الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 99 |  |  |
| | | from | 99 | | |
Abstract
Working in chemical laboratories is surrounded by multiple risks of fires, poisoning, leakage of toxic gases, irritants, radioactive materials, etc. To work in a safe environment, the rules and principles of safety procedures must be followed, and labs should be designed and equipped according to the standards. Moreover, laboratory personnel should adhere to the standard safety precautions so as not to cause danger to themselves and others. Many laboratories of the universities and factories are engaged in chemical activities. In our study, we focused on the standards that prevent or reduce occupational exposures among susceptible groups, including workers, students, technicians and researchers, in addition to focusing on safety standards that reduce incidence of diseases, injuries, disabilities, deaths, or that may affect the society and the environment. Several studies were conducted in some countries concerned with safety in chemical laboratories for identifying the risks and shortcomings and to create a work environment free of hazards to workers, society and environment. However, addressing this issue in developing countries is limited. So far, in Egypt, one study conducted at Mansoura University in 2017 addressed this issue.
The chemical laboratories at the postgraduate institutes at Alexandria University are among the most frequently used by the postgraduate students for teaching, conducting experiments and scientific researches. Therefore, the present study selected the chemical laboratories of post-graduate institutes to address this issue.
The general objective of the present study was to assess the chemical laboratories’ safety standards at Postgraduates’ Institutes of Alexandria University. This was accomplished by evaluating the laboratory safety measures using the observational checklist to assess the lab safety in postgraduates’ institutes of Alexandria University, and by finding out the non-compliances with the safety and health standards, and propose the correction actions.
The study was conducted during thirteen months through three main phases, including preparatory, operational, and analytical. During the preparatory phase, the investigator contacted the deans of the three institutes for post-graduate studies for obtaining their permission to conduct the study. Permission to carry out the study was obtained from just two institutes, while the third Institute apologized. An observational checklist was prepared after extensive literature review. A pilot study was conducted by applying the checklist on under-graduate laboratories.
During the operational phase, a total number of laboratories was 13 chemical labs were inspected, of which nine (69.23%) were in Institute ”A”, and four (30.78%) laboratories in ”B”. The data collection from the selected labs extended over two months and half. Each laboratory was inspected for its dimension, the positions of doors and windows as well as their length and width (ventilation data) of the laboratories were determined. The second part of the checklist included the various safety measures in terms of housekeeping, availability of safety requirements, storage of chemicals, safety of laboratory components, availability of personal protective equipment, availability of safety information, emergency procedures, handling of chemical and biological wastes, and availability of various records in laboratories. Data were entered and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 21.0).
Summary
64
The results of the study showed that the process of chemicals’ storage was of relatively low safety score (50.0%, 60.8%) in the laboratories of the two institutes ”A” and ”B” respectively. The safety score of the availability of safety information was significantly lower in Institute ”A” (42.8%) than ”B” (85.7%). This causes many of the shortcomings and violations of standards.
Regarding chemical wastes, it was of relatively low safety score (70% in the laboratories of the Institute ”A” and 66.7% in institutes ”B”). This may be attributed to the use of open non-labeled wastes’ containers, absence of sharp wastes’ containers, absence of disposal and spills’ procedures, and absence of spills’ tool kits. This increases the risk to the workers, to the environment and to the community.
This study showed a significant variation in the safety score of the biological wastes’ category between the laboratories of the institutes, where the percentage safety score was (29.2%) for the laboratories of the Institute ”A” and (100%) for that of institutes ”B”.
The safety scores of the emergency procedures were equal in the two institutes (71.4%), but it was away from the standards. This constitutes actual danger since any normally controllable risk may lead to a crisis. This may be due to the lack of the second laboratory exits, eye and body showers, sand buckets, emergency plan; added to the doors that open to inside, and the absence of evacuation drill.
The study also showed that the safety scores of the safety requirements, and tools were (73.3%) in Institute ”A” and (71.9%) in ”B”. This can be improved by prevention of eating, drinking, and smoking in the laboratories, adding hoods to all laboratories, and installation of eye and body showers and of the sand buckets.
The laboratories also achieved good percentage scores of the laboratory components where it was (87.5%) in the laboratories of the Institute ”A” and (88.9%) in the institutes ”B”. This can be improved by adding maps and signs of emergency exits and hazards’ signs to each laboratory, repairing floors, ceilings, and plumbing.
The use, availability, and updating of various records were of low safety score (40%) in the laboratories of the Institute ”A” and (66.7%) in institutes ”B”. This may be attributed to either the lack of records or lack of its updating, despite its importance for documentation and listing of the activities practiced, and for developing appropriate solutions to prevent their risks by identifying the causes. These records included the laboratory attendance records; apparatuses use records, the periodic maintenance records, and the emergency maintenance records.
The results showed that the maximum percentage compliance in laboratories of Institute ”A” (83.8%) was in the laboratory number (2) (Environmental Chemistry Lab. (4th Floor). The highest percentage of non-compliance (51.2%) was in the laboratory number (4) (Food Chemistry Lab). In Institute ”B”, the uppermost percentage of compliance (83.8%) was in the laboratory (4) chromatography Lab (MTC), while the highest percentage of non-compliance (23.6%) was in the laboratory (2) (Applied Medical Chemistry Lab (B)). The laboratories of Institute ”B” achieved the highest percentage safety score (100%) in housekeeping, as well as biological wastes. The percentage of poor safety score was observed within the category of chemical storage (60.8%). In the Institute ”A”, the highest percentage safety score (90.9%) was observed in the housekeeping
Summary
65
category, while the lowest in the biological wastes (29.2%). Ventilation was either good or accepted in laboratories of the two institutes.
Finally, the main study benefit is to identify the safety shortcomings of the chemistry laboratories at the postgraduate institutes in Alexandria University, through which it is possible to work effectively to improve the safety performance through the following of the drawbacks, and commitment of management, employees, students, technicians and researchers to implement the safety standards.