MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282822120 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.898826

Implementation of Chemical Health, Safety, and Environmental Risk Assessment in Laboratories: A Case-Series Study

2022· article· en· W4282822120 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical Safety and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSemnan University of Medical Sciences and Health ServicesSemnan University
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthHazardHazardous wasteRisk assessmentOccupational hygieneRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineEngineeringWaste managementComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Characterizing risks associated with laboratory activities in universities may improve health, safety, and environmental management and reduce work-related diseases and accidents. This study aimed to develop and implement a chemical risk assessment method to determine and prioritize more hazardous chemicals in the academic laboratories. Methods: A case-series study was conducted at five academic laboratories and research facilities of an Iranian medical sciences university in 2021. A risk assessment was developed and implemented in three phases to identify, evaluate, and classify potential risks and hazards. The approach provided an innovative tool for evaluating and prioritizing risks in chemical laboratories. Hazards were classified on a five-level scale. The technique reviewed both quantitative and qualitative data and pieces of evidence using Laboratory Safety Guidance (OSHA), Occupational Hazard Datasheet (ILO), the standards of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) codes. Results: Overall, the frequency of risks rated from "moderate" to "very high" levels was determined for the health hazards (9.3%), environmental hazards (35.2%), and safety hazards (20.4%). Hydrochloric acid had a high consumption rate in laboratory operations and received the highest risk levels in terms of potential hazards to employees' health and the environment. Nitric acid, Sulfuric acid, Formaldehyde, and Sodium hydroxide were assessed as potential health hazards. Moreover, Ethanol and Sulfuric acid were recognized as safety hazards. We observed adequate security provisions and procedures in academic laboratory operations. However, the lack of awareness concerning health, safety, environmental chemical hazards, and inappropriate sewage disposal systems contributed to the increasing levels of laboratory risk. Conclusions: Chemicals used in laboratory activities generate workplace and environmental hazards that must be assessed, managed, and risk mitigated. Developing a method of rating health, safety, and environmental risks related to laboratory chemicals may assist in defining and understanding potential hazards. Our assessment suggested the need for improving the risk perception of individuals involved in handling chemicals to prevent exposure from workplace duties and environmental pollution hazards.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it