بهکارگيري روش تجزيهوتحليل عوامل شکست در ارزيابي مخاطرات آزمايشگاههاي يک پژوهشکده
ارتقای ایمنی و پیشگیری از مصدومیت ها,
دوره 5 شماره 2 (2017),
3 مهر 2017
,
صفحه 108 - 97
https://doi.org/10.22037/meipm.v5i2.18689
چکیده
سابقه و هدف: همهساله شاهد موارد متعددي از حوادث خطرآفرين و حتي مرگآور در آزمايشگاههاي مختلف ميباشيم لذا شناسايي ريسک خطرات در آزمايشگاهها و تلاش در راستاي ايجاد شرايط ايمن بسيار حائز اهميت ميباشد. هدف اصلي اين تحقيق بررسي مخاطرات احتمالي در آزمايشگاههاي پژوهشكده اکولوژي خليجفارس و درياي عمان ميباشد.
روش بررسي: بهمنظور ارزيابي مخاطرات احتمالي در 11 آزمايشگاه پژوهشکده و طبقهبندي آنها، از روش «تجزيهوتحليل عوامل شکست و آثار آن»1(FMEA) و برخي روشهاي آماري استفاده گرديد.
يافتهها: نتايج حاصل از بررسي مخاطرات بالقوه حاکي از آن است که سطح ريسک در تمامي آزمايشگاهها بهجز آزمايشگاه بنتوز، در حد نيمه بحراني و بحراني قابل ارزيابي ميباشد و لذا اجراي اقدامات اصلاحي مناسب در مورد آنها الزامي ميباشد. بر اساس نتايج آزمونهاي Kruskal-Wallis، اختلاف معنيداري ميان آزمايشگاههاي پژوهشکده از ديدگاه عدد الويت ريسک 2(RPN) مشاهده ميشود. مراجعه به نتايج آزمونهاي posthoc در هر دو مرحله، نشانگر آن است که کمترين ميزان مخاطرات در آزمايشگاههاي بنتوز و بافتشناسي مشاهده ميشود و بيشترين مخاطرات در آزمايشگاه تجزيه دستگاهي قابلتشخيص است. از سوي ديگر نتايج مربوط به گروهبندي آزمايشگاهها با استفاده از آناليز خوشهاي نيز تا حدود زيادي به نتايج آزمونهاي posthoc شباهت دارد. با توجه به نتايج آزمون Mann-Whitney U ميتوان چنين استنتاج نمود که صرفاً در مورد آزمايشگاه آمادهسازي نمونه، اختلاف معنيداري بين مقادير RPN در قبل و بعد از اقدامات اصلاحي مشاهده ميگردد (p >0.05).
نتيجهگيري: درمجموع ميتوان چنين استنتاج نمود که FMEA روشي مناسب براي ارزيابي مخاطرات کارکنان آزمايشگاههاي تحقيقاتي ميباشد و از روشهاي آماري مناسب نيز ميتوان براي تحليلهاي تکميلي استفاده نمود.
How to cite this article:
Pourang N, Esmaeili F, Ranjbarian M. Application of the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Risk Assessment in the Laboratories of a Research Center. J Saf Promot Inj Prev. 2017; 5(2):97-108.
Background & objective: Every year, we witness hazardous and even fatal accidents in laboratories. Therefore, identification of the risks in laboratories and creating safe conditions are of paramount importance in these settings. The present study aimed to evaluate the potential risks in the laboratories of the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea Ecological Research Center.
Materials and Methods: In order to assess and classify the risks associated with working in research centers, the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and relevant statistical tests were used.
Results: Potential risk levels were evaluated as moderate or high in all the laboratories, with the exception of the benthic laboratory. Therefore, appropriate corrective measures must be taken in this regard. Based on the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test, there were significant differences between the studied laboratories in terms of the risk priority number (RPN) before and after the corrective measures. In addition, post-hoc tests indicated the lowest risk levels in the benthic and histology laboratories, while the highest risk was identified in the instrumental analysis laboratory. Results of laboratory classification using cluster analysis were noticeably similar to the post-hoc test results. According to Mann-Whitney U test, there were significant differences between the RPN values before and after the corrective measures only in the case of the sample preparation laboratory (P>0.05).
Conclusion: It could be concluded that FMEA is an effective method for risk assessment in research laboratories, while appropriate statistical approaches could also be used for the complementary analysis in this regard.
How to cite this article:
Pourang N, Esmaeili F, Ranjbarian M. Application of the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Risk Assessment in the Laboratories of a Research Center. J Saf Promot Inj Prev. 2017; 5(2):97-108.
- ارزيابي مخاطرات، آزمايشگاه، پژوهشکده اکولوژي خليجفارس و درياي عمان، عدد الويت ريسک، تجزيهوتحليل عوامل شکست و آثار آن
ارجاع به مقاله
مراجع
References
International Association of Classification Societies. A Guide to Risk Assessment in Ship Operations. London2004; Available from: http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/Publications/Guidelines_and_recommendations/PDF/REC_127_pdf1842.pdf.
Mirza S, Omidvari M, Lavasani SMRM. The application of Fuzzy logic to determine the failure probability in Fault Tree Risk Analysis. Safety promotion and injury prevention (Tehran). 2014;2(2):113-23.
Askaripoor T, Kazemi E, Aghaei H, Marzban M. Evaluating and comparison of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process in ranking and quantitative safety risk analysis (case study: a combined cycle power plant). Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention. 2015;3(3):169-74.
Barends D, Oldenhof M, Vredenbregt M, Nauta M. Risk analysis of analytical validations by probabilistic modification of FMEA. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2012;64-65:82-6. [PubMed]
Pourang N, Baniamam M. A guideline on hazards, Health and safety in the research and laboratory works. Types of hazards and ergonomics in the laboratory. Iranian Fisheries Research Organization.2011. p. 253.
Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P. Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modelling. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 2005;22(9):986-1004.
Wang Y-M, Chin K-S, Poon GKK, Yang J-B. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert systems with applications. 2009;36(2):1195-207.
Gupta PR, Shende MA, Shaikh DM. Ordinal logistic regression model of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) in direct compressible buccal tablet. International Journal of Pharma Research & Review. 2013; 2(6): 9-17.
Neshkov T, Stefanov A, Ivanov V. Application of PFMEA for Identification of Self Recovering Failures in Production Lines for Automatic Assembly of Capacitors, XI International SAUM Conference on Systems, Automatic Control and Measurements,Serbia, 2012, pp. 1-4.
Rakesh R, Jos BC, Mathew G. FMEA analysis for reducing breakdowns of a sub system in the life care product manufacturing industry. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology. 2013;2(2):218-25.
Ebrahemzadih M, Halvani G, Shahmoradi B, Giahi O. Assessment and Risk Management of Potential Hazards by Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) Method in Yazd Steel Complex. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology. 2014;4(03):127.
Kangavari M, Salimi S, Nourian R, Askarian A. An application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to assess risks in petrochemical industry in Iran. Iranian Journal of Health, Safety and Environment. 2015;2(2):257-63.
Organization World Health. Laboratory biosafety manual. Third, editor. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
National Fire Operations Reporting System. Fire Emergency, National Fire Protection Association. 2009; Available from: http://www.nfpa.org/index.asp.
Furr AK. CRC handbook of laboratory safety. 5, editor: CRC press; 2000.
Alizadeh Azimi A, Tajrishi B, Kargar Razi M. A guideline on safety and protection for working with chemicals: Kavosh Ghalam Press; 2000.
Pourang N, Baniamam M, Motallebi A. A guideline on hazards, Health and safety in the research and laboratory works.Types of hazards of equipment and sampling laboratory. Iranian Fisheries Research Organization.2013. p. 212.[pubMed]
Delkhosh M. Safety in the use of chemicals at work.2005.
Zamanian Z, Afshin A, Davoudiantalab A, Hashemi H. Comprehension of workplace safety signs: A case study in Shiraz industrial park. Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology. 2013;2(1):37-43.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene. Introduction to industrial hygiene. 2008.
Kiani F, Khodabakhsh MR. The role of supervisor in effectiveness of safety training session and changing employees’ attitudes toward safety issues. Safety promotion and injury prevention (Tehran). 2015;3(1):49-56.
- چکیده مشاهده شده: 526 بار
- PDF دانلود شده: 271 بار