Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX

Case StudyDecember 6, 2024

Graduate Students’ Tolerance of Habitual Risk-Taking Behaviors in Chemical-Related Majors: A Case Study
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Haiqing Zhang
Haiqing Zhang
School of Environmental Science and Safety Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
More by Haiqing Zhang
Xiaoyan Wang*
Xiaoyan Wang
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
*Email: [email protected]
More by Xiaoyan Wang
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2463-7260
Xiaoyi Zhai
Xiaoyi Zhai
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
More by Xiaoyi Zhai
Yong Liu
Yong Liu
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
More by Yong Liu
Xinglong Jin
Xinglong Jin
School of Environmental Science and Safety Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
More by Xinglong Jin
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0829-8388

Open PDF Supporting Information (1)

ACS Chemical Health & Safety

Cite this: ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX

Click to copy citationCitation copied!

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.4c00061

Published December 6, 2024

Request reuse permissions

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Considering the pivotal role of graduate students in laboratory safety, this work investigates the tolerance of habitual risk-taking behaviors among first-year graduate students. The results showed that the risk tolerance of graduate students in laboratory living habits is higher than that in personal protective equipment, safety operation regulations, and occupational exposure. In addition, there is a significant positive correlation between personal safety-related risk tolerance and laboratory-related risk tolerance. This work pays attention to some habitual behaviors of graduate students in academic laboratories that can lead to near-misses, incidents, and accidents. It reminds us to strengthen risk education concerning occupational exposure during regular and daily safety education and management.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Subjects

Keywords

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In recent years, the quantity and variety of academic laboratories in Chinese universities have significantly increased due to the rapid development of disciplines and research such as in materials, environment, and energy. (1) It is worth noting that compared with other laboratories, chemical laboratories have various flammable and explosive materials and equipment with high temperature or pressure etc. In addition, laboratory research is dynamic and exploratory. Academic laboratories are subject to turnover by design, as experienced students graduate and new students join research groups. All of these have brought challenges to laboratory safety management. (2,3)

Many efforts have endeavored toward laboratory safety management worldwide, as shown in Table 1. The environmental health and safety (EH&S) system is the basis for the management of American university laboratories, and different management models have been developed on this basis. (4) Australian universities have adopted a similar management model. For example, Western Sydney University has established the Work Health and Safety Unit (WHSU), which employs a professional team responsible for the university’s work health, safety, and incident management. (5) Universities in Japan have safety and environmental protection management institutions suitable for their specific characteristics. (6) In China, each university has a department in charge of laboratory safety, similar to EH&S. In addition, much effort has been provided for safety regulation, safety education, and training. There are many specific standards developed for university laboratories in recent years, such as “Safety Standards for Higher Education Laboratory” and “Classification and Management Measures for the Safety of Higher Education Laboratories”. Besides, regular safety inspections are mandated.

Table 1. Laboratory Safety Management in Various Countries

Country	Laboratory management	Example
America	Office of Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S)	Columbia University
Australia	Work Health and Safety Unit (WHSU)	Western Sydney University
Japan	Environmental Safety Department, Health Promotion Department, Experimental Committee	University of Tokyo
China	Office of Laboratory Management	Tsinghua University

But accidents still occasionally occur. For example, a student at Yale University died during the experiment in 2012. (7) In 2018, an explosion of a hydrogen gas cylinder at the Indian Institute of Science resulted in the death of one researcher and severe injuries to three others. (3) In 2018, an explosion at Beijing Jiaotong University resulted in the death of three students. (8) The causes of some accidents were related to the violation of experimental procedures, risky operation, improper storage of hazardous chemicals, etc.

According to the statistics of all the causes of laboratory incidents, human is the most important factor in Chinese university laboratories. (9) The individual tends to overestimate their ability to control or prevent incidents, thus leading to an underestimation of risks and the occurrence of unsafe behaviors. From the perspective of risk behavior and risk-taking decisions, the degree of risk that an individual is willing to take in the pursuit of a certain goal is defined by Hunter as risk tolerance, which is the degree of willingness of the individual to accept and engage in risks. (10) Risk tolerance has been proven to be an important factor affecting unsafe behavior. For example, Bhandari et al. pointed out that there is a direct relationship between personal risk tolerance and work-related risk tolerance, and both are positively correlated with the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. (11) Ji et al. studied pilots’ risk tolerance, risk perception, risk attitude, and safety operation behavior and found that risk tolerance would indirectly affect pilots’ safety operation behavior through risk attitude. (12) Pauley et al. also confirmed the relationship between risk tolerance and risk-taking behavior and that risk tolerance can effectively predict the potential incidents for aviation pilots. (13) Previous literature has shown a significant correlation between risk tolerance and individual unsafe behavior, and individuals with higher levels of risk tolerance are more likely to engage in unsafe behavior. (14) However, although there is an increasing amount of research on risk tolerance among practitioners in the construction industry and aviation systems, little attention has been paid to the risk tolerance of graduate students in the academic laboratory.

As the novices in the laboratory, the first-year graduate students’ tolerance toward habitual risk behaviors will have an impact on laboratory safety. A higher risk tolerance will subtly affect graduate students’ risk habits, resulting in unsafe behavior, which may lead to dangerous situations. Especially for the basic rules such as personal protective equipment (e.g., lab coats, goggles) in laboratories, some graduate students cannot achieve surface compliance, let alone proactive engagement in safety activities. (15)

Therefore, this work investigates the tolerance of habitual risk-taking behaviors by graduate students. It is expected to provide basic data support for the effective implementation of safety management in university academic laboratories. The specific research contents in this study can be summarized as follows:

Investigate the risk tolerance of first-year graduate students concerning personal safety-related risk behaviors and laboratory-related habitual risk behaviors.
Determine whether differences exist between subgroups among graduate students.
Clarify the correlation between personal safety-related risk tolerance and laboratory-related risk tolerance of graduate students.

Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Questionnaire

Considering the unique cultural context of this study and the specific characteristics of academic laboratories, the questionnaire was adapted from Bhandari’s research to gauge the risk tolerance of graduate students, particularly in relation to habitual risk-taking behaviors. (14) The revised instrument is composed of two distinct components: personal safety-related risk tolerance (PRT) and laboratory-related risk tolerance (LRT). As shown in Table S1, personal safety-related risk tolerance includes 5 items related to personal safety. The scale of laboratory-related risk tolerance is designed to measure graduate students’ tolerance to habitual risk-taking behaviors based on a wide range of unsafe behaviors, including 19 items about graduate students’ habitual risk-taking behaviors in academic laboratories. It involves four dimensions: personal protective equipment (LRT-PPE, 5 items), laboratory living habits (LRT-LLH, 4 items), safety operation regulations (LRT-SOR, 5 items), and occupational exposure (LRT-OE, 5 items). The Likert scale was used to quantify these items and had the range 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which correspondingly represents respondents’ acceptance level from (1) = totally unacceptable to (7) = totally acceptable (the degree of acceptance grows with the increase ofnumber).

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local Academic Ethics Committee (Approval No. TJUE-2022-044). In December 2023, a survey questionnaire was released to first-year graduate students through the MyCOS teaching quality management platform. In the cover letter of the survey, graduate students were informed that participation in this survey is voluntary, and all information collected is confidential and would be used only for this study. If students were interested, they could voluntarily and anonymously join the survey. A total of 146 graduate students participated in the survey. Among them, 69 (47.26%) were male, and 77 (52.74%) were female; 95 (65.07%) were from applied chemical engineering, 47 (32.19%) from biomedicine, and 4 (2.74%) from other research fields.

Statistical Data Analysis

The questionnaire results were analyzed using SPSS 27.0, Amos 24.0, and Origin 2018 software to establish a database, including descriptive analysis (mean and standard deviation), normality tests, difference analyses, and correlation analysis.

It is worth noting the Spearman correlation analysis was used to test whether there is a correlation and the degree of closeness between different dimensions, with the Spearman correlation coefficient being a statistic used to measure the strength of the relationship between two variables. It is similar to the Pearson correlation coefficient but can be used for variables of nonlinear relationships. (16) The Spearman correlation coefficient is calculated as follows:

ρ = 1 - \frac{6 \sum_{i}^{n} d_{i}^{2}}{n (n^{2} - 1)}

where d_i represents the difference in rank of the corresponding variable and n represents the number of samples. A positive ρ-value indicates a positive correlation between the two variables, while a negative ρ-value suggests a negative correlation.

Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Normality Test

Before further analysis, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data of each dimension were consistent with or were approximately consistent with the normal distribution. The results show that although the p-value of personal safety-related risk tolerance is significant, the LRT-PPE, LRT-LLH, LRT-SOR, and LRT-OE do not conform to the normal distribution. In order to obtain more accurate measurement results, the Mann–Whitney-U test was used for difference analysis and Spearman correlation was used for correlation analysis.

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Cronbach’s α is a widely recognized measure of internal consistency or reliability for a set of items within a scale. The KMO test is used to assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis. (17) The reliability and validity of personal safety-related risk tolerance and laboratory-related risk tolerance were tested using Cronbach’s α and KMO, respectively. Table S3 shows the Cronbach’s α and KMO test results for the variables. Cronbach’s α of all dimensions was above 0.6, indicating that the questionnaire had good reliability. (18) The KMO test coefficients of the scale were above 0.6, which indicates that it is suitable for factor analysis. (19)

Amos 24.0 was used for confirmatory factor analysis. The Bollen–Stine bootstrap was used to correct the standard error and fit statistic bias due to non-normal data. (20) As shown in Table S4, RMSEA of the scale was <0.080, χ²/df <3, and each fitting index (CFI, IFI, NFI, RFI) was >0.8. The fit index of the scale met relevant measurement standards, connoting that the scale exhibited a sound fit.

Descriptive Analysis

Figure 1 shows the descriptive statistical results. The mean value of personal safety-related risk tolerance is 3.075, which is significantly higher than that of laboratory-related risk tolerance (1.586), indicating that graduate students showed a higher risk-taking behavior in their personal lives. The detailed analyses of each item are as follows.

As far as the specific items of personal safety-related risk tolerance were concerned, the PRT5 item (I enjoy outdoor activities such as bungee jumping, mountaineering, skiing, and so on) has the highest mean (3.438), with 30.13% of respondents choosing “a little acceptable” or “acceptable”, or “totally acceptable”; Then next (3.164) is the PRT1 item (It is very comfortable to walk alone at night in an unfamiliar environment.), for which 24.65% of graduate students choose “a little acceptable” or “acceptable” or “totally acceptable”.

As for laboratory-related risk tolerance, the mean value of laboratory living habits (1.856) is higher than those of personal protective equipment (1.629), safety operation regulations (1.574), and occupational exposure (1.340). Among them, the item with the highest mean (2.274) is LRT9 (Play mobile phones in the laboratory during the experiment), and 13.01% of respondents hold an acceptance attitude. Similarly, the mean of the LRT6 item (It is advantageous to play mobile phones during the experiment because it relieves the pressure) is 2.048, with 8.90% of respondents with an attitude of acceptance. These indicate that although most respondents can control themselves from playing mobile phones during experiments, there are still a small number of graduate students who depend too much on mobile phones, which is in accordance with the actual situation in laboratory inspection.

The item with the highest mean (1.836) in the personal protective equipment dimension is LRT1 (Lab coats were not worn in absence of laboratory inspection), for which 3.41% of graduate students chose “a little acceptable” or “acceptable”, or “totally acceptable”. The item with the lowest mean (1.521) was LRT5 (Conduct experiments without the protective gloves), and there are still 2.05% of graduate students with an attitude of acceptance. However, it is worth noting that the compliance with regulations such as personal protective equipment only provides a foundational level of safety, but laboratories are encouraged to exceed these standards, adopting best practices that elevate their safety protocols. (21)

The item with the highest mean (1.849) in the safety operation regulations is LRT13 (Place the experimental sample in the unattended oven (under continuous heating) overnight), and 3.42% of graduate students choose “a little acceptable”, “acceptable”, or “totally acceptable”, which inevitably brings certain risks. This item originated from two near-misses in the academic laboratories, which remind us to strengthen instrument usage understanding in the future.

The item with the highest mean (1.486) in the occupational exposure dimension is LRT16 (Conduct experiments related to nanomaterials only with a mask), and 1.37% of graduate students have an attitude of acceptance. However, the health and safety data of most nanomaterials are largely unknown or incomplete; in some cases, nanomaterials may have unknown risks, and although their volume is small, they are potentially more toxic than their bulk counterparts. (22,23)

Difference Analysis

Figure 2 shows the difference in gender. There was a significant gender difference in personal safety-related risk tolerance (p = 0.017) among graduate students. Specifically, the male students’ acceptance of risk-taking in daily life was significantly higher than that of the female. There is no significant gender difference in terms of laboratory-related risk tolerance. The specific data trends of each subgroup are shown in Table S5. Among them, the median and quartile of the male group were 3.40 and [2.60, 3.80]. For the female group, the median was 2.80 and the quartile was [2.00, 3.70]. This finding indicates that the male graduate students’ acceptance of risk is slightly higher than that of the female graduate students in their personal life, which may be related to the female students’ higher risk perception and more concern about laboratory safety, which is consistent with previous studies. (24)

Figure 2. Difference in gender. Note: ^*Significantly correlated at the 0.05 level (two-sided).

Due to the small sample size of only 4 graduate students in “other” research directions, the Mann–Whitney-U test was only conducted for the difference in risk tolerance between graduate students in chemical engineering and biomedicine. The specific data trends of each subgroup are shown in Table S6. Figure 3 shows the difference in the research direction. Although chemical engineering (e.g., synthesis and engineering of functional polymers, catalysts, and fine chemicals) and biomedicine (e.g., identification and exploration of active pharmaceutical ingredients from natural sources, the innovation of novel drugs, and the process of drug synthesis) students conducted different experiments in the academic laboratory, there is no significant difference between the two subgroups in personal-related and laboratory-related risk tolerance. This demonstrates the participants are relatively homogeneous.

Figure 3. Difference in research direction.

Spearman Correlation

Table 2 shows the results of the Spearman correlation analysis. The results indicate a positive correlation (ρ = 0.370) between personal safety-related risk tolerance and laboratory-related risk tolerance. Among them, there is a positive correlation between personal safety-related risk tolerance and personal protective equipment (ρ = 0.361), but also a correlation with safety operation regulations (ρ = 0.335), laboratory living habits (ρ = 0.278), and occupational exposure (ρ = 0.258). All correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.01). This finding indicates that the feeling seeking tendency of graduate students in their personal lives can affect their willingness to accept risks in academic laboratories. That is, students who have a higher acceptance degree of risk-taking and stimulating behaviors in their daily lives are inclined to have a higher willingness to accept risks in research work. Therefore, future targeted laboratory risk-taking behavior interventions should focus on individual difference in risk-taking tendencies in their daily lives.

Table 2. Results of Spearman Correlation Analysis^a

Dimensions	1	2	3	4	5
1. PRT	1
2. LRT-PPE	0.3618**	1
3. LRT-LLH	0.278**	0.683**	1
4. LRT-SOR	0.335**	0.550**	0.692**	1
5. LRT-OE	0.258**	0.524**	0.558**	0.698**	1

^{^a}

Note: **Significantly correlated at the 0.01 level (two-sided). RPT (personal safety-related risk tolerance); LRT-PPE (laboratory-related risk tolerance - personal protective equipment); LRT-LLH (laboratory-related risk tolerance - laboratory living habits); LRT-SOR (laboratory-related risk tolerance - safety operation regulations); LRT-OE (laboratory-related risk tolerance - occupational exposure).

In addition, there are varying degrees of correlation between the subdimensions of laboratory-related risk tolerance. As shown in Table 2, there is a strong positive correlation between safety operation regulations and occupational exposure (ρ = 0.698), laboratory habits and safety operation regulations (ρ = 0.692), and personal protective equipment and laboratory living habits (ρ = 0.683). There is also a positive correlation between laboratory living habits and occupational exposure (ρ = 0.558), personal protective equipment and safety operation regulations (r = 0.550), and personal protective equipment and occupational exposure (ρ = 0.524), all of which are statistically significant (p < 0.01). These findings indicate that students with higher risk acceptance in personal protection also have a higher risk acceptance in laboratory life, experimental operations, and chemical exposure.

Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Habitual Behavior and Unsafe Behavior

The study found that most of the respondents had a low acceptance of laboratory-related habitual risk-taking behaviors, but there are still some graduate students who have poor laboratory behavior habits. However, in existing research, the unsafe behavior of students is widely regarded as the direct cause of accidents in university laboratories. (9) It is worth noting that unsafe behavior cannot be separated from the accumulation of poor habits among the experimental operators.

The research on unsafe behavior can be traced back to the 1970s. In 1978, Komaki et al. proposed the concept of behavior-based safety (BBS). (25) Subsequently, scholars in the safety science community have explored the concept, factors, and mechanisms of unsafe behavior. (26) For example, Heinrich first proposed that accidents are caused by a combination of unsafe behavior and unsafe conditions. (27) The Swiss Cheese Model also highlights the key role of human factors in causing accidents to occur. (28) Although current scholars have different understandings of unsafe behavior, the definition of unsafe behavior is not uniform. (29) The behavioral safety “24 Model” built on the Accident-Causing Theory points out that the development of accidents can be divided into individual behavior and organizational behavior and four stages of guiding behavior, operational behavior, habitual behavior, one-time acts, and conditions. (30)

Habitual behavior is an indirect factor accounting for accidents in university laboratories. The indirect causes of accidents have existed in the laboratory management process for a long time. (31) Once the site conditions change, the situation deviates from the safety state. The hidden danger evolves into the “trigger point” of unsafe behavior and unsafe state, thus causing the accident. (30) As mentioned earlier, if graduate students cannot comply with basic laboratory safety regulations such as wearing lab coats, protective gloves, and goggles when conducting experiments, they will gradually develop poor behavior habits and be unable to proactively engage in laboratory safety activities. For example, “play mobile phones during the experiment”, “flush the unknown white solid waste with water”, “conduct experiments related to nanomaterials only with a mask”, and “wear glasses but no protective goggles when transferring concentrated sulfuric acid” are all poor habits. This habitual noncompliance with laboratory safety regulations is often driven by fluke psychology, stemming from graduate students’ underestimation of potential risks and overconfidence in their ability. They may believe they can control or avoid accidents due to previous successful experiences, thus overlooking the importance of complying with safety regulations. However, near-misses due to habitual behavior are likely to be more frequent than actual accidents.

And many near-misses might not have been documented. An undocumented near miss or an incident that is not reviewed or communicated represents a missed opportunity to help others avoid similar situations. In this survey, 2.74% of graduate students chose a little acceptable for the item “when conducting active experiments all day and having lunch without turning off the equipment such as stirrer, heater, etc.”. While timely maintenance of equipment typically prevents serious incidents during normal operation, the risk of accidents cannot be entirely ruled out. This was illustrated in an incident at a laboratory at the Beijing Institute of Technology, where five persons were injured in an explosion during the commissioning of experimental equipment. (32) Furthermore, 2.73% of graduate students accept “conduct experiments without the lab coat”. However, if corrosive chemicals such as concentrated sulfuric acid are accidentally leaking, it is easy to cause harm. An example is the tert-butyllithium accident that occurred at UCLA on December 29, 2008. It is heartbreaking that during the 14 months prior to this accident, UCLA had failed to report to the relevant department two other similar, but nonfatal, incidents from other research groups involving burns and facial lacerations to students not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. (33) Because personal protective equipment includes a variety of accessories, it has been specifically designed to reduce contact with hazardous chemicals, and other factors associated with the potential risk of health and safety hazards in the laboratory, (34,35) when personal protective equipment is used in accordance with established recommendations, it can serve as a basic protective measure for laboratory personnel, thereby minimizing injury. (36,37) For example, protective goggles are essential for not only blocking hazardous materials from reaching the eyes but also diminishing the irritation and potential harm caused by exposure to highly concentrated dangerous substances. As mentioned in Heinrich’s Law, behind every major safety accident, there are inevitably 29 minor injury incidents and 300 no injury near-misses. (38) In other words, the occurrence of incidents is often inseparable from a series of hidden dangers and poor habits. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of personal protective equipment such as protective goggles at safety meetings, seminars, and regular safety training, by discussing the risk of these exposures. It is imperative not only to ensure that graduate students comply with security protocols and regulations but also to cultivate a proactive and continuous safety mindset to improve safety performance. (39)

However, it is worth noting that it is difficult to obtain information related to the behavioral habits or psychological states of the experimental operators in incident investigation reports; therefore, such habitual behaviors are difficult to identify in incident analysis. Investigating risk tolerance can provide insights into the risk habits of graduate students, reveal the extent to which they accept habitual risk-taking behaviors, and assist laboratory managers in devising targeted intervention strategies. These strategies can subtly encourage the development of good laboratory practices among graduate students and help to appropriately lower their tolerance for risk. With the improvement of students’ responsibility and the continuous construction of laboratory safety culture, students’ acceptance of habitual risk-taking behavior in academic laboratories may change. This habitual behavior may be affected by individual and external factors and can be well explained by the Theory of Planning Behavior (TPB). That is, individual behavior is directly guided by behavioral intention, which is in turn influenced by attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. (40) With this in mind, the review and assessment of safety behaviors regularly and the inclusion of RAMP (recognize hazards, assess risk, minimize risk, and prepare for emergencies) in risk guidance for chemical health and safety can be used as ways to increase safety awareness among graduate students. (41) It establishes a foundation for the secure progression of laboratory-based scientific research in the coming years, and this is also the rationale behind selecting first-year graduate students as our subjects of study. As newcomers to the scientific community, effective intervention in this formative period is critical for shaping their laboratory behavior habits.

Occupational Exposure

It has been proved that one’s subjective perception of risk can affect his or her risk tolerance. (42) Basically, individuals with more sensitivity to potential danger are more likely to behave carefully and take more active attitudes toward identifying and handling confronted safety risks, rather than “just do it” without taking the potential outcomes into consideration. Based on this, another important finding of this study is that first-year graduate students do not have a deep understanding of the risks of nanomaterials and have a high level of acceptance of related risks. As shown in Figure 1, only 63.01% of the participants did not totally accept “conduct experiments related to nanomaterials only with a mask”. However, as mentioned earlier, the health and safety data of most engineered nanomaterials are still largely unknown or incomplete, and due to the extremely small size of nanomaterials, dermal, inhalation, oral, and ocular exposures are all potential pathways through which they are ingested by the human body. The uptake can specifically occur through the eyes, gastrointestinal tract, lungs, nasal cavity, and skin, after which these materials can enter the circulatory system and translocate to distal sites in the body affecting the physical health of experimental operators. (43,44) In addition, it is worth noting that many laboratories involve nanomaterials. Therefore, the comprehension of nanomaterial-related risks by graduate students, who are the primary conductors of such experiments, is pivotal to determining the safety risk within the laboratory environment. The increasing number of engineering nanomaterials research has brought many unknown hazards and exposure scenarios to operators. Currently, there are many literature reports on risk assessment and risk control measures for nanomaterials. Ahmad et al. proposed a safety risk assessment method for nanomaterials that combines integrated omics with machine learning. (45) Oksel et al. evaluated the existing control measures for risks related to nanomaterials, providing guidance for further improvement of their risk management strategies. (46) It is hopeful that in the future, the risk control of nanomaterials may no longer be an insurmountable challenge. However, in today’s world where risks are still unknown and control strategies are still incomplete, it is particularly important to improve the risk awareness of nanomaterial experimenters and minimize their exposure to protect themselves from potential hazards caused by nanomaterials.

It should be underscored that researchers, in their quest for new knowledge, will invariably encounter unknowns. In addition to nanomaterials, the sensitization to a specific hazard is also unclear. Other exposures, such as chemical vapors, incompatibility of solutions, and other toxic hazards, also need further study. University laboratories involve a wide variety of hazardous chemicals with complex properties. Particularly, it is important to note that exploratory experiments in academic laboratories frequently proceed without comprehensive risk assessments, potentially overlooking unidentified safety hazards. Although many practices in universities seek to achieve high levels of safety, the inherent nature of academic laboratories precludes the absolute elimination of hazards. (47) It is crucial to enhance risk education on occupational exposure in academic laboratories and maintain an awesome attitude toward unknown chemicals and chemical reactions. This type of education should not only cover basic knowledge of risk identification, assessment, and control but also include preventive measures and strategies for responding to emergency situations. By implementing a systematic training program, it is possible to ensure that all laboratory personnel possess the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively manage potential health and safety risks, promote a safety-oriented culture, and minimize the likelihood of near-misses, incidents, and accidents.

Limitations and Future Directions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

There are several limitations in this study as follows. First, due to the inherent characteristics of self-reported data, research results depend on the authenticity and accuracy of participant responses, which may lead to biases between research results and actual situations. In other words, influenced by social desirability bias, participants may be inclined to respond with behaviors that appear to entail less obvious risk, leading to data we collected on graduate students’ tolerance for habitual risk-taking behaviors being slightly lower than the actual situation. Future research can increase methods such as more observer-based data or professional interviews to obtain more objective measurement results. Second, as a horizontal study, this study collected data on the risk tolerance of graduate students at specific time points. However, academic laboratory personnel and research is dynamic. Horizontal studies cannot explain the change of risk acceptance of graduate students toward poor habits. Therefore, future longitudinal studies should be conducted to explore whether the willingness of graduate students to accept risks will ideally change. Furthermore, the scale’s items may not comprehensively reflect the safety protocols and controls of different laboratories, nor do they account for the diverse operational modes of the equipment employed. In subsequent research endeavors, it would be beneficial to delve into a clearer measurement of the safe operational requirements of specific types of laboratory equipment. Finally, this study was conducted only on graduate students in chemistry-related majors at a university, and the generalizability of the research results is limited. Therefore, in the future, the sample size can be expanded or repeated surveys can be conducted in different backgrounds to obtain research results with wider applicability and higher reliability.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chas.4c00061.

Tables for the instrument details (PDF)

hs4c00061_si_001.pdf (98.27 kb)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Corresponding Author
- Xiaoyan Wang - School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2463-7260; Email: [email protected]
Authors
- Haiqing Zhang - School of Environmental Science and Safety Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
- Xiaoyi Zhai - School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
- Yong Liu - School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China
- Xinglong Jin - School of Environmental Science and Safety Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0829-8388
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors acknowledge the Tianjin University of Technology Graduate Teaching Reform Project (ZYSZ2302, YBXM2212), Chinese Association of Higher Education “Higher Science Education Reform Practice Research Project” (22LK0404), and all participants in this study.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 47 other publications.

1
Liu, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhao, D.; Qi, M.; Lu, S.; Meng, Y. Research on risk identification and evaluation method of chemical laboratory in colleges and universities. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2020, 37 (12), 288– 291, (in Chinese)
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
2
Sussman, V.; Dutta, S.; Foisel, J. Of people, programs, and priorities: The impact of organizational culture in industrial research and development laboratories. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2023, 30 (5), 223– 235, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00052
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
3
Ménard, A. D.; Trant, J. F. A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nat. Chem. 2020, 12, 17– 25, DOI: 10.1038/s41557-019-0375-x
Google Scholar
3
A review and critique of academic lab safety research
Menard, A. Dana; Trant, John F.
Nature Chemistry (2020), 12 (1), 17-25CODEN: NCAHBB; ISSN:1755-4330. (Nature Research)
A review. Over the past ten years, there were several high-profile accidents in academic labs. around the world, resulting in significant injuries and fatalities. The aftermath of these incidents is often characterized by calls for reflection and re-examn. of the academic discipline's approach to safety research and policy. However, the study of academic lab safety is still underdeveloped and necessary data about changes in safety attitudes and behaviors has not been gathered. This Review article critically examines the state of academic chem. safety research from a multifactorial stance, including research on the occurrence of lab accidents, contributors to lab accidents, the state of safety training research and the cultural barriers to conducting safety research and implementing safer lab practices. The Review concludes by delineating research questions that must be addressed to minimize future serious academic lab. incidents as well as stressing the need for committed leadership from our research institutions.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1MXit1SntbfF&md5=f810d68c8e44e00e71dd7520dd691eee
4
Yu, T.; Yang, Z. F. Laboratory safety management system of Columbia University in USA and its enlightenment. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2020, 36 (07), 248– 252, (in Chinese)
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
5
Wang, F.; Ye, G. Y. Investigation on safety management of biochemical laboratory in Western Sydney University. Res. Explor. Lab. 2020, 39 (10), 149, (in Chinese)
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
6
Zhang, Z. Q. Investigation and inspiration of laboratory safety and environmental protection from Japanese universities. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2010, 27 (7), 164– 167, (in Chinese)
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
7
Gopalaswami, N.; Han, Z. Analysis of laboratory incident database. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 64, 104027 DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104027
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
8
Liu, S. Z.; Ju, S. L.; Meng, Y. F.; Liu, Q. L.; Zhao, D. F. Inherent hazards assessment and classification method for university chemical laboratories in China. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2023, 30 (4), 156– 164, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00022
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
9
Bai, M.; Liu, Y.; Qi, M.; Roy, N.; Shu, C.-M.; Khan, F.; Zhao, D. Current status, challenges, and future directions of university laboratory safety in China. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2022, 74, 104671 DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104671
Google Scholar
9
Current status, challenges, and future directions of university laboratory safety in China
Bai, Mingqi; Liu, Yi; Qi, Meng; Roy, Nitin; Shu, Chi-Min; Khan, Faisal; Zhao, Dongfeng
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (2022), 74 (), 104671CODEN: JLPIE9; ISSN:0950-4230. (Elsevier Ltd.)
The past two decades have seen a rise in university lab. accidents in China. Although there is a growing awareness due to higher reporting and media coverage, the evaluation and understanding of common hazards and deficiencies in university labs. remains to be addressed. Aiming to enhance safety in lab.-related activities, this study analyzed the current status and challenges of university lab. safety in China and presented future directions to reduce accidents using engineering and administrative controls. A descriptive statistical anal. of 110 publicly reported university lab. accidents in mainland China since 2000 was performed to investigate the proximate causes of the accidents, and further, to identify potential deficiencies existing in the current safety management of labs. It was found that human factors were the most contributing cause and the training element was a vulnerable competency in lab. safety management. Based on the results, a comparative anal. between the underlying reasons for the poor safety situation and the efforts that have been made has brought the challenges and possible solns. for safety improvements in university labs. By suggesting top-down and bottom-up approaches, the present study provides valuable insights and serves as a ref. for universities and relevant authorities to enhance safety in university labs.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3MXislOhsLzK&md5=30b0038ad21d1139438d0a7859ff93f6
10
Hunter, D. R. Risk perception and risk tolerance in aircraft pilots. No. DOT/FAA/AM-02/17. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Aviation. Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, 2002.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
11
Bhandari, S.; Hallowell, M. R.; Alruqi, W.; Salas, R. Modeling the relationship between personal risk tolerance, work-related risk tolerance, and risk-taking behavior of construction workers. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2021, 147 (4), 04021016 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002021
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
12
Ji, M.; You, X.; Lan, J.; Yang, S. The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49 (10), 1412– 1420, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.007
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
13
Pauley, K.; O’Hare, D.; Wiggins, M. Risk Tolerance and pilot involvement in hazardous events and flight into adverse weather. J. Saf. Res. 2008, 39 (4), 403– 411, DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2008.05.009
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
14
Bhandari, S.; Hallowell, M. R. Influence of safety climate on risk tolerance and risk-taking behavior: A cross-cultural examination. Saf. Sci. 2022, 146, 105559 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105559
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
15
Gao, D. F.; Wang, X. Y.; Jin, X. L. Study on the influencing factors of deep compliance and surface compliance in scientific research laboratories. J. Tianjin Univ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 38 (4), 59– 64, (in Chinese)
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
16
Artusi, R.; Verderio, P.; Marubini, E. Bravais-Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients: Meaning, test of hypothesis and confidence Interval. Int. J. Biol. Markers. 2002, 17 (2), 148– 151, DOI: 10.1177/172460080201700213
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
17
Chen, X. Z. Theory and application of modern statistical analysis methods. National Defense Industry Press, Beijing, 2016. (in Chinese).
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
18
Hair, J. F.; Anderson, R. E.; Tatham, R. L.; Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
19
Kaiser, H. F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974, 39 (1), 31– 36, DOI: 10.1007/BF02291575
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
20
Enders, C. K. An SAS macro for implementing the modified Bollen-Stine bootstrap for missing data: Implementing the bootstrap using existing structural equation modeling software. Struct. Equ. Modeling. 2005, 12 (4), 620– 641, DOI: 10.1207/s15328007sem1204_6
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
21
Abedsoltan, H.; Shiflett, M. B. Mitigation of potential risks in chemical laboratories: A focused review. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, 31 (2), 104– 120, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00097
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
22
Schulte, P. A.; Geraci, C. L.; Murashov, V.; Kuempel, E. D.; Zumwalde, R. D.; Castranova, V.; Hoover, M. D.; Hodson, L.; Martinez, K. F. Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 2014, 16 (1), 2153, DOI: 10.1007/s11051-013-2153-9
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
23
Pietroiusti, A.; Stockmann-Juvala, H.; Lucaroni, F.; Savolainen, K. Nanomaterial exposure, toxicity, and impact on human health. Wiley. Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2018, 10 (5), e1513, DOI: 10.1002/wnan.1513
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
24
Wang, J.; Liu, X. Q.; Wang, X. Y.; Jin, X. L.; Wu, X. S.; Xue, S. Measuring university students’ safety perception, awareness and attitude in chemical teaching laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (7), 2558– 2563, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00445
Google Scholar
24
Measuring University Students' Safety Perception, Awareness and Attitude in Chemical Teaching Laboratory
Wang, Juan; Liu, Xiaoqing; Wang, Xiaoyan; Jin, Xinglong; Wu, Xinshi; Xue, Song
Journal of Chemical Education (2023), 100 (7), 2558-2563CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
This study aims to evaluate the lab. safety perception, awareness and attitude of undergraduates toward the chem. teaching lab. by means of a self-administered questionnaire. The survey contains a sample size of 959 undergraduates in Tianjin University of Technol. involving four schools. Instrument reliability and validity are also tested. The results show that most of students have a more pos. lab. environmental perception and safety awareness. However, the lab. safety attitude need improvement. In addn., it is noticed significant difference is also found in gender and school. This result could lead to the improvement of the following safety education.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3sXhtFKjtrfM&md5=a98be54d70abc370eb8562793316e9a8
25
Komaki, J.; Barwick, K. D.; Scott, L. R. A behavioural approach to occupational safety: pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. J. Appl. Psychol. 1978, 63 (4), 434– 445, DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.434
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
26
Yu, K.; Cao, Q.; Xie, C.; Qu, N.; Zhou, L. Analysis of intervention strategies for coal miners’ unsafe behaviors based on analytic network process and system dynamics. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 145– 157, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.002
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
27
Heinrich, H. W. Industrial accident prevention. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, 1979.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
28
Reason, J. A systems approach to organizational error. Ergonomics 1995, 38 (8), 1708– 1721, DOI: 10.1080/00140139508925221
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
29
An, Y.; Wang, H.; Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Tong, R. Using the tpb and 24model to understand workers’ unintentional and intentional unsafe behaviour: A case study. Saf. Sci. 2023, 163, 106099 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106099
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
30
Wu, Y. L.; Fu, G.; Wu, Z. R.; Wang, Y. X.; Xie, X. C.; Han, M.; Lyu, Q. A popular systemic accident model in China: Theory and applications of 24 model. Saf. Sci. 2023, 159, 106013 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106013
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
31
Xu, C.; Guo, L.; Wang, K.; Yang, T.; Feng, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, D.; Fu, G. Current challenges of university laboratory: Characteristics of human factors and safety management system deficiencies based on accident statistics. J. Saf. Res. 2023, 86, 318– 335, DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2023.07.010
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
32
Li, Z. H. Research on statistical analysis and countermeasures of 100 laboratory accidents. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2014, 31 (04), 210, (in Chinese)
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
33
Baudendistel, B. Investigation report University of California, Los Angeles. Report No. S1110-003-09, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Los Angeles, 2009.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
34
Ayi, H. R.; Hon, C. Y. Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2018, 25 (6), 6– 12, DOI: 10.1016/j.jchas.2018.05.002
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
35
Gibson, J. H.; Schröder, I.; Wayne, N. L. A research university’s rapid response to a fatal chemistry accident: Safety changes and outcomes. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2014, 21 (4), 18– 26, DOI: 10.1016/j.jchas.2014.01.003
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
36
Jin, X. Y.; Gao, F.; Qin, M. X.; Yu, Y. P.; Zhao, Y.; Shao, T. Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, W. H.; Xie, B.; Xiong, Y. J.; Yang, L. H.; Wu, Y. How to make personal protective equipment spontaneously and continuously antimicrobial (incorporating oxidase-like catalysts). ACS Nano 2022, 16 (5), 7755– 7771, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c11647
Google Scholar
36
How to Make Personal Protective Equipment Spontaneously and Continuously Antimicrobial (Incorporating Oxidase-like Catalysts)
Jin, Xinyang; Gao, Feng; Qin, Mingxin; Yu, Yunpeng; Zhao, Yue; Shao, Tianyi; Chen, Cai; Zhang, Wenhua; Xie, Bin; Xiong, Yujie; Yang, Lihua; Wu, Yuen
ACS Nano (2022), 16 (5), 7755-7771CODEN: ANCAC3; ISSN:1936-0851. (American Chemical Society)
The inability of com. personal protective equipment (PPE) to inactivate microbes in the droplets/aerosols they intercept makes used PPE a potential source of cross-contamination. To make PPE spontaneously and continuously antimicrobial, we incorporate PPE with oxidase-like catalysts, which efficiently convert O2 into reactive oxygen species (ROS) without requiring any externally applied stimulus. Using a single-atom catalyst (SAC) nanoparticle contg. atomically dispersed copper atoms as the reactive centers (Cu-SAC) and a silver-palladium bimetallic alloy nanoparticle AgPd0.38 as models for oxidase-like catalysts, we show that the incorporation of oxidase-like catalysts enables PPE to inactivate bacteria in the droplets/aerosols they intercept without requiring any externally applied stimulus. Notably, this approach works both for PPE that are fibrous and woven such as a com. KN95 facial respirator and for those made of solid plastics such as apron. This work suggests a feasible and global approach for preventing PPE from spreading infectious diseases.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38XhtFCis7vM&md5=54bc1b80d57253abfdbd3271fd238e4d
37
Chen, M. M.; Wu, Y. Q.; Wang, K.; Guo, H. J.; Ke, W. An explosion accident analysis of the laboratory in university. Process. Saf. Prog. 2020, 39 (4), e12150, DOI: 10.1002/prs.12150
Google Scholar
37
An explosion accident analysis of the laboratory in university
Chen, Mengmeng; Wu, Yaqin; Wang, Kai; Guo, Haijun; Ke, Wei
Process Safety Progress (2020), 39 (4), e12150CODEN: PSAPE2; ISSN:1066-8527. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
Academic research in the lab. is often considered as the work with lower risks compared with other process industries. Whereas, it is revealed that there are still many accidents happening in the lab., causing deaths, injuries, and economic losses. In order to identify the main causes and improve the safety management, an explosion accident in a lab. of a university is thoroughly investigated based on the 24Model and 5Whys method. The results indicate that inadequate safety knowledge and insufficient safety awareness of the experimenters serve as main contributors of the accident. In order to effectively prevent such accidents, it is necessary to strengthen the safety training of the experimenters and assocd. tech. managers, so as to create a good safety culture atm. in the university. Moreover, a smart safety management system based on internet of things (IoT) is established for the lab., which contains equipment management subsystem, expt. consumables management subsystem, personnel management, training and assessment subsystem, environmental monitoring subsystem, and accident diagnosis subsystem. With the help of the system, daily safety of the lab. can be greatly improved.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3cXitlOgtb%252FL&md5=c4b8a1f0c0cb4797018514bdfc3d0fd7
38
Marshall, P.; Hirmas, A.; Singer, M. Heinrich’s pyramid and occupational safety: A statistical validation methodology. Saf. Sci. 2018, 101, 180– 189, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.005
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
39
Sarvari, H.; Edwards, D. J.; Rillie, I.; Posillico, J. J. Building a safer future: Analysis of studies on safety I and safety II in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2024, 178, 106621 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106621
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
40
Ajzen, I. Action control: From cognition to behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985; pp 11– 39.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
41
Finster, D. C. RAMP: A safety tool for chemists and chemistry students. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98 (1), 19– 24, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
Google Scholar
41
RAMP: A Safety Tool for Chemists and Chemistry Students
Finster, David C.
Journal of Chemical Education (2021), 98 (1), 19-24CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
RAMP is an acronym for the process "recognize hazards, assess risk, minimize risk, and prep. for emergencies". This paper describes these four steps in the context of undergraduate instruction about chem. health and safety.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3cXhtFWrtbvF&md5=be79bb428f8cbb842ff7bb52f5de86c2
42
Wang, J.; Zou, P. X. W.; Li, P. P. Critical factors and paths influencing construction workers’ safety risk tolerances. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 267– 279, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.027
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
43
Yokel, R. A.; MacPhail, R. C. Engineered nanomaterials: exposures, hazards, and risk prevention. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol 2011, 6, 7, DOI: 10.1186/1745-6673-6-7
Google Scholar
43
Engineered nanomaterials: exposures, hazards and risk prevention
Yokel, Robert A.; MacPhail, Robert C.
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology (London, United Kingdom) (2011), 6 (), 7CODEN: JOMTBB; ISSN:1745-6673. (BioMed Central Ltd.)
A review. Nanotechnol. presents the possibility of revolutionizing many aspects of our lives. People in many settings (academic, small and large industrial, and the general public in industrialized nations) are either developing or using engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) or ENM-contg. products. However, our understanding of the occupational, health and safety aspects of ENMs is still in its formative stage. A survey of the literature indicates the available information is incomplete, many of the early findings have not been independently verified, and some may have been over-interpreted. This review describes ENMs briefly, their application, the ENM workforce, the major routes of human exposure, some examples of uptake and adverse effects, what little has been reported on occupational exposure assessment, and approaches to minimize exposure and health hazards. These latter approaches include engineering controls such as fume hoods and personal protective equipment. Results showing the effectiveness - or lack thereof - of some of these controls are also included. This review is presented in the context of the Risk Assessment/Risk Management framework, as a paradigm to systematically work through issues regarding human health hazards of ENMs. Examples are discussed of current knowledge of nanoscale materials for each component of the Risk Assessment/Risk Management framework. Given the notable lack of information, current recommendations to minimize exposure and hazards are largely based on common sense, knowledge by analogy to ultrafine material toxicity, and general health and safety recommendations. This review may serve as an overview for health and safety personnel, management, and ENM workers to establish and maintain a safe work environment. Small start-up companies and research institutions with limited personnel or expertise in nanotechnol. health and safety issues may find this review particularly useful.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXksVOru7w%253D&md5=afe102ab80588e3b5e3314b64cf67674
44
Cadieux, K. E. C.; Zhou, J. H. W.; Gates, B. D. Signage to indicate the presence of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace: Lessons from a trial study that led to implementation in a worksite. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, 31 (1), 77– 84, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00072
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
45
Ahmad, F.; Mahmood, A.; Muhmood, T. Machine learning-integrated omics for the risk and safety assessment of nanomaterials. Biomater. Sci. 2021, 9 (5), 1598– 1608, DOI: 10.1039/D0BM01672A
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
46
Oksel, C.; Subramanian, V.; Semenzin, E.; Ma, C. Y.; Hristozov, D.; Wang, X. Z.; Hunt, N.; Costa, A.; Fransman, W.; Marcomini, A.; Wilkins, T. Evaluation of existing control measures in reducing health and safety risks of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Nano 2016, 3 (4), 869– 882, DOI: 10.1039/C6EN00122J
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
47
Zhao, J. L.; Cui, H. Y.; Wang, G. R.; Zhang, J. P.; Yang, R. Risk assessment of safety level in university laboratories using questionnaire and Bayesian network. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2023, 83, 105054 DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2023.105054
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Download PDF

Get e-Alerts

ACS Chemical Health & Safety

Cite this: ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX

Click to copy citationCitation copied!

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.4c00061

Published December 6, 2024

Request reuse permissions

Article Views

Altmetric

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

Abstract
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 1
Figure 1. Descriptive statistics.
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 2
Figure 2. Difference in gender. Note: ^*Significantly correlated at the 0.05 level (two-sided).
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 3
Figure 3. Difference in research direction.
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
References
This article references 47 other publications.
1. 1
  Liu, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhao, D.; Qi, M.; Lu, S.; Meng, Y. Research on risk identification and evaluation method of chemical laboratory in colleges and universities. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2020, 37 (12), 288– 291, (in Chinese)
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
2. 2
  Sussman, V.; Dutta, S.; Foisel, J. Of people, programs, and priorities: The impact of organizational culture in industrial research and development laboratories. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2023, 30 (5), 223– 235, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00052
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
3. 3
  Ménard, A. D.; Trant, J. F. A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nat. Chem. 2020, 12, 17– 25, DOI: 10.1038/s41557-019-0375-x
  3
  A review and critique of academic lab safety research
  Menard, A. Dana; Trant, John F.
  Nature Chemistry (2020), 12 (1), 17-25CODEN: NCAHBB; ISSN:1755-4330. (Nature Research)
  A review. Over the past ten years, there were several high-profile accidents in academic labs. around the world, resulting in significant injuries and fatalities. The aftermath of these incidents is often characterized by calls for reflection and re-examn. of the academic discipline's approach to safety research and policy. However, the study of academic lab safety is still underdeveloped and necessary data about changes in safety attitudes and behaviors has not been gathered. This Review article critically examines the state of academic chem. safety research from a multifactorial stance, including research on the occurrence of lab accidents, contributors to lab accidents, the state of safety training research and the cultural barriers to conducting safety research and implementing safer lab practices. The Review concludes by delineating research questions that must be addressed to minimize future serious academic lab. incidents as well as stressing the need for committed leadership from our research institutions.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1MXit1SntbfF&md5=f810d68c8e44e00e71dd7520dd691eee
4. 4
  Yu, T.; Yang, Z. F. Laboratory safety management system of Columbia University in USA and its enlightenment. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2020, 36 (07), 248– 252, (in Chinese)
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
5. 5
  Wang, F.; Ye, G. Y. Investigation on safety management of biochemical laboratory in Western Sydney University. Res. Explor. Lab. 2020, 39 (10), 149, (in Chinese)
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
6. 6
  Zhang, Z. Q. Investigation and inspiration of laboratory safety and environmental protection from Japanese universities. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2010, 27 (7), 164– 167, (in Chinese)
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
7. 7
  Gopalaswami, N.; Han, Z. Analysis of laboratory incident database. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 64, 104027 DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104027
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
8. 8
  Liu, S. Z.; Ju, S. L.; Meng, Y. F.; Liu, Q. L.; Zhao, D. F. Inherent hazards assessment and classification method for university chemical laboratories in China. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2023, 30 (4), 156– 164, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00022
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
9. 9
  Bai, M.; Liu, Y.; Qi, M.; Roy, N.; Shu, C.-M.; Khan, F.; Zhao, D. Current status, challenges, and future directions of university laboratory safety in China. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2022, 74, 104671 DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104671
  9
  Current status, challenges, and future directions of university laboratory safety in China
  Bai, Mingqi; Liu, Yi; Qi, Meng; Roy, Nitin; Shu, Chi-Min; Khan, Faisal; Zhao, Dongfeng
  Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (2022), 74 (), 104671CODEN: JLPIE9; ISSN:0950-4230. (Elsevier Ltd.)
  The past two decades have seen a rise in university lab. accidents in China. Although there is a growing awareness due to higher reporting and media coverage, the evaluation and understanding of common hazards and deficiencies in university labs. remains to be addressed. Aiming to enhance safety in lab.-related activities, this study analyzed the current status and challenges of university lab. safety in China and presented future directions to reduce accidents using engineering and administrative controls. A descriptive statistical anal. of 110 publicly reported university lab. accidents in mainland China since 2000 was performed to investigate the proximate causes of the accidents, and further, to identify potential deficiencies existing in the current safety management of labs. It was found that human factors were the most contributing cause and the training element was a vulnerable competency in lab. safety management. Based on the results, a comparative anal. between the underlying reasons for the poor safety situation and the efforts that have been made has brought the challenges and possible solns. for safety improvements in university labs. By suggesting top-down and bottom-up approaches, the present study provides valuable insights and serves as a ref. for universities and relevant authorities to enhance safety in university labs.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3MXislOhsLzK&md5=30b0038ad21d1139438d0a7859ff93f6
10. 10
  Hunter, D. R. Risk perception and risk tolerance in aircraft pilots. No. DOT/FAA/AM-02/17. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Aviation. Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, 2002.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
11. 11
  Bhandari, S.; Hallowell, M. R.; Alruqi, W.; Salas, R. Modeling the relationship between personal risk tolerance, work-related risk tolerance, and risk-taking behavior of construction workers. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2021, 147 (4), 04021016 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002021
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
12. 12
  Ji, M.; You, X.; Lan, J.; Yang, S. The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49 (10), 1412– 1420, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.007
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
13. 13
  Pauley, K.; O’Hare, D.; Wiggins, M. Risk Tolerance and pilot involvement in hazardous events and flight into adverse weather. J. Saf. Res. 2008, 39 (4), 403– 411, DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2008.05.009
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
14. 14
  Bhandari, S.; Hallowell, M. R. Influence of safety climate on risk tolerance and risk-taking behavior: A cross-cultural examination. Saf. Sci. 2022, 146, 105559 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105559
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
15. 15
  Gao, D. F.; Wang, X. Y.; Jin, X. L. Study on the influencing factors of deep compliance and surface compliance in scientific research laboratories. J. Tianjin Univ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 38 (4), 59– 64, (in Chinese)
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
16. 16
  Artusi, R.; Verderio, P.; Marubini, E. Bravais-Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients: Meaning, test of hypothesis and confidence Interval. Int. J. Biol. Markers. 2002, 17 (2), 148– 151, DOI: 10.1177/172460080201700213
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
17. 17
  Chen, X. Z. Theory and application of modern statistical analysis methods. National Defense Industry Press, Beijing, 2016. (in Chinese).
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
18. 18
  Hair, J. F.; Anderson, R. E.; Tatham, R. L.; Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
19. 19
  Kaiser, H. F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974, 39 (1), 31– 36, DOI: 10.1007/BF02291575
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
20. 20
  Enders, C. K. An SAS macro for implementing the modified Bollen-Stine bootstrap for missing data: Implementing the bootstrap using existing structural equation modeling software. Struct. Equ. Modeling. 2005, 12 (4), 620– 641, DOI: 10.1207/s15328007sem1204_6
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
21. 21
  Abedsoltan, H.; Shiflett, M. B. Mitigation of potential risks in chemical laboratories: A focused review. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, 31 (2), 104– 120, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00097
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
22. 22
  Schulte, P. A.; Geraci, C. L.; Murashov, V.; Kuempel, E. D.; Zumwalde, R. D.; Castranova, V.; Hoover, M. D.; Hodson, L.; Martinez, K. F. Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 2014, 16 (1), 2153, DOI: 10.1007/s11051-013-2153-9
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
23. 23
  Pietroiusti, A.; Stockmann-Juvala, H.; Lucaroni, F.; Savolainen, K. Nanomaterial exposure, toxicity, and impact on human health. Wiley. Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2018, 10 (5), e1513, DOI: 10.1002/wnan.1513
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
24. 24
  Wang, J.; Liu, X. Q.; Wang, X. Y.; Jin, X. L.; Wu, X. S.; Xue, S. Measuring university students’ safety perception, awareness and attitude in chemical teaching laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (7), 2558– 2563, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00445
  24
  Measuring University Students' Safety Perception, Awareness and Attitude in Chemical Teaching Laboratory
  Wang, Juan; Liu, Xiaoqing; Wang, Xiaoyan; Jin, Xinglong; Wu, Xinshi; Xue, Song
  Journal of Chemical Education (2023), 100 (7), 2558-2563CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
  This study aims to evaluate the lab. safety perception, awareness and attitude of undergraduates toward the chem. teaching lab. by means of a self-administered questionnaire. The survey contains a sample size of 959 undergraduates in Tianjin University of Technol. involving four schools. Instrument reliability and validity are also tested. The results show that most of students have a more pos. lab. environmental perception and safety awareness. However, the lab. safety attitude need improvement. In addn., it is noticed significant difference is also found in gender and school. This result could lead to the improvement of the following safety education.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3sXhtFKjtrfM&md5=a98be54d70abc370eb8562793316e9a8
25. 25
  Komaki, J.; Barwick, K. D.; Scott, L. R. A behavioural approach to occupational safety: pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. J. Appl. Psychol. 1978, 63 (4), 434– 445, DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.434
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
26. 26
  Yu, K.; Cao, Q.; Xie, C.; Qu, N.; Zhou, L. Analysis of intervention strategies for coal miners’ unsafe behaviors based on analytic network process and system dynamics. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 145– 157, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.002
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
27. 27
  Heinrich, H. W. Industrial accident prevention. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, 1979.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
28. 28
  Reason, J. A systems approach to organizational error. Ergonomics 1995, 38 (8), 1708– 1721, DOI: 10.1080/00140139508925221
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
29. 29
  An, Y.; Wang, H.; Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Tong, R. Using the tpb and 24model to understand workers’ unintentional and intentional unsafe behaviour: A case study. Saf. Sci. 2023, 163, 106099 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106099
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
30. 30
  Wu, Y. L.; Fu, G.; Wu, Z. R.; Wang, Y. X.; Xie, X. C.; Han, M.; Lyu, Q. A popular systemic accident model in China: Theory and applications of 24 model. Saf. Sci. 2023, 159, 106013 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106013
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
31. 31
  Xu, C.; Guo, L.; Wang, K.; Yang, T.; Feng, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, D.; Fu, G. Current challenges of university laboratory: Characteristics of human factors and safety management system deficiencies based on accident statistics. J. Saf. Res. 2023, 86, 318– 335, DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2023.07.010
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
32. 32
  Li, Z. H. Research on statistical analysis and countermeasures of 100 laboratory accidents. Exp. Technol. Manage. 2014, 31 (04), 210, (in Chinese)
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
33. 33
  Baudendistel, B. Investigation report University of California, Los Angeles. Report No. S1110-003-09, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Los Angeles, 2009.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
34. 34
  Ayi, H. R.; Hon, C. Y. Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2018, 25 (6), 6– 12, DOI: 10.1016/j.jchas.2018.05.002
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
35. 35
  Gibson, J. H.; Schröder, I.; Wayne, N. L. A research university’s rapid response to a fatal chemistry accident: Safety changes and outcomes. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2014, 21 (4), 18– 26, DOI: 10.1016/j.jchas.2014.01.003
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
36. 36
  Jin, X. Y.; Gao, F.; Qin, M. X.; Yu, Y. P.; Zhao, Y.; Shao, T. Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, W. H.; Xie, B.; Xiong, Y. J.; Yang, L. H.; Wu, Y. How to make personal protective equipment spontaneously and continuously antimicrobial (incorporating oxidase-like catalysts). ACS Nano 2022, 16 (5), 7755– 7771, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c11647
  36
  How to Make Personal Protective Equipment Spontaneously and Continuously Antimicrobial (Incorporating Oxidase-like Catalysts)
  Jin, Xinyang; Gao, Feng; Qin, Mingxin; Yu, Yunpeng; Zhao, Yue; Shao, Tianyi; Chen, Cai; Zhang, Wenhua; Xie, Bin; Xiong, Yujie; Yang, Lihua; Wu, Yuen
  ACS Nano (2022), 16 (5), 7755-7771CODEN: ANCAC3; ISSN:1936-0851. (American Chemical Society)
  The inability of com. personal protective equipment (PPE) to inactivate microbes in the droplets/aerosols they intercept makes used PPE a potential source of cross-contamination. To make PPE spontaneously and continuously antimicrobial, we incorporate PPE with oxidase-like catalysts, which efficiently convert O2 into reactive oxygen species (ROS) without requiring any externally applied stimulus. Using a single-atom catalyst (SAC) nanoparticle contg. atomically dispersed copper atoms as the reactive centers (Cu-SAC) and a silver-palladium bimetallic alloy nanoparticle AgPd0.38 as models for oxidase-like catalysts, we show that the incorporation of oxidase-like catalysts enables PPE to inactivate bacteria in the droplets/aerosols they intercept without requiring any externally applied stimulus. Notably, this approach works both for PPE that are fibrous and woven such as a com. KN95 facial respirator and for those made of solid plastics such as apron. This work suggests a feasible and global approach for preventing PPE from spreading infectious diseases.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38XhtFCis7vM&md5=54bc1b80d57253abfdbd3271fd238e4d
37. 37
  Chen, M. M.; Wu, Y. Q.; Wang, K.; Guo, H. J.; Ke, W. An explosion accident analysis of the laboratory in university. Process. Saf. Prog. 2020, 39 (4), e12150, DOI: 10.1002/prs.12150
  37
  An explosion accident analysis of the laboratory in university
  Chen, Mengmeng; Wu, Yaqin; Wang, Kai; Guo, Haijun; Ke, Wei
  Process Safety Progress (2020), 39 (4), e12150CODEN: PSAPE2; ISSN:1066-8527. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
  Academic research in the lab. is often considered as the work with lower risks compared with other process industries. Whereas, it is revealed that there are still many accidents happening in the lab., causing deaths, injuries, and economic losses. In order to identify the main causes and improve the safety management, an explosion accident in a lab. of a university is thoroughly investigated based on the 24Model and 5Whys method. The results indicate that inadequate safety knowledge and insufficient safety awareness of the experimenters serve as main contributors of the accident. In order to effectively prevent such accidents, it is necessary to strengthen the safety training of the experimenters and assocd. tech. managers, so as to create a good safety culture atm. in the university. Moreover, a smart safety management system based on internet of things (IoT) is established for the lab., which contains equipment management subsystem, expt. consumables management subsystem, personnel management, training and assessment subsystem, environmental monitoring subsystem, and accident diagnosis subsystem. With the help of the system, daily safety of the lab. can be greatly improved.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3cXitlOgtb%252FL&md5=c4b8a1f0c0cb4797018514bdfc3d0fd7
38. 38
  Marshall, P.; Hirmas, A.; Singer, M. Heinrich’s pyramid and occupational safety: A statistical validation methodology. Saf. Sci. 2018, 101, 180– 189, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.005
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
39. 39
  Sarvari, H.; Edwards, D. J.; Rillie, I.; Posillico, J. J. Building a safer future: Analysis of studies on safety I and safety II in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2024, 178, 106621 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106621
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
40. 40
  Ajzen, I. Action control: From cognition to behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985; pp 11– 39.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
41. 41
  Finster, D. C. RAMP: A safety tool for chemists and chemistry students. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98 (1), 19– 24, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00142
  41
  RAMP: A Safety Tool for Chemists and Chemistry Students
  Finster, David C.
  Journal of Chemical Education (2021), 98 (1), 19-24CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
  RAMP is an acronym for the process "recognize hazards, assess risk, minimize risk, and prep. for emergencies". This paper describes these four steps in the context of undergraduate instruction about chem. health and safety.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3cXhtFWrtbvF&md5=be79bb428f8cbb842ff7bb52f5de86c2
42. 42
  Wang, J.; Zou, P. X. W.; Li, P. P. Critical factors and paths influencing construction workers’ safety risk tolerances. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 267– 279, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.027
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
43. 43
  Yokel, R. A.; MacPhail, R. C. Engineered nanomaterials: exposures, hazards, and risk prevention. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol 2011, 6, 7, DOI: 10.1186/1745-6673-6-7
  43
  Engineered nanomaterials: exposures, hazards and risk prevention
  Yokel, Robert A.; MacPhail, Robert C.
  Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology (London, United Kingdom) (2011), 6 (), 7CODEN: JOMTBB; ISSN:1745-6673. (BioMed Central Ltd.)
  A review. Nanotechnol. presents the possibility of revolutionizing many aspects of our lives. People in many settings (academic, small and large industrial, and the general public in industrialized nations) are either developing or using engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) or ENM-contg. products. However, our understanding of the occupational, health and safety aspects of ENMs is still in its formative stage. A survey of the literature indicates the available information is incomplete, many of the early findings have not been independently verified, and some may have been over-interpreted. This review describes ENMs briefly, their application, the ENM workforce, the major routes of human exposure, some examples of uptake and adverse effects, what little has been reported on occupational exposure assessment, and approaches to minimize exposure and health hazards. These latter approaches include engineering controls such as fume hoods and personal protective equipment. Results showing the effectiveness - or lack thereof - of some of these controls are also included. This review is presented in the context of the Risk Assessment/Risk Management framework, as a paradigm to systematically work through issues regarding human health hazards of ENMs. Examples are discussed of current knowledge of nanoscale materials for each component of the Risk Assessment/Risk Management framework. Given the notable lack of information, current recommendations to minimize exposure and hazards are largely based on common sense, knowledge by analogy to ultrafine material toxicity, and general health and safety recommendations. This review may serve as an overview for health and safety personnel, management, and ENM workers to establish and maintain a safe work environment. Small start-up companies and research institutions with limited personnel or expertise in nanotechnol. health and safety issues may find this review particularly useful.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXksVOru7w%253D&md5=afe102ab80588e3b5e3314b64cf67674
44. 44
  Cadieux, K. E. C.; Zhou, J. H. W.; Gates, B. D. Signage to indicate the presence of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace: Lessons from a trial study that led to implementation in a worksite. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2024, 31 (1), 77– 84, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.3c00072
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
45. 45
  Ahmad, F.; Mahmood, A.; Muhmood, T. Machine learning-integrated omics for the risk and safety assessment of nanomaterials. Biomater. Sci. 2021, 9 (5), 1598– 1608, DOI: 10.1039/D0BM01672A
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
46. 46
  Oksel, C.; Subramanian, V.; Semenzin, E.; Ma, C. Y.; Hristozov, D.; Wang, X. Z.; Hunt, N.; Costa, A.; Fransman, W.; Marcomini, A.; Wilkins, T. Evaluation of existing control measures in reducing health and safety risks of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Nano 2016, 3 (4), 869– 882, DOI: 10.1039/C6EN00122J
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
47. 47
  Zhao, J. L.; Cui, H. Y.; Wang, G. R.; Zhang, J. P.; Yang, R. Risk assessment of safety level in university laboratories using questionnaire and Bayesian network. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2023, 83, 105054 DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2023.105054
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chas.4c00061.
- Tables for the instrument details (PDF)
- hs4c00061_si_001.pdf (98.27 kb)
Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Graduate Students’ Tolerance of Habitual Risk-Taking Behaviors in Chemical-Related Majors: A Case StudyClick to copy article linkArticle link copied!

ACS Chemical Health & Safety

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Questionnaire

Statistical Data Analysis

Results

Normality Test

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Descriptive Analysis

Figure 1

Difference Analysis

Figure 2

Figure 3

Spearman Correlation

Discussion

Habitual Behavior and Unsafe Behavior

Occupational Exposure

Limitations and Future Directions

Supporting Information

Terms & Conditions

Author Information

Acknowledgments

References

Cited By

ACS Chemical Health & Safety

Article Views

Altmetric

Citations

Recommended Articles

Abstract

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

References

Supporting Information

Supporting Information

Terms & Conditions

Graduate Students’ Tolerance of Habitual Risk-Taking Behaviors in Chemical-Related Majors: A Case Study
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!