4.4 Article

Assessment of Chemical Risks in Moroccan Medical Biology Laboratories in Accordance with the CLP Regulation

期刊

SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 193-198

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.03.003

关键词

chemical risk; medical biology laboratory; occupational exposure; risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Medical laboratory workers are frequently exposed to a wide range of chemicals. This exposure can have adverse effects on their health. Furthermore, a knowledge lack of the chemical risk increases the likelihood of exposure. The chemical risk assessment reduces the risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals and therefore, guarantees health and safety of the workers. Method: The chemical risk assessment was conducted using a modified INRS method, according to the new CLP Regulation, of 11 unit laboratories in a Moroccan medical laboratory. Observation of each workstation and analysis of safety data sheets are key tools in this study. Results: A total of 144 substances and reagents that could affect the health of the analytical technicians were identified. Among these products, 17% are concerned by the low priority risk score, with 55% concerned by the average priority risk score and 28% concerned by the high priority risk score. This study also enabled to better identify the chemical agents that have restrictive occupational exposure limit value and controls were conducted to this effect. On the basis of the results obtained, several corrective and preventive measures have been proposed and implemented. Conclusion: Risk assessment is essential to ensure the health and safety of workers and to meet regulatory requirements. It enables to identify all the risky manipulations and to adopt appropriate preventive measures. However, it is not a one-time activity but it must be continuous in order to master the changes and thus ensure the best safety of all. (C) 2020 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据