Assessment of occupational hazards and associated risks in fuzzy environment: A case study of a university chemical laboratory

References

• Akyuz E. 2015. A hybrid accident analysis method to assess potential navigational contingencies: the case of ship grounding. Saf Sci 79:268–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2017. A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Saf Sci 92:17–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celk E. 2015. A fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate critical operational hazards during gas freeing process in crude oil tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind 38:243–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik E. 2016. A modified human reliability analysis for cargo operation in single point mooring (SPM) off-shore units. Appl Ocean Res 58:11–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali JS and Maryam M. 2014. Environmental risk assessment of dams by using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A case study of the Polrood Dam, Guilan Province, Iran. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 20(1):69–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Chemical Society, Committee on Chemical Safety, Task Force on Hazard Identification and Evaluation. 2015. Identifying and Evaluating Hazards Hazards in Research Laboratories. Retrieved 1 November 2016. Available at https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/chemicalsafety/publications/identifyingand-evaluating-hazards-in-research-laboratories.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Arslan O. 2009. Quantitative evaluation of precautions on chemical tanker operations. Process Saf Environ Prot 87(2):113–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozdag E, Asan U, Soyer A, et al. 2015. Risk prioritization in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis using interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Exp Syst Appl 42(8):4000–4015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brück C and Kuhl K. (n.d) Hierarchy of prevention and control measures. Retrieved 7 December 2016. Available at https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Hierarchy_of_prevention_and_control_measures
   Google Scholar
• Buckley JJ. 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson P and Mumford C. 2002. Hazardous Chemicals Handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo O and Melin P. 2012a. A review on the design and optimization of interval type-2 fuzzy controllers. Appl Soft Comput 12(4):1267–1278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo O and Melin P. 2012b. Optimization of type-2 fuzzy systems based on bio-inspired methods: a concise review. Inf Sci 205:1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E and Akyuz E. 2016. Application of interval type-2 fuzzy sets DEMATEL methods in maritime transportation: the case of ship collision. Int J Marit Eng. 158(4):359–372.
   Google Scholar
• Celik E, Aydin N, and Gumus AT. 2014a. A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Transp Policy 36:283–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, Bilisik ON, Erdogan M, et al. 2013. An integrated novel interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to improve customer satisfaction in public transportation for Istanbul. Transp Res E: Logist Transp Rev 58:28–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, Gul M, Aydin N, et al. 2015. A comprehensive review of multi criteria decision making approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowledge-Based Syst 85:329–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E and Gumus AT. 2015. An assessment approach for non-governmental organizations in humanitarian relief logistics and an application in Turkey. Technol Econ Dev Econ. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2015.1056277
   Google Scholar
• Celik E and Gumus AT. 2016. An outranking approach based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets to evaluate preparedness and response ability of non-governmental humanitarian relief organizations. Comput Ind Eng 101:21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, Gumus AT, and Alegoz M. 2014b. A trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to identify and evaluate critical success factors for humanitarian relief logistics management. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27(6):2847–2855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang YC, Chang KH, and Chen CY. 2013. Risk assessment by quantifying and prioritising 5S activities for semiconductor manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng B: J Eng Manuf 0954405413493901.
   Google Scholar
• Chen TY, Chang CH, and Lu JFR. 2013. The extended QUALIFLEX method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and applications to medical decision making. Eur J Oper Res 226(3):615–625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen SM and Lee LW. 2010a. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Exp Syst Appl 37(4):2790–2798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Control Measures. n.d.. Indiana University Protect IU. Retrieved 29 November 2016. Available at https://protect.iu.edu/environmental-health/laboratory-safety/lab-safety-chemical-hygiene/control.html
   Google Scholar
• Dereli T and Altun K. 2013. Technology evaluation through the use of interval type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. Comput Ind Eng 65(4):624–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dereli T, Baykasoglu A, Altun K, et al. 2011. Industrial applications of type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: a concise review. Comput Ind 62(2):125–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djapan MJ, Tadic DP, Macuzic ID, et al. 2015. A new fuzzy model for determining risk level on the workplaces in manufacturing small and medium enterprises. Proc Inst Mech Eng O: J Risk Reliab 229(5):456–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudek-Burlikowska M. 2006. Quality research methods as a factor of improvement of preproduction sphere. J Achieve Mater Manuf Eng 18:435–438.
   Google Scholar
• Ebrahimnejad S, Mousavi SM, and Seyrafianpour H. 2010. Risk identification and assessment for build–operate–transfer projects: A fuzzy multi attribute decision making model. Exp Syst Appl 37(1):575–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdoğan M and Kaya İ. 2016. A combined fuzzy approach to determine the best region for a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Appl Soft Comput 39:84–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency. 2016. Guidance on labelling and packaging in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Retrieved 1 December 2016. Available at https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13562/clp_labelling_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Galante EBF, Costa DMB, França TCC, et al. 2016. Risk assessment in a chemical laboratory. Occup Saf Hygiene IV:105.
   Google Scholar
• Ghorabaee MK. 2016. Developing an MCDM method for robot selection with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 37:221–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Górny A. 2016. Shaping a work safety by use of the 5S methodology. Occup Saf Hygiene IV:111.
   Google Scholar
• Grassi A, Gamberini R, Mora C, et al. 2009. A fuzzy multi-attribute model for risk evaluation in workplaces. Saf Sci 47(5):707–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Ak MF, and Guneri AF. 2017. Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using two-stage fuzzy multi criteria approach. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 23(2):187–202.
   Google Scholar
• Gul, M., Celik, E., Aydin, N., et al. 2016a. A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl. Soft Comp. 46:60–89.
   Google Scholar
• Gul M, Celik E, Gumus AT, et al. 2016b. Emergency department performance evaluation by an integrated simulation and interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM based scenario analysis. Eur J Ind Eng 10(2):196–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M and Guneri AF. 2016. A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: a case study for aluminum industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:89–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guneri AF, Gul M, and Ozgurler S. 2015. A fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of risk assessment methods in occupational safety. Int J Risk Assess Manage 18(3–4):319–335.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta S and Jain SK. 2014. The 5S and kaizen concept for overall improvement of the organisation: a case study. Int J Lean Enterp Res 6(1):73–88.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta S and Jain SK. 2015. An application of 5S concept to organize the workplace at a scientific instruments manufacturing company. Int J Lean Six Sigma 6(1):73–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 2014. Risk assessment: A brief guide to controlling risks in the workplace, INDG163 (rev4). Available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hu AH, Hsu CW, Kuo TC, et al. 2009. Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP. Exp Syst Appl 36(3):7142–7147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu BQ and Wang CY. 2014. On type-2 fuzzy relations and interval-valued type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 236:1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intra G, Alteri A, Corti L, et al. 2016. Application of failure mode and effect analysis in an assisted reproduction technology laboratory. Reproductive BioMedicine. Online.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John A, Paraskevadakis D, Bury A, et al. 2014. An integrated fuzzy risk assessment for seaport operations. Saf Sci 68:180–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jozi SA, Shafiee M, MoradiMajd N, et al. 2012. An integrated Shannon's Entropy–TOPSIS methodology for environmental risk assessment of Helleh protected area in Iran. Environ Monitor Assess 184(11):6913–6922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Sarı İU, et al. 2014. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowledge-Based Syst 59:48–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang J, Liang W, Zhang L, et al. 2014. A new risk evaluation method for oil storage tank zones based on the theory of two types of hazards. J Loss Prev Process Ind 29:267–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnik NN and Mendel JM. 2001. Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122(2):327–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokangül A, Polat U, and Dağsuyu C. 2017. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf Sci 91:24–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavasani SM, Yang Z, Finlay J, et al. 2011. Fuzzy risk assessment of oil and gas offshore wells. Process Saf Environ Prot 89(5):277–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahdevari S, Shahriar K, and Esfahanipour A. 2014. Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. Sci Total Environ 488:85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel JM. 2007a. Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: an overview. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 2(1):20–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel JM. 2007b. Advances in type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. Inf Sci 177(1):84–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel JM. 2009. On answering the question “Where do I start in order to solve a new problem involving interval type-2 fuzzy sets?” Inf Sci 179(19):3418–3431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel JM and John RB. 2002. Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 10(2):117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel JM, John RI, and Liu F. 2006. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(6):808–821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mentes A, Akyildiz H, Yetkin M, et al. 2015. A FSA based fuzzy DEMATEL approach for risk assessment of cargo ships at coasts and open seas of Turkey. Saf Sci 79:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizan GE, Rees D, and Wilson K. 2016. Reproductive health hazards in laboratory work: back to basics. Occup Health Southern Africa 22(4):30–33.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (US) Committee on Prudent Practices in the Laboratory. 2011. Prudent practices in the laboratory: handling and management of chemical hazards, updated version. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Opricovic S. 1998. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Fac Civ Eng Belgrade 2:5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Opricovic S and Tzeng GH. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oshima Y. 2016. Characteristics of chemical risks in academic research laboratory. J Environ Saf 7(2):95–97.
   Google Scholar
• Othman MR, Idris R, Hassim MH, et al. 2016. Prioritizing HAZOP analysis using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(5):1345–1360.
   Google Scholar
• Pluess DN, Meyer T, Masin J, et al. 2016. Joint applicability test of software for laboratory assessment and risk analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:234–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin J, Liu X, and Pedrycz W. 2015. An extended VIKOR method based on prospect theory for multiple attribute decision making under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Knowledge-Based Syst 86:116–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rah JE, Manger RP, Yock AD, et al. 2016. A comparison of two prospective risk analysis methods: Traditional FMEA and a modified healthcare FMEA. Med Phys 43(12):6347–6353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Saffarian S, Shafiee M, and Zaredar N. 2015. A new approach toward natural and anthropogenic risk assessment of gas power plants. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 21(1):17–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarıçoban E. 2006. The importance of 5S in total productive maintenance activities and an application of 5s. Non-Thesis M.Sc. Project, Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Social Sciences, İzmir, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Silva F, Arezes P, and Swuste P. 2015. Risk assessment in a research laboratory during sol–gel synthesis of nano-TiO 2. Safety Sci 80:201–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh J, Rastogi V, and Sharma R. 2014. Implementation of 5S practices: A review. Uncertain Supply Chain Manage 2(3):155–162.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng GH, Lin CW, and Opricovic S. 2005. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33(11):1373–1383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2002. Job Hazard Analysis ( Publication No. 3071). Retrieved December 2 December 2016. Available at https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3071.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Verma S and Chaudhri S. 2014. Integration of fuzzy reasoning approach (FRA) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for risk assessment in mining industry. J Ind Eng Manage 7(5):1347.
   Google Scholar
• Wang W, Dong C, Dong W, et al. 2015. The design and implementation of risk assessment model for hazard installations based on AHP–FCE method: A case study of Nansi Lake Basin. Ecol Inf.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—II. Inf Sci 8(4):301–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar