Safety Signs Perception and Adoption with the ISO and ANSI Standards

Abstract

Background: One way of controlling hazards in the work environment is a use of safety signs. Safety signs are among the safe information group; hence, if these signs are not understood properly it could cause an injury or even death. Objectives: The aim of this study is surveying perception of safety signs and adoption with ISO and ANSI standards. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted during 2013 to 2014 in the 3 provinces of Khuzestan, Fars, and Tehran. The study population included 370 non-monochromatic employees working in the industries. For collecting information, the standard questionnaire of the international organization for standard (ISO 9186-1) and demographic information was used. A total of 13 safety signs were utilized for determination of perception. Stratified -Random sampling method was used, then, the obtained data were utilized using SPSS-16 software and applying descriptive statistics. Results: In this study, the overall rate of perception of safety signs was 78.4% with a standard deviation of 15.1%. The lowest percentage of perception was related to the sign "face shield must be worn" (53.5%). In the assessment of safety signs based on ANSI Z5353 and ISO 9186-1 standard, 62.5% and 69.2% of signs can be reached to limit of acceptable perception. Conclusions:The perception patterns of safety signs are different. Assessing perception of signs show a moderate level of perception in accordance with ISO standard; however, to reach ANSI standard, implementation of intervention programs (Judgment test) is suggested due to perceptual adaptation with target population and redesign of sign with low perception.

Safety sign comprehension of fiberboard industry employees

“…The wrong use of the sign in the past could prevent them from learning the new/real meaning. For the same sign, Akpinar et al [ 42 ] (another Turkish study), Ng et al [ 7 ] and Davoudian Talab and Azari [ 40 ] reported lower or similar compression scores as in the present study. But Zamanian et al [ 39 ] reported a 92.5% comprehension score for the same sign.…”

“…The overall mean (66.6%) of comprehension score in the present study was similar to some previous studies (63.4% [ 8 ], 63.8% [ 19 ], 66.2% [ 37 ], 67.5% [ 7 ], 69.2% [ 38 ], and 70.9% [ 39 ]). On the other hand, Davoudian Talab and Azari [ 40 ] reported a higher overall rate of perception (78.4%) and Arphorn et al [ 14 ] very low scores in safety sign perception (39.2%). The differences may be due to different backgrounds (e.g., ethnic, cultural, educational) or different experimental designs (e.g., sign selection).…”

Health and safety sign knowledge levels of tractor operators in agricultural production

“…Various control measures, including engineering and administrative controls, are used to prevent accidents in agriculture (Arphorn et al, 2003;Chan et al, 2009;Chan & Ng, 2010a;Ng et al, 2011;Davoudian Talab et al, 2013;Zamanian et al, 2013;Yazdani et al, 2017). Occupational safety and health signs are among the most important ones.…”

Analysis of NOM-026-STPS-2008 in the manufacturing laboratory to improve productivity

“…Worldwide there are organizations that contribute to standardize the application of signals in the industrial sector within which are ISO and ANSI (Davoudian & Azari, 2017). These signs are effective as long as they are designed in compliance with ergonomic principles, human factors, and cognitive features.…”