health, safety and environmental risk management in ...mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3605-en.pdf ·...

Original Articlehttp://mjiri.iums.ac.ir Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)

Iran University of Medical Sciences

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Associate Professor of Occupational Health, Department of Occupational Health, Occupational Health Research Center, School of PublicHealth, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. [email protected]. PhD of Environmental Management, Member of Occupational Health Research Center, Tehran, Iran. [email protected]. (Corresponding author) MSc of Educational Planning, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. [email protected]

Health, safety and environmental risk management inlaboratory fields

Rasoul Yarahmadi1, Parvin Moridi2, YarAllah Roumiani*3

Received: 20 February 2015 Accepted: 29 June 2015 Published: 12 March 2016

AbstractBackground: Research project risks are uncertain contingent events or situations that, if transpire, will have

positive or negative effects on objectives of a project. The Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW)Regulations 1999 require all employers and the self-employed persons to assess the risks from their work onanyone who may be affected by their activities. Risk assessment is the first step in risk-management procedure,and due to its importance, it has been deemed to be a vital process while having a unique place in the research-based management systems.

Methods: In this research, a two-pronged study was carried out. Firstly, health and safety issues were studiedand analyzed by means of ISO 14121. Secondly, environmental issues were examined with the aid of FailureMode and Effect Analysis. Both processes were utilized to determine the risk level independently for each re-search laboratory and corrective measure priorities in each field (laboratory).

Results: Data analysis showed that the total main and inherent risks in laboratory sites reduced by 38% to86%. Upon comparing the average risk levels before and after implementing the control and protective actionsutilizing risk management approaches which were separate from health, safety and environmental aspects, ahighly effective significance (p<0.001) was obtained for inherent risk reduction. Analysis of health, safety andenvironmental control priorities with the purpose of comparing the ratio of the number of engineering measuresto the amount of management ones showed a relatively significant increase.

Conclusion: The large number of engineering measures was attributed to the employment of a variety of time-worn machinery (old technologies) along with using devices without basic protection components.

Keywords: Total risk, Laboratory site, Risk management.

Cite this article as: Yarahmadi R, Moridi P, Roumiani Y. Health, safety and environmental risk management in laboratory fields. Med JIslam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.

IntroductionQuantitative risk analysis helps to lessen

the likelihood of undesirable incidents andto minimize the possible adverse conse-quences. The use of Quantitative RiskAnalysis (QRA) in process systems is a dif-ficult task as component failures and inci-dent consequences randomly vary from oneprocess to another. Since each process sys-tem is made up of thousands of componentsand steps, it becomes very challenging toacquire the necessary quantitative infor-mation pertaining to all of them (1).

According to Olsson and Hillson, at-tempts to link risk with uncertainty based

on the distinction between aleatory and ep-istemic uncertainty can be defined as: “riskis a measurable uncertainty and uncertaintyis an immeasurable risk” (2,3). As statedpreviously, risk identification is the firststep in risk management. The definition ofeach step is as follows:

1. Identification: Denotes the threats to aproject.

2. Analysis: Recognizes the manner ofsuch threats to the project.

3. Prioritization: Ranks the threats ac-cording to their impact.

4. Mitigation: Identifies possible preven-tive actions that reduce the effect of risk.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3605-en.html

HSE risk management in laboratory fields

2 Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

5. Planning: Constructs a plan to be usedfor significant risks and is utilized prior torisks’ occurrence (4).

6. Measuring and control: Manages, con-trols and traces the impact of risks to allowthe goals of the project to be accomplished.

Risk ranking and filtering implements bybreaking down the overall risk into riskcomponents then evaluates them and theirindividual contributions to the overall risk(5).

Such a human risk reduction is the mainissue of the health, safety and environmen-tal management system (6). Danger expo-sure or, in other words, risk is a processthat leads to ambiguous results in virtuallyall fields of research. However, risk ormore appropriately termed ‘process’ alwayscarries innovations that change the courseof human history. The discoveries mankindhas made in the field of science and tech-nology are mainly a direct result of ‘spiritof risk taking’ (7) .The present study wasconducted in an academic education centeroriginally established to train postgraduatestudents in Tehran.

Risk assessment studies conducted by theUS Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration, have mainly usedstandard methods that focus on effectivefactors such as chemical exposure levels,type of exposure and duration of exposureto hazardous factors (8). Furthermore, inrecent years, studies about the risks result-ing from laboratory hazards have focusedmainly on qualitative analysis of chemicals.Sayre conducted a study using a team withexpertise in chemistry, engineering, toxi-cology, exposure assessment and risk as-sessment. Sayre’s research focused on thebehavior and probable risks of 100 differenttypes of nonmaterial. Risk managementexposure to such materials by employeesworking at the studied research center wasof importance as it led to the control andmodification of their workplace (9). In an-other study by Musee aiming at nano-material risk evaluation, challenges in bothrisk assessment and management were in-

vestigated using qualitative and semi-quantitative methods. The survey resultsshowed the need for profile analysis ofchemicals and nonmaterial within the riskassessment procedure. On the other hand,the conducted investigation focused on en-vironmental aspects in addition to nonmate-rial quality and safety supervision includingcontrol by senior manager of the organiza-tion (10). Another study conducted by Mu-see further elaborated on the studied meth-ods in order to control the hazardous as-pects of chemicals. Control priorities ofpotential causes of the studied chemicals aswell as control and administrative strategieswere identified and proposed in the men-tioned study (11). The present study usedthe risk assessment method to investigatemachinery, process, situations and dangersrelated to the working environment. Thehealth and safety risk assessment methodwas used under the title of machinery risk.The employed technique was based on Eu-ropean standard requirements and approvedas an international standard ISO14121 (12-14).

Nowadays, both education and researchprocesses face greater complexity in addi-tion to uncertainty. Rules and regulatorystandards, in turn, impose stricter require-ments (7).

MethodsWe selected a technical faculty of a post-

graduate university with 9 groups of re-search laboratories including electrical,mining, mechanical, hydraulic, nano, bio,chemistry, safety and computer labs.

Health, safety and environmental riskswere first identified and studied inde-pendently for each research facility (labora-tory) using the hazard identification(HAZID). The adopted method by the USEPA was limited in terms of complexity,effects, consequences and result formula-tion points of view (15,16).

More complex processes such as labora-tory and research fields where there is acombination of chemical, physical, magnet-ic, unsafe behaviors, fire hazards as well as

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020


R. Yarahmadi, et al.

3Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343. http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir

unsafe behaviors from the students; sufferfrom some limitations in choosing the men-tioned methods (17-19). This method canhelp to inform the personnel about the riskof exposure that can be made to preventpossible hazardous situations and health-promoting behaviors to protect and controla health leading health-promoting lifestyle(HPL) (20). Structure of the method isbased on HSE requirements. Europeanstandards EN (PILZ) 1050 is considered tobe a new technology using an approach forthe protection of humans, machines and theenvironment.

Hazard Rating Number (HRN) calcula-tion

The HRN results for the assessment ofrisk levels in addition to risk mitigation ef-fort prior to and post corrective actionswere calculated in two separate steps usingthe following formula:

HRN= LO x FE x DPH x NP (1)

Environmental hazard assessment wasperformed during the study using an induc-tive method (from specific to general)called environmental failure mode and ef-fect analysis (EFMEA). In the fields whererisk assessment is performed, the methodseeks to identify and score, as far as possi-ble, the potential risks in addition to theirrelated causes and effects. This method isused to prevent failure prior to occurring.Unlike many other quality optimizationmethods, performing an FMEA does notrequire complex statistics (16,17)

Risk priority number (RPN) is the prod-uct of three numeric scores: severity (S),occurrence (O) and detection (D). In calcu-lations, the priority number is given as anumber between 1 and 125.

Environmental degradation rate calcula-tion

Risk identification and reduction are criti-cal stages in successful project manage-ment. EFMEA was used to evaluate theidentified environmental aspects. This al-

lowed the evaluation to take place in atimely manner. To perform EFMEA, theidentified factors are divided into twogroups:

A. Environmental aspects that led to theemission or production of various types ofcontaminants, waste and sewage into theenvironment, which is yielded according tothe following relation:

Environmental degradation rate= severity ×probability of occurrence × contaminationrange (2)

B. Environmental aspects that led to thereduction or loss of natural resources as aresult of using those resources, which isyielded according to the following relation:

Environmental degradation rate= severity ×probability of occurrence × recycling possibil-ity

Making a decision when facing assessedrisks

In this study, TLB method was used dueto having access to PRN before and aftercontrol proposals, the simplicity of the cal-culation method as well as having the re-quired accuracy (Eq. 4) (21).

TLB=

FiAfterRPNBeforeRPN

FiRPN (4)

Where RPN Before= Risk priority number pre-corrective measures

RPN After= Risk priority number post-correctivemeasures

ΔRPN= Risk difference prior to and followingcorrective control measures

Fi= Feasibility of corrective measures, a variablein the range of 1-10.

Total Risk Estimation (TRE) within la-boratory fields

By using this index, besides estimatingrelative risk in each laboratory, we can alsocompare the risk potentials resulting fromidentified hazards across the tested labora-tories (Eq. 5) (22).

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020




Total Risk Estimation5= %100RPNin

1

MRNni (5)

Where RPNi= Risk priority number for each pos-sible hazard (cause)

N= Number of hazards (causes) in each project orlaboratory

MRN= Maximum risk number upon calculatingrisk.

A paired-samples t test was conducted toevaluate the impact of the intervention onlaboratories' risk priority numbers. The testwas conducted using SPSS v. 18, as beforeand after performing the control measuresindependently for health, safety and envi-ronmental criteria at 9 laboratory sites witha 95% confidence level. Powers are givenfor alpha values of 0.05.

ResultsThe results are shown in Tables 1, 2, 34

and Figures 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 shows theresults of risk situation, considering5different levels separately as well as twosituations before and after making an effortto reduce risk in 9 laboratory fields. Theresults from Table 2 shows that before andafter performing the control measures inde-pendently for health, safety and environ-mental criteria at 9 laboratory sites with a95% confidence level, there was a signifi-cant difference among the average levelsof risk (p=0.0001). The highest health andsafety residual risk of 4.7 (Figs. 1-3) wasrelated to research site 7, which was due tothe usage in different projects of varioustypes of nonmaterial and carcinogenic sub-stances which included A1 as well as A2.

This was due to the discharge of a widerange of chemical and oil materials into theenvironment on top of the lack of perfor-mance monitoring and waste control sys-

Fig. 1. Comparison of the total risk levels from different aspects of health, safety and environment before and after controlmeasures

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020




tems in the site outlet.

DiscussionStudy of risk factors, hazard identification

and accident-prone areas in an organizationis of particular importance in preventingaccidents. Laboratory project risks are un-certain contingent events or situations that,if occur, can have positive or negative ef-fects on objectives of a given project. Table1 shows the results of risk situation that af-ter carrying out corrective actions at threelevels of high, very high and unacceptable,HSE hazard potentials were reduced to sub-stantial and lower levels.

The results of risk analysis showed themaximum risk reduction within laboratoryfield 8 (86%) and the minimum risk reduc-tion in research field 2 (38%). In laboratory2, due to the type of hazard potentials, theminimum risk rate reduction was 38% and62% of the initial risk remained at thissite. Hazard potentials leading to poor re-duction in risk rate were mainly as a resultof unsafe designs pertaining to test devices,unsafe process, elevators and lack of pro-tection related to technical and engineeringcontrols, complexity and high costs of car-rying out corrective actions and modifica-tions by accessible facilities.

Fig. 2. Comparison of occupational safety and total health risk estimation, before and after mitigation effort

Fig. 3. Comparison of environmental overall risk estimation, prior to and following mitigation efforts (This figure showsthe comparison of total risk levels associated with hazard and environmental aspects in each laboratory field before andafter control measures.)

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020




The evaluation and comparison of residu-al and initial risks among the total health,safety and environmental hazards revealedthat the mitigated risk was equal to 65% of

the total risk post-intervention. Additional-ly, the residual risks associated with health,safety and environmental issues were aver-agely equal to 32% of the total initial and

Table 1. Comparison of risk levels (before and after effort) with residual and mitigated risk in 9 groups laboratory fieldLaboratory

fieldMitigation

effortRisk levels (%) Initial

riskResidual

riskMitigated

risk %Negligible Low Moderate Substantial High VeryHigh

Unacceptable

1 Before 8 11 17 47 15 0 2 92 --- 69After 77 15 0 6 0 2 0 --- 23

2 Before 0 3 32 58 7 0 0 100 --- 38After 38 16 32 14 0 0 0 --- 62

3 Before 1 5 30 37 26 1 0 99 --- 83After 1 84 6 1 9 0 0 0 --- 16

4 Before 2 9 8 44 27 8 2 98 --- 57After 59 33 2 0 6 0 0 --- 41

5 Before 2 10 2 42 42 2 0 98 --- 54After 56 25 12 0 0 7 0 --- 44

6 Before 6 12 24 45 10 3 0 94 --- 44After 50 14 19 17 0 0 0 --- 50

7 Before 3 12 16 37 30 2 0 97 --- 75After 78 14 2 6 0 0 0 --- 22

8 Before 1 10 12 39 30 5 0 99 --- 86After 87 7 2 3 1 0 0 --- 13

9 Before 2 10 9 33 36 8 2 98 --- 81After 83 10 2 4 1 0 0 --- 17

Table 2. Comparison of statistical parameters (mean, SD, t test) in 9 groups laboratory fields (as total risk estimation)before and after mitigation efforts with occupational health, safety and environmental approachLaboratory field Total Risk Estimation

Occupational safety and health aspects Environment aspectsBefore mitigation effort After mitigation effort Before mitigation effort After mitigation effort

1 6.85 2.00 22.08 4.802 8.55 1.80 15.80 4.803 10.06 1.00 13.44 5.104 12.89 0.90 20.90 6.305 14.80 0.80 14.48 6.106 15.55 2.00 14.7 5.107 16.38 4.70 13.44 5.108 19.82 0.70 17.76 4.609 21.11 0.90 18 5.92

Mean 14 1.64 16.73 5.31SD 4.8 1.26 3.1 0.62

Paired –t test p<0.0001 p<0.0001

Table 5. Weight distribution of control priorities, independent engineering and management measures at laboratory sites,by focusing on health-safety and the environmentLaboratory

fieldPriority of act

Occupational safety and health EnvironmentRisk

prioritynumerals

Administrativemethods numbers

Engineeringmethods numbers

Riskpriority

numerals

Administrativemethodsnumbers

Engineeringmethodsnumbers

1 85 19 66 5 1 42 101 26 75 5 1 43 41 11 30 5 2 34 66 16 50 11 4 75 130 50 80 27 0 276 47 22 25 6 2 47 40 10 30 5 4 18 97 40 57 13 1 129 92 32 60 9 1 8

sum 699 226 473 86 16 70Ratio (%) 100 32.3 67.7 100 18.6 81.4

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020




inherent risks (in addition to 3% risk whichwas deemed to be negligible) at the testedresearch complexes.

The results of the risk levels for health,safety and environmental issues (Table 2),in both columns of "after mitigation effort"were in an acceptable range. It can also bementioned that in addition to the compo-nents of process and the environmentaldamage and degradation, the possible caus-es of human injuries were controlled in ad-dition to being reduced. Conversely, thelow mean and dispersion levels pertainingto the residual risk following controlmeasures can confirm the effective conver-gence and concentration of controlmeasures in this project. Figure 1 comparesrisk levels before and after the use of cor-rective control measures independently foreach tested laboratory site.

The results from the risk levels prior tothe implementation of corrective measuresshowed that the most and least human inju-ries as well as process damage (health andsafety) occurred at locations 1 and 9, re-spectively. Environmental degradation wasobserved to be most common at locations 1and 4 (maximum risk level). On the otherhand, facilities 3 and 7 (minimum risk lev-el) exhibited the lowest amount of envi-ronmental degradation among the sites ex-amined. Location 9 was found to possessmajor factors that could lead to a high rateof injuries and damages including thoseconcerning humans as well as processes.Some of the issues found to be the leadingcause of such injuries were abundance ofresearch devices, variety plus variability inresearch tests and large number of re-searchers working during the shift work.Moreover, long term period tests and lim-ited number of tests per season can be con-sidered as effective solutions when seekingto lower the rate of damage at any particu-lar health and safety site.

The highest health and safety residual riskof 4.7 (Figs. 1 and 2) was related to re-search site 7, which was due to the usage indifferent projects of various types of non-material and carcinogenic substances which

included A1 as well as A2. Verification ofthe findings of the present study was doneby analyzing the results from a researchconducted by Sayre, et al., (2001) in whichthe persistent risks of toxicity and extremeincreases in levels of nonmaterial particleswere found to be the main factors involvedin relative health risks (8).

This was due to the discharge of a widerange of chemical and oil materials into theenvironment on top of the lack of perfor-mance monitoring and waste control sys-tems in the site outlet (Figs. 1 and 3).

The results of the latest studies by re-searchers regarding the poor ability ofwaste management systems found that iso-lation, transportation, treatment and dispos-al were the main areas of concern. Thesefindings confirm the fact that high residualrisks at research sites are cause of the useof complex chemical substances and un-controlled waste discharge into the envi-ronment (22).

Study of corrective control measures in-dependently using management and engi-neering methods explained in Table 3,shows that the sites with complex processsystems and equipments including hazard-ous and toxic substances are associatedwith much more severe risk factors (such asfacilities 2, 5, 8 and 9). Accordingly, byusing TLB method, more control and pro-tective actions have been ranked and usedwithin risk management programs. Moreo-ver, the increase in the amount of healthand safety measures (699 actions) as com-pared to the environmental measures (86actions) at the studied research sites wasfound to be due to risk identification aswell as an increase in concentration ofhealth, safety and process risk causes andfactors in comparison to the environmentalaspects. On the other hand, the study ofhealth, safety and environmental controlpriorities based on engineering measuresshows a relatively significant increase incomparison to management measures. Inthe two cases pertaining to health, safetyand environmental measures, the reason forthe large number of engineering measures

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020




can be rooted in the large number and vari-ety of machinery with a long working life(press machine and elevators). Using thedevices without basic protection compo-nents also further contributes to this prob-lem as well (saw without guard, defects inthe earth system, etc.). In the present study,however, while evaluating the total health,safety and environmental risk, "not justhealth-risk factors", control measure priori-ties were determined using the TLB meth-od. Though, it should be mentioned thatboth of the studies emphasized the controlof risk factors including source, receiver,risk factor and work site, respectively.

ConclusionThe first major practicable result of a risk

assessment program is "risk rating". Thiswas carried out independently for the hid-den and evident causes of risk potentialswithin processes in addition to working sit-uations and conditions. In each laboratoryfield, following the identification of haz-ards and their related causes, RPN method-ical calculation was performed. Controlmeasure priorities were calculated separate-ly for health, safety and environmental fac-tors. This was considered to be a primarycriterion for judgment.

In the HSE management system, alloca-tion of funds to study risk assessment hasbrought significant benefits to many organ-izations. The results from risk assessmentscan help in selecting appropriate solutions,which is certainly the removal of mainthreats. Furthermore, risk assessments canalso be used to prepare and improve HSEpolicies.

In this study, estimation of the rate ofdegradation, damage and injury to humanand environment was carried out separatelyfor each laboratory and provided as a coef-ficient of risk score arithmetic mean. Thiscoefficient was used as the total risk esti-mation in comparing risk levels before andafter the implementation of correctivemeasures.It was also revealed that ISO 14121 can beused as a useful research and administrative

tool in management projects to preventprobable events and damages, particularlythose occurring in research and laboratorysites.

AcknowledgementThe authors wish to extend their sincere

gratitude to faculty engineering of TarbiatModares University who supported thiswork as a risk assessment project in winter2012.

References1. Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P, Veitch

B. Fault and event tree analyses for process systemsrisk analysis: uncertainty handling formulations.Risk Analysis 2011;31(1):86-107.

2. Olsson R. In search of opportunity manage-ment: Is the risk management process enough? IJPM2007;25(8):745–752.

3. Hillson D. Effective opportunity managementfor projects – exploiting positive risk. New York,Marcel Dekker 2004;pp.51-61.

4. Sotoudeh GA, Khanzadi M, Jalal M, ParchamiA. Fuzzy MCDM for evaluating risk of constructionprojects. AJBAS 2011;5(12):162-171.

5. http://www.directives.doe.gov,Office of Health,Safety and Security, DOE G 414.1-1C.

6. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/cumulative_guidance.pdf, 2002.

7. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/out-ext/research-recherche-eng.php. 2012,

8. Goyal RK. FMEA, the Alternative ProcessHazard Method". Hydrocarbon Processing, 1993;72(5):95-99.

9. Sayre P, Prothero S, Alwood J. Nanomaterialrisk assessment and management experiences relat-ed to worker health under the toxic substances con-trol act, Journal of Occupational and EnvironmentalMedicine 2011;53(6):98-102.

10. U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (1997Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy, Washington, DC, EPA/600/P-95/002F a-c, 1997.

11. Musee N. Nanotechnology risk assessmentfrom a waste management perspective: Are the cur-rent tools adequate? Hum Exp Toxicol 2011;30:820-835.

12. Yousuf M. Risk assessment of hazardouschemicals case study chemistry research laboratoryof USM, Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the re-quirements for the degree of Master of Science,school of chemical engineering, University of Sci-ence Malaysia 2008.

13. Moran L, Masciangioli T. Chemical Laborato-ry Safety and Security, A Guide to Prudent Chemi-cal Management, The National Academies Press

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020




2010:215-225.14. Guide to the New Machinery Directive

2006/42/EC, 6th. edition (http://www.machine build-ing. net/n/n2306.htm )

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wash-ington, Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment.Part 1. Planning and Scoping. Science Policy Coun-cil, 20460 July 3, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 11/documents/frmwrk_cum_risk_assmnt.pdf.

16. Michael A, Callahan KS. Cumulative risk as-sessment is the answer, what is the question? U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas,Texas, USA; University of Texas School of PublicHealth, Environmental Health Perspectives 2007;115:5.

17. Thomas AT, Donald D. Project risk manage-ment using the project risk FMEA, EngineeringManagement Journal 2004;16:4.28-35.

18. Jozi SA, Saffarian S, Shafie M. Environmentalrisk assessment of a gas power plant exploitation

unit using integrated top-eFMEA method. Pol. J.Environ. Stud 2012;21(1):95.

19. Mahdinia M, Yarahmadi R, Jafari MJ,Koohpaei AR. Presentation of a software method foruse of Risk assessment in Building Fire SafetyMeasure Optimization. Iran Occupational Health,Spring 2012;9(1):9-16. (Persian)

20. Rezazadeh A, Solhi M, Azam K. Determinantsof responsibility for health, spiritual health and in-terpersonal relationship based on theory of plannedbehavior in high school girl students. Med J IslamRepub Iran 2015 (21 April);29:204.

21. PFMEA, RAM Commander RAMC 7.2 NewFeatures, ALD WEB Site, www.aldservice.comDownload the latest version of RAM CommanderV8.5 (February 2015).22. Bluvband Z, Grabov P. Failure analysis of

FMEA, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,2009:344-347.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

mjir

i.ium

s.ac

.ir a

t 16:

47 IR

ST

on

Frid

ay O

ctob

er 2

3rd

2020


health, safety and environmental risk management in ...mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3605-en.pdf ·...

Documents