IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Occurrence of microplastics in cosmetic
Risk Assessment at the Cosmetic Product products collected from Myanmar
Ei Ei Mon and Haruhiko Nakata
Manufacturer by Expert Judgment Method - Nanotechnology in cosmetics pros and
cons
Rachana Yadwade, Saee Gharpure and
To cite this article: A N Vtorushina et al 2017 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 66 012023 Balaprasad Ankamwar

- Implementation of occupational safety and

health management system (OSHMS) on
work-related accident rate in the
manufacturing industry, Indonesia
View the article online for updates and enhancements. A U Abidin, E M Nurmaya, W Hariyono et
al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 94.66.58.209 on 23/01/2023 at 21:49

International Conference on Recent
All-Russian research-to-practice Trends in“Ecology
conference Physics 2016 (ICRTP2016)
and safety in the technosphere” IOPPublishing
IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics:
IOP Conf. Conference
Series: Earth Series 755 (2016)
and Environmental 011001
Science 66 (2017) 012023 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/755/1/011001
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/66/1/012023

Risk Assessment at the Cosmetic Product Manufacturer by

Expert Judgment Method

A N Vtorushina, E V Larionovaa, I L Mezenceva, E D Nikonova

Ecology and Human Safety Department, Tomsk Polytechnic University

Lenin av. 34, Tomsk, Russia, 634050

E-mail: a [email protected]

Abstract. A case study was performed in a cosmetic product manufacturer. We have identified
the main risk factors of occupational accidents and their causes. Risk of accidents is assessed
by the expert judgment method. Event tree for the most probable accident is built and
recommendations on improvement of occupational health and safety protection system at the
cosmetic product manufacturer are developed. The results of this paper can be used to develop
actions to improve the occupational safety and health system in the chemical industry.

1. Introduction
Professional risk management is a part of occupational health and safety management system and
refers to organization and sustention of preventive actions focused on optimization of hazards and
risks such as prevention of accidents, injuries and occupational diseases. Professional risk
management includes complex of actions to identify, assess and reduce the level of professional risk.
Implementation of professional risk management is essential to the chemical industry because of
increasing hazards of modern process and facilities and more over harmful substances can emit to air
or discharge to water or dispose with waste [1,2]. Therefore professional risk management must be a
core of preventive health and safety protection system in the chemical industry. There is a variety of
methods that have been developed to analyse risk originating from hazardous facilities and substances.
Good review of qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative and hybrid methods of risk assessment can
be found in [3]. Papers [1,2,4] are devoted to analysis of risk assessment methods applied in the
chemical industry.
In case of time series accident data over several years are not available the expert judgement
method can be recommended for risk assessment [5]. The expert judgement method makes valuable
use of prior knowledge and experience of experts and can be made easily and speedily. The
disadvantage, however, is that it relies on subjective opinion, hunch and intuition of experts.
Limitation of the method is the uncertainties associated with the results [6,7].
The aim of this work is to assess risk of accidents by the expert judgement method and to develop
recommendation on improvement of occupational health and safety protection system in a cosmetic
product manufacturer. The company is located in Russia, Altai region. The main activity of the
company is the manufacture of perfumes, cosmetics and household chemicals.
Legislation in Russia establishes the requirements to risk assessment of accidents and their threats
of occurrence, to analysis of the causes of accidents, their factors and risks associated with them, as

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
 All-Russian research-to-practice conference “Ecology and safety in the technosphere” IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 66 (2017) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/66/1/012023

well as the selection of risk analysis methods for subsequent evaluation. It is known that the reasons
for the implementation of accident and injury was a fault of the process equipment, as well as the
human factor such as the wrong organization of work, carelessness, neglect of use of personal
protection equipment [8]. However, in the Russian legislation in the field of risk analysis the human
risk factors are not considered. Thus, the relevant issue is the harmonization of Russian legislation
with international standards and practice in the field of risk assessment, such as OHSAS 18001, ILO-
OSH 2001, AFS 2001 (AFS 2008:15), ISO 31010:2011.
This paper consider the risks arising both at the fault of process equipment due to its failure or
malfunction; and, the human factor, risks associated with the neglect of safety regulations, ignoring
the use of personal protective equipment, violation of fire and electrical safety rules.

2. Results and discussion

2.1. Risk assessment of accidents by expert judgment method
To evaluate the risk of accidents in the cosmetic product manufacturer the expert judgment method is
used. We used the individual opinions of the expert group members based on the preliminary
gathering of information from experts that were interviewed independently of each other with the
following treatment of the data. In this work a questionnaire method is used. For this purpose the
questionnaire is developed. Experts was asked to rate the probability of the events and the severity of
accidents on a scale from 1 to 5. According to the process features there are following possible
accidents:
1. Electric shock due to the failure of process equipment or insulation.
2. Thermal injure received from the hot components of process equipment.
3. Falling from a height in warehouse.
4. Injuries received from the rotating parts of process equipment.
5. Chemical injury, caused by accident in production process or in analytical laboratory.
6. Injuries caused by the explosion of the equipment which is under pressure.
There are no objective criteria for proclaiming a person an expert [9]. Experts have been selected as
objectively as possible among professionals who really stand out for their knowledge and experience.
Risk is evaluated as the product of the probability by the severity of accident. The assessment of
accident probability and severity is exposed on a 5-point scale, which is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Evaluation scale

Probability of the event The accident severity Scale
Very low, the event is unlikely to occur (the Minor injuries, no need to go to the 1
probability is from 1 to 20%); medical center
Low, the event is unlikely to occur (the Moderate injuries without disability, 2
probability is from 21 to 40%) appealing to the medical center
Middle, the event is likely to occur (the Accident at workplace with a temporary 3
probability is from 41 to 60%); disability
High, the event is very likely to occur (the Accident at workplace with a heavy 4
probability is from 61 to 80%) injuries, with full disability (amputation,
etc.)
Very high, the event is likely to happen earlier Fatal accident 5
than it is supposed (the probability is more than
80%);

The results of the questionnaire of experts are presented in Table 2. Then scores of risk are ranked
provided that the rank of one is less probable event and the rank of six is the most likely event. If
scores of risk received the same ranks, then they were replaced by "standardized ranks" calculated as

2
 All-Russian research-to-practice conference “Ecology and safety in the technosphere” IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 66 (2017) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/66/1/012023

the average amount of ranks divided among the ranks with the same incidents. The results of the
ranking of risk scores are presented in Table 3.

Table 2 – Results of scoping of the probability accident (P), the accident severity (S) and the risk (R)
Accident
Expert 1 2 3 4 5 6
P S R P S R P S R P S R P S R P S R
1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 9 2 3 6 2 4 8 1 2 2
2 1 1 1 3 2 6 2 4 8 3 4 12 3 3 9 2 5 10
3 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 3 9 2 5 10 4 3 12 2 4 6
4 3 2 6 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 9 3 2 6 1 1 1
5 1 3 3 3 3 9 3 4 12 4 2 8 4 5 20 3 3 9
6 1 2 2 1 2 6 3 3 9 2 3 6 4 3 12 2 2 4
7 2 1 2 3 2 6 2 1 2 4 3 12 3 3 9 2 4 8

Table 3 – Results of risk assessments ranking

Accident
Expert
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 1 6 4 5 2
2 1 2 4 6 5 3
3 2 1 4 5 6 3
4 4.5 1.5 3 6 4.5 1.5
5 1 3.5 5 2 6 3.5
6 1 2 5 4 6 3
7 1 2 1 5 4 3

Kendall's coefficient of concordance is used to assess consistency of experts' judgments. Kendall

coefficient of concordance essentially denotes the average rank order correlation between the cases. If
the coefficient is greater than 0.4, it is considered that the judgments of experts have the consistency
[10].
In order to estimate significant differences in risk assessments of accidents Friedman ANOVA by
ranks is used. In the test the null hypothesis is formulated as an equality of medians in experts'
assessments on each accident. The conclusion on rejection or not rejection of the null hypothesis is
done by comparing of the achieved significance level p with the fixed one  = 0.05. Thus, if the null
hypothesis is not rejected then there are only random differences between the risks of accidents. If the
null hypothesis is rejected then there are significant differences between the risks of accidents.
The data processing was performed by the Statistica program. The obtained results are presented in
Table 4. In addition for the visualization of the data a box plot is constructed (figure 1).
The table 4 shows that the concordance coefficient is equal to 0.59, which indicates a high
consistency of experts' judgments. Friedman ANOVA results show that p <α, therefore the null
hypothesis is rejected. Thus, according to experts' judgments the risk of accidents is significantly
different. As it can be seen from the figure 1 and table 4 the most likely accident is the chemical
injury.
To identify the main causes and factors of the most likely events realization (that were identified
earlier) it is advisable to use an event tree analysis. The algorithm of the event tree construction is the
coherent definition of events following from the main event.

3
 All-Russian research-to-practice conference “Ecology and safety in the technosphere” IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 66 (2017) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/66/1/012023

Table 4 – Results of Friedman ANOVA and Kendall's coefficient of concordance

ANOVA Chi Sqr. (N = 7, df = 5) = 20.66390 p = 0.00094
Coeff. of Concordance = 0.59040 Aver. rank r = 0.52213
Average Rank Sum of Ranks Mean Std.Dev.
1 2.000000 14.00000 1.928571 1.367131
2 2.000000 14.00000 1.857143 0.852168
3 4.071429 28.50000 4.000000 1.632993
4 4.714286 33.00000 4.571429 1.397276
5 5.357143 37.50000 5.214286 0.809174
6 2.857143 20.00000 2.714286 0.698638

4
Rank

1
Mean
0 Mean±SE
1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean±SD
Accident

Figure 1 – Box and whisker plot of risk assessment at the cosmetic product manufacturer

Event tree provides an opportunity to strictly record the sequence of events and identify the
relationship between the initiation and subsequent events, the combination of which results in the
chemical injury. Thus the event tree is developed in order to model the scenario of the most likely
event at the cosmetic product manufacturer (Figure 2).

Chemical injury

Getting a chemical on
Work without using personal
exposed skin when using
protective equipment
personal protective equipment

Absence of personal Absence of personal Personal protective

Failure of process
protective equipment protective equipment equipment is
equipment
(management’s fault) (worker’s fault) ineffective

Failure of the
No manager’s control
equipment components

Violation of safety
rules of the process
equipment operation

Figure 2 – Event tree for the chemical injury.

4
 All-Russian research-to-practice conference “Ecology and safety in the technosphere” IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 66 (2017) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/66/1/012023

According to the event tree it can be concluded that the events leading to the realization of the
accident depends on technical and organizational factors.

2.2. Recommendations on reducing risk of accidents in the cosmetic product manufacturer

To increase the effectiveness of occupational safety and health system and provide safe working
conditions for staff, as well as reduce the risk of occupational injuries, the following organizational
and technical actions should be performed:
 organization of periodic checks of expiration date and effectiveness of personal protective
equipment;
 organization of staff occupational safety training in accordance with the decision of Russian
legislation;
 organization of access control of people and motor transport to the company territory;
 providing conditions for the effective and continuous monitoring of the company area
security.
In addition in order to avoid industrial injuries, occupational diseases and to minimize the impact of
hazardous and harmful factors at the cosmetic product manufacture it is proposed introduce the
following recommendations in the field of occupational safety and health management systems:
 to eliminate sources of hazards and reduce risk to an acceptable level;
 to limit the negative impact of hazards by using of collective protective equipment. For
example: to use soundproof covers on the machines to reduce noise;
 to minimize the risk by designing process systems with a limited time of contact with harmful
and dangerous process factors or to organize shift work for staff;
 to pay more attention to training of staff in accordance with applicable legislation and local
regulations;
 not to neglect the use of personal protective equipment, including protective clothing, despite
the fact that PPE do not eliminate the hazards however using it helps to reduce the negative
impact of harmful factors down to acceptable.
To improve the overall level of safety should be also taken into account following organizational
and technical actions:
1. Industrial safety:
 carrying out a timely technical inspection of process equipment;
 organization of effective control of the implementation of rules, regulations and guidelines;
 organization of staff training in the field of industrial safety;
 exclusion of the possibility of any unregulated work.
2. Fire safety:
 organization of staff training in the field of fire safety;
 fire prevention discipline at operation and maintenance of process equipment;
 completion of the Russian legislation in the field of fire safety.
3. Ecological safety (according to Russian legislation): organization of development and
coordination of environmental plan at the cosmetic product manufacturer.
4. Civil and territory protection (according to Russian legislation):
 development a comprehensive plan of the company security improvement;
 providing staff with personal protective equipment and its storage areas;
 organization of training activities for staff to prepare their actions in the case of emergency;
 organization and conducting of the trainings and alarms for the staff to provide possible
actions in the case of accident;
 audit of staff knowledge of the rules of action in the circumstances of the accident in the
company.

5
 All-Russian research-to-practice conference “Ecology and safety in the technosphere” IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 66 (2017) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/66/1/012023

3. Conclusion
In this paper we have realized the risk assessment at the cosmetic product manufacturer by expert
judgement method. We have preliminary determined the possible accidents at the manufacturer. The
data of experts' assessments is processed by statistical methods. Opinion consistency of experts is
assessed by Kendall's coefficient of concordance. Significance of differences in accident risk
assessments is estimated by Friedman ANOVA by ranks. The experts demonstrated appropriate
consistency in their evaluation of risk. It is concluded that the risk of accidents is significantly
different and the accident with the highest risk according to experts is the chemical injury. We have
built and analyzed the event tree for the chemical injury. Based on the risk and event tree analysis we
have offered organizational and technical actions to reduce the risk of implementation of occupational
injuries.

References
[1] Villa V, Paltrinieri N, Khan F, and Cozzani V 2016 Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of
the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry Safety Science
89 77
[2] Sengupta A, Bandyopadhyay D, Van Westen C J and Van Der Veen A 2016 An evaluation of
risk assessment framework for industrial accidents in India Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries 41 295
[3] Khan F, Rathnayaka S and Ahmed S 2015 Methods and models in process safety and risk
management: Past, present and future Process Safety and Environmental Protection 98 116
[4] Garrick B J 1988 The approach to risk analysis in three industries: Nuclear power, space
systems, and chemical process Reliability Engineering and System Safety 23(3) 195
[5] Rosqvist T 2003 On the use of expert judgement in the qualification of risk assessment. VTT
Publ. 507 3
[6] Goossens L H J and Cooke R M 1997. Applications of some risk assessment techniques: formal
expert judgment and accident sequnce precursors. Saf. Sci. 26 35
[7] Paltrinieri N and Khan F 2015 Dynamic risk analysis in the chemical and petroleum industry
(Elsevier)
[8] Reniers G L L 2010 A novel methodology for evaluating the change of existing operational
staffing levels (MCSL) in the chemical industry Safety Science 48(2) 179
[9] Goossens L H J, Cooke R M, Hale A R and Rodić-Wiersma L 2008 Fifteen years of expert
judgement at TUDelft Safety Science 46(2) 234
[10] Mannan S 2012 Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (Fourth Edition) vol 1 (Elsevier)