Universidade do Minho, / / Assinatura:

Transcription

1

2 É AUTORIZADA A REPRODUÇÃO PARCIAL DESTA DISSERTAÇÃO APENAS PARA EFEITOS DE INVESTIGAÇÃO, MEDIANTE DECLARAÇÃO ESCRITA DO INTERESSADO, QUE A TAL SE COMPROMETE; Universidade do Minho, / / Assinatura:

3 Acknowledgments Agradeço em primeiro lugar ao Prof. Dr. Rui L. Reis, por todo o apoio e orientação e por me ter dado esta oportunidade de, numa primeira fase frequentar as aulas, em prejuízo de algum trabalho e numa segunda fase me permitir desenvolver este trabalho de mestrado no Grupo de. Agradeço ao Prof. Dr. Pedro Arezes, por todo o apoio, orientação e pronta disponibilidade em me ajudar durante todo o meu trabalho. Obrigada. Agradeço à Prof. Dra. Celina Leão pela ajuda fundamental na componente de estatística. Muito obrigada pela sua disponibilidade. To all 3 B s researchers that contributed to my work. Thanks! And work safely! Agradeço a todos os meus amigos por todo o apoio que me deram e com quem sei que posso sempre contar. Em particular, à Martinez e à Joaninha. Obrigada. Agradeço aos meus Pais e às minhas irmãs pela força e incentivo que sempre me deram. Um agradecimento especial para o meu Amor. Obrigada por todo o apoio e paciência. iii

4 iv

5 Abstract The main aims of this study were to assess the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers from a research group and to evaluate if the demographic characteristics of them affect their safety knowledge. A questionnaire form divided in seven groups namely General laboratory safety (Group A); Housekeeping and hygiene (Group B); Personal protection (Group C); Chemical safety (Group D); Biological safety (Group E); Waste disposal (Group F); Electrical and fire protection (Group G), was developed and validated to assess the safety knowledge of the researchers and to evaluate the relationship between their demographic characteristics and safety knowledge. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about demographic characteristics including age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. All groups had four questions each in a total of twenty-eight questions per questionnaire, and all questions had three possible answers to choose. The laboratory safety questionnaire was self-administered to 72 researchers, with a response rate of approximately 94%. This questionnaire was performed in English and had multiple-choice questions with different scores. Based on the distribution of scores and in the mean score of the questionnaires results, it was adopted the following knowledge score categories: less than 20 - poor knowledge; 20 to 30 - below average; 30 to 40 - good knowledge and higher than 40 - very good knowledge on safety. From these results, 22% of the respondents had scores lower than 30 and 4% had scores less than 20 corresponding, respectively, to scores below average and poor knowledge on safety. More than 50% of the respondents had good knowledge having scores higher than 30. Analysing the groups of questions, it was observed that the group A had the higher percentage (85%) and the group C had the lower percentage (61%) of the scores sum. Beside group C, other two groups had scores lower than the mean percentage of the overall results (75%), namely groups E (72%) and G (70%). The group B was the second topic safety with more answers correctly chose (91%). However it was also the group with higher percentage of answers incorrectly selected (15%). The mean knowledge score of researchers was 31 points, with the oldest group ( 40y) presenting the lowest score (p=0.03). The differences between the other socio-demographic variables (gender, background, education level and experience) were not statistically significant, considering a p-value of 5%. Considering the overall results, it was possible to conclude that the researchers had good knowledge on safety and that only age seems to affect knowledge. v

6 vi

7 Resumo Os principais objectivos deste estudo foram avaliar o conhecimento dos investigadores de um grupo de investigação no que respeita a segurança laboratorial e perceber se as suas características pessoais afectam este conhecimento. Para avaliar este conhecimento sobre segurança laboratorial e se as características pessoais dos investigadores afectam o seu conhecimento em segurança, foi desenvolvido um questionário. Este questionário foi dividido em sete grupos, nomeadamente: Segurança geral em laboratórios (Grupo A); Limpeza e higiene (Grupo B); Proteção pessoal (Grupo C); Segurança química (Grupo D); Segurança biológica (Grupo E); Eliminação de resíduos (Grupo F) e Proteção eléctrica e contra-incêndios (Grupo G). A primeira parte deste questionário solicitava informação acerca das características demográficas dos investigadores, incluindo idade, género, nível de educação, curso de licenciatura e anos de experiência como investigadores. Todos os grupos continham quatro questões cada, num total de 28 e cada questão tinha três respostas possíveis. O questionário de segurança laboratorial foi dado a 72 investigadores, com uma taxa de resposta de aproximadamente 94%. Este questionário foi realizado em inglês e tinha questões de respostas múltiplas com diferentes pontuações. De acordo com as pontuações obtidas e a média destas, foi adoptada a seguinte categoria de pontuações: menor que 20 - fraco conhecimento; 20 a 30 - abaixo da média; 30 a 40 - bom conhecimento e maior que 40 - muito bom conhecimento em segurança laboratorial. Observou-se que 27% dos inquiridos obtiveram pontuações menores que 30 pontos e 4% obtiveram pontuações menores que 20 correspondendo, respectivamente, a pontuações abaixo da média, e a fraco conhecimento em segurança. Mais de 50% dos inquiridos obtiveram pontuações acima de 30 correspondendo a bom conhecimento em segurança. Após análise dos grupos de questões, verificou-se que o grupo A obteve a maior percentagem (85%) e o grupo C (61%) a menor percentagem da soma das pontuações. Para além do grupo C, outros dois grupos obtiveram pontuações menores que a média dos resultados obtidos (75%), os grupos E (72%) e G (70%). O grupo B foi o segundo grupo com mais respostas corretamente assinaladas (91%). No entanto, foi também o grupo com a maior percentagem de respostas incorretamente selecionadas (15%). Os investigadores obtiveram uma média de 31 pontos, tendo o grupo de investigadores mais velhos ( 40 anos) obtido as pontuações mais baixas (p=0.03). As diferenças existentes entre as restantes características demográficas (género, curso, educação e experiência) não foram estatisticamente significativas (p<0.05). Considerando os resultados vii

8 obtidos, foi possível concluir que os investigadores têm um bom conhecimento sobre segurança laboratorial. No entanto, existem alguns tópicos de segurança laboratorial que deverão ser melhor analisados. viii

9 Table of Contents Acknowledgments...iii Abstract... v Resumo... vii Table of Contents... ix Index of Figures... xiii Index of Tables... xv List of Abbreviations... xvii INTRODUCTION Laboratory Safety Survey... 9 MOTIVATION AND AIMS CONTEXT CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY Population profile Questionnaire design Questionnaire validation Questionnaire administration Data entry and analysis CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP. 31 Abstract Introduction Methodology Population profile Questionnaire design Questionnaire validation ix

10 2.4. Questionnaire administration Data entry and analysis Results and discussion Presentation of the questionnaires results Findings on researcher safety knowledge Findings on researcher knowledge in General Laboratory Safety Findings on researcher knowledge in Housekeeping and Hygiene Findings on researcher knowledge in personal protection Findings on researcher knowledge in chemical safety Findings on researcher knowledge in biological safety Findings on researcher knowledge in waste disposal Findings on researcher knowledge in electrical safety and fire protection Conclusions CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS Abstract Introduction Methodology Sample characterization Questionnaire design Questionnaire validation Data entry and analysis Results and discussion Findings on researcher safety knowledge versus demographic variables Safety knowledge versus Gender Safety knowledge versus Age Safety knowledge versus Education level Safety knowledge versus Background Safety knowledge versus Years of Experience x

11 4. Conclusions CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK REFERENCES APPENDIX xi

12 xii

13 Index of Figures CHAPTER II Figure 1 - Frequency of the education level of the population considering their backgrounds CHAPTER III Figure 1 - Histogram of scores obtained by the 72 respondents on the safety questionnaire Figure 2 - Sum of scores (in percentages) per group of questions Figure 3 - Possible combinations of responses for questions with one correct answer Figure 4 - Possible combinations of responses for questions with two correct answers Figure 5 - Frequency of responses for Group A (General Laboratory Safety) Figure 6 - Frequency of responses for Group B (Housekeeping and Hygiene) Figure 7 - Frequency of responses for Group C (Personal protection) Figure 8 - Frequency of responses for Group D (Chemical Safety) Figure 9 - Frequency of responses for Group E (Biological Safety) Figure 10 - Frequency of responses for Group F (Waste Disposal) Figure 11 - Frequency of responses for Group G (Electrical safety and fire protection) CHAPTER IV Figure 1 Mean knowledge score versus variable gender Figure 2 Mean knowledge score versus variable age Figure 3 Mean knowledge score versus education level Figure 4 Mean knowledge score versus background Figure 5 Mean knowledge score versus years of experience xiii

14 xiv

15 Index of Tables CHAPTER III Table 1 - Frequency of sum of the scores obtained for each question Table 2 - Frequency of each answer category by question and for each group CHAPTER IV Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents Table 2 - Frequency and percentage of scores results obtained by the 72 questionnaires xv

16 xvi

17 List of Abbreviations B Biology BE Biological Engineering BCH Biochemistry BME Biomedical Engineering BT Biotechnology CH Chemistry ME Materials Engineering P Physics PE Polymers Engineering PH Pharmacy VM Veterinary Medicine BSL Biosafety Level ABSL Animal Biological Safety Level BSc Bachelor degree MSc Masters degree PhD Doctorate degree PPE Personal Protective Equipment MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet HEPA High-Efficiency Particulate Air OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration EU-OSHA European Agency for Safety and Health at work CE Conformité Européenne (or European Conformity) HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point xvii

18 xviii

19 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1

20 INTRODUCTION 1. Laboratory Safety Laboratory safety is an important issue in any research organization involving laboratory works. Occupational safety is critical for the welfare of the workforce and for the organization. On one hand, there is a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe working environment for all people who have to use the laboratories, such as students, post-doctoral researchers, staff, technicians and others. On the other hand, an over-zealous enforcement of safety rules may be worthless and may also encourage having a less preventive behaviour. This is in part due to the fact that laboratory safety is still perceived to be an issue that is separated from laboratory research, and not part of the research process itself [1]. Safety has to be ingrained from day one in the laboratory, but it is difficult to persuade laboratory users that safety issues are not trivial or of minor importance. No one is so careful that they avoid taking any risks, nor is anyone totally unconcerned about their own safety [2]. A laboratory worker is exposed to various hazards or risk factors, depending on the type and functions of the laboratory. These hazards may include [3]: Chemical hazards: Toxic gases, fumes or liquids can cause poisoning, cancer, allergies and respiratory problems. Acids and bases may cause irritations and burns. Certain chemicals are known or suspected to harm fetuses or the reproductive health of adults. Biological hazards: Biological agents such as viruses, bacteria, fungi or parasites can enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, skin or eye contact, animal bites, needle stick injuries and cause infections, allergies and other diseases. Explosive hazards: Uncontrolled or unplanned chemical reactions can cause fires and dangerous explosions. Experiments carried out in closed systems can cause explosions, as well as high-pressure gas equipment and autoclaves. Vacuum equipment may implode. All pressure equipment should be tested or inspected regularly. General hazards: Wet, irregular or damaged floors can cause slips and falls. Crashed glassware can cause severe cuts. Entanglement of clothes, hair or fingers in rotating equipment such as centrifuges and mixers can cause bodily injury. Noise and vibration produced from equipment such as centrifuges and stirrers can cause hearing loss and stress. Ergonomic hazards: Musculoskeletal effects may result from working in awkward positions such as standing or bending over a laboratory bench for a long time. Repetitive 2

21 INTRODUCTION movements from pipetting or transferring fluids and samples can also cause musculoskeletal disorders. Laboratories involve a greater variety of possible hazard than most workplaces: many agents are highly flammable and/or explosive, and their careless handling and storage may result in fires and explosions [3]. Working with potentially hazardous agents is an everyday occurrence in a laboratory. To reduce or eliminate these hazards it is very important to be familiar with the safety rules practices. To know if the researchers work safely in the different laboratories, a laboratory safety questionnaire was designed accordingly to the laboratory practices performed in this research group. In chapter II (Methodology) it is explained the design of the questionnaire used in this study, which was divided in seven safety groups: General laboratory safety; Housekeeping and hygiene; Personal protection; Chemical safety; Biological safety; Waste disposal; Electrical and fire protection. Subsequently these topics will be further developed. To ensure that the laboratory remains a safe workplace, all researchers must be familiar with the rules and regulations (general laboratory safety), and should understand how to operate laboratory equipment safely and properly. Ensuring the safety of others is as important as ensuring their own safety [3]. Most safety experts will agree that the principal cause of laboratory accidents is poor housekeeping [4]. Good housekeeping in laboratories is essential to reduce risks and to protect the integrity of the experiments. Routine housekeeping must be relied upon to provide work areas free of significant sources of contamination [5]. Also, sinks should not be filled with dirty glassware. Moreover bench tops must be kept as free as possible from unnecessary apparatus (Housekeeping). A very common way to spread out potential hazardous chemical is through the hands (Hygiene). Students will commonly scratch parts of their faces, write in their notebooks and then hold the pen in their mouth, finish laboratory work and then go to have their meals, all without washing hands. Washing hands should be mandatory during the laboratory practices and before leaving the laboratory [6]. One of the most difficult challenges is the use of mandatory protective equipment. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is designed to protect workers from serious injuries or illnesses resulting from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical or other 3

22 INTRODUCTION workplace hazards. Besides face shields, safety glasses, hard hats and safety shoes, protective equipment includes a variety of devices and garments such as goggles, coveralls, gloves, vests, earplugs, and respirators (personal protection). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the use of PPE to reduce employee exposure to hazards when engineering and administrative controls are not feasible or effective in reducing these exposures to acceptable levels [7]. Hazardous situations can occur if students are not educated in general chemical safety, toxicological information, and procedures for handling and storage the chemicals they are using. The main routes of entry of chemicals are: inhalation, skin absorption, injection and ingestion. Inhalation and skin absorption are the predominant exposures in the laboratory. Accidental ingestion of chemicals can be avoided by a combination of good laboratory and hygienic practices such as washing hands and prohibiting foods, drinks, cosmetics and other personal objects inside laboratory. All potential exposures, i.e., inhalation, skin absorption, injection and ingestion, are described in the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for each chemical or product [8]. In major accident hazard chemical units, a minor error (human or technical) can sometimes trigger on a chemical reaction that may go out of control and end up in major accidents [9]. Recognizing the unique characteristics of the laboratory workplace and the ever-growing diversity of laboratory experiments, OSHA adapted a general standard for occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals [8]. The main goals of the OSHA Laboratory Standards are to lessen the risk of injury or illness to laboratory workers by ensuring that they have the necessary information, equipment, training and support to safely work in the laboratory [10]. With the aim of protecting workers against risks to their health and safety, arising or likely to arise from exposure to biological agents at work, the European Parliament and the Council issued the Directive 2000/54/EC (18 th September 2000) [3]. The previous Directive established the following definitions: Biological agents: microorganisms, including those, which have been genetically modified, cell cultures and human endoparasites, which may be able to provoke any infection, allergy or toxicity. 4

23 INTRODUCTION Microorganism: a microbiological entity, cellular or non-cellular, capable of replication or of transferring genetic material. Cell culture: the in vitro growth of cells derived from multicellular organisms. According to the level of risk infection, biological agents were classified into four risk groups, as follows [11]: Group 1 Biological agent means one that is unlikely to cause human disease. Group 2 Biological agent means one that can cause human disease and might be a hazard to workers; it is unlikely to spread to the community; there is usually effective prophylaxis or treatment available. Group 3 Biological agent means one that can cause severe human disease and present a serious hazard to workers; it may present a risk of spreading to the community, but there is usually effective prophylaxis or treatment available. Group 4 - Biological agent means one that can cause severe human disease and is a serious hazard to workers; it may present a high risk of spreading to the community, but there is usually no effective prophylaxis. Laboratories and animal facilities can be classified according to their design features, construction and containment capabilities. Combinations of these design characteristics represent levels of containment appropriate for work with agents in various risk groups. The term "containment" is used to describe safe methods for managing infectious agents in the laboratory environment where they are being handled or maintained. The purpose of containment is to reduce or eliminate the exposure of laboratory workers, other people and the outside environment to potentially hazardous agents. The three elements of containment include laboratory practice and technique, safety equipment, and facility design. For a given work, the biosafety level (BSL) or animal biological safety level (ABSL) may provide appropriate containment for various risk group agents. Each combination is specifically appropriate for the performed operations, the documented or suspected routes of transmission, and for the laboratory function. The recommended biosafety level for an organism represents the conditions under which the agent can be ordinarily handled safely. There are four animal biological safety levels, designated from level 1 to 4, to work with infectious agents in mammals. 5

24 INTRODUCTION [5]. The studied research group has one laboratory with appropriate containment to work safely, which is considered to be a biosafety level 2. Laboratory practices generate different types of wastes that must be treated accordingly to its specifications. Each laboratory worker is responsible for ensuring that wastes are handled in a manner that minimizes personal exposure risks and the potential for environmental contamination (waste disposal). In this research group, the chemical waste is discarded according to the following groups: non-halogenated and halogenated organic solvents, solid chemical waste and sharp material in puncture-resistant leak proof containers. The segregation of wastes in halogenated and non-halogenated residues is done mainly because the chlorinated solvents (halogenated) are, in general, not flammable while non-chlorinated (non-halogenated) solvents are often flammable. It should be kept in mind, however, that the chlorinated solvents do decompose when burned. This results in high concentrations of toxic vapours, such as phosgene and hydrogen chloride [12]. The puncture-resistant leak proof containers are also used to discharge the sharp material from the biology laboratories. Besides this one, two more types of containers are used for the biological waste, namely biohazard waste containers that are used to discharge biological samples and the biohazard bags to contaminated material. The wastes in the biohazard bags are sterilized at 121ºC during 30 minutes, and afterwards it is discharge in the normal garbage. All the other waste is collected and treated by a certified company. Prior to the use of electrical equipment, the researcher should first determine if it is safe by checking the following items [10]: Make sure the electrical equipment is not located in a hazardous environment such as a wet place or if it is exposed to high temperatures and flammable liquids and gases; Make sure the power cord and plug does not have any defects such as cuts in the insulation exposing bare wiring; If the equipment has an emergency turnoff switch and where it is located prior to use; Make sure there is enough space around the electrical equipment or circuit in order to maintain or operate. Safety should be a top priority in chemical and biological laboratories. Even if all efforts have been made to minimize hazards in a laboratory, anything can become dangerous when it is used improperly [3]. A committed manager who is personally involved in safety activities and who 6

25 INTRODUCTION takes an interest in working conditions conveys to the employees a sense of the importance of safety for the organization. As a result, the employees comply with regulations, take the proper safety measures, and participate actively in meetings and activities designed to promote improvements in their workplace [13]. There is no better solution for reducing worker injuries than eliminating safety hazards and risks through direct engineering or administrative controls. Thus any recommendation for behavioural interventions herein assumes that a behavioural safety process was considered necessary and appropriate in accordance with the widely accepted hierarchy of safety controls: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment. Heinrich, for example, argued that the overwhelming majority of workplace injuries were the result of unsafe actions by workers. To prevent or reduce unsafe behaviours and thus risk of injuries, Heinrich supported engineering controls, as well as non-engineering interventions such as safety training, hiring on the basis of safety-related selection criteria, progressive disciplinary programs, and as a last resort termination of repeated safety violators [14] A key element in every successful organization, in any successful accident prevention programme and occupational safety and health programme, is effective safety training. It improves behavioural skills, related knowledge and/or attitudes. Good knowledge of the processes, associated dangers and methods to prevent them are essential for workers [9]. Safety knowledge is anticipated to mitigate injuries. Researchers with better information regarding safety should be prepared to successfully overcome potentially dangerous situations. Managers and trainers also work under the assumption that providing knowledge about safety will reduce the likelihood of injury at work [15]. A safety management system reflects the organization s commitment to safety and it has an important in perceptions about its importance. Safety management systems are mechanisms that are integrated in the organization and designed to control the hazards that can affect workers health and safety [9]. According to Vinodkumar and Bhasi [9], there are six safety management practices, including the management commitment, safety procedures and safety promotion policies. Regular communication about safety issues between managements, supervisors and workforce is an effective management practice to improve safety in workplace. Managements need to give the highest level of priority to safety training convincing 7

26 INTRODUCTION the employees about the need for safety performance. Safety training may be designed to communicate good knowledge about the various processes, associated hazards and the safety measures to be taken by the employees in case of emergencies [9]. The fact, that organizational and social factors do influence safety performance led to extensive research in the field of safety culture and safety climate. Even though a clear consensus is yet to evolve on the dimensions to be included in safety culture and safety climate, it is widely accepted that they are good predictors of safety related outcomes (e.g., accidents and injuries) in both Western and Eastern societies [9]. As indicated by Schein [16] Organizational culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. Safety culture is a part of the overall culture of an organization and is seen as affecting the attitudes and beliefs of members in terms of health and safety performance [17]. Characterized by the shared perceptions of employees, safety climate can be seen as an organizati organization at a discrete point of time. Some researchers believe that safety climate is a onedimensional latent variable, while others have claimed that it is multi-dimensional, although they do not agree on the numbers of factors that constitute it. But one thing accepted by all is that safety management practices play a vital role in forming the safety climate in an organization [9]. Zhou et al. [17] developed a Bayesian Network (BN) 1 to describe the relationships among safety climate factors (workmate s influence, management commitments, safety management systems & procedures, involvement and safety attitudes), personal experience factors (education experience, work experience and safety knowledge) and safety behaviour, which have influences on human behaviour pertinent to construction safety in China. According to this model, the safety management systems and procedures, work experience and education experience have an influence on safety knowledge, while safety knowledge influences safety attitudes. In this study, they found that the four most effective strategies to improve safety behaviour are achieved by controlling safety attitudes, involvement, safety 1 Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph. 8

27 INTRODUCTION management systems and procedures, and safety knowledge, while the strategy controlling work experience is nearly the least effective. They conclude that safety behaviour was more sensitive to safety climate factors and less sensitive to personal experience factors, such as work experience and education experience. However, further analysis indicated that the effectiveness of a joint strategy should incorporate both safety climate factors and personal experience factors to improve safety behaviour [17]. In this dissertation, in order to assess (laboratory) safety knowledge and to evaluate if the demographic characteristics affect safety knowledge, it was decided to perform a survey, using a questionnaire as instrument to collect the information from the population in study. The next section serves to explain how the survey was planned step-by-step while in chapter II (Methodology) it is explained how the questionnaire was designed, validated, administered and also the data entry and analysis. The chapters III and IV are divided in two papers, respectively its relationship with demographic characteristics of the r 2. Survey Surveys have become a widely used and acknowledged research method in most of the developed countries of the World [18]. A survey is a method of collecting information from people about their ideas, feelings, plans and beliefs, social, educational and financial background [19]. The idea of conducting a survey involves identifying a specific group or category of people and collecting information from some of them in order to gain insight into what the entire group does or thinks. However, undertaking a survey inevitably raises questions that might be difficult to answer: How many people need to be surveyed? How people should be selected? What kind of questions should be asked and how should they be posed to the respondents? What data collection methods should be considered? And, how should data be analysed and reported? Deciding to do a survey means committing oneself to work through a myriad of issues each of which is critical to do the ultimate success of the survey [20]. There are at least three good reasons for conducting surveys [19]: A policy needs to be set or a program must be planned (surveys to meet policy/program needs); 9

28 INTRODUCTION Evaluate the effectiveness of programs to change people s knowledge, attitudes, health, or welfare (surveys in evaluation of programs); To assist researchers (surveys for research). The essential first step is an analysis of the research problem and of the group to be surveyed. The main goal is a reliable and valid survey. Reliability refers to the consistency of the information you get (people s answer do not keep changing) and validity refers to the accuracy of the information or its freedom from error. One way to ensure reliability and validity of the survey is to base the survey on one that someone else has developed and tested, other way is to do a pilot test. When pilot testing, anticipate the actual circumstances in which the survey will be conducted and make plans to handle them [19]. Surveys are based on the need to collect information (usually by questionnaire) about a welldefined population [21]. The development of the survey instrument or questionnaire is a crucial component of the survey research process [18]. The design variables over which surveyors have control are when the survey is to be given, how often and the number of the groups to be surveyed. A cross-sectional design provides a portrait of things as they are at a single point in time. Longitudinal surveys are used to find out about change [19]. The overwhelming majority of surveys rely on multiple-choice or closed ended questions because they have proven themselves to be more efficient and ultimately more reliable. Their efficiency comes from being easy to use, the possibility to score and code the data for computer analysis. Also, their reliability is enhanced by the uniform data that they provide since everyone responds in terms of the same options [19]. However, there are also some disadvantages, which are the possibility of the respondent be unsure of the best answer and select one of the fixed responses randomly, or a respondent that misunderstands the question may randomly select a response or may select an erroneous response [18]. The population that is identified for formal interview represents the sampling frame for the survey research project. The population should possess the knowledge and information needed to fulfil the requirements of the research project. Sampling methods can be categorized into probability sampling and nonprobability sampling. In the first case, the probability of any member of the working population being selected to be a part of the eventual sample is known [18]. The resulting sample is said to be representative. Nonprobability samples include those acquired by accident 10

29 INTRODUCTION the most or are more typical. The method of nonprobability sampling that was chosen for this study was the purposive sampling. The basic problem with purposive sampling is that the judgment of the surveyor may be in error [19]. However, this should not be a problem since all the workers from the research group in this study had the necessary characteristics to be evaluated. Nevertheless, some of the potential respondents may not be available at the time of the survey and so it is possible that the response rate will not be as highest as in theory. The response rate is a ratio between the number of people who respond to a survey and the entire population. It is calculated by dividing the number of completed surveys by the number of surveys that could have been completed. The response rate should be the highest possible. If the sample was chosen statistically, then a low rate introduces error. If it was not, a poor response rate reduces the survey s credibility [19]. Survey data can be used to describe the status of things, show changes and make comparisons. During sampling, choosing the sample and getting an adequate sample size and response rate are the main issues. The questions are most often, but not always, in a closed format in which a set of numbered response alternatives is specified. The resulting numerical, or quantitative, data are then entered into a data file for statistical analysis [21]. Analysing data surveys means calculation and averaging responses, looking at their relationships and comparing them (sometimes over time). The median is used to describe typical performance. Measures of variation (range, variance and standard deviation) help to describe the spread of scores or views. Commonly used survey data analysis techniques include descriptive statistics (mean, mode, median, numbers, percentage, range and standard deviation), correlations (Spearman, Pearson), comparisons (chi-square, t-test, analysis of variance) and trends (repeated measures analysis of variance, McNemar test). The power of a statistical test is the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis [19]. Usually a survey takes the form of questionnaire that someone fills by itself or with assistance, or it can be conducted by interview in person or by telephone. The questionnaire, alternatively referred to as the instrument, typically contains a series of related questions for the respondents to answer. [21]. 11

30 INTRODUCTION There are many types of self-administered questionnaires, of which mail and Internet surveys are the best known. Self-administered questionnaires can be administered individually or group-wise. Interviewer initiated self-administer questionnaires are more costly than mail and Internet surveys and in some cases may be almost as costly as an in-person interview. Substantial cost savings can be made when self-administer questionnaires are given to larger groups of people simultaneously. Common to all self-administered questionnaires is that the respondents are the locus of control and complete the questions without interviewer involvement in the questionanswer process. As a result, not only the questions and answer categories, but also all information about the study and the questionnaire must be carried with the questionnaire itself and the accompanying cover letter for instructions [20]. All questions in the questionnaire should receive an equal amount of testing. Thus, if there are some questions that are only asked to certain subgroups, then provision needs to be made to ensure that there are an adequate number of persons from that subgroup in the test sample. Testing is the only way of assuring that the survey questions written do indeed communicate to respondents as intended [20]. A pilot testing (or pre-test) quickly reveals whether people understand the directions provided and if they can answer the questions, and also how much time it takes to complete the survey. Pilot testing helps improve the response rate because it can eliminate several potential sources of difficulty such as poorly worded questions [19]. On the road from theoretical concepts to finalized questionnaire, one can identify three stages of testing: the development, the question testing and the dress rehearsal stages. The development stage is the time from preparatory and background work prior to actually writing any survey questions. The question testing stage involves the testing of survey questions, whether this is just some initial questions or a full draft questionnaire. The aim of this stage is to ensure that each individual question meets all the principles of good questionnaires design. The third stage is the dress rehearsal where the goal is to test the questionnaire as a whole, under real survey conditions (or as close as possible) with a much larger size than the question testing stage. Its focus is not on the viability of individual questions, but rather on assuring the smooth coordination of procedures and establishing correct survey routines. Unless a large dress rehearsal is explicitly needed, a better third stage is to conduct a second stage as the question testing level. In the first test, problems are identified and fixed. Ideally, the revised questions should be re-tested [20]. 12

31 INTRODUCTION There is international ambiguity around the terms pretesting and piloting used in the literature. Generally, in the United States and several European countries, stage 2 is called a pre-test and the full dress rehearsal at stage 3 is called a pilot. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, both stages 2 and 3 are called pilots [20]. In this study, the term pretesting was used since it complies better with the definition of the second stage of testing (questions testing stage). Group administration of self-administered surveys is mainly used in the context of organizational or educational research, where the population contains natural groups of respondents, which makes it a very efficient way of data collection. In this context, questionnaires are given to the group as a whole, with a person present to deliver introduction, to clarify problems and to assist in the survey process [20]. This was the method used in this study. 13

32 INTRODUCTION 14

33 MOTIVATION AND AIMS MOTIVATION AND AIMS 15

34 MOTIVATION AND AIMS In order to minimize the potential exposure to hazardous materials and the improperly handling of them, before starting to work in the laboratory, all the researchers must read and sign an Laboratory and However, laboratory workers tend to break safety protocols concerned with the handling of certain materials and the usage of appropriate protective equipment. Until now, there is no register of any accident in the studied research group, only the occurrence of minor accidents. One of the accidents was liquids eyes. This only happened because none of the affected researchers were using safety glasses at that moment. Almost all the researchers have their own safety glasses and for those that do not have their own safety glasses, they are also available in all laboratories. However, almost none of the researchers use safety glasses when working with hazard materials. During six years working as laboratory technician, several errors were observed in the laboratory practices. One of the most common observed errors was manipulation of hazardous products outside of the chemical hood. The explanation for this behaviour is not clear. It seems that they are not aware of the hazard or just do not show concern about their safety or the safety of their colleagues. Other issue is that certain researchers do not seem to know the difference between some general equipment, such as, a chemical hood and a laminar flow cabinet. Some comparison is also observed regarding some general reagents used regularly, such as halogenated and non-halogenated products. Some of the researchers do not know the difference between these previous ones. These laboratory practices observed during the latter years were the motivational boost to perform this study and to try to better understand which are the difficulties or lack of knowledge of the researchers when working in the laboratory and try to solve them. Mainly because there are students and researchers with various backgrounds and different education levels working at the s laboratories, it is important to assess their safety knowledge and to unveil whether different socio-demographic characteristics affect their safety knowledge. To perform this study a laboratory safety questionnaire was developed based on laboratory procedures Research Group and also on general safety questions from other safety questionnaires found in the literature. The main aims of this study are to evaluate the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers doing research in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine field and understand if their demographic characteristics affect safety knowledge. Some suggestions were proposed accordingly to the survey findings for posterior implementation. 16

35 CONTEXT CONTEXT 17

36 CONTEXT strict collaboration with the Department of Production and Systems Engineering both of the University of Minho. (Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics) Research Group was established in 1998 at the University of Minho and supports a multidisciplinary and highly skilled team, which works at the interface of biotechnology, biology, biomedical engineering and materials science. Major research areas at our group include, among others, new materials development, drug delivery, tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, nanomedicine, and stem cell isolation and differentiation. In 2008, the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, that has branches in 22 locations in 13 different countries, was formed as a result of the European Network of Excellence (NoE) EXPERTISSUES funded under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) being its Headquarters based on the Research Group facilities. e.g. scaffolds, membranes, nano/microparticles) based on natural polymers for applications in drug delivery and tissue engineering of bone, cartilage and skin. Research at the ported by multiple grants from european (The Framework Programmes for research and technological development from the European Union) and national (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) funding agencies, innovation agencies, cross-border programs, as well as by industrial contracts. on attracting highly competitive large grants for research, educational programs, and supporting infrastructures approach where collaboration and cooperation are hallmarks of its culture. This interdisciplinary group is committed to provide a safe and healthy working environment for researchers, staff and faculty. An effective safety management system will not only be helpful to awareness, interest and willingness of the employees for better safety performance [9]. In this scope, it is very important to assess their knowledge in laboratory safety practices to understand in which area(s) the researchers have more difficulties, and how their personal characteristics (gender, background, education level, age and years of experience) influence their safety knowledge. 18

37 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART 19

38 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART To our knowledge this is the first survey on laboratory safety knowledge in Portugal or at least with published data. However, it has been developed some studies on laboratory safety knowledge performed in other countries. Some of these studies on laboratory safety knowledge are analysed below. Laboratory safety should become an important issue in all high school, college and university science curricula. Ritch and Rank [22], believe that the way to improve student laboratory safety knowledge is not complicated: teach the material and test students on the material. After assessing the student safety knowledge at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, they conclude that to increase student laboratory safety knowledge, the instructor should adequately cover all topics deemed necessary in a specific laboratory, should cover topics using a variety of techniques and also should incorporate laboratory safety issues into the evaluation process for the laboratory [22]. Most laboratories, whether chemical or biological, use chemicals that may be hazardous or become hazardous because of some chemical reaction [23]. Neal Langerman [24], concluded that most academic laboratories are unsafe places for work or study and that only by a major change in the way the laboratory safety is practiced, the situation will improve. All laboratory staff, both students and technicians, must receive specific training relevant on the labs they work in and on the tasks they perform. Experience and educational levels vary, and those with more experience and education will have more responsibility. All researchers must be committed to a high level of safety performance. When students work in a research lab, they are working in an environment that is necessary more independent activity that in a structured teaching lab. Students, both undergraduate and graduate, cannot be assumed to have the required experience or maturity to work in the higher risk setting of a research lab without a clear and present supervision [24]. A survey of safety in High School Chemistry Laboratories of Illinois was also performed in order to obtain pertinent information regarding the safety practices at this school [25]. They designed a questionnaire concerning the problems encountered most often in the laboratory. This questionnaire had two sections, the first one was composed of demographic questions (i.e., background, gender, age, degree and experience), and the second section regarded a number of specific areas involving laboratory safety. The design is quite different from the one applied in the present study. The areas involving laboratories safety were: serious past laboratory accidents, 20

39 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART present knowledge as to extent of teacher liability, names of safety films and extended use of safety glasses [25]. Early in 1965, the Research and Development Laboratories of Sun Oil Company examined the safety performance to determine how to maintain an injury-free working record for an extended period [26]. In 1972, due to the costs of time for the training program, the Director determine most needed training and priority subjects. They also assessed employee attitudes towards safety in order to shape their training program to strengthen their interest and cooperation. The questionnaire had 100 questions, 33 tested knowledge on flammability, toxicity, first aid, laboratory procedure, emergency action, safety organization and safety responsibility. The other 67 questions were about the opinions or attitudes of research personnel. In this study they found that employees with more technical education scored appreciably higher than those without college training. However, employees s degree scored slightly better that those with PhD degrees. The results of the 67 questions were grouped in four categories: attitudes toward training, attitudes toward safety administration, attitude expressed as independence and somewhat vague grouping termed interactions. Attitude of Research & Development (R&D) employees toward safety administration and employees was generally quite favourable. The overall responses on safety knowledge were positive, confirming that previous training was thought to be fairly effective. The survey showed that R&D employees do not fit the usual picture of independent researchers as far as safety is concerned. All groups felt an appreciable concern for their fellow workers. A large majority wanted to be told when their work procedures are approved or disapproved by their supervisor. However, there were those who felt that mechanical failures are largely responsible for accidents and others felt that there are some people whose practices are unsafe. Employees felt that their safety performance affects the well being of others and that supervisors should correct unsafe work practices in detail. Some of the employees made some excellent suggestions to improve safety that were evaluated and acted upon immediately [26]. The evaluation of safety knowledge is used in other areas, such as food safety [27-30], health [31, 32] and agriculture [15]. When reviewing the literature, a survey was found on knowledge on slaughterhouses and meat plants from northern Portugal, to evaluate and compare the level of general knowledge and also practice of meat handlers that have received professional training [33]. The authors self- 21

40 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART administer a questionnaire of twenty-four multiple-choice questions with three or four possible correct answer by chance. Of the twenty-four questions, fourteen which intended to assess the res s knowledge about HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), microbiologic hazards development, food poisoning and food borne illness, safety and health requirements, and other issues, and ten questions were designa verified that besides almost thirteen years of experience, the respondents had poor results in some of the food safety topics. A possible explanation was attributed to the low educational level, in a group with an average age of thirty-five years old. These three variables, age, education level and years of experience will also be analysed in the present study to understand their possible impact on laboratory safety knowledge. The authors concluded that there is a need to develop training methods that proved to change behaviour as well as reporting knowledge. Training activities closely associated with work environment would be more appropriate than food hygiene courses that operate divorced from the workplace and use solely knowledge-based assessment techniques. Training will only lead to an improvement in food safety if the knowledge instructed leads to desired changes in behaviour at the workplace [33]. According to Westaby and Lee [15], the time spent working was strongly associated with safety knowledge, as working individuals presented higher levels of safety knowledge than nonworking individuals. The results of this study suggested that participating in safety activities was positively associated with safety knowledge and safety consciousness. It is likely that such activities impact the depth of information processing, which translates into crystallized attitudes and knowledge regarding safety. As predicted and replicating past research, males demonstrated both less safety consciousness and higher levels of dangerous risk taking than females. Safety consciousness was negatively related to injury. Those individuals with high levels of safety consciousness were less likely to have injuries than individuals with low levels of safety consciousness. Unexpectedly, this study did not find a negative association between safety knowledge and injuries. Those individuals that reported high levels of safety knowledge also reported more injuries. This may be explained by the fact that people being placed on more dangerous work environment are also provided with greater safety-related information. The time spent working was positively associated with the safety knowledge. Thus, the working individuals may have been learning about safety because of the time spent in higher risk work environment. However, they may not have been learning enough to reduce injury rates compared to nonworkers [15]. 22

41 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART According to Vinodukmar and Bhasi [9], safety training, safety communication, and safety rules and procedures predict safety knowledge. Regular evaluation of safety knowledge, level of safety motivation and safety skills must also be made an integral part of safety training programmes. These three safety management practices which contributes towards transferring information, regarding the methods of carrying out a job in the healthiest and safest way possible is expected to improve safety knowledge of the employees [9]. 23

42 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART 24

43 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY 25

44 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY 1. Population profile The population of interest for this study included all the researchers working daily in the laboratories. This population of 92 researchers was composed by 27 researchers with a PhD degree, 31 researchers with a M degree (MSc) and 34 graduate researchers (BSc degree). However, 10 of these researchers were excluded from the survey because they were performing laboratory work in other countries. Hence, the population that was accessible to the study consisted of all persons performing experimental work in the laboratories during the time of the present study, which corresponds to 82 researchers. To validate the questionnaire, 5 of the researchers with PhD degree in different areas were asked to perform a pre-test. These subjects were excluded from the survey sample to avoid biased results. Thus, 21 Post-doctoral fellows, 30 with MSc degree and 26 with BSc degrees making up a total of 77 researchers, 39% of males and 61% of females, composed the available population for this survey. Their ages were between 23 and 42 years old with an average of 32 years old. The mean of age for the subgroup of researchers with a PhD degree was 35 years old while for both subgroups with MSc and BSc degrees the mean was of 28 years old. Considering the background of the population, it was seen that 22 researchers had a background in biology, 13 in chemistry, 19 in biomedical engineering, 8 in materials and polymers engineering and 15 researchers with backgrounds in several areas such as biochemistry, physics, biotechnology, biological engineering, veterinary medicine and pharmaceutics which were grouped together. The figure 1 presents the distribution of the available population considering the different education levels and grouped according to their backgrounds. Group. For those researchers with incomplete background information, the required data was obtained directly. 26

45 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY 25 PhD MSc BSc Frequency Biology Chemistry Biomedical Engineering Materials/Polymer Eng. Others Figure 1 - Frequency of the education level of the population considering their backgrounds. 2. Questionnaire design A questionnaire form (appendix B) was designed to assess the safety knowledge of the researchers and to understand if their demographic characteristics affect the safety knowledge. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about demographic characteristics, including age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. This information is important because it will be used to show relations between parameters such as the age of the participants or the education level and the safety knowledge. The second section of the questionnaire contained questions regarding a number of specific areas involving laboratory safety. Hedberg and Bussell [34] divided their laboratory safety questionnaire in ten main safety topics. However, some of those topics were not applied to this organizational context. The questionnaire used in this survey was adapted according to the laboratory procedures of the population in study, and it was decided to divide the questionnaire in seven safety main groups, namely: Group A - Group B - Group C - Group D - Group E - Biologic Group F - Group G - Electrical and fire. Some of the questions were adapted from the literature [35-40] [25, 41, 42] and others were based on the laboratory document of the research group entitle Good Laboratory 27

46 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY and Safety Practices Each group contained four multiple-choice questions and each question had three possible options that could include one or two correct answers. For each correct answer a score of one (1) and for each wrong answer a score of minus one (-1) were attributed. For the no response it was attribute a score zero (0). This evaluation was made according to other multiple-choice questionnaires. Supposing that a respondent answered correctly to all the questions, the maximum score would be 42 points. At the end of the questionnaire a blank field was available for additional comments. 3. Questionnaire validation The questionnaire was pre-tested (appendix A) with five Postdoctoral fellows with an average of 13 years of experience working in research laboratories in different areas namely, biochemistry, chemistry, materials engineering, biotechnology and biological engineering. This pre-test was performed individually and the average time of completion was 15 minutes. All the suggestions made by these researchers were reviewed and some changes were applied to the questionnaire. In group A (General laboratory safety) one question was removed since all the respondents considered it ambiguous. The option b from question 4 of group B (Housekeeping and Hygiene) was replaced by other option, since it was of difficult comprehension. The question 1 of group C (Personal protection) was moved to group A since it was more adequate to this topic. Also, in this group the option c of question 4 was removed and the option a and b were jointed only in one option. This question had three correct options and it was decided to have a maximum of two correct options per question. In group E (biological safety), the option b of question 2 was removed and the option a was divided in two options (a and b). The options a and b of question 4 of group E were modified in order to simplify them. In group F (waste disposal) only option b of question 4 was modified, since it was unclear. The questions and options of group G (Electrical safety and fire protection) were unchanged. The questionnaire was rearranged according to the comments of the pre-test performed by these researchers and some questions were discussed personally. One new question was developed for group A and new options were developed or modified in the other groups as mentioned above. After applying all the changes to the questionnaire, these were discussed with the five 28

47 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY researchers which all agreed to use them. These pre-test results were not included in the overall study results. 4. Questionnaire administration The questionnaire was administered simultaneously to all working on the 6 th of May of An was previously sent to all the researchers requesting their presence on this specific day to perform the laboratory safety questionnaire. It was explained to the respondents that the questionnaire had multiple-choice questions and also that the demographic characteristics were mandatory to fill. Since this research group is a multicultural group and the official language is English, the questionnaire was administered in English to the entire group. From 77 printed questionnaires, 72 were performed and received. This represents a response rate of approximately 94%. The 6% of the researchers that did not respond to the questionnaire did not refuse but just were not available at that time to perform it. Ten of the received questionnaires were not completed, meaning that at least one question was not answered by the respondents. Nevertheless, these questionnaires were also taken into consideration since it seemed important to evaluate the questions that were not responded. Consequently, 72 forms were evaluated for this survey. 5. Data entry and analysis Questionnaire responses were entered into an electronic database (Microsoft Office Excel 2007), and entry-validation checks were performed on all questionnaires by manually comparing the database and the hard-copy versions. Data were presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages. The statistical analysis was done using the software SPSS 19.0 statistical package. Mean scores on the overall knowledge questionnaire and on specific safety concepts were calculated. In all the hypothesis testing, the significance level or critical p-value was considered to be 5%, being the results statistically significant when the results occur less than 5%. 29

48 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY 30

49 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP 31

50 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Safety knowledge look into the state of safety in a Research Group L. G. Gomes 1,2,*, C. P. Leão 3, Rui L. Reis 1,2, P. M. Arezes 3 1 Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Guimarães, Portugal 2 - PT Government Associate Laboratory Braga/Guimarães - Portugal 3 Department of Production and Systems, Engineering School of University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, Guimarães, Portugal *Corresponding author: Liliana Gouveia Gomes Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Avepark, Zona Industrial da Gandra, S. Cláudio do Barco, , Guimarães, Portugal lgomes@dep.uminho.pt 32

51 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Abstract The main aim of this study was to assess the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers conducting research in the area of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. To perform this study, a questionnaire form divided in seven groups namely, General laboratory safety (Group A); Housekeeping and hygiene (Group B); Personal protection (Group C); Chemical safety (Group D); Biological safety (Group E); Waste disposal (Group F); Electrical and fire protection (Group G), was developed and validated. All groups had four questions each in a total of 28 questions per questionnaire, and all questions had 3 possible answers. The laboratory safety questionnaire was self-administered to 72 researchers, with a response rate of approximately 94%. This questionnaire was conducted in English and had multiple-choice questions with different scores. Based on the distribution of scores and in the mean score of the questionnaires results (31), it was adopted the following classification: less than 20 - poor knowledge; 20 to 30 - below average; 30 to 40 - good knowledge and higher than 40 - very good knowledge on safety. From these results, 22% of the respondents had scores lower than 30 and 4% less than 20, corresponding, respectively, to scores below average and poor knowledge on safety. More than 50% of the respondents presented good knowledge with scores higher than 30. Analysing the groups of questions it was observed that, the group A had the higher percentage (85%) and the group C had the lower percentage (61%). Beside group C, other two groups had scores lower that the mean percentage of the overall results (75%), namely groups E (72%) and G (70%). The group B was the second topic safety with more answers correctly chose (91%), but it was also the group with higher percentage of answers incorrectly selected (15%). Analysing the overall results, the answers correctly selected corresponded to a percentage of 82%, 7% of the answers were incorrectly selected and 1% were not responded. With these results, it was possible to say that mostly researchers presented good knowledge on safety. However, there are some safety issues that should be better discussed. It was suggested to implement measures to improve safety knowledge in specific safety topics. 33

52 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP 1. Introduction Laboratory safety is an important issue in any research organization involving laboratory works. Occupational safety is critical for the welfare of the workforce and for the organization. On one hand, there is a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe working environment for all people who have to use the laboratories, such as students, post-doctoral researchers, staff, technicians and others. On the other hand, an over-zealous enforcement of safety rules may be worthless and may also encourage having a less preventive behaviour. This is in part due to the fact that laboratory safety is still perceived to be an issue that is separated from laboratory research, and not part of the research process itself [1]. Safety has to be ingrained from day one in the laboratory, but it is difficult to persuade laboratory users that safety issues are not trivial or of minor importance. No one is so careful that they avoid taking any risks, nor is anyone totally unconcerned about their own safety [2]. A laboratory worker is exposed to various hazards or risk factors, depending on the type and functions of the laboratory. These hazards may include [3]: chemical hazards, biological hazards, explosive hazards, general hazards and others. Working with potentially hazardous agents is an everyday occurrence in a laboratory. To reduce or eliminate these hazards it is very important to be familiar with the safety rules practices. In order to assess (laboratory) safety knowledge, it was decided to perform a survey, using a questionnaire as instrument to collect the information from the population in study. The design of the questionnaire used in this study, was divided in seven safety issues: General laboratory safety; Housekeeping and hygiene; Personal protection; Chemical safety; Biological safety; Waste disposal; Electrical and fire protection. Subsequently these topics will be further developed. To ensure that the laboratory remains a safe workplace, all researchers must be familiar with the rules and regulations and should understand how to operate laboratory equipment safely and properly. Ensuring the safety of others is as important as ensuring their own safety [3]. Most safety experts will agree that the principal cause of laboratory accidents is poor housekeeping [4]. Good housekeeping in laboratories is essential to reduce risks and to protect the integrity of the experiments. Routine housekeeping must be relied upon to provide work areas free of significant sources of contamination [5]. Also, sinks should not be filled with dirty glassware. Moreover bench tops must be kept as free as possible from unnecessary apparatus. A very common way to spread out potential hazardous chemical is through the hands. Washing hands should be mandatory during the laboratory practices and before they leave the laboratory [6]. One of the 34

53 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP most difficult challenges is the use of mandatory protective equipment. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is designed to protect workers from serious injuries or illnesses resulting from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical or other workplace hazards. Besides face shields, safety glasses, hard hats and safety shoes, protective equipment includes a variety of devices and garments such as goggles, coveralls, gloves, vests, earplugs, and respirators. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the use of PPE to reduce employee exposure to hazards when engineering and administrative controls are not feasible or effective in reducing these exposures to acceptable levels [7]. Most laboratories, whether chemical or biological, use chemicals that may be hazardous or become hazardous because of some chemical reaction [23]. Hazardous situations can occur if students are not educated in general chemical safety, toxicological information, and procedures for handling and storage the chemicals they are using. The main routes of entry of chemicals are: inhalation, skin absorption, injection and ingestion. Inhalation and skin absorption are the predominant exposures in the laboratory. Biological agents such as viruses, bacteria, fungi or parasites can enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, skin or eye contact, animal bites, needle stick injuries and cause infections, allergies and other diseases [3]. All potential exposures, i.e., inhalation, skin absorption, injection and ingestion are described in the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for each chemical or biological product [8]. Laboratory practices generate different types of wastes that must be treated accordingly to its specifications. Each laboratory worker is responsible for ensuring that chemical and/or biological wastes are handled in a manner that minimizes personal exposure risks and the potential for environmental contamination. These wastes are collected and treated by a certified company. There is no better solution for reducing worker injuries than eliminating safety hazards and risks through direct engineering or administrative controls. Heinrich, for example, argued that the overwhelming majority of workplace injuries were the result of unsafe actions by workers [14]. A key element in every successful organization, in any successful accident prevention programme and occupational safety and health programme, is effective safety training. It improves behavioural skills, related knowledge and/or attitudes. Good knowledge of the processes, associated dangers and methods to prevent them are essential for workers [9]. The evaluation of safety knowledge is used in other areas, such as food safety [27-30], health [31, 32] and agriculture [15]. Safety knowledge is anticipated to mitigate injuries. Researchers with better information regarding safety should be prepared to successfully overcome potentially dangerous 35

54 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP situations. Managers and trainers also work under the assumption that providing knowledge about safety will reduce the likelihood of injury at work [15]. Ritch and Rank [22], believe that the way to improve student laboratory safety knowledge is not complicated: teach the material and test students on the material. After assessing the student safety knowledge at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, they conclude that to increase student laboratory safety knowledge, the instructor should adequately cover all topics deemed necessary in a specific laboratory, should cover topics using a variety of techniques and also should incorporate laboratory safety issues into the evaluation process for the laboratory [22]. Neal Langerman [24], concluded that most academic laboratories are unsafe places for work or study and that only by a major change in the way the laboratory safety is practiced, the situation will improve. All laboratory staff, both students and technicians, must receive specific training relevant on the labs they work in and on the tasks they perform. Experience and educational levels vary, and those with more experience and education will have more responsibility. When students work in a research lab, they are working in an environment that is necessary more independent activity that in a structured teaching lab. Students, both undergraduate and graduate, cannot be assumed to have the required experience or maturity to work in the higher risk setting of a research lab without a clear and present supervision [24]. According to Vinodukmar and Bhasi [9], safety training, safety communication, and safety rules and procedures predict safety knowledge. Regular evaluation of safety knowledge, level of safety motivation and safety skills must also be made an integral part of safety training programmes. These three safety management practices which contributes towards transferring information, regarding the methods of carrying out a job in the healthiest and safest way possible is expected to improve safety knowledge of the employees [9]. The main aim of this study was to assess the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers from a research group conducting experimental work in the area of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. 36

55 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP 2. Methodology 2.1. Population profile The population of interest for this study included all the researchers work laboratories. This population of 92 researchers was composed by 27 researchers with a PhD degree, 31 researchers with degree (MSc) and 34 graduate researchers (BSc degree). However, 10 of these researchers were excluded from the survey because they were performing laboratory work in other countries. Hence, the population that was accessible to the study consisted of all persons performing experimental work in the laboratories during the time of the present study, which corresponds to 82 researchers. To validate the questionnaire, 5 of the researchers with PhD degree in different areas were asked to perform a pre-test. Thus, 21 Postdoctoral fellows, 30 with MSc degree and 26 with BSc degrees making up a total of 77 researchers, 39% of males and 61% of females, composed the available population for this survey. Their ages were between 23 and 42 years old with an average of 32 years old. The mean of age for the subgroup of researchers with a PhD degree was 35 years old while for both subgroups with MSc and BSc degrees the mean was of 28 years old. Considering the background of the population, it was seen that 22 researchers had a background in biology, 13 in chemistry, 19 in biomedical engineering, 8 in materials and polymers engineering and 15 researchers with backgrounds in several areas such as biochemistry, physics, biotechnology, biological engineering, veterinary medicine and pharmaceutics Questionnaire design A questionnaire form (available on was designed to assess the safety knowledge of the researchers from the studied research group. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about demographic characteristics, including age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. The second section of the questionnaire contained questions regarding a number of specific areas involving laboratory safety. The questionnaire used in this survey was adapted according to the laboratory procedures of the population in study, and it was decided to divide the questionnaire in seven safety main groups, namely: Group A - Group B - Housekeeping and Group C - Group D - Group E - Biological 37

56 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Group F - Group G - questions were adapted from the literature [35-40] [25, 41, 42] and others were based on the laboratory document of the research group entitle Good Laboratory and Safety Practices Each group contained four multiple-choice questions and each question had three possible options that could include one or two correct answers. For each correct answer a score of one (1) and for each wrong answer a score of minus one (-1) were attributed. For the no response it was attribute a score zero (0). This evaluation was made according to other multiple-choice questionnaires. Supposing that a respondent answered correctly to all the questions, the maximum score would be 42 points. At the end of the questionnaire a blank field was available for additional comments Questionnaire validation The questionnaire was pre-tested (available on with five Postdoctoral fellows with an average of 13 years of experience working in research laboratories in different areas namely, biochemistry, chemistry, materials engineering, biotechnology and biological engineering. This pre-test was performed individually and the average time of completion was 15 minutes. All the suggestions made by these researchers were reviewed and some changes were applied to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was rearranged according to the comments of the pre-test performed by these researchers and some questions were discussed personally. After applying all the changes to the questionnaire, these were discussed with the five researchers which all agreed with them. These subjects were excluded from the survey sample to avoid biased results. These pre-test results were not included in the overall study results Questionnaire administration The questionnaire was administered simul working on the 6 th of May of An was previously sent to all the researchers requesting their presence on this specific day to perform the laboratory safety questionnaire. It was explained to the respondents that the questionnaire had multiple-choice questions and also that the demographic characteristics were mandatory to fill. Since this research group is a multicultural group and the official language is English, the questionnaire was administered in English to the entire group. 38

57 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP From 77 printed questionnaires, 72 were performed and received. This represents a response rate of approximately 94%. The 6% of the researchers that did not respond to the questionnaire did not refuse but just were not available at that time to perform it. Ten of the received questionnaires were not completed, meaning that at least one question was not answered by the respondents. Nevertheless, these questionnaires were also taken into consideration since it seemed important to evaluate the questions that were not responded. Consequently, 72 forms were evaluated for this survey Data entry and analysis Questionnaire responses were entered into an electronic database (Microsoft Office Excel 2007), and entry-validation checks were performed on all questionnaires by manually comparing the database and the hard-copy versions. Data were presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages. The statistical analysis was done using the software SPSS 19.0 statistical package. Mean scores on the overall knowledge questionnaire and on specific safety concepts were calculated. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Presentation of the questionnaires results The figure 1 presents the frequency of the scores obtained from the 72 respondents. Based on the distribution of scores (figure 1) and in the mean score of the questionnaires (approximately 31), it was adopted the following knowledge score categories: less than 20, poor knowledge; 20 to 30 below average; 30 to 40, good knowledge and higher than 40, very good knowledge on safety. This knowledge score category was adopted from the literature [31]. Analysing Figure, it is possible to detect that 19 respondents (26%) had scores lower than 30, meaning a score below average. As it can also be seen in this table three researchers (4% of the respondents) had scores less than 20, which is considered to have poor knowledge on safety. More than 50% of the respondents had score results between 30 and 39 been considered to have good knowledge and one respondent had a score greater than 40, which corresponds to very good knowledge on safety. 39

58 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Frequency [15; 20[ [20; 25[ [25; 30[ [30; 35[ [35; 40[ Scores Figure 1 - Histogram of scores obtained by the 72 respondents on the safety questionnaire From the 72 questionnaires it was obtained a total score of 2264 in a maximum score of The mean of the scores obtained was approximately 31 in a maximum score of 42, with a standard deviation of The minimum and maximum scores obtained were respectively 17 and Findings on researcher safety knowledge Although overall survey results were the primary consideration, the survey results for individual questions were also interesting. This analysis helped to determine on which safety topics the researchers demonstrate more difficulties. The figure 2 presents the percentages of the sum of the scores obtained from the 72 questionnaires, for each group of questions. The group A (General laboratory safety) had the higher percentage (84,72%), and the group C (Personal protection) had the lower sum of the scores percentage (60,65%). It was obtained a total score of 2264 in 3024 corresponding to a percentage of approximately 75%. This percentage does not mean that was 75% of correct answers, this represents the sum of the scores where some answers can have a maximum score of 2 and minimum score of -2, as shown in figures 3 and 4. Considering the previously knowledge score category and the sum of the scores per group of questions, the total sum scores obtained (75%) is consider as good knowledge. This percentage corresponds to a score of approximately 32. However, the groups C (personal protection), E 40

59 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP (biological safety) and G (electrical and fire protection) had scores below the total sum of scores (75%) ,72 75,83 84,49 71,88 79,51 70,44 Sum of scores (%) , Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F Group G Figure 2 - Sum of scores (in percentages) per group of questions To better understand the obtained results and the adopted scoring scheme in the figures 3 and 4 it is presented the combinations of possible responses for the multiple-choice questions. To the questions with one correct answer (in the example is option a) there were the following combinations of answers: a X X X X b X X X X c X X X X Score Figure 3 - Possible combinations of responses for questions with one correct answer. 41

60 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP When the question had two correct options (in the example are a and c) the number of possible combinations and respective scores were the following: a X X X X b X X X X c X X X X Score Figure 4 - Possible combinations of responses for questions with two correct answers. All the questions had 8 possible combinations of answers, being the maximum score of 2 when the questions had two correct answers and the minimum score of -2 for the questions with one correct option. According to these possible combinations, the 72 respondents obtained the following scores, presented in table 1. The table 1 presents the frequency of the scores obtained for each question in the seventy-two questionnaires. The correct answers with one option had a maximum score of one (1) and the questions with two correct answers had a score of two (2), as explained above (figures 3 and 4). Twenty-six respondents chose three options for one question, which were the following questions B1, B2, B3, B4, C3, E2, E4 and G1. However, they did not correspond to the same score. For questions B1, B2 and B4 with only one correct answer the score obtained were minus one (-1), as shown in figure 3. The questions B3, C3, E2, E4 and G1 had a score of one (1), since these were questions with two correct options, as explained in figure 4. Only one respondent chose two incorrect options to a question with one correct answer which was question B4, having a score of minus two (-2). The score zero (0) could be obtained when the questions were not answered, this happened in questions C4, D4, E1, E2, E3, E4, F1, F2, F4 and G2. Also, it could happen when the respondents chose one correct option and one incorrect option. This was the case of the questions A1, B1, B2, B4, C3, D1, D3, D4, E1, E4, F3, F4, G1 and G4, which had all a score of zero. The answers had a score of minus one (-1) when only one incorrect answer was selected or as told before when the three options were chose for the questions with one correct answer. The 42

61 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP questions that had a score of two (2) were the ones that the respondents chose two correct options. For example, the question A2 had 43 respondents that answered completely correct (table 1). The questions with score of one (1) happened when the questions had one correct option, and it was chose. For example, in question A1, 67 respondents answered correctly to the question. For questions with two correct options, the score of one (1) happened when the respondent chose only one correct answer. Or it can also happen as told before, when the respondent chose three options for the same question. Table 1 - Frequency of sum of the scores obtained for each question Score Question (3 options) 0 0 (no answer) -1-1 (3 options) -2 A A A A B B B B C1 72 C C C D D D D E E E E F F F F G G G G

62 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Table 2 presents the results obtained for answers correctly selected, answers incorrectly chosen and no answers for each group of questions. The aim of this table is not to know the frequency of the maximum or minimum scores obtained for each question, but instead it is useful to know which answers did the respondent chose correctly and which they did not. To better understand the difference between tables 1 and 2 is that the information in table 2 can be read as, for question A1, 69 options were correctly selected and 5 options were incorrectly selected. In table 1, the information is read as following for question A1, 67 respondents had a maximum score of one (1), 2 respondents chose one correct and one incorrect option having a score of zero (0), and 3 respondents chose one incorrect answer (-1). In table 2, the grand total obtained was 2481 correct answers, 217 incorrect answers and 21 questions not answered. These frequencies correspond approximately to 82% of answers correctly chosen, 7% of wrong answers and 1% of no responses. The sum of these percentages is around 90%, the others 10% correspond to the multiple-choice questions where the respondent only select one option, having a score of 1 in 2. Comparing the sum of scores in percentages (figure 2) with the percentages obtained in table 2 for each group of questions, it is simple to understand that the sum of the scores is equal to the percentage of answers correctly chose minus the percentage of incorrect answers and minus the percentage of no answers. For example, for group A the sum of the scores is approximately 85% and observing table 2, the percentage of correct answers (88.43%) minus answers correctly chosen (3.7%) is approximately 85%. Each safety questions group was analysed individually giving more importance to the questions that had worst results. 44

63 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Question Table 2 - Frequency of each answer category by question and for each group Frequency of correct answers % Frequency of incorrect answers % Frequency of no answers A , A A A , Total Group A B , B , B , B , Total Group B , C C C , C ,39 4 5,6 Total Group C D , D D D ,56 2 2,8 Total Group D E ,4 E ,72 3 4,2 E ,08 1 1,4 E ,19 3 4,2 Total Group E , F ,39 1 1,4 F ,72 2 2,8 F , F ,89 2 2,8 Total Group F , G , G ,69 2 2,8 G , G Total Group G , Grand Total % 45

64 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Findings on researcher knowledge in General Laboratory Safety Analysing figure 5 it is possible to observe that for question A1, 69 answers were correctly chose and 5 were incorrectly selected. The question A4 had 61 respondents that chose the correct answer and 11 chose a wrong option, as also showed in table 1. Comparing the results of question A1 with the ones presented in table 1, 67 respondents answered correctly and 2 of them chose one correct option and one incorrect option. The others 3 chose one incorrect option Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response A1 A2 A3 A4 11 Figure 5 - Frequency of responses for Group A (General Laboratory Safety) The correct answer to question A1 is option a, chemical fume hood. The other five respondents answered laminar flow cabinet (option b). One of the principal safety devices in a laboratory is a chemical fume hood. It is very important to know the difference between a laminar flow cabinet and a chemical fume hood. If necessary to work with volatile, toxic or other hazardous chemicals, laminar flow cabinets must not be used because HEPA (High-Efficiency Particulate Air) filters do not filter fumes. In this particular situation a chemical fume hood is the appropriate equipment to be used. A fume hood is a ventilated enclosure in which gases, vapours and fumes are contained and it is used to control chemical exposure to the hood user and lab occupants and prevent chemical release into the laboratory. [10]. Since chemical fume hoods are not equipped with HEPA filters, they must not be used to work with biohazardous materials. 46

65 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Laminar airflow cabinets are designed to create a particle-free working environment. There are mainly two types of laminar airflow cabinets, horizontal and vertical. The horizontal laminar flow cabinet only provides product protection. They are not suitable for the use with any potentially biohazardous material including human source material (clinical specimens, blood, tissue, etc.), cell cultures, infectious agents, or infected animal tissue. The manipulation of these materials should be conducted in a Class II biological safety cabinet [43]. In this research group it is only used vertical laminar airflow cabinets, mainly class II biohazard cabinets. These types of cabinets are designed to protect both the material to be manipulated from contamination, to protect the operator and the environment from microbial contamination hazards. The HEPA filters have an efficiency of over % for particles of 0.3 micrometres [41]. Looking to questions A2 and A3 that had two possible correct options, it is possible to observe that the respondents selected at least one correct option. Specifically 43 respondents scored two and 29 respondents scored one, in question A2. For question A3, 65 respondents scored two and 7 respondents scored one. The correct answer to question A4 is option c, Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Eleven respondents did not choose the correct option, corresponding approximately to 15% of incorrect answers. Chemical manufacturers or distributors perform an assessment of the physical and health hazards of each chemical they produce. This information is included in a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and partial information contained on the MSDS is also listed on container labels [10]. All MSDSs received by this research laboratory are maintained in a central location in the facilities and is available to all laboratory personnel. In a maximum score of 432 to group A it was obtained a score of 382 corresponding to 88.43% of answers correctly chose and 3.7% of answers incorrectly selected. These results demonstrated that the researchers had good knowledge about general laboratory safety Findings on researcher knowledge in Housekeeping and Hygiene Good housekeeping reduces injuries and accidents, reduces fire potential and can even make operations more efficient. Housekeeping should be included into all processes and operations performed in the laboratories [10]. The second group of questions was about housekeeping and hygiene and the answers are presented in figure 6. 47

66 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response B1 B2 B3 B4 Figure 6 - Frequency of responses for Group B (Housekeeping and Hygiene) Analysing figure 6, it can be seen that in question B1 it seems that only one respondent did not chose the correct answer, however looking to table 1 it is possible to say that 65 respondents answered correctly, 5 of them chose one correct and one incorrect answer (score -1), 1 respondent only chose one incorrect answer and other respondent chose the 3 possible options. In the question B2, 72 respondents chose the right answer but only 57 respondents answered correctly to the question having the maximum score of one. Fourteen of the respondents chose one correct and one incorrect option. Also, one of the respondents chose the 3 options. One possible explanation for the incorrect answers can be attributed to the misreading or misunderstanding of the questions. Question B3 had a good scores results, in 144 correct answer, 47 respondents chose two correct options and 24 respondents chose only one correct option. One of the respondents selected the three options. The results of question B4 were not so good. Although 63 (88%) respondents chose the correct answer, 28 selected an incorrect option corresponding to approximately 40% of the respondents. Specifically, 46 respondents answered correctly to this question, 16 respondents chose one correct and one incorrect option, 8 respondents chose one incorrect answer, one respondent chose the three options and other chose the two wrong options. The correct option to question B4 is option a, the risk of accidental ingestion. It was expected that researchers know the difference between ingestion, spill and inhalation. The bad results obtained were possibly due to the misunderstanding of the question. 48

67 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP These risks are the three main risks that can happen when working in chemistry or biology laboratory. Each researcher should understand that housekeeping is an integral part of his/her job and not merely a supplement to work him/her already performs. As housekeeping becomes a standard part of operations, less time and effort are needed to maintain it at an appropriate level [10]. Table 2 shows that approximately 91% of the respondents chose at least one correct answer, being a very good result. However, approximately 15% chose at least one wrong answer. It seems that housekeeping is a simple subject though the sum of the scores had a percentage of approximately 76%, being almost the same as the obtained average (75%) Findings on researcher knowledge in personal protection Personal protection was the safety topic of group C. In question C1 all the respondents answered correctly. In question C2, no one answered incorrectly but also, not all respondents chose the two correct options, specifically 27 respondents chose two correct options and 42 selected one correct option Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response C1 C2 C3 C4 Figure 7 - Frequency of responses for Group C (Personal protection) The correct answers to question C3 are b (Wear gloves, lab coat, long pants and closed toed shoes) and c (Wear an appropriate mask, only if not possible to work in the chemical hood). In 49

68 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP this case, 16 respondents have chose option a, work in the laminar flow chamber. Looking to table 1, it is possible to say that 40 respondents answered correctly, 16 chose only one correct option, 4 of the respondents chose the three options, 9 respondents chose one correct and one incorrect option and 3 of them chose the incorrect answer. In this question it was observed the same as observed in the question A1 some of the researchers do not know the function of a laminar flow chamber. However, the number of respondents that chose this answer was higher comparing with question A1. The results of question C4 were not expected at all. The correct answer to this question is option b, if no one is doing an experiment or washing glassware. In figure 7 (see also table 1), it is possible to observe that only 31 researchers answered correctly, 37 answered incorrectly and 4 respondents did not answered. It seems that some of the respondents had habits when answering never. The others demonstrated lack of safety since, they have answered that they can remove the safety glasses anytime. The need of personal protective equipment (PPE) is dependent upon the type of operations and the nature and quantity of the materials in use, and must be determined on an individual basis [10]. However, for some researchers it seems that the use of PPE is never needed. Personal protective equipment is specific gear used to protect the wearer from specific hazards. It is an individual protection measure that should only be used as a last resort, to be used when engineering or organizational measures are not an option [44]. PPE does not reduce or eliminate the hazard it only protects the wearer and will not protect anyone else. Other aspect in the selection that should be considered is the equipment certification. If the equipment is according with the procedures described in the European Directive nº 86/686/CEE of 21 st December, it obtains CE marking (Conformité Européenne) [44].. The group C was the group with worst results, approximately 73% of answers correctly chose, 13% of answers incorrectly chose and 1% of no responses. It was also possible to say that the question C4 had the worst results of all the questions, in terms of scores sum it had a percentage of approximately 61%, being below the average of total scores. The researchers seem to have some difficulties in specific matters of personal protection. 50

69 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Findings on researcher knowledge in chemical safety Group D was about chemical safety, although researchers worked on biology, processing or other laboratory besides chemistry, at some point they all work with chemical products. Analysing table 2, it is possible to see that 86% of the respondents answered correctly to this group, approximately 2% chose wrong options and two of them did not answered to question D Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response D1 D2 D3 D4 2 Figure 8 - Frequency of responses for Group D (Chemical Safety) The question D4 had the worst results of this group but they were not bad when comparing with other safety groups. The answer seems quite obvious (option a Absorb with vermiculite and put it in a closed container for elimination), however 4 respondents did not answered correctly and 2 did not choose any option. One of these 4 respondents had selected two answers. This was the reason for the appearance of a total frequency of 73 in the figure. It is very important that all researchers know what to do in case of spill. All the laboratories in this research group, which work with hazard liquids have the product vermiculite, however some of the respondents (6) did not seem to know the purpose of this product. This lack of knowledge about spillage (or spills procedures) could be also due to lack of training in this area. Spills can occur if chemicals are handled incorrectly or if chemicals are improperly moved from one part of the laboratory to another. Although question D1 had good results, it is important to analyse it. Analysing figure 8 it is possible to see that all researchers have answered at least one correct option (b and/or c) and 51

70 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP two researchers did also chose option a. Looking to table 1, it is possible to observe that 41 respondents answered correctly, 29 chose only one correct option and 2 of them chose one correct and one incorrect options. Acids are one of the chemicals commonly used in the laboratories and it is very important to know how to dilute acids, otherwise severe injuries can happen. Burn hazard exists when concentrated acids (or bases) are mixed with water. The heat released in mixing these chemicals with water can cause the mixture to boil, spattering corrosive chemical. The heat can also cause glass materials to break and spilling corrosive chemical. To avoid these hazards, acid (or bases) must be added to water very slowly and never the opposite. This procedure of diluting concentrated acids (or bases) must always be performed in the chemical hood since it releases irritant or noxious vapours, being very harmful to the respiratory system. In terms of sum of scores, group D was the second with the highest percentage (85%). It is possible to say that in general the researchers had good knowledge on chemical safety Findings on researcher knowledge in biological safety Almost all sciences or engineering courses existent in this research group had at least one chemistry class but not all graduations have biology classes. This is a very specific group and not all researchers in this research group work in the biology laboratories. Although, this is an interdisciplinary group and any researcher without a background in biology can work (after an appropriate training) in these laboratories. 52

71 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response E1 E2 E3 E4 Figure 9 - Frequency of responses for Group E (Biological Safety) In figure 9 is observed that only one person did not chose any answer in question E1 and the same respondent did not answer to the entire group. This can be attributed to the fact that this specific person do not work in biology laboratories and also does not have a background in biology. It seems that the respondent preferred not to answer than give an incorrect answer. Question E3 had a good score percentage (approximately 91%) and only 3 respondents chose incorrectly one answer. Question E2 had 104 (72%) answers correctly selected, 14 (10%) incorrectly chose and 3 (4%) were not answered. Of the 14 respondents, 9 respondents chose the three options and 5 of them chose one correct and one incorrect answer, as shown in table 1. The correct answers to the question E2 are a and b, 14 respondents chose the wrong option c, disinfection of work surfaces with hypochlorite. The surfaces should be disinfected with 70% ethanol and not with bleach (hypochlorite), this product is corrosive and will damage the surfaces. Analysing question E4, it is possible to check that 19 respondents chose the incorrect answer (option b), use bleach to disinfect the surface. This case is very similar to question E2, where the respondents believed that the correct procedure to disinfect the surfaces was using bleach. The three researchers that do not answer that question are the same that did not answer question E2. The group E was one of the groups that were below the mean of the total scores (75%), with a percentage of approximately 72%. A possible explanation is the fact that not all researchers work in the biology laboratories. 53

72 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Findings on researcher knowledge in waste disposal The group F, concerning waste disposal, is not a less important issue, knowing how to discard the residues that are produced in the laboratories is also very important. 150 Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response F1 F2 F3 F4 Figure 10 - Frequency of responses for Group F (Waste Disposal) In general, researchers had a positive performance in this group, obtaining a percentage of 91% answers correctly selected. However, this group had also 12% of incorrect responses and 2% of no responses. Seventy respondents (97%) answered correctly to question F1, only one respondent did not answer and other answered incorrectly. In question F2, seven respondents did choose one correct and one incorrect option and two of them did not answer. This question is very important, knowing the difference of a non-halogenated and halogenated product is crucial. The segregation of wastes in halogenated and non-halogenated residues is done mainly because the halogenated solvents are in general not flammable while non-halogenated solvents are often flammable. The chlorinated solvents decompose when burned and it results in high concentrations of toxic vapours, such as hydrogen chloride. The correct answer to question F3 is b, following specific instructions written in the safety procedures or in the MSDS. In this question it is possible to conclude that some of the respondents chose more than one option (total of 87 answers). Sixteen of the respondents answered incorrectly to this question, eleven of them chose one correct and one incorrect answer 54

73 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP and five respondents chose only one incorrect option. Dispose chemicals down the drain can be very dangerous and harmful to the environment. The MSDS must be consulted to know how to discard correctly the residues. Question F4 is related with biological residues, two of the respondents did not answer this question. Furthermore, ten of the respondents did not answered correctly, three of them chose two options been one correct and other incorrect and seven respondents chose one incorrect option. The correct answer to the question F4 is option a, autoclaved. Ten respondents did not choose the correct option. The contaminated disposable lab ware with infectious materials should be autoclaved before discard. Some of the media are autoclaved after being neutralized with bleach. However, neutralization with bleach is not enough. Option c is clearly to dispose sharp material and not culture plates, or other disposable lab material that are not sharp. Systems should be developed for the legal, safe and ecologically acceptable disposal of chemical or biological wastes. In order to responsibly manage laboratory waste each employee should be familiar with the following: hazardous waste characteristics, properly packaging hazardous waste, effective labelling and following waste collection protocol [10] Findings on researcher knowledge in electrical safety and fire protection The final group of questions is about electrical safety and fire protection. Electrically powered equipment, such as hotplates stirrers, vacuum pumps, heating mantles, ultrasounds baths, microwave ovens and others are essential elements of many laboratories. These devices can pose a significant hazard to laboratory workers, particularly when mishandled or not maintained. Many laboratory electrical devices have high voltage or high power requirements, carrying even more risk. In laboratory, a fire may occur if chemicals are mixed improperly or if flammable materials come too close to a burner flame or a hot plate. The figure 11 presents the results for the questions regarding electrical safety and fire protection. 55

74 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP Frequency of correct answers Frequency of incorrect answers Frequency of no response G1 G2 G3 G4 Figure 11 - Frequency of responses for Group G (Electrical safety and fire protection) The respondents in question G1 chose at least one correct answer and six wrong answers, specifically 32 respondents chose two correct options, 34 chose 1 correct option, 1 respondent chose the three options and 5 of them chose one correct and one incorrect option, as shown in table 1. Concerning question G2, only one respondent answered incorrectly. Extinguish an electrical origin fire with water can be extremely dangerous. Two of the respondents did not answer this question, and 69 of them chose at least one correct option, in specific only seven of them chose the two correct answers. To extinguish an electrical fire, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) or powder extinguishers could be used. It is very important to know what to do in case of fire alarm (question G3). As it can be seen in figure 11, sixty-five of the respondents know that they should leave the building immediately however, four of them also chose other option and seven respondents answered incorrectly. Eleven researchers chose option a, shut down the experiment, get their stuff and then leave the building. This safety issue is not a subject that usually people gives much importance, since this did not happen daily, however it is important to know how to proceed in case of electrical accidents and/or fire. 56

75 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP 4. Conclusions After analysing the overall results it was possible to conclude that 19 researchers, corresponding to 26% of the sample had scores below average (31). Almost 74% of the respondents had good scores results been considered to have good knowledge on safety. However, it was important to better understand the low results obtained. This was done analysing all the questions individually. Survey results provided information on specific topics about laboratory safety. It was paid particular attention to safety topics on which researchers scored low on the survey. It was found that the researchers had less safety knowledge on the following safety topics, personal protection, biological safety and electrical and fire protection. Considering the sum of the scores these safety groups had percentages below 75%. Other analysis was done considering the answers correctly, incorrectly selected and the no responses. This analyse allowed to better understand the results for each question. To help understand how much researchers scored, the possible combination of scores results were distributed per question. This showed that some researchers selected three options and almost all the questions had at least one incorrect answer that was selected. In general, the answers correctly selected presented a percentage of 82%, a percentage of 7% of options incorrectly selected and 1% of no responses. With these results it is possible to say that mainly the researchers had good knowledge on safety. Based upon some answers in the survey results, it is recommended a laboratory safety course to better discuss some safety issues, specially the ones that researchers showed more difficulties. 57

76 CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP 58

77 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS 59

78 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS Safety knowledge and its relationship with demographic characteristics of the researchers L. G. Gomes 1,2,*, C. P. Leão 3,, Rui L. Reis 1,2, P. M. Arezes 3 1 Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Guimarães, Portugal 2 - PT Government Associate Laboratory Braga/Guimarães - Portugal 3 Department of Production and Systems, Engineering School of University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, Guimarães, Portugal *Corresponding author: Liliana Gouveia Gomes Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Avepark, Zona Industrial da Gandra, S. Cláudio do Barco, , Guimarães, Portugal lgomes@dep.uminho.pt 60

79 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate if the demographic characteristics of the researchers from a research group affect their safety knowledge. A questionnaire form divided in seven groups namely General laboratory safety (Group A); Housekeeping and hygiene (Group B); Personal protection (Group C); Chemical safety (Group D); Biological safety (Group E); Waste disposal (Group F) and Electrical and fire protection (Group G), was developed and validated to assess the safety knowledge of the researchers. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about their demographic characteristics namely age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. All groups had four questions each, in a total of 28 questions per questionnaire and every question had 3 possible options to select. The laboratory safety questionnaire was self-administered to 72 researchers, with a response rate of approximately 94%. This questionnaire was conducted in English and had multiple-choice questions evaluated with different scores. Based on the distribution of scores and in the mean score of the questionnaires results, it was used the following knowledge scores categories: less than 20 - poor knowledge; 20 to 30 - below average; 30 to 40 - good knowledge and higher than 40 - very good knowledge on safety. Analysing the results obtained, 22% of the respondents presented scores lower than 30 and 4% lower than 20 corresponding, respectively, to scores below average and poor knowledge on safety. More than 50% of the respondents had good knowledge with scores higher than 30. The mean knowledge score of researchers was 31 points. The oldest group of the researchers ( 40y) presented the lowest scores (p=0.03) corresponding to poor knowledge on laboratory safety. The differences between the results of the other sociodemographic variables (gender, background, experience and education level) were not statistically significant considering a p-value of 5%. 1. Introduction Laboratory safety should become an important issue in all high school, college and university science curricula. Safety should be a top priority in chemical and biological laboratories. Even if all efforts have been made to minimize hazards in a laboratory, anything can become dangerous when it is used improperly [3]. A committed manager who is personally involved in safety activities and who takes an interest in working conditions conveys to the employees a sense of 61

80 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS the importance of safety for the organization. As a result, the employees comply with regulations, take the proper safety measures, and participate actively in meetings and activities designed to promote improvements in their workplace [13]. Most laboratories, whether chemical or biological, use chemicals that may be hazardous or become hazardous because of some chemical reaction [23]. Neal Langerman [24], concluded that most academic laboratories are unsafe places for work or study and that only by a major change in the way the laboratory safety is practiced, the situation will improve. All laboratory staff, both students and technicians, must receive specific training relevant on the labs they work in and on the tasks they perform. Experience and educational levels vary, and those with more experience and education will have more responsibility. All researchers must be committed to a high level of safety performance. When students work in a research lab, they are working in an environment that is necessary more independent activity that in a structured teaching lab. Students, both undergraduate and graduate, cannot be assumed to have the required experience or maturity to work in the higher risk setting of a research lab without a clear and present supervision [24]. A safety management system reflects the organization s commitment to safety and it has an systems are mechanisms that are integrated in the organization and designed to control the hazards that can affect workers health and safety [9]. According to Vinodkumar and Bhasi [9], there are six safety management practices, including the management commitment, safety training procedures and safety promotion policies. Regular communication about safety issues between managements, supervisors and workforce is an effective management practice to improve safety in workplace. Managements need to give the highest level of priority to safety training convincing the employees about the need for safety performance. Safety training may be designed to communicate good knowledge about the various processes, associated hazards and the safety measures to be taken by the employees in case of emergencies [9]. According to Westaby and Lee [15], the time spent working was strongly associated with safety knowledge, as working individuals presented higher levels of safety knowledge than nonworking individuals. The results of this study suggested that participating in safety activities was positively associated with safety knowledge and safety consciousness. As predicted and replicating past research, males demonstrated both less safety consciousness and higher levels of dangerous 62

81 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS risk taking than females. Safety consciousness was negatively related to injury. Those individuals with high levels of safety consciousness were less likely to have injuries than individuals with low levels of safety consciousness. Unexpectedly, this study did not find a negative association between safety knowledge and injuries. Those individuals that reported high levels of safety knowledge also reported more injuries. This may be explained by the fact that people being placed on more dangerous work environment are also provided with greater safety-related information. The time spent working was positively associated with the safety knowledge. Thus, the working individuals may have been learning about safety because of the time spent in higher risk work environment. However, they may not have been learning enough to reduce injury rates compared to nonworkers [15]. Early in 1965, the Research and Development Laboratories of Sun Oil Company examined the safety performance to determine how to maintain an injury-free working record for an extended period [26] he training program, the Director assessed employee attitudes towards safety in order to shape their training program to strengthen their interest and cooperation. The questionnaire had 100 questions, 33 tested knowledge on flammability, toxicity, first aid, laboratory procedure, emergency action, safety organization and safety responsibility. The other 67 questions were about the opinions or attitudes of research personnel. In this study they found that employees with more technical education scored appreciably higher than those without college training. However, employees 67 questions were grouped in four categories: attitudes toward training, attitudes toward safety administration, attitude expressed as independence and somewhat vague grouping termed interactions. Attitude of Research & Development (R&D) employees toward safety administration and employees was generally quite favourable. The overall responses on safety knowledge were positive, confirming that previous training was thought to be fairly effective. The survey showed that R&D employees do not fit the usual picture of independent researchers as far as safety is concerned. All groups felt an appreciable concern for their fellow workers. A large majority wanted to be told when their work procedures are approved or disapproved by their supervisor. However, there were those who felt that mechanical failures are largely responsible for accidents and others felt that there are some people whose practices are unsafe. Employees felt that their safety performance affects the well being of others and that supervisors should correct unsafe 63

82 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS work practices in detail. Some of the employees made some excellent suggestions to improve safety that were evaluated and acted upon immediately [26]. A key element in every successful organization, in any successful accident prevention programme and occupational safety and health programme, is effective safety training. It improves behavioural skills, related knowledge and/or attitudes. Good knowledge of the processes, associated dangers and methods to prevent them are essential for workers [9]. The main aim of this study was to evaluate if the demographic characteristics of the researchers from a research group affects their safety knowledge. To perform this study a laboratory safety questionnaire was designed and validated. 2. Methodology 2.1. Sample characterization The number of researchers performing the laboratory safety questionnaire was 72. It was decided to use the purposive sampling technique to ensure that all the participants that perform experimental work in the laboratories from this research group were selected. At the moment of the administration of the questionnaire the sample was composed by 22 biologists, 13 chemists, 18 biomedical engineers and 19 had other backgrounds specified in table 1. As it can be observed in table 1, 64% of the respondents were female and 36% were male. More than 50% (64%) of the respondents had less than 30 years old (age average of 28 years old). Concerning the level of education, (MSc) and 25% of the respondents were Post-doctoral fellows. 31% of the respondents had a background in biology, 25% in biomedical engineering and 18% in chemistry. The others 26% were distributed for several areas as referred above. Nearly 50% of the sample had less than 4 years of experience, 36% of the respondents had between 4 and 7 years of experience and 21% of the researchers had more than 8 years of experience working in a research laboratory. 64

83 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents Characteristics variables Frequency Percentage Gender Female Male Total Age < [25; 30[ [30; 35[ [35; 40[ Total Education level Bachelor degree (BSc) Masters degree (MSc) Doctorate degree (PhD) Total Background Biology (B) Biological Engineering (BE) 4 6 Biochemistry (BCH) 3 4 Biomedical Engineering (BME) Biotechnology (BT) 3 4 Chemistry (CH) Materials Engineering (ME) 3 4 Physics (P) 1 1 Polymers Engineering (PE) 2 3 Pharmacy (PH) 1 1 Veterinary Medicine (VM) 2 3 Total Years of experience working in research laboratories < [4; 8[ [8; 12[ Total

84 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS 2.2. Questionnaire design A questionnaire form (available on was designed to evaluate if the safety knowledge depends on the demographic characteristics of the researchers working in research laboratories. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about demographic characteristics, including age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. The second section of the questionnaire contained questions regarding a number of specific areas involving laboratory safety. The questionnaire used in this survey was adapted according to the laboratory procedures of the population in study, and it was decided to divide the questionnaire in seven safety main groups, namely: Group A - Group B - Group C - Group D - Group E - Group F - Group G - At the end of the questionnaire a blank field was available for additional comments Questionnaire validation The questionnaire was pre-tested (available on with five Postdoctoral fellows with an average of 13 years of experience working in research laboratories in different areas namely, biochemistry, chemistry, materials engineering, biotechnology and biological engineering. This pre-test was performed individually and the average time of completion was 15 minutes. All the suggestions made by these researchers were reviewed and some changes were applied to the questionnaire Data entry and analysis Questionnaire responses were entered into an electronic database (Microsoft Office Excel 2007), and entry-validation checks were performed on all questionnaires by manually comparing the database and the hard-copy versions. Data were presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages. The statistical analysis was done using the software SPSS 19.0 statistical package. In all the hypothesis testing, the significance level or critical p-value was 66

85 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS considered to be 5%, being the results statistically significant when the results occur less than 5%. 3. Results and discussion The aim of this study was to understand if the safety knowledge depended on the demographic characteristics of the researchers. The scores obtained depend on the gender? Or does the background of the respondents affect their safety knowledge? What about the research experience? A researcher with ten years of experience has better knowledge than other with 2 years of experience? Or it is the other way around? Maybe, with more experience there are also an excess of confidence? These are some of the questions that were important to answer. Keeping these questions in mind some statistical tests were done to conclude if the different characteristic of the respondents (gender, age, education level, background and years of experience working in research laboratories) affects their safety knowledge. It was considered the following safety knowledge score categories: less than 20, poor knowledge; 20 to 30 below average; 30 to 40, good knowledge and higher than 40, very good knowledge on safety, presented in table 2. Table 2 - Frequency and percentage of scores results obtained by the 72 questionnaires Scores Category Frequency Percentage (%) <20 Poor knowledge [20; 25[ Below average [25; 30[ [30; 35[ Good knowledge [35; 40[ Very good knowledge Total

86 CHAPTER IV. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS 3.1. Findings on researcher safety knowledge versus demographic variables Safety knowledge versus Gender The figure 1 presents the mean score obtained in the questionnaires considering the variable gender. The mean score obtained by the 46 females (32) was higher than the one obtained by the 26 males (31) that performed the questionnaire. But is this difference statistically significant? The question that needed to be answer was the following: Does safety knowledge (evaluated by score) depend on the gender of the respondent? To answer this question the proposed null hypothesis (H 0 ) was the following: H 0 : The safety knowledge has no significant differences between genders Score F Gender M Figure 1 Mean knowledge score versus variable gender To test the H 0, it was used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the means between genders. Statistical significance is considered at a p<0.05. Based on the obtained results (figure 1), it can be stated that there were no differences statistically significant between females and males respondents (U(1)=495, p=0.225). It was possible to say that safety knowledge does not depend on the gender of the respondent. As predicted and replicating past research, males demonstrated both less safety consciousness and higher levels of dangerous risk taking than females. Those individuals with high levels of safety consciousness were less likely to have injuries than individuals with low levels of safety consciousness. Unexpectedly, this study did not 68