Browse > Article

Perception of Workers and Managers for the Chemical Hazard  

Cho, YongMin (Institute for Occupational and Environmental Health at Korea University)
Kim, Hee Jung (Graduate School for Public Health at Korea University)
Choi, Jae-Wook (Institute for Occupational and Environmental Health at Korea University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene / v.22, no.4, 2012 , pp. 293-300 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objectives: In chemical hazard communication, information receiver's perception is a important factor, but the study on the perception was few. Therefore, this study evaluated the perception of managers and workers group about chemical hazard communication by chemical hazard communication tools that were being used in fields. Methods: 91 managers and 238 workers were surveyed in two companies where use chemicals. All subjects were asked about the comprehensibility and perception for MSDS and GHS Pictograms being used in their workplaces through face-to-face interviews. Results: Most of the respondents knew MSDS, and more than half of the respondents had used MSDS once or more per year. The level of use to find the information on chemicals with MSDS was higher in the managers in comparison with workers. Also, the managers could understand and find the information on MSDS easier(p < 0.05). In the question asking the meaning of GHS Pictograms, the managers responded more correctly, as well(p < 0.05). 86.8% of the managers and 62.6% of the workers were conscious of the possible health hazards of chemicals that they could be exposed at work. However, among the respondents conscious of the health hazards, only less than 70% were well aware of the contents of the health hazards correctly. Conclusions: In chemical hazard communication, it is very important to evaluate whether information receiver have proper and correct knowledge and perception or not and actions based on the evaluations as well as provide correct information.
Keywords
Chemical hazard communication; Hazard perception; Material safety data sheets; GHS Pictogram; Comprehensibility testing;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 김기웅, 박진우, 정무수. 산업안전보건관리자 특성과 화학물질 유해성 정보전달의 관련성. 한국산업위생학회지 2012; 22(2): 156-163.
2 김현영, 황양인, 국원근. Epichlorohydrin의 유해성과 작업환경 관리. 한국산업위생학회지 2012; 22(2): 164-173.
3 이권섭, 한인수, 한경희, 박동욱, 이대원, 황호순, 유일재, 이용묵, 김광종. 분체도료의 화학물질 조성과 MSDS 신뢰성 조사 연구. 한국산업위생학회지 2004; 14(3): 221-232.
4 이종한, 이권섭, 박진우, 한규남. 사업장 MSDS 영업비밀 적용실태 및 제도 개선방안에 관한 연구. 한국산업위생학회지 2011; 21(3): 128-138.
5 임경택, 김현옥, 김영교, 조혜원, 마용석 등. 화학물질 유해성 평가를 위한 정보의 작성 및 활용. 한국독성학회지 2007; 22(1): 91-101.
6 임철홍, 김현옥, 이혜진, 안선찬, 신현화, 양정선. GHS 체계에 대응한 MSDS DB 구축 및 정보 제공 프로그램 개발. 한국산업위생학회 2009; 19(4): 347-362.
7 Cezar-Vaz Mr, Rocha LP, Bonow CA, Santos da Silva MR, Vaz JC, Cardoso LS. Risk perception and occupational accidents: A study of gas station workers in Southern Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012; 9: 2362-2377.   DOI
8 Conklin JJ. An international assessment of the comprehensibility of material safety data sheets (MSDSs). The University of Texas, Houston, Texas. USA. 2003. p.380.
9 Cox P, Niewohner J, Pidgeon N, Gerrard S, Fischhoff B, Riley D. The use of mental models in chemical risk protection: Developing a generic workplace methodology. Risk Anal. 2003; 23(2): 311-324.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Hambach R, Mairiaux P, Francois G, Braeckman L, Balsat A, Van Hal G, Vandoorne C, Van Royen P, van Sprundel, M. Worker's perception of chemical risks: A focus group study. Risk Anal. 2011; 31(2): 335-342.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Hamilton JD, Daggett DA, Pittinger CA. The role of professional judgement in chemical hazard assessment and communication. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2006; 46: 84-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Hara K, Mori M, Ishitake T, Kitajima H, Sakai K, Nakaaki K, Jonai H. Results of recognition tests on Japanese subjects of the labels presently used in Japan and the UN-GHS labels. J Occup Health 2007; 49(4): 260-267.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Kolp P, Sattler B, Blayney M, Sherwood T. Comprehensibility of material safety data sheets. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1993; 23(1): 135-141.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Malmfors T. "How exposed is exposed enough?" lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Analysis 1999; 19(4): 649-659.
15 Peterson PJ, Mokhtar M, Chang C, Krueger J. Indicators as a tool for the evaluation of effective national implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals(GHS). Journal of Environmental Management 2010; 91(5): 1202-1208.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Rother HA. South African farm worker's interpretation of risk assessment data expressed as pictograms on pesticide labels. Environmental Research 2008; 108(3): 419-427.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Severtson DJ and Henriques JB. The effect of graphics on environmental health risk beliefs, emotions, ehavioral intentions and recall. Risk Analysis 2009; 29(1): 1549-1565.   DOI
18 Silk JC. Development of a globally harmonized system for hazard communication. Int. Hyg. Environ. Health 2003; 206: 447-452.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Ta GC, Mokhtar MB, Mokhtar HAB, Ismail AB, Yazid MFBHA. Analysis of the comprehensibility of chemical hazard communication tools at the industrial workplace. Industrial Health 2010; 48: 835-544.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 UNITAR; United Nations Institute for Training and Research. Manual for comprehensibility testing of GHS. Training and Capacity Building Programmes in Chemical and Waste Management and International Labour Office (ILO), Geneva, Switzerland. 2010: 1-19.