Laboratory Safety Awareness, Practice, Attitude, and Perception of Tertiary Laboratory Workers in Hong Kong: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Laboratory safety is one of the key aspects of university safety. In this pilot study, 91 laboratory workers in two universities in Hong Kong completed a self-administered online questionnaire on laboratory safety awareness, practice, attitude, and perception. Part of the results was compared with an International Safety Culture Survey conducted in 2012 by a Chi-square test and t test at a significance level of 0.05. For instance, the participating universities showed a higher usage of a formal risk assessment tool (p < 0.001) and more frequent safety inspections conducted by the institution’s H&S staff (p < 0.001) and laboratory personnel (p < 0.001). Other significant differences such as less agreement that the laboratory is a safe place to work (p = 0.037) and that the risk of work is high (p = 0.001) were observed in the participating universities. Moreover, the participants were able to identify the full name of GHS (83.5%) and frequently used PPE (83.5%), but fewer of them were able to identify oxidizing, health-related, and irritating GHS hazard pictograms (69%, 67%, and 71%, respectively) and checked PPE before use (59.3%). They also learned about fatal laboratory accidents from institution’s H&S staff (82.4%), were willing to actively intervene when there were unsafe conditions or behaviors to prevent accidents (78.0%), and were eager to learn more about chemical safety (85.7%). However, a few potential risks were identified on the use of an informal risk assessment tool, working alone, and working before receiving training. Overall, this study suggests the view that the laboratory safety status of the two participating universities is up to international standards, yet the safety culture and safety compliance can be further improved.

Evaluating and Promoting Chemical Safety Awareness in the Chemical Sciences

“…Statistical analysis of the student responses to each question at both institutions were compared by performing Chi-squared, 2 , tests to determine if the null hypothesis (no statistically significant relationship exists between institutions and each question) should be accepted (if p-value > 0.05) or rejected (if p-value ≤ 0.05). The findings suggests that among the 20 questions asked, no statistically significant differences existed for 7 questions (Q1, Q2, Q7, Q9, Q10, Q13, and Q17) with pvalues greater than 0.05 at the 95% confidence level (Table 2).…”

Toward Improved Safety Culture in Academic and Industrial Chemical Laboratories: An Assessment and Recommendation of Best Practices

“…As stated before, there are identifiable differences in operation and management of laboratories in the industrial, government, and academic sectors. Keeping that in mind, the authors have compiled the list below, using insights developed from this study, as well as from other past studies, − ,,,, for promoting a stronger lab safety culture. The authors understand that the implementation of some of the practices could be scale-dependent (for example, use of expensive hazard evaluation and safety database management tools), but important to improving/maintaining the safety of a laboratory.…”

“…23 Their pilot survey at a medium-sized Canadian university suggests that Canadian laboratories were also affected by poor risk assessment practices and inadequate knowledge on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Similarly, Leung 24 conducted a pilot study to probe the safety culture among laboratory workers (research students and technical staff) at two Hong Kong universities and compared the findings to the 2012 International Laboratory Safety Survey. 22,27,28 Overall, the results from Leung's study suggest that although safety priority among respondents seemed to be high when compared to the 2012 International Survey, certain related aspects, such as those relating to informal risk assessment and safety trainings, were limited.…”

“…In the last several years, academic lab safety has evolved as an integral area of research and has garnered importance in the aspects of health and safety management. So far, laboratory safety culture and practices have been investigated via two methodologies: (1) an analysis − of previous safety research and past safety incidents pertaining to near-misses, injuries, and fatalities or (2) ad-hoc surveying − of safety culture through self-reported questionnaires. A recent review and analysis of academic lab safety by Ménard and Trant critically examined the state of academic lab safety through a multifaceted spectrum by looking at safety incidents and fatalities at universities based in Canada and United States .…”

“…Their pilot survey at a medium-sized Canadian university suggests that Canadian laboratories were also affected by poor risk assessment practices and inadequate knowledge on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Similarly, Leung conducted a pilot study to probe the safety culture among laboratory workers (research students and technical staff) at two Hong Kong universities and compared the findings to the 2012 International Laboratory Safety Survey. ,, Overall, the results from Leung’s study suggest that although safety priority among respondents seemed to be high when compared to the 2012 International Survey, certain related aspects, such as those relating to informal risk assessment and safety trainings, were limited. In essence, results from these various surveys − echoed similar findings that the current existing research laboratory safety infrastructure is inadequate globally and recommended that systematic measures, such as a top-down approach involving university management and independent safety councils, are needed to promote stronger laboratory safety culture.…”