SELECTION OF AN APPROPRIATE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

Yıl 2022, , 141 - 151, 15.04.2022

Nilüfer Kurşunoğlu , Seyhan Önder , Mustafa Önder

https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.1030448

Öz

The main principles of safety risk reduction are elimination, substitution, and engineering controls. Hazardous conditions, safe work practices, and other forms of managerial controls should be provided for a safe work environment. For this reason, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is inevitable for employees. PPE can help mitigate accidents and injuries associated with hazardous materials or other potentially unsafe working conditions. Thus, the selection of a suitable PPE is a significant step in a safe working environment. PPE selection process is complex and involves multiple criteria decision making since several parameters affect PPE selection. In this study, factors affecting PPE selection were determined as Safety Features, Comfort and Efficiency, Design Principles, and Customer Support. In the present study, a systematic methodology to select an appropriate PPE was performed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The results indicate that Safety Features main criterion is the most significant factor, followed by Comfort and Efficiency, Design Principles, and Customer Support main criteria, respectively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Personal protective equipment, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Health and safety, Decision making

ANALİTİK HİYERARŞİ PROSESİ METODU İLE UYGUN KİŞİSEL KORUYUCU EKİPMAN SEÇİMİ

Öz

Emniyet riskinin azaltılmasının ana ilkeleri eleme, ikame ve mühendislik kontrolleridir. Güvenli çalışma ortamını sağlamak için tehlikeli koşullar, güvenli çalışma uygulamaları ve diğer yönetimsel kontrol biçimleri gözden geçirilmelidir. Bu nedenle çalışanlar için kişisel koruyucu ekipman (KKD) kullanımı kaçınılmazdır. KKD, tehlikeli maddelerle veya diğer potansiyel olarak güvenli olmayan çalışma koşullarıyla ilişkili kazaları ve yaralanmaları azaltmaya yardımcı olabilir. Bu nedenle, uygun bir KKD'nin seçimi, güvenli bir çalışma ortamında önemli bir adımdır. KKD seçim süreci karmaşıktır ve çeşitli parametreler KKD seçimini etkilediği için birden çok kriterli karar vermeyi içerir. Bu çalışmada KKD seçimini etkileyen faktörler; Güvenlik Özellikleri, Konfor ve Verimlilik, Tasarım İlkeleri ve Müşteri Desteği olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmada, Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) kullanılarak uygun bir KKD seçmek için sistematik bir metodoloji uygulanmıştır. Çalışma sonuçları, Güvenlik Özellikleri ana kriterinin en önemli faktör olduğunu ve bunu sırasıyla Konfor ve Verimlilik, Tasarım İlkeleri ve Müşteri Desteği ana kriterlerinin izlediğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kişisel koruyucu ekipman, Analitik hiyerarşi prosesi, Sağlık ve güvenlik, Karar verme

Kaynakça

• Akbar-Khanzadeh, F., Bisesi, M.S. (1995). Comfort of personal protective equipment. Applied Ergonomics. 3, 195-198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(95)00017-7
• Alpay, S., Yavuz, M. (2009). Underground mining method selection by decision making tools. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 24, 173-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.07.003
• Amponsah-Tawiah, K. Mensah, J. (2016). Occupational health and safety and organizational commitment: evidence from the Ghanaian mining industry. Safety and Health at Work. 7, 225-230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2016.01.002
• Andrade-Rivas, F., Rother, H.A. (2015). Chemical exposure reduction: Factors impacting on South African herbicide sprayers' personal protective equipment compliance and high risk work practices. Environmental Research. 142, 34-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.05.028
• ANU, (2011). Australian National University. Selection and use of personal protective equipment. pp. 1-7.
• Balkhyour, M.A., Ahmad, I., Rehan, M. (2018). Assessment of personal protective equipment use and occupational exposures in small industries in Jeddah: Health implications for workers. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 26, 653-659. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.06.011
• Breaz, R.E., Bologa, O., Racza, S.G. (2017). Selecting industrial robots for milling applications using AHP. Procedia Computer Science. 122, 346-353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.379
• Caputo, A.C., Pelagagge, P.M., Salini, P. (2013). AHP-based methodology for selecting safety devices of industrial machinery. Safety Science. 53, 202-218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.10.006
• Chan, A.H.S., Kwok, W.Y., Duffy, V.G. (2004). Using AHP for determining priority in a safety management system. Industrial Management & Data Systems.104,430445.doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570410537516
• EIGA, (2017). European Industrial Gases Association Selection of personal protective equipment. Doc 136/09. pp. 1-15.
• Geng, Z., Li, H., Zhu, Q., Han, Y. (2018). Production prediction and energy-saving model based on extreme learning machine integrated ISM-AHP: Application in complex chemical processes. Energy. 160, 898-909. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.077
• Janackovic, G., Stojiljkovic, E., Grozdanovic, M. (2017). Selection of key indicators for the improvement of occupational safety system in electricity distribution companies. Safety Science.125,103654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.07.009
• Kursunoglu, N., Onder, M. (2015). Selection of an appropriate fan for an underground coal mine using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 48, 101-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.02.005
• Kursunoglu, S., Ichlasb, Z.T., Kaya, M. (2017). Leaching method selection for Caldag lateritic nickel ore by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Hydrometallurgy. 171,179-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2017.05.013
• Masterson, E.A., Deddens, J.A., Themann, C.L., Bertke, S., Calvert, G.M. (2015). Trends in worker hearing loss by industry sector, 1981-2010. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 58, 392-401. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22429
• Murphy, W.J. (2016). Preventing occupational hearing loss-time for a paradigm shift. Acoustics Today.12,28-35.doi:https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33660.95365
• PPER, 2013. Personal Protective Equipment Regulation. (2013, 02 July). Official Gazette. (No: 28695) Retrieved from: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=18540&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5
• Oh, H.S., Uhm, D. (2016). Occupational exposure to infection risk and use of personal protective equipment by emergency medical personnel in the Republic of Korea. American Journal of Infection Control. 44, 647-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.022
• Olson, R., Grosshuesch, A., Schmidt, S., Gray, M., Wipfli, B. (2009). Observational learning and workplace safety: The effects of viewing the collective behavior of multiple social models on the use of personal protective equipment. Journal of Safety Research. 40, 383-387. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2009.07.004
• OSHA, (2004). Occupational safety and health administration. Personal Protective Equipment. 3151-12R. pp. 4-36.
• Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48, 9-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
• Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 1, 83-86. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
• UOW, (2016). WHS risk management guidelines. University of Wollongong p. 18
• Yarpuz-Bozdogan, N. (2018). The importance of personal protective equipment in pesticide applications in agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 4, 1-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.001
• Yavuz, M., Iphar, M., Once, G., 2008. The optimum support design selection by using AHP method for the main haulage road in WLC Tuncbilek colliery. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 23, 111-119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.02.001