ABSTRACT
Laboratories are facilities in which scientific training and research activities are developed. Laboratories can have various aspects and risk according to scientific disciplines: chemistry, biology, physics and others. Classifying these laboratories is therefore, a difficult task, particularly in terms of risk assessment. Different risk groups with different knowledge and risk perception can be found in these spaces: students, teachers, researchers, maintenance and cleaning teams. New laboratory workers and students are particularly relevant groups as they are not fully aware of the risks related to the use of dangerous products. But also, experienced users are not free from dangers (Watch, 2008; Fruchtnicht et al., 2013; Van Noorden, 2013). As a result, accidents do happen. The evaluation of risks is made through the following steps: Identifying hazards and corresponding risks; evaluating and prioritizing risks; deciding on preventive action; taking action; monitoring and reviewing (OSHA 2011; Wargniez et al., 2012; Phifer, 2014; Theis, 2014). Safety is a priority in chemical and biological laboratories. To ensure that all users are familiar with rules and regulations and understand how to operate laboratory equipments various laboratory safety manuals are available. Usually, these manuals are elaborated by someone with proper safety training, namely a chemical hygiene officer (Ashbrook, 2014). The different laboratory manuals include instructions to safety, identification of hazards (physical, biological, toxic, radiation,…), good laboratory practices, laboratory safety checklists
laboratories in a higher education establishment. The checklist was composed of 12 general categories, ranging from chemical storage and compressed gases to fume hoods and PPE. This checklist was distributed in paper format to 128 respondents (59% women and 41% men) of which: 66% were students, 9% researchers and 25% were part of cleaning and maintenance teams. The completed checklists were analyzed for age, gender, profession and qualifications. In addition, the laboratories of the higher education establishment were also evaluated for aspects such as principal investigator, number of scientists, and the type of laboratory (teaching or research). The results obtained from 128 answered checklists were organized in a matrix and two new possible answers were included in data management: “not valid” and “not answered”. Results were divided according to gender to survey if this variable might play a role in risk perception. After this analysis, all the original answers “yes”, “no”, “not applicable/not available” were converted into logical values of “zero” or “one”, depending if the risk perception is negative (0), or positive (1), respectively. The average values for each topic was calculated. Bar graphs and histograms were constructed for each set of questions. Line charts were constructed to evaluate the percentage of positive risk perception.
