Risk assessment in academic laboratories in the west of Iran: compare the CHRA and the RSLs methods

• Published in: International journal of environmental health research Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 198 - 211
• Main Authors: Taheri, Elnaz, Mollabahrami, Farzaneh, Farokhzad, Maryam, Ghasemi, Fakhradin, Assari, Mohammad Javad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis 03.03.2020; Taylor & Francis LLC
• Subjects: carcinogenic; Chemical Health Risk Assessment (CHRA); Chemicals; Environmental protection; Health risk assessment; Health risks; Identification methods; Laboratories; non-carcinogenic; Occupational exposure; Occupational safety; Organic chemistry; Regional development; Regional Screening Levels (RSLs); Risk assessment; Occupational exposure; carcinogenic; Regional Screening Levels (RSLs); Chemical Health Risk Assessment (CHRA); non-carcinogenic
• DOI: 10.1080/09603123.2019.1588232
• ISSN: 0960-3123

In the laboratories staffs, there is potential for adverse health effects in exposure to chemicals. Therefore, risk assessment is one of the main issues to prevent these effects. The purpose of this study was to assess the health risk of laboratory staffs and compare the two methods, including 'Chemical Health Risk Assessment' (CHRA) and 'Regional Screening Levels' (RSLs), that developed by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health of Malaysia and the Environmental Protection Agency respectively. Using these two methods, the places with the highest risk were identified. Comparisons showed that RSLs is a precise method without personal judgment. The CHRA is a simple method for wider chemicals that categorize risk. But CHRA includes fewer parameters compared to RSLs, as well as personal judgment. The results of the present study showed that two methods did not compatible. According to the characteristics of these two methods, it is recommended to use them as a compliment each other to obtain accurate results.