4.6 Review

A Systematic Literature Review on Safety Research Related to Chemical Industrial Parks

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 12, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12145753

Keywords

chemical industrial park; review; safety management; safety assessment; safety technology; safety framework; trend

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0804700]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21878102, 21576102]
  3. Guangdong Disaster Prevention and Emergency Management Special Funds [314-2019-XMZC-0009-04-0025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The increasing demand for chemical products has driven the construction and development of chemical industrial areas, or so-called 'chemical industrial parks' (CIPs), but this has intrinsically raised the risk of major accidents. Therefore, it is significant and urgent to summarize the state of art and research needs in the field of CIP safety. In this paper, a keyword co-occurrence analysis of 116 scientific articles was conducted to support the classification of research topics in this field, then an overview of those research topics was presented to investigate the evolution of safety research with respect to CIPs. Specifically, the way that safety assessments are conducted, as well as how safety management and safety technology in such areas are classified and investigated, followed by detailed descriptions of representative methods and their contributions to CIP safety, are discussed. An integrated safety framework for CIPs is proposed to organize safety approaches and measures systematically. Based on the classification and analysis of studies on management, assessment, and technology related to CIP safety, the research trends and future directions and challenges are discussed and outlined. Those results are useful for improving theoretical method and industrial strategies, and can advance the safety and sustainability development of CIPs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available