College and university sector response to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board Texas Tech incident report and UCLA laboratory fatality

Mulcahy, Mary Beth; Young, Alice M.; Gibson, John W.; Hildreth, Cheri; Ashbrook, Peter C.; Izzo, R.; Backus, Bruce D.

doi:10.1016/j.jchas.2012.12.012

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All highly publicized accidents in academia of recent years were associated with highly hazardous reactions or equipment[ 1 3 9 _ T D $ D I F F ] . 2 Therefore, thorough training with demonstrated self-efficacy should become a documented prerequisite for working with hazards. The mismatch between researchers' perception of their own risk and what they think their institution perceives is their risk in the laboratory could potentially result in accidents due to researchers underestimating their risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers

Schröder¹,

Huang²,

Ellis³

et al. 2016

J. Chem. Health Saf.

100

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers

Schröder¹,

Huang²,

Ellis³

et al. 2016

J. Chem. Health Saf.

100

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 In many cases, safety training for researchers consists of anecdotes and informal sharing of safety knowledge. 8,16 Many have pointed to principal investigators as a major barrier to changing safety practices. 17−22 Variables such as a lack of knowledge related to safety protocols, lack of funding to investigate safe practices, lack of time to engage in safe practices, and apathy toward changing behavior all contribute to this hurdle.…”

Section: The Challenge Of An Academic Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are few studies on safety programs that have been implemented at universities, and the safety programs that are published do not always report on their efficacy . In many cases, safety training for researchers consists of anecdotes and informal sharing of safety knowledge. , …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compressed Gas Safety at the University

Ngai

2020

J. Chem. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic institutions are faced with the complex problem of accurately determining the hazards associated with a proposed or ongoing project. For many reasons, compressed gas safety can be a significant challenge at universities, especially those that involve research using many uncommon materials. This article is a call to action for implementing better safety practices when using compressed gases and helps to fill the gap on resources related to compressed gases. General operating procedures and resources for safe practices when using compressed gases are outlined in this article, as well as lessons learned from incidents involving compressed gases.

show abstract

“…The investigation report briefly discusses the human and organizational factors leading to the poor safety and the laboratory incident [9], [10]. Failure to identify the organizational factor could miss the chance to improve the laboratory and its safety management system [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing Human Factors Contributing to the Explosion in Texas Tech University Laboratory

Morshidi

Norazahar

2018

JEST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the use of human factor analysis and classification system (HFACS) for the explosion in the Texas Tech University laboratory. Human factor issues in the university laboratory were assessed according to four categories in HFACS: unsafe acts, precondition for unsafe acts, unsafe supervision, and organizational influences. The assessment showed that the student committed many errors due to precondition for unsafe acts, in particular no physical hazard evaluation required prior to conducting the experiment. Inadequate supervision in the university laboratory caused the presence of precondition for unsafe acts among students. The trajectory of human factor issues in the categories of unsafe acts, precondition for unsafe acts, and unsafe supervision pointed to the university’s organization. The human factor issues were analyzed according to three subcategories in organizational influences: resource management, organizational climate, and organizational process. The use of HFACS in the explosion in the Texas Tech University laboratory could demonstrate the sequence of failures and human factors leading to the accident.

show abstract

College and university sector response to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board Texas Tech incident report and UCLA laboratory fatality

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers

Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers

Compressed Gas Safety at the University

Analyzing Human Factors Contributing to the Explosion in Texas Tech University Laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About