A Survey among Three Iranian Occupational Groups: General Knowledge of Chemical Safety and Familiarity with GHS and Outdated Labeling Systems

Fayazi, Ameneh; Pouyakian, Mostafa; Jafari, Mohammad Javad; Khodakarim, Soheila

doi:10.1021/acs.chas.9b00002

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) has been widely adopted for the safety management of hazardous chemicals. 6 The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes a classification standard based on the third edition of the United Nations GHS to form a legal text, namely, HazCom 2012, which was formally put into effect on March 25, 2012. 7 In order to implement the UN GHS, the European Union has developed independent and complete classification, labeling, and packaging (CLP) regulations, which came into effect on January 20, 2009.…”

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In chemical laboratories, various chemical reagents are used. In recent years, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) has been widely adopted for the safety management of hazardous chemicals . The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes a classification standard based on the third edition of the United Nations GHS to form a legal text, namely, HazCom 2012, which was formally put into effect on March 25, 2012 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining University Students’ Familiarity and Understanding of Laboratory Safety Knowledge—A Case Study

Jin

Wang

2020

J. Chem. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work investigates students' familiarity and understanding of laboratory safety knowledge among students in the College of Environmental Science and Safety Engineering at Tianjin University of Technology. A total of 1301 undergraduates and graduates participated in a survey of students' safety knowledge. The questionnaire covered the GHS pictograms, common hazardous chemicals, and basic laboratory safety practices and emergency responses. The results showed that students confused the oxidizer pictogram with the flammable pictogram and that they had lower correct response rates for the typical properties of chemicals as well as deficiencies in emergency response knowledge. In addition, postgraduates and students with higher expected safety knowledge also demonstrated deficiencies in laboratory safety knowledge. Strategies for improving students' laboratory safety learning outcomes include testing of safety knowledge and popularization of GHS classification and pictograms at all levels of safety education. Furthermore, safety education should be integrated into university courses to make safety a priority.

show abstract

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining University Students’ Familiarity and Understanding of Laboratory Safety Knowledge—A Case Study

Jin

Wang

2020

J. Chem. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To facilitate the evaluation of the results, we devised a score scale of 100 so that obtaining a maximum of 33 points (the correct answer to 12 out of 37 items) represented poor knowledge; obtaining a score from 33 to 66 was indicative of a moderate level of knowledge (the correct answer for 12 to 24 items); and a score of 66 to 100 was considered a high level of knowledge (the correct answer for 24 to 37 items). 20,50,51 The details of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used in this study have been published in another article by the corresponding author of this article. 50,51 In order to facilitate comprehension, a summary of this process is provided below.…”

Section: Data Collection Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20,50,51 The details of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used in this study have been published in another article by the corresponding author of this article. 50,51 In order to facilitate comprehension, a summary of this process is provided below. A group of 15 professors and experts in chemical safety were invited to serve on an expert panel to validate the questionnaires' capacity to measure their intended outcomes.…”

Section: Data Collection Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Social Media in Chemical Safety Training: A Case Study of Training GHS Standards to Students and Laboratory Staff at a University

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insufficient knowledge of chemical hazards can cause unsafe behaviors, diseases, and accidents in the laboratory, hence educational interventions are significant. Due to its unique qualities, distance learning via educational applications has grown dramatically. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a safety training intervention via social media applications on the safety knowledge of staff and students at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. A total of 166 staff and students at the laboratories of schools and research centers affiliated with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences were randomized to an experimental group and a control group. A training package was prepared including text, GIF, and video messages on the Globally Harmonized System of classification and labeling of Chemicals (GHS), and the experimental group received a one month training via a common messenger platform in Iran (Telegram). Participants' chemical safety knowledge was assessed before and after the intervention. A validated questionnaire including 24 multiple-choice items in text format and 13 multiple-choice items in image format as well as demographic items was employed to collect data. Shapiro-Wilk, independent t test, and analysis of covariance were used to analyze the data. In the textual section of the questionnaire, the most frequently answered item concerned the "reason for choosing a respirator", and the least frequently answered ones were "meaning of warning" and "meaning of hazard". Environmental hazard and oxidation risk received the most frequent correct answers in the visual section. After the intervention, the control and experimental groups' knowledge scores were 64.7 ± 10.1 and 79.2 ± 8.4, respectively. According to the covariance test, the training intervention improved participants' knowledge significantly (p < 0.001). Training interventions through social media can improve GHS knowledge. Moreover, visual messages are easier to understand and transfer than textual ones.

show abstract

“…As already mentioned, chemical labels are the earliest source of information for recognizing and identifying hazards. The use of labels as a hazard communication tool has been investigated with a broad target audience in many different environments, such as transport, agriculture, , consumers, ,− industry, ,, and health-care professionals. , Some studies have also investigated the use and effectiveness of label elements as safety tools in HEI; − none of them focus on laboratory technicians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory Technicians’ Use and Interpretation of Hazard Communication Elements on Chemical Labels

Rossete

Ribeiro

2021

ACS Chem. Health Saf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory technicians are the backbone of academic research and teaching laboratories, undertaking many tasks such as keeping the chemical inventory up to date, which includes systematic identification and categorization of chemical hazards, the first step to assess and minimize risks from chemicals. This study assessed whether laboratory technicians in higher education institutions recognize and understand the hazard information conveyed on chemical labels, standardized by the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), through a questionnaire based on labels of frequently used chemicals. Pictograms were free and promptly recalled and the most common noticed element. However, only 5 of 9 pictograms were satisfactorily explained by the participants. Those pictograms with greater semantic distance between what the symbol depicts and the function it represents were poorly interpreted. When asked to identify chemicals belonging to a specific hazard class using the elements displayed on the labels, the number of correct answers increased due to the presence of the H-statements in the labels. Although occupying intermediate positions in both recall and sequence of reading, H-statements are concrete written messages that helped participants identify the chemical hazard. Technicians did not understand the implicit meaning associated with signal words nor did they recognize it as a hazard communication element, as suggested by the bottom rank position in both recall and sequence of reading. Although possessing a good educational level, technicians did not have enough knowledge regarding GHS hazard communication elements displayed on the labels, compromising the hazard and risk assessment and management of chemicals.

show abstract

A Survey among Three Iranian Occupational Groups: General Knowledge of Chemical Safety and Familiarity with GHS and Outdated Labeling Systems

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Determining University Students’ Familiarity and Understanding of Laboratory Safety Knowledge—A Case Study

Determining University Students’ Familiarity and Understanding of Laboratory Safety Knowledge—A Case Study

Application of Social Media in Chemical Safety Training: A Case Study of Training GHS Standards to Students and Laboratory Staff at a University

Laboratory Technicians’ Use and Interpretation of Hazard Communication Elements on Chemical Labels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About