposure in human cadaver laboratories; here we found that carotid distensibility and intima media thickness are altered following FA exposure.

In 2017, Elon University became one of very few universities in the United States without a medical school to have an in‐house Anatomical Gift Program (AGP). The program accepts first‐person‐consenting individuals only and within 2.5 years has become self‐sufficient, supporting anatomy curricular needs of its physical therapy, physician assistant, and undergraduate biology and anthropology programs (n = 21 donors annually). This paper describes the timeline, costs, and benefits of developing an in‐house AGP at a university without a medical school. Policy development, public outreach, equipment needs, and cost benefits are discussed. Within 2.5 years of program opening, the AGP Director delivered 161 educational outreach presentations at 86 different venues across the state providing information on anatomical gifting. The program registered 320 individuals (60% female, 40% male) and enrolled 41 deceased donors (69% female, 31% male; average age of 74.6 at time of registration and 74.8 at donation). During the first seven months of the program, donor preparation costs (with outsourcing for transport/donor preparation/document filing/serology testing/cremation) averaged US$ 2,100 per donor. Over the past 23 months, donor preparation has been completed on site, lowering the cost per donor to US$ 1,260. Other costs include personnel salaries, legal fees, and outfitting of the anatomy laboratory and preparatory room. Program benefits include support of anatomy education on campus, assurance that all donors have given first‐person consent, and faculty/student access to donor‐determined health, social, and occupational information. Faculty, staff, and students contribute to the daily operations of the AGP.

In this novel study, the researchers quantify cadaver information provided to Physical Therapy (PT) and Physician Assistant (PA) anatomy faculty and ask what portion of that information is then shared with students. Descriptive statistics were used to the describe demographics of the study respondents and to report survey responses. The majority (60% or greater) of faculty who teach anatomy to PT and PA students have clinical degrees matching the student groups they teach. Chi‐square analysis showed no appreciable difference (P < 0.001) between PT and PA anatomy faculty in the amount of cadaver information they receive or then share with students. There was a difference in the type of cadaver information (identifying vs. non‐identifying) that is received and then shared by these faculty. Faculty are more likely to receive non‐identifying cadaver information (93%) than identifying information (40%) (P < 0.0001) and share non‐identifying information (83%) than identifying information (26%) with students (P < 0.0003). Interestingly, there is no consensus as to whether sharing cadaver information is respectful or disrespectful to those who donate their bodies for anatomy education and research. Further research is warranted into the reasons anatomy faculty withhold cadaver information from students and in the value, if any, for students knowing more about the cadavers they are learning from.

BackgroundAs the number of health care education programs, fresh tissue labs, research opportunities, and anatomy education programs rises so does the need for human donor resources.1 Most US medical schools rely on anatomical gift programs (AGPs) for donors to support curricular needs. Physician Assistant (PA) and Physical Therapy (PT) education programs rely heavily on medical schools and state anatomy boards for these needs, while very few have in‐house willed body programs.2,3In 2016, Elon University became one of very few non‐medical schools to have its own in‐house AGP to meet the anatomy curricular needs of its PT, PA, and undergraduate biology programs.PurposeDescribe the costs and benefits involved in developing a non‐medical school, in‐house anatomical gift program to support the curricula for PT, PA and biology education.MethodsData on public education outreach, registrant demographics, and benefits to curricula are reported. Cost/benefit analysis is presented for the first year of the program.ResultsElon University's curricular need for full enrollment is 19 donors per year. Within one year of opening donor enrollment the program has registered 90 participants, 9 of whom have deceased (7 female and 2 male donors; average age at time of death 74.4) and will support anatomy education in 2018. At the time of writing, program registrants include 62% female (avg 72.8 yrs) and 36% male (avg 75.5 yrs) registrants. All donations are first‐person consent.In the past year the AGP Director has visited 65 venues in a 45‐mile radius of campus (n=1520 participants) to provide educational outreach on anatomic gifting. This equates to a 6% return in registration from educational outreach efforts. Registrants (n=82) report reasons for donating as: contributing to student learning 68.3%; contributing to medical research 17%; doing something good 11%; and giving back to Elon 9.8%.Cost for in‐house donor preparation (with outsourcing for donor transport/document filing) is $965 / donor excluding personnel time. Other costs include a full‐time AGP director salary, cost of faculty/lab manager training in anatomical embalming, and $32,000 to outfit the anatomy lab prep room with donor storage, hydraulic lift, embalming table, and embalming unit. Benefits include sustainable and ethical support of anatomy education on our campus with first person, consent driven donation and access to donor‐determined health, social, and occupational information.The university and surrounding community have been involved in the AGP's development from the onset. Start‐up costs are phased in to accommodate growth of the AGP. Anatomy faculty/staff are invested in the success of the AGP and contribute to policy development, outreach, and donor care. Students have been involved since the program's conception to offer insight and support educational outreach.Discussion/ConclusionsThus far in implementation the program's costs are outweighed by its projected long‐term benefits. Curricular needs are supported at nearly 50% in the first year. A team approach has been successful, with faculty, staff, and students contributing to the development and operation of the AGP. Administrative/community support are essential to a successful program. Registrants' reasons for donation are in keeping with current cultural trends to support education and research. Cost/benefit analysis of the program will continue.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Purpose To quantify the number of cadavers used in physician assistant (PA) anatomy education and to ascertain the origins of those cadavers. Methods An electronic survey was generated and distributed to all schools that had been accredited by the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant. Responses were reported using descriptive statistics. Results The survey had a 49% response rate. Among the responding programs, 79% reported working with 655 cadavers, with an average of one cadaver per 5.72 students. Programs reported that 21% receive cadavers from multiple sources. Of all programs using cadavers, 62% receive cadavers from medical schools, 23% from in-house anatomical gift programs, 19% from state anatomy boards, 9% from private organizations, and 8% from other sources. Anatomy educators reported that 55% know the origins of the cadavers in their programs, 18% do not, and 27% are uncertain. In categorizing cadavers at their programs, 56% were reported as registered donors, 4% as next-of-kin donations, 1% as unclaimed dead, 17% as uncertain origin, and 22% as unaccounted for by respondents. Conclusions Among educators who teach anatomy to PA students, 45% do not know or are uncertain of the origins of the cadavers in their programs. Of the reported 655 cadavers used in PA education, 289 were not categorized as registered donors. Facing the expansion of PA programs, educators need to be aware of cadavers' origins to ensure that all aspects of PA education are consistent with the ethics that the students are being taught. Those ethics include the need for informed consent for all cadavers involved in PA education.

The purpose of this research is to quantify the use of human donors in Physical Therapy (PT) anatomy education. A list of CAPTE accredited schools was created (n=217). An electronic survey was used to collect the demographics of the PT anatomy educators and the number, demographics, and sources of cadavers used in PT anatomy. There were 99 responses (46% return rate) representing PT anatomy educators from 40 states. Of 92 respondents, 63% (n=58) are PT's. Of the non‐PT's (n=34), 65% (n=22) identified themselves as anatomists and many held multiple advanced degrees. Participants report working with 0–30 donors with an average of 10.45 cadavers per course (± 6.67) and a total of 930 cadavers used in the past year. Anatomy educators (n=92) identified the sources they use to acquire human donors: medical schools 52% (n=48); in house gift programs 24% (n=22); state anatomy boards 17% (n=16); private organizations 5% (n=5); willed body program not attached to a medical school or in house 1% (n=1). Several PT programs, 11% (n=0), obtain donors from multiple sources. Anatomy educators were asked if they knew the origin of the cadavers they teach with using the following definitions: Registered donor: individual has consented to participate in anatomy education Next of kin: family member provided consent Unclaimed dead: neither the individual nor a family member provided consent Of 92 respondents, 78% (n=72) reported knowing the origin of cadavers used to teach PT anatomy, 10 % (n=9) reported not knowing, and 12% (n=11) were uncertain. Anatomy educators were asked to quantify the percentage of cadavers that they teach with using these same definitions, reporting that 72% (n=670) are registered donors, 3% (n=30) are next of kin donations, and 0% (n=0) are unclaimed dead. Anatomy educators categorized 75% (n=700) cadavers, while 25% (n=230) were uncategorized. Respondents were asked to identify all cadaver demographics they receive, and then asked to identify which demographics they share with students. Most programs, 85% (n=75), receive some non‐identifying information, such as cause of death and age, while 38% (n=33) of programs are provided with first name, and 34% (n=30) with last name. From those anatomy educators that receive information about donors: cause of death (89%), age (86%), and health history (78%) are the demographics most frequently shared with students, while first name (27%) and occupation (7%) are less frequently shared. In conclusion, there are a large number of cadavers (930) working with PT students. Anatomy educators report that their non‐living colleagues are mostly registered donors and some are next of kin donations. No respondents report working with unclaimed dead. There is a difference of 230 donors whom are not accounted for as registered, next of kin, or unclaimed. As PT anatomy educators, should we be ensuring consent is obtained prior to using cadavers to teach PT anatomy? Further research is warranted. While most PT anatomy educators are provided some demographics, this information is not necessarily shared with students. Cause of death and age are routinely shared, while first name and occupation is rarely shared with students. This may be a choice or directed by the source of PT donors. Further research is warranted on the value of sharing cadaver demographics with PT students. These researchers recommend that consent be obtained from all of our non‐living colleagues and that we consider sharing information that these donors are willing to share with students. Support or Funding Information Elon University Graduate Research Fund

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the history and current literature surrounding the use of unclaimed dead in anatomy education and to quantify the number, origin, and donation status of cadavers being used in teaching anatomy in physical therapist (PT) education programs. This data will support the need for anatomy educators in PT education programs to inform themselves and their students about willed body donation programs. Faculty should insist that every cadaver used in anatomy education in PT education programs has consented to be there. Participants. A list of accredited PT education programs was created (n = 217), and a survey was sent to each school for the anatomy educator to complete. Methods. An electronic survey was generated to collect number, sources, and origins of cadavers used in anatomy education in PT education programs. Descriptive statistics were used to report survey responses. Results. There were 99 responses (46% response rate), representing anatomy educators from 40 states. Anatomy educators reported during the past year they have taught PT anatomy alongside a total of 930 cadavers, and identified the sources of their cadavers: medical schools (52%); in house gift programs (24%); state anatomy boards (17%); private organizations (5%); a willed body program not attached to a medical school or in house (1%); and no source, as the program does not use cadavers (1%). Anatomy educators were asked if they knew the origin of the donors using the following definitions: (1) Registered donor: individual has consented to participate in anatomy education; (2) next of kin: family member has provided consent; (3) unclaimed dead: neither the individual nor a family member has provided consent. Discussion and Conclusions. Seventy-eight percent of anatomy educators reported knowing the origin of cadavers used to teach physical therapy anatomy, 10% reported not knowing, and 12% were uncertain. Anatomy educators reported that 72% (n = 670) of cadavers are registered donors, 3% (n = 30) are next of kin donations, and 0% (n = 0) are unclaimed dead. Anatomy educators were not able to categorize 25% (n = 230) of cadavers used during anatomy instruction in PT education programs. While the majority of PT education programs access cadavers via a medical school that has an anatomical gift program, some rely on state anatomy boards, private organizations, or on multiple sources. Most anatomy educators in PT education programs know the origin of the cadavers they use during instruction (78%), but some are uncertain. Anatomy educators report that their nonliving colleagues are mostly registered donors, and some are next of kin donations. No respondents report working with unclaimed dead. There is a difference of 230 cadavers (25%) who are not accounted for as registered, next of kin, or unclaimed. While these researchers recommend that direct consent be obtained from all of our nonliving colleagues, this could result in temporary donor shortages in anatomy laboratories. There is an immediate need for public education around the topic of whole body donation and increased involvement from anatomists in PT education programs in this process.

Background and Purpose. Physical therapist (PT) education programs in the United States require that students have a strong foundation in human anatomy. As a result, anatomy teachers and physical therapist students in anatomy courses can spend upwards of 100 hours annually studying human donors embalmed with formaldehyde (FA), a known carcinogen. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommends regular FA exposure testing, approximately 42% of PT education program anatomists operate labs without direct access to qualified personnel to conduct such testing. These anatomists are often responsible for interpreting, assessing, and managing FA issues in the laboratory. In this paper, the researchers compare 2 methods for personal FA exposure testing and summarize current FA regulations. While Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIH) recommend the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 2016 (active pump attached to sorbent tube) to assess anatomy laboratory FA exposure levels, there are other methods available. The purpose of this research was to compare NIOSH Method 2016 to a different FA exposure sampling device for ease of use, cost, and effectiveness in assessing FA exposure levels in the PT anatomy laboratory setting. Subjects. Participants included the anatomy course instructor and 10 randomly selected Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students enrolled in a human anatomy course. Methods. The researchers compared personal FA exposure data samples using passive FA-sensitive diffusion badges against the NIOSH-recommended Method 2016 (active pump with sorbent tube) during 10 data collection sessions. In addition, the researchers calculated the cost and time spent to use each FA sampling device. Results. The passive FA-sensitive diffusion badges were less costly and required less time and expertise to use as compared to NIOSH Method 2016. There was a moderately strong correlation between the passive FA-sensitive diffusion badge data and NIOSH Method 2016 (r = .772, P < .01). However, independent t tests revealed that there was a significant difference in the FA exposure data using the passive diffusion badge as compared to NIOSH Method 2016 (Badge: Mean = .22, SD = .263 versus Method 2016: Mean = .74, SD = .834; P = .004). Discussion and Conclusions. Passive FA-sensitive diffusion badges are less costly and simple to use as compared to NIOSH Method 2016, but in this study FA exposure badge values were consistently lower than NIOSH Method 2016 data. While the passive FA-sensitive diffusion badge is convenient for routine personal FA exposure monitoring, these researchers recommend that a CIH conduct a complete FA assessment at least annually to ensure air quality safety.

Background and Purpose. The current trend in anatomy education requires medical students to spend fewer hours with human donors, while physical therapist (PT) students are spending an increasing amount of time working in the human anatomy laboratory. Nearly all PT education programs in the United States use human donors embalmed with formaldehyde (FA), a known carcinogen and sensory irritant. Although there is literature related to FA monitoring and safety in medical schools, there is little to no existing research on this topic in PT education programs. Some existing PT programs at universities have a department of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) that monitor FA levels. However, an estimated 42% (n = 84/201) of this country's PT programs are operating anatomy laboratories at colleges or universities that do not have a EHS department that can provide direct access to routine FA exposure monitoring and consulting. Subjects. Physical therapist students and instructors at 5 PT education programs in the United States exposed to FA during human anatomy laboratory sessions were included in this research. Physical therapist students were randomly selected to participate in this study from sites where the instructors volunteered for participation. Methods. Ambient air values, personal FA exposure, and sensory irritation levels from students and instructors at 5 PT education programs in the United States were collected and compared. Outcomes. Of the total personal FA exposure data samples taken for all sites, 57% (n = 60/105) exceeded the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) ceiling level of 0.3 parts per million (ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) short‐term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 ppm was exceeded in 24% (n = 11/45) of sessions at 2 participating sites. Personal FA exposure levels exceeded ambient air test results in 62% (n = 66/105) of samples taken across the 5 institutions. There was no significant correlation found between personal FA exposure and reported irritation levels, or in comparison of personal FA exposure levels between students and instructors. There was a significant difference (P = 0.015) in comparing irritation levels between students and instructors, with students reporting greater than twice the irritation level as compared to their instructors. Discussion and Conclusions. In this study, individuals participating in PT program human donor‐based anatomy courses were routinely exposed to higher levels of FA than reported in ambient air quality tests and limits set by ACGIH. At 2 sites, subjects were exposed to levels of FA above OSHA established STELs. These 5 instructors were not irritated by FA and, therefore, may be unlikely to seek out assistance to monitor or control for over exposure to FA.

Human donors used in dental, allopathic and osteopathic medical, physical therapy, veterinary and other healthcare-related education programs are preserved using formalin, an aqueous solution of 37% (w/v) formaldehyde (CH2O, CAS no. 50-00-0). During anatomy laboratory sessions, students working with formaldehyde-preserved tissues and instructors demonstrating or observing students as they perform specific dissection or prosection activities are at risk of exposure to formaldehyde and other potentially hazardous components of the preservative solution. While formaldehyde exposure may occur either by inhalation or direct contact with the eyes or skin, the risk of inhalation exposure is particularly high due to the close proximity of embalmed tissue to the breathing zones of the students and instructors. At room temperature, formaldehyde is a colourless gas; its odour can be detected at concentrations of 0.5–1.0 parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm).1 Acute exposures are associated with irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory tract. Symptoms include tearing of the eyes, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, coughing and wheezing, and they may occur following exposures at concentrations lower than those detectable by the odour of formaldehyde. Prolonged exposure has been associated with mild neurological symptoms, including headaches and dizziness, and genetic damage. The carcinogenicity classification of formaldehyde is based largely on carcinogenicity in the human nasal tract and genotoxicity in human lung and nasal epithelial cells and rodent lung epithelial cells.2 3 Despite the known toxicity of formaldehyde and its potential health effects, anatomists and others have shown little enthusiasm for reducing or replacing the cadaver dissection experience.4 Instead, institutions may increase the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), improve laboratory ventilation and exhaust …

International Journal of OsteoarchaeologyVolume 19, Issue 2 p. 339-341 Book Review St Peter's, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire, a parish church and its community. Volume II: The human remains. T. Waldron & W. Rodwell (eds). Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2007; 193 pp ISBN 978 1 84217 283 4 Janet M. Cope, Janet M. Cope Department of Physical Therapy Education, Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this author Janet M. Cope, Janet M. Cope Department of Physical Therapy Education, Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 19 March 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1072AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume19, Issue2Special Issue: Stable Isotopes and Archaeology in Southern South America. Hunter-Gatherers, Pastoralism and AgricultureMarch/April 2009Pages 339-341 RelatedInformation

Formaldehyde (FA) has been classified by The International Agency for Research on Cancer as a human carcinogen (Levine et al, 1984; IEQ, 2006; Kriebel, 2001) and as a probable carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency (1999). The purpose of this research was to compare personal FA exposure and sensory irritation levels between subjects in the human anatomy laboratories at five Physical Therapy (PT) programs in the United States. There was no significant correlation between FA levels and irritation levels. There was not a significant difference in FA exposure between students and instructors but there was a significant difference (p=0.015) in irritation levels reported by students and instructors, with instructors reporting lower irritation levels. There was a significant difference (p=0.001) in irritation levels between institutions but no significant difference in FA exposure levels between institutions. At one institution the FA levels in donors that were reperfused with Infutrace were significantly lower (p=0.002) than those of donors that were non‐reperfused. Future studies that compare teaching strategies, dissection techniques, and ventilation systems should be conducted to help determine the healthiest combination of methods (chemicals, ventilation systems, teaching strategies, personal protective equipment) to reduce FA and irritation levels among students and instructors.