This article is made available for a limited time sponsored by ACS under the ACS Free to Read License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article for non-commercial scholarly purposes.

pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

Barrier Banding: A Concept for Safety Solutions Utilizing Control Banding Principles David M. Zalk* and Paul Swuste

Cite This: ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

ABSTRACT: Control banding (CB) strategies offer simplified solutions for controlling worker exposures to constituents found in the workplace. CB is a risk assessment and control process developed by industrial hygienists that is utilized primarily for reducing work-related chemical exposures and has become an important component for identifying and evaluating hazards in laboratories. This process qualitatively generates exposure scenarios according to a “banding” principle. Due to the inherent simplicity of the modern CB approaches, toolkits that address chemical use and exposure reduction with these principles have gained international support. Our question is whether the CB principles might also apply to occupational safety as an accident prevention approach. For safety, probably “barrier banding” (BB) is a better title. Although the development of injury prevention toolkits is a proper goal for BB, some research is necessary before a similar success can be achieved as CB. The excellent efforts of the Workgroup Occupational Risk Model (WORM) research team have generated a number of considerations for BB research. Among these are developing safety exposure limits and time-weighted exposure principles that can be derived for a more aggregated level industry like construction. Optimizing a singular approach for both work-related injury and illness prevention in industry requires a simplified and multidisciplinary strategy utilizing a common risk communication language that CB and BB might provide. KEYWORDS: barrier banding, control banding, safety solutions, risk-level-based management system, occupational risk management, risk communication, multidisciplinary

■ INTRODUCTION control solutions provided in a series of control sheets, or to 6,7 Although control banding (CB) is known primarily for seek specialist advice. CB as a complementary approach to protecting worker controlling chemical exposures, it has its roots in Safety. It is fi found in a number of qualitative and semiquantitative safety health in developed countries arose most signi cantly toward the end of the 1990s. There were several forces leading to its See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles. Downloaded via LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATL LAB on December 30, 2020 at 16:20:13 (UTC). risk concepts which began to appear in the 1970s that focused ff on the stratification, or banding, of central events relating to development. E orts began in the early 1990s with the the safety profession. An example is a risk matrix describing the compilation and exchange of prevention and solutions-based strategies to reduce health hazards and minimize occupational likelihood and probable severity of a central event (an 8,9 fi explosion or release of toxic material) developed for use by risk on an international scale. Perhaps the most signi cant chemical companies with major facilities and later evolved in force was the increasing recognition that the more traditional the 1980s into radiation, lasers, biosafety, and eventually process, establishing occupational exposure limits (OELs) − pharmaceuticals and chemicals in the 1990s.1 4 CB in its against which measurements of airborne concentrations of modern evolutionary state has its primary focus in the field of contaminants could be compared, was losing ground due to industrial hygiene. It represents a qualitative instrument to the increasing number of chemicals posing a threat to worker assess risks for chemical substances and to generate solutions and control measures.5 Historical use of CB is more simply Received: December 9, 2019 explained as an approach to exposure control, using a tool Published: April 14, 2020 designed by industrial hygienists and toxicologists to enable users of chemicals, using readily available information about the chemicals and the workplace, to rank hazard and assess risk. Depending on the level of risk, users are directed to

© 2020 American Chemical Society https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 219 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review health. Associated with this were the legal challenges to the scenarios can be quite different. In this context, an initial standards development process, the lack of understanding of construct of how banding considerations may be put forward this approach on the part of workers and of operators of small can be seen in the “bow-tie” model as it may be used to begin a and medium size enterprises (SMEs), and the lack of resources multidisciplinary risk communication approach to bring to conduct toxicological and epidemiological research to together the OSHH professions. The concept of how barriers establish the OELs and to collect and analyze samples. can be placed within a banding approach is then considered. Within the current CB approach for SMEs there are only a Then, the outcomes of the WORM research are examined for few established models, or “toolkits”, such as the United its potential involvement in occupational safety banding Kingdom (UK) Health and Safety Executive’s Control of principles, and examples are presented for its application in Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials, that industry. Then, we will seek to address the application of the are widely available and utilized internationally. The COSHH banding principles in theory and practice, working toward a Essentials focus primarily on controlling chemical exposures path forward for the development of barrier banding (BB) relating to professions that utilize bulk liquids and solids as strategies and eventual translation into injury prevention part of a production process. Most CB approaches will toolkits. categorize hazards of chemicals based on their so-called R (risk) − phrases, hence the term “banding”. These banding ■ MODELING MULTIDISCIPLINARY RISK principles are also used to generate exposure scenarios, based COMMUNICATION on quantities used and the degree to which chemicals can Models of occupational risk prevention are essential to become airborne. CB protocol and programs have also been understand the causal pathway of accidents. The scientific designed for implementation in research laboratories, helping field dealing with occupational risk prevention, however, is laboratory workers to better understand the fundamentals of relatively young, and so are its models.26 Knowledge on causal hazard assessment and risk ranking, and ensuring that controls pathways of accidents not only provides insight in reasons why 10,11 are utilized commensurate to the risk. CB toolkits have had accidents occur but also directs efforts to prevent these a wealth of success balanced with room for improvement as accidents through the utility of barriers. These safety barrier 4,12−14 reflected in recent research. Although CB tools have also approaches have an added benefit of a simplicity that provides 15−19 received their share of criticism, the focus on controls, an effective mode of communication with nonexperts.27 without a lot of expert input, is a strong point of the tool and WORM uses the “bow-tie” as its fundamental modeling makes it applicable in branches of industries and countries concept as a representation of an accident process.28 The bow- which are deprived of expert support. tie is a combination of a fault tree and an event tree, linked The utility of the CB approach has been recognized by together by a “central event”, presenting a further refinement international organizations and is considered a practical of causes of accidents. The central event presents a state of approach for applications where technical expertise is limited “loss of control”; the energy content of the hazard is released. to nonexistent, as in economically developing countries. Various scenarios can lead to this central event. A scenario Additionally, economically transitioning countries have fewer describes the elements and conditions, leading to the central resources to invest in protecting worker health; they face many event, and to consequences. Generally scenarios leading to 4,20 of the same challenges as developed countries. This region consequences at the right-hand side can occur within seconds of the world has succeeded in numerous grassroots initiatives or even less, while scenarios at the left side of the bow-tie can across the occupational safety, hygiene, and health (OSHH) take much more time to develop, sometimes years. Barriers in professions over the years and is a prime example of the model prevent the scenario from unrolling and are participatory training and interventions to achieve practical therefore the center of a safety management system. Failing solutions.21,22 An example of harnessing CB strategies into primary barriers can lead to a central event and can consist of industry specific solutions is for construction. The combination failing hardware barriers or inadequate human interven- of multiple CB toolkits into multipurpose “toolboxes” has tions.29,30 Managing these barriers is the key to successfully received widespread acceptance by the intended users, with the manage safety. Underlying the model are management factors, SMEs also helping in the design and development of the − which by failing cannot generate a central event but determine interface and range of utility.23 25 the quality of the primary barriers. This way of presenting It is important to review the developments of CB for accidents has a major advantage for safety as it focuses risk industrial hygiene applications as it provides a proper prevention, or exposure elimination, by staying left of central foundation toward our goal of building a comparable strategy events. A comparable example of this left side preference in the for occupational safety. The question for consideration is OSHH professions can also be seen for ergonomists, with whether or not similar banding principles can be used in musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) being the central event occupational safety risk prevention. For delineation of these where the multiple strategies for controlling MSD risk factors professions in this discussion, let us consider the industrial can also be seen as barriers.4,31,32 hygiene focus to be primarily work-related illnesses that are In industrial hygiene, control of exposure takes place after most often a result of chronic exposures to chemical, physical, the central event occurred, the emission of the hazardous and biological hazards. The occupational safety professional substance. In occupational safety, barriers are active both focus is primarily work-related injuries that are most often tied before and after the central event. With this in mind, it is to acute or instantaneous exposures that may result from both important to keep in mind that industrial hygiene does not see major and minor occupational accidents or incidents. There- risk prevention the same way when looking at the bow-tie fore, work with chemicals has both industrial hygiene (e.g., model (Figure 1). Work-related chemical exposures are seen as exposure-related illnesses) and safety professional (e.g., the central event as in most instances their emission cannot be flammable or explosive injuries) components; however, the eliminated as they are a byproduct of a given work task. knowledge and experience to control or prevent these Therefore, industrial hygiene works on the right side of the

220 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

to a safety hazard by multiplying factors of frequency and severity. By multiplying these values, a risk score is created and used to compare different risks. Because valuing probabilities can be difficult, variations are present which split these probabilities. First, a hazard exposure frequency is estimated, and then, the probability of scenarios occurring is specified for consequences.38 Other tool variations can incorporate the number of people exposed and level of turning away risk. The general term of these tools is “relative ranking”,or“rapid ranking”. Qualitative risk assessment approaches stratifying multidisciplinary risk levels (RLs) must emphasize practicality for OSHH professional acceptance. This simplified trans- parency was found within publications behind the creation of Figure 1. Bow-tie presented as a multidisciplinary comparison. the COSHH Essentials CB toolkit. Here, Brooke (1998)39 outlined three criteria for the toxicological basis of this bow-tie model. The barriers, or controls, that are put into place approach: (1) simple and transparent, (2) make best use of are intended to keep the potential for worker exposures as low available hazard information, and (3) recommend control as reasonably achievable. On the bow-tie model this would strategies that vary according to degree of health hazard. In translate to as close to the central event’s emission as possible. writing about the development of the COSHH Essentials 40 Working on the right side of the bow-tie, industrial hygienists model, Maidment (1998) stressed the importance of limiting utilize the hierarchy of controls to reduce the concentration of the number of factors in the model to control its complexity a given emission below a quantified OEL. The industrial and applicability. These simplified bands of risk, or RLs, link it hygienist’s hierarchy of controls can also be seen as their with a commensurate control system and risk matrix harkening barriers for preventing work-related illness and are considered back to its safety origins. The RL approach bands risk across a risk management pyramid: elimination, substitution, four levels to obtain optimum simplicity (Figure 2). modification, ventilation, containment, and personal protection equipment (PPE). There are also a number of administrative controls that can also be utilized to reduce exposure below the OEL such as training, shift rotations, and proximity to the emission. The only industrial hygiene control that would shift focus to the left side of the bow-tie is elimination. There is at times a misperception when using the safety concept of barriers when it is applied to industrial hygiene. The general inappropriate understanding is that the first barrier is engineering controls, the second barrier is PPE, and the third barrier is the family physician.33 To an industrial hygienist this third barrier is not appropriate as there is often a “blind spot” between the family physician and the occupation physician that reduces the chance that symptoms will be seen 34 Figure 2. Risk level (RL) matrix, as a function of severity and as potentially work-related. Occupational medicine, however, probability that can be used for the banding of construction projects. does indeed find itself on the far right side of the bow-tie continuum. Their barriers begin with medical surveillance, with quantification by biological monitoring as a measurement of This RL matrix approach has successfully been put into bodily intake, and then proceeding to other symptomatic practice within a qualitative risk assessment program to prevent − evidence. If all these right side barriers fail, then the nanoparticulate exposure.41 43 CB’s growth has in part been consequence of occupational illness or disease results. tied to its strength of providing control guidance in the Therefore, when the bow-tie is viewed as a multidisciplinary absence of information. The CB Nanotool uses this RL matrix, risk communication model, the role of barriers is seen as a and both severity and probability input options afford the progressive, disciplinary independent process that together answer of “unknown” in its scoring parameters. This qualitative seek prevention of an unwanted consequence of either a work- risk assessment tool has now been quantitatively validated and related injury, illness, or disease.35 With the prevention of serves as a gold standard for preventing work-related exposure work-related adverse consequences being the basis, to address to nanomaterials.44,45 Reaching across the OSHH disciplines, multidisciplinary applications this discussion will consider the this matrix is also the basis for BB24,26,46 and a burgeoning use of the term barriers as a representation of the left side of multidisciplinary approach for an occupational risk manage- the bow-tie and controls the term used for describing the right ment construction toolbox.7,25,47 This RL matrix has also been side of the model. determined to be best suited for the unique needs of a health Risk Level Matrix. Safety sciences have few qualitative and safety management system with a multidisciplinary OSHH tools to assess risks.36 Risk is seen as a numeric variable, as its workforce.7 It provides versatility as a tool of risk most simple format equates the combination of unwanted communication in addressing complex issues like performing consequences and the probability for their occurrence. qualitative environmental risk assessment, and assessing Probabilities and consequences are normally divided into pharmaceutical and nanomaterial exposures down to more groups or classes and provided with a value as with Fine and common, high-repetition, multidisciplinary approaches like in Kinney (1971)37 presenting an early model for quantifying risk the construction industry.35,42,48 The RL matrix also calibrates

221 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

OSHH professional risk perceptions when working as a Table 1. Linking Hazard Types to Dose Relationships multidisciplinary team, reduces among-discipline variability, or, statistically put, reduces the Type II error of producing a type of hazard dose relationship false positive, when the assumption is that disciplines will fall from ladder (steps, stairs) height, surface factors respond the same, but in reality do not.7 fall from height roof/floor/platform height, surface factors fall from scaffold height, surface factors ■ BANDING OF BARRIERS fall through hole/opening height, surface factors fall from heights other height, surface factors Barriers are hardware control measures and human inter- fall on same height surface factors ventions, which will block or influence the development of a struck by vehicle speed and mass scenario. When barriers are failing, scenarios can become dropped object height and mass active. Barriers are divided into primary barriers, which are able flying object speed and mass to cause a central event, and management factors, which will contact with swinging/hoisted object speed and mass influence the quality of the primary barriers. Management contact rolling/sliding/moving object speed and mass factors have a direct relation with the safety management contact with object person is carrying/ speed and mass, surface factors system. Hardware barriers can be either passive barriers (e.g., using/holding thickness of reactor vessels), or active barriers like relief valves, contact with hand-held tools power, sharpness/penetration 49,50 automatic shut downs, and the like. Classifications already contact with moving part of fixed power, sharpness entanglement exist for various variables of accident causation, which can be machinery viewed as a “banding principle”. The Globally Harmonized movement against or into surface/ speed of person, sharpness of object System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) use object confined spaced or oxygen deprival time, engulfment, entrapment, of hazard statements, with health hazards codes often a key (including suffocation) occupational hygiene input factor for CB toolkits, can also be a source for physical in or on moving vehicle vehicle speed or exit velocity, surface hazard codes. This physical hazard coding can also provide factors graded risk information on the type of hazard of substances electricity voltage, current and will guide the type of precautions needed to deal with contact with extreme hot/cold surfaces time and temperature these substances. For chemicals, these phrases can be usable. or open flame From the definition mentioned above it will be clear that spill/splash of hazardous substances in already covered in occupational open container hygiene substances are only a part of the hazards concerned. When fi person contacts hazardous substance occupational hygiene hazard is seen as energy content, classi cations used in a so- including biological agent “ ” called energy analysis will be useful, and distinctions can be loss of control hazardous substance occupational hygiene made between potential, kinetic, rotation, and electrical energy, (active) − and so forth.51 53 The assessment of safety functions approach loss of control hazardous substances occupational hygiene used by Harms-Ringdahl (2003)54 can also be seen as an (passive) ff fire and explosion temperature, speed of spread, existing basis for use in an RL matrix approach by o ering a pressure wave comparison (Table 1). Hazards in safety are generally seen as exposure to damaging noise or occupational hygiene energy: potential, kinetic, electrical, and the like. In industrial radiation hygiene, when limited to chemical exposure, the chemical itself aggression speed and mass/sharpness of blow with its physical and toxicological properties is the hazard with or object used to attack dose−response parameters that afford the derivation of a drowning and diving related hazards depth for diving, speed of surfacing graded risk approach. In Table 1, consideration is given for extreme muscular exertion posture, force, repetition, loading what sort of dose−response relationship can be developed related to accident scenarios in occupational safety based on Utilizing the considerations seen in Table 1, perhaps a low− the consequences dimension from Fine and Kinney.37 medium−high or easy−complicated strategic approach might Is it valuable to think of specifying risk control measures on be equally useful and should be considered as well. Risk scores these consequence dimensions? Clearly in some cases this is to determine an RL for safety considerations do not contain a done. Precautions on scaffolds are linked to the height from characterization of a central event or a combination of the ground that a person is working, and this can be seen in scenarios, because the score only includes one scenario. For many national safety regulations. In traffic, the barriers used central events it does not look too difficult. Starting with a list alongside roads are adapted to the speed (and to a lesser extent of dominant scenarios from the national accident registration, a the mass) of the traffic that might contact themsee, for branch specific list of dominant scenarios can be composed to example, the Swedish Zero Accident risk control measures.55 value the activities in a specific branch, as for construction or However, this all applies only to the sorts of barriers linked to agriculture, or in industry sectors like chemical manufacturing reducing consequences and not really to other dimensions of and processing. For a characterization of scenarios, the design reducing exposure and probability that the risk will manifest analysis, and more specifically the production principle, itself (the probability and exposure dimensions in Fine and provides a useful division.16,56 The production principle Kinney37). There are safety fields that link the size of describes the engineering principle, the energy source, and probability and exposure to different levels of rigor for risk the operational control methods in use. With this information, control barriers. As an example, railways long decided on the scenarios can be banded, similar as is conducted in the type of level crossing based on the number of vehicles passing Stoffenmanager CB toolkit for chemicals. A characterization of across per hour and the speed of trains on the track. Barrier control measures, or barriers, creates quite some problems, choices, by risk level, were between flashing light−no gates, although hardware barriers easily can be divided into the single carriageway barriers, double carriageway barriers, and industrial hygiene triplet: emission−transmission−immission. replacement with a tunnel or bridge. Banding risk leads to an understanding of the stratification of

222 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

Table 2. Risk Level Description and Controls for Portable and Fixed Ladders

risk level 1 risk level 2 risk level 3 risk level 4 risk level de- Access from a portable ladder to an Working from a portable Access from a portable ladder to an Working from a portable ladder and scription elevated location and the worker’s ladder and the worker’s feet elevated location and the worker’s feet the worker’s feet are >6 ft above feet are <6 ft above the lower level, are <6 ft above the lower are >6 ft above the lower level, and at the lower level, and at least one and the ladder is tied off or held by level, and the ladder is tied least one risk factor exists: ladder risk factor exists: ladder cannot be co-worker, and dry and safe con- off or held by co-worker, cannot be tied off or held by co- tied off or held by co-worker, ditions at the walking/working sur- and dry and safe conditions worker, slippery or otherwise unstable slippery or otherwise unstable face (WWS) and on the portable at the WWS and on the condition at WWS or on the portable condition at WWS or on the ladder. Access from a fixed ladder to portable ladder. Working ladder. Access from a fixed ladder to portable ladder. Working from a an elevated location and the worker’s from a fixed ladder and the an elevated location and the worker’s fixed ladder and the worker’s feet feet are <6 ft above the lower level, worker’s feet are <6 ft above feet are >6 ft above the lower level, are >6 ft above the lower level, and and the ladder has a current green the lower level, and the and at least one risk factor exists: at least one risk factor exists: tag, and a ladder cage or Ladder ladder has a current green yellow or no current tag, or outside the yellow or no current tag, outside Safety Device (LSD). tag, and a ladder cage or ladder cage, or no LSD. the ladder cage, or no LSD. LSD. hazard assess- Verify with employee/manager that Verify with employee/manag- Verify with employee/manager that Verify with employee/manager that ment require- portable or fixed ladder is used for er that portable or fixed portable or fixed ladder is used for portable or fixed ladder is used for ment access only, not working from, and ladder is used for working access only, not working from and working from, not just access only. describe residual hazard conditions. from, not just access only, describe residual hazard conditions. Describe residual hazard condi- and describe residual hazard tions and additional risk factor(s) conditions. present. engineering con- None. None. Fixed ladder cage, ladder safety device. Fixed ladder cage, ladder safety trols device. administrative Safe Ladder Use Training and On the Verify portable ladder label or Tie off top of portable ladder or co- Tie off top of portable ladder or co- controls Job Training (OJT). fixed ladder tag; perform worker steadies top or base. Safe worker steadies top or base. HS preuse inspection. Safe Lad- Ladder Use Training and OJT. 5959 training. Safe Ladder Use der Use Training and OJT. Training and OJT. personal protec- None. None. Personal Fall Arrest System (PFAS) and PFAS and approved anchor point or tive equipment approved anchor point or LSD. LSD.

Table 3. Risk Level Description and Controls for Eye and Face Protection When Pouring Chemicals

risk level 1 risk level 2 risk level 3 risk level 4 risk level de- No credible splash hazard exists. Minor splash hazard exists, and there may be Splash hazard exists, and/or there Major splash hazard exists, and/ scription [Note: working with volumes of potential for mist, vapor, or gas creation. may be potential for mist, or there is a potential for mist, ≤100 mL (other than HF) of vapor, or gas creation. vapor, or gas creation. chemicals is generally not con- sidered to be an eye/face splash hazard unless energy is applied or created.] bounding Chemical or reaction byproducts Chemical or reaction byproducts without a Skin Chemical or reaction byproducts Chemical or reaction byproducts conditions do not create a mist, vapor, or Designation that may create a mist, vapor, or without a Skin Designation that without a Skin Designation that gas exposure hazard that is also gas exposure hazard without regard for may create a mist, vapor, or gas may create a mist, vapor, or gas an eye or dermal hazard. engineered controls and is/are also an eye or exposure hazard without regard exposure hazard without regard dermal hazard. for engineered controls and is/ for engineered controls and is/ are also an eye or dermal are also an eye or dermal hazard. hazard. example tasks Working in all areas/laboratories The following are considered to be RL2: (i) The following example is con- See examples in RL2 and RL3 when hazardous operations are Transferring/pouring <100 mL (total volume sidered to be RL3: Trans- that may require elevation to or could be in progress. of both containers) of HF from or to a single ferring/pouring >100 mL an RL4 based on bounding container. (ii) Transferring/pouring >100 mL (total volume of both contain- conditions. of chemicals with the potential for severe eye ers) of HF from or to a single injury other than HF from or to a single container. container. hazard assess- Minimum protective equipment Wear goggles or a combination of safety glasses Wear goggles and a face shield Shall be task specific language ment re- for handling hazardous or toxic with side shields and face shield when when bulking greater than 1 L only. quirement chemicals is a laboratory coat, performing exothermic chemical reactions of corrosives (or other chem- long pants or coveralls to protect with splash potential (i.e., reaction not fully icals with a potential for severe legs, closed toe shoes, gloves, enclosed). eye injury). and eye/face protection. minimum Safety glasses with side shields. (1) Safety glasses with side shields and face Goggles and face shield. (1) FF APR; or (2) FF PAPR; or chemical shield; or (2) goggles. (3) FF airline; or (4) FF splash pro- SCBA; or (5) hood/helmet tection PAPR with goggles. practical, preventative barriers required to reduce accident of risk in Table 2. Each RL has a description to give users and scenario outcomes. There is a tremendous value to a process workers a delineation of risk depending on what the use of that can simplify this understanding, making the concept of ladders might entail in line with the scope of work for a given reducing work-related risk more approachable to the world of task. Once the correct RL is chosen, requirements relating to workers. the hazard assessment expectations and the hierarchy of To offer practical examples of how this BB process can be controls naturally flow with barriers to reduce work-related risk implemented in the simplified risk communication format, two on ladders increasing commensurately. If a worker is to climb a common and potentially hazardous activities are presented. portable ladder to change a light bulb 10 feet above the The first activity is climbing ladders, both portable and fixed. ground, their feet will likely be <6 ft above the lower level. As The hazard of a fall from ladders is presented across four levels long as the work area is in a dry, safe area, and the ladder is tied

223 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review off, or held by a co-worker, this would be considered RL2 countries and SMEs.47 For banding strategies, the simplified work. The responsible person would confirm that the ladder risk communication that flows from easily understood will only be used to work from, and the worker would ensure preventative methods is key to the application of barriers that the ladder is in good working order and will perform the and controls in the absence of expertise, even in developed preuse inspection process learned in the Safe Ladder Use countries. Movement in industry toward shrinking OSHH staff Training. The green tagging of ladders in good working order, and resources requires the maximization of resources, so the verification that the ladder will be used to work from and strategies like BB that standardize lower RL barriers and not for access, the verification of the tag, the preuse inspection, controls will afford OSHH professional time and effort on the and the safe ladder use techniques learned in training are all highest risk activities.7,25 Moving toward simplification, in the that appropriate barriers that need to be in place for this RL2 form of pictorial and therefore universally applicable, must also banded worker task before the worker changes the light bulb. be emphasized at the training level to emphasize retention, The right ladder being available for the activity, the evaluation implementation, and maintenance over time. Table 1 also and tagging of the ladder to confirm good working order, and presents opportunities where the RL concept can be utilized to the ladder use training that ensures that the worker has learned prioritize going after low hanging fruit, typically in the lower appropriate work practices with on-the-job training are all RL categories (e.g., RL1 and RL2) which affords a consistency examples of quality management of barriers to ensure falls from of format to frame larger consequence outcomes. This elevation do not occur. approach is well suited to common occupational activities A slightly more complicated example of the BB process is for performed globally like hot work, electrical maintenance, and the pouring of chemicals. There are a wide variety of chemicals tasks performed at elevation. In this format, one should not go that can be used for this activity and many different chemical after the lower risk outcomes to get to the higher risk operations that might require this task. However, with the outcomes; instead, the focus is to go after standardizing exception given for pours of hydrogen fluoride (HF) due to its controls’ and barriers’ lower risk outcomes to afford a unique hazardous properties, Table 3 represents a second prioritization of resources on an injury reduction related to example of how an RL approach can simplify the process tasks with the highest dose/risk activities like high voltage, high necessary for a worker to appropriately identify the necessary speed, and most elevated work surfaces, as all can be linked to eye and face protection required for the activity. The four high accident rates with potentially severe adverse outcomes levels of risk remain the same here; however, there are a few no matter where in the world they are performed. different elements presented for each RL to reflect the It is important to also note that BB should not, initially, be bounding conditions necessary for transferring chemicals and seen as a banding of management but as a tool available to examples of each task to aid in the selection of the appropriate management and workers alike for use as a systematic level of risk for a given activity. As the intent of this RL table is approach to barriers, allowing the focus on resources on to identify appropriate eye and face protection, only the higher risk outcomes. It is important to emphasize that the minimum chemical splash protection is identified as an management of a BB strategy process is not limited to higher outcome of a given level of risk. If a lab assistant was given level supervisors as its simplified risk communication creates a the task to pour a couple of acids into secondary containers for process that can be implemented and managed by any level of use in an experiment, the worker would first need to know employee. The role of upper level supervision is to ensure that which acids and how much volume they are being requested to the necessary barriers derived from this process are available in pour. If they were informed that 200 mL of sulfuric acid and the field and properly maintained, thereby also ensuring timely HF are requested, a quick review of Table 3 would inform replacement if inefficient or failing. From these newly available them that they have both RL2 and RL3 tasks as part of this resources and the maximization of expert safety professional activity. It might be appropriate for the worker to consider availability, management-related “culpability” in accident wearing both chemical protective goggles and a face shield scenarios can receive a better focus. Utilize industry trends, (RL3 barriers for HF) for the entire activity, or perhaps use the as in current efforts in the United States, UK, and The goggles (RL2 barrier) for the sulfuric pour first and then add Netherlands, to filter out the parameters for high incidence the face shield for HF. The importance of the simplified risk outcomes by tasks within targeted industries with high accident communication provided by BB here is that the controls, rates. Those with approaches for implementing barriers that hazard assessment requirements, and bounding conditions are are either simplified or can be made practical and accepted by 26 all readily available to help the lab assistant determine the industry should be made available as tools for management. correct RL due to the banding of chemical splash hazards. However, for managerial factors the banding principle is less The demand for simplified approaches for the reduction of clear. Investigation into the perception of management and ff health and safety issues remains high. There is an acknowl- workers for accidents has shown important di erences in the edged need to address the identification and reduction of risks perception of causal factors that indicates a need for a separate practical model for managerial risk assessment and inves- that lead to 2.2 million deaths and 270 million nonfatal injuries 59 for the world’s2.8billionworkers.57 If all countries tigation training. Further research has to prove if a suitable implemented simple and practical accident prevention banding principle is applicable here. strategies, then it would be possible to eliminate 83% of safety-related deaths and 74% of accidents each year.57,58 ■ DEVELOPING SAFETY EXPOSURE LIMITS National and international institutions, like the World Health WORM’s database results based on Danish accident data has Organisation (WHO) and the International Labour Organ- found links between job, activity, and hazard that can be isation (ILO), since the turn of the millennium have placed harnessed to yield varying degrees of appropriate job planning significant energy behind CB and its global initiatives to advice. Using these links provides an opportunity for injecting prevent work-related injury and illness where there is a lack of preventative practices to an extent that the likelihood of access to OSHH expertise, such as economically developing providing correct planning advice “can be increased to almost

224 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

80% by choosing a combination of job and industry at the hygienists, can help SME’s to generate knowledge in the nature most aggregated level, e.g., craft and related trades workers in and priority for multidisciplinary OSHH risks among workers the construction industry”.33 Therefore, WORM presents a and managers alike.35 Therefore, the concept of BB in safety unique opportunity for occupational safety to bridge its must in theory be considered a management tool to prioritize admirable quantification of risk modeling results to create a resources toward the highest risk outcomes and not to be more simplified, preventive-minded qualitative risk assessment considered the final solution.26 Consideration should be given and safety management approach for the construction to more than one effort to further a safety BB process, in line industry.60 This same quantitative-to-qualitative bridging can with the examples given in Table 1 and perhaps developed in also be seen in industrial hygiene as part of the growth of the parallel, to prioritize intervention and solutions-based tools as CB strategies.3 Aspects of the WORM model results that best equally essential components requiring collaborative efforts. fit into a qualitative risk assessment are the insights given to the Along these same lines, as central events can be seen as a exposure to hazards and specific working conditions and the release of unplanned energy, a distinction in prevention measures to reduce risks that lead to an optimum effectiveness measures can be made in a manner similar to industrial at a minimal cost to the construction industry.33,61 To assist in hygiene: elimination of hazards, barriers protecting at the the risk communication necessary to delineate between a CB energy source, protection from the transfer of energy, PPE, and and a BB approach, it is appropriate to refine the definition of the mitigation of potential effects. An appropriate example of the “barrier” in consideration. Safety barriers are a means to this cooperative approach can be seen in the prevention prevent, control, or mitigate an accident or unwanted events.62 through design initiative that has been working to unite the For the sake of BB for occupational safety, when applied in OSHH professions in the promotion of “designing out” concert with CB for industrial hygiene as a multidisciplinary hazards and hazardous exposures in the workplace.65 OSHH approach, we can provide a strategy to focus primarily The utility of the CB approach and the development of these on the barrier’s role in prevention, or the left side of the bow- strategies by industrial hygienists have an even greater tie. Within this clarification, all types of barriers are still significance in having the safety profession take the lead in applicable, as either passive or active and hardware and/or creating a simplified injury prevention effort. As there are behavioral.29 multiple causes for workplace injury and illness, the prevention The path toward quantitative-to-qualitative strategies for the of these impacts to national economies requires synergistic prevention of occupational accidents will also require an multidisciplinary approaches. Prevention is the key to a healthy adaptation of a purely quantitative outcome of the WORM and safe workplace, and accomplishing this will require model. The ability to further develop calculations of risk rates merging both primary and secondary approaches, creating a specific to the construction industry will be essential. Prejob shared approach of understanding cross-disciplinary interven- planning, an important component in construction, can make tion strategies, and building relationships in generating full use of the concept of exposure duration relating to specific research and its derivative knowledge to achieve this common activities. For the sake of risk communication, we will call this goal.66 A systematic review of strategies to prevent occupa- task-based strategy the development of safety exposure limits tional injuries in the literature has been performed, and it was (SELs). The opportunity for a given construction project to found that although meaningful conclusions can be made from preselect the appropriate tools for specific tasks based on its the effectiveness of various interventions, few randomized duration, or a time-weighted exposure (TWE), e.g., choosing controlled trials were found.67 The continuing utilization of the between a scaffold and a ladder, affords the simplicity that the WORM model’s potential and its derivation of SELs and industry demands. In this manner, an SEL development TWEs for industries with the highest prevalence of accidents process based on quantifiable parameters for TWEs in will greatly assist in spreading the reach of injury prevention occupational safety can be seen as comparable to OEL methods to nonexperts as well as to experts. As seen, there are development and their establishment as time-weighted multiple paths to potentially address in the development of averages (TWAs) for industrial hygiene. Here, the SEL and SEBs and their application within a BB approach; however, the OEL approaches are both thresholds that, if exceeded past ability to reduce accidents through the creation of injury TWEs and TWAs, respectively, present an increased risk for an prevention toolkits is truly achievable. Perhaps this focus on adverse outcome for workers. With this common quantified presenting these multiple approaches within a multidisciplinary foundation, a further parallel of dose and dose/response can be research format will assist in stimulating toolkit development developed as both the OEL and SEL see “dose” as hazardous through national and international collaborative opportunities agents received by the worker and the “dose/response” a already available through the WHO and ILO.68 Successes of 63 consequence of this function. This common footing between these collaborations have already led to critical national efforts occupational safety and industrial hygiene also serves as an in the U.S. and Canada to apply RL and banding approaches analogous launching pad for moving toward the qualitative that implement controls and respiratory protection require- parameters that are the basis for CB. The process can then ments to achieve prevention of work-related exposures to “ ” 69−72 begin toward delineating safety exposure bands (SEBs) COVID-19. The cooperation of the OSHH professions, relative to SELs in a manner comparable to the Chemical each already in the process of developing the toolkit protocol, Industries Association’s development of guidance for occupa- 64 provides an excellent information basis and generates useful tional exposure bands (OEBs) relative to OELs. input for future BB projects. Taking this multidisciplinary and international approach will not only provide a synergistic effort ■ BARRIER BANDING IN THEORY, PRACTICE, AND for the development of injury prevention toolkits, it would also APPLICATION be quite valuable for providing numerable opportunities for the There is a consensus that risk banding, especially when we validation of this approach both for occupational safety and begin thinking of the banding of barriers for occupational across the OSHH professions within the sectors of industry safety synonymously with banding of controls for industrial that are prone to working in the absence of expert advice.

225 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review ■ CONCLUSIONS ■ AUTHOR INFORMATION Qualitative risk assessment tools already serving existing roles Corresponding Author for OSHH professionals have been considered essential David M. Zalk − ES&H Directorate, Lawrence Livermore components of occupational risk management for some time National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, United now. However, the direct link with control measures is, as with States; orcid.org/0000-0002-9799-5221; Email: zalk1@ CB and its various toolkits, rather unique and a strong selling llnl.gov ff point of the tool. The bow-tie model becomes an e ective tool Author for visualization of the OSHH professions, with the roles of Paul Swuste − Safety Science Group, Delft University of industrial hygiene, controlling exposures after the central event Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands occurred, and in occupational safety, where barriers are active both before and after the central event, as a unified, Complete contact information is available at: multidisciplinary effort. Therefore, these barriers, including https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 management factors, have a strong relation with the quality of Funding safety management systems, and these factors are important parameters for risk prevention. A qualitative or semi- This work, in part, was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National quantitative tool for occupational safety, based upon banding Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52−07NA27344, LLNL- principles, seems possible in principle. Classifications exist JRNL-461829. already for most of the variables in accident causation. A focus of research should include both the creation of an occupational Notes safety BB approach as well as the incorporation of management Disclaimer: This document was prepared as an account of factors in the development of injury prevention toolkits. work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. CB strategies, in offering simplified solutions for controlling Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Liver- worker exposures to constituents found in the workplace, more National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal provide an attractive format for the reduction of accidents. By liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or qualitatively generating exposure scenarios, according to a “ ” usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process banding principle, the comparisons between the occupational disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately safety and industrial hygiene professions can be synergistically owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial drawn as long as there is a common risk communication product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, language within which they can work together toward the manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or development of multidisciplinary toolkits. The inherent imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the simplicity of the modern CB approaches, with its toolkits United States government or Lawrence Livermore National that address chemical use and exposure reduction with these Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed principles, has gained an unprecedented level of international herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United support that is ripe for growth among the OSHH professions. States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, The question has been answered positively as to whether the LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product CB principles might also apply to occupational safety as a risk endorsement purposes. prevention approach. Opportunities have been presented for The authors declare no competing financial interest. the utilization of an RL matrix common across the OSHH professions that can also be adapted for the development of ■ REFERENCES injury prevention toolkits, as this is a proper goal for BB. To (1) Naumann, B.; Sargent, E.; et al. ″Performance-based exposure achieve this end, however, additional research opportunities control limits for pharmaceutical active ingredients.″. Am. Ind. Hyg. have also been presented as they are also necessary for Assoc. J. 1996, 57 (1), 33−42. achieving a similar success as has been achieved by CB. Among (2) Sargent, E.; Kirk, G. Establishing airborne exposure control limits in the pharmaceutical industry. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1998, 49, these include considerations for further outcomes of the 309−313. WORM research team to generate substantial information to (3) Zalk, D. M.; Nelson, D. I. History and evolution of control further research in the development of BB. The potential for banding: a review. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2008, 5 (5), 330−46. developing SEL and TWE principles opens the door for a (4) Zalk, D. M. Control Banding; a simplified, qualitative strategy for variety of research opportunities that can significantly benefit the assessment of risks and selection of solutions; TU Delft publisher, the occupational safety profession, as well as serving as a basis 2010; p 210. for the creation of SEBs toward BB research. Significant (5)Russel,R.;Maidment,S.;Brooke,I.;Topping,M.An fi introduction to a UK scheme to help small firms control health bene ts to common, international sector industries like risks from chemicals. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1998, 42 (6), 367−376. construction have been presented and are only the beginning (6) Nelson, D. I.; Zalk, D. M. Control banding: background, of a discussion for where these techniques may be applied. The critique, and evolution. In Patty’s Industrial Hygiene, 6th ed.; Wiley optimization for injury and illness prevention in the publishers, 2010; Chapter 28. construction industry is an excellent step toward a number (7) Zalk, D. M.; Kamerzell, R.; Paik, S.; Kapp, J.; Harrington, D.; of globally significant collaborative opportunities across the Swuste, P. Risk Level Based Management System: a control banding fi model for occupational health and safety risk management in a highly OSHH professions. Taking this step requires a simpli ed and regulated environment. Ind. Health 2010, 48 (1), 18−28. multidisciplinary approach utilizing the common risk commu- (8) Swuste, P.; Hale, A. Databases on measures to prevent nication language presented. Perhaps in working together, CB occupational exposure to toxic substances. Appl. Occup. Environ. and BB might be in a position to provide this step. Hyg. 1994, 9 (1), 57−61.

226 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

(9) Swuste, P.; Corn, M.; Goelzer, B. Hazard prevention and control (30) Guldenmund, F.; Hale, A.; Betten, J. The development of an in the work environment; Report of a WHO meeting. African audit technique to assess the quality of safety barriers management. J. Newsletter 1995, 1,20−21. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 130, 234−241. (10) ACS. Hazard assessment in research laboratories. American (31) Zalk, D. M. Grassroots Ergonomics: Initiating an Ergonomics Chemical Society’s Committee on Chemical Safety; 2016. https://www. Program Utilizing Participatory Techniques. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2001, acs.org/content/acs/en/about/governance/committees/ 45 (4), 283−289. chemicalsafety/hazard-assessment.html (accessed 04/06/2020). (32)Zalk,D.M.Controlbandingprinciplestoreduce (11) Denlinger, K. L. ACS’s hazard assessment in research musculoskeletal disorders; the ergonomics toolkit. In Proceedings, laboratories website: an important safety culture tool. J. Chem. Health International Ergonomics Association Triennial Congress, South Korea, Saf. 2018, 25 (3), 30−34. V5(327), 2003. (12) Bracker, A. L.; Morse, T. F.; Simcox, N. J. Training health and (33) RIVM. The quantification of occupational risk; the development of safety committees to use control banding: lessons learned and a risk assessment model and software;WORMMetamorphosis opportunities for the United States. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2009, 6, Consortium, RIVM Report 620801001/2008, 2008. ff 307−314. (34) Kowalski, C.; Janssen, C.; Pfa , H. Improving the cooperation (13) Lee, E. G.; Harper, M.; Bowen, R. B.; Slaven, J. Evaluation of between general and occupational health care: a ‘toolbox’ for general the COSHH Essentials: methylene chloride, isopropanol, and acetone practitioners and occupational physicians. In 5th International Control exposures in a small printing plant. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009, 53 (5), Banding Workshop, Session 69, ICOH Congress, Cape Town, South 463−474. Africa, 2009. ’ (14) Tischer, M.; Bredendiek-Kamper, S.; Poppek, U.; Packroff, R. (35) Zalk, D. M. Risk communication. In Patty s Industrial Hygiene, How safe is control banding? Integrated evaluation by comparing 7th ed.; Wiley publishers, 2020, in print. OELs with measurement data and using Monte Carlo simulation. (36) Zwaard, W.; Passchier, W. Risicobepaling en risicobeheersing. − Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 2009, 53 (5), 449−462. Tijdschrift voor toegepaste Arbowetenschap 1995, 8 (2), 8 12. ’ (37) Fine, W. T.; Kinney, W. D. Mathematical evaluation for (15) Topping, M. Author s reply. Occup. Environ. Med. 2002, 59, − 788−789. controlling hazards. J. Safety Res. 1971, 3 (4), 157 166. (16) Swuste, P. Occupational hazards, risks, and solutions. In (38) Zwaard, W.; Goossens, L. Relatieve Ranking als hulpmiddel Presentation at the 2nd international Control Banding Workshop: voor risico-evaluatie. Tijdschrift voor toegepaste Arbowetenschap 1997, Validation & Effectiveness of Control Banding, Cincinnati, March 1−2, 10, 10-5. 2004. (39) Brooke, I. M. A UK scheme to help small firms control health risks from chemicals: toxicological considerations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. (17) Jones, J.; Nicas, M. Evaluation of COSHH Essentials for Vapor − Degreasing and Bag Filling Operations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2006, 50, 1998, 42, 377 90. (40) Maidment, S. C. Occupational hygiene considerations in the 137−47. development of a structured approach to select chemical control (18) Jones, J.; Nicas, M. Margins of Safety Provided by COSHH strategies. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1998, 42, 391−400. Essentials and the ILO Chemical Control Toolkit. Ann. Occup. Hyg. (41) Paik, S.; Zalk, D. M.; Swuste, P. Application of a pilot control 2006, 50, 149−56. banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle (19) ACGIH. Control Banding: Issues and Opportunities. In exposures. Annals of Ocucpational Hygiene 2008, 52 (6), 419−428. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), (42) Zalk, D. M.; Paik, S. Y.; Swuste, P. Evaluating the Control Cincinnati, OH, 2008. Banding Nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for (20) Deveau, M.; Chen, C. P.; Johanson, G.; Krewski, D.; Maier, A.; controlling nanoparticle exposures. J. Nanopart. Res. 2009, 11 (7), Niven, K. J.; Ripple, S.; Schulte, P. A.; Silk, J.; Urbanus, J. H.; Zalk, D. 1685−1704. M.; Niemeier, R. W. The global landscape of Occupational Exposure (43) Zalk, D. M.; Paik, S. Y. Control Banding and nanotechnology. Limits − Implementation of principles to guide limit selection. J. − − Synergist 2010, 21 (3), 26 29. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, S127 S144. (44) Zalk, D. M.; Paik, S. Y. Qualitative risk assessment and control (21) Zalk, D. M. Participatory occupational hygiene; a path to banding. In Handbook of Occupational Exposure to Nanomaterials, 2nd practical solutions. Asian-Pacific Newsletter 2002, 9, 51. ed.; Elsevier, 2016; Chapter 6. (22) Zalk, D. M.; Heussen, H. Banding the world together; the (45) Zalk, D. M.; Paik, S. Y.; Chase, W. D. A quantitative validation global growth of Control Banding and qualitative occupational risk of the Control Banding Nanotool. Ann. Work Expo Health 2019, 63 − management. SH W 2011, 2 (4), 375 9. (8), 898−917. (23) Marquart, H.; Heussen, H.; Le Feber, M.; Noy, D.; et al. (46) Zalk, D. M. Practical prevention in safety; from control banding ‘ ’ Stoffenmanager , a web-based tool using an exposure process model. to barrier banding. In Proceedings 17(5), International Working on − Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2008, 52 (6), 429 41. Safety Conference, Eemhof, The Netherlands, 15 September, 2006. (24) Zalk, D. M.; Spee, T. Building a construction toolbox: barrier (47) Fingerhut, M. Global qualitative risk management (control banding and a chemical approach. SY20-04. In 4th International banding) activities. Ind. Health 2008, 46, 305−307. Control Banding Workshop, XVIII World Congress, Seoul, South Korea, (48) Coleman, S.; Zalk, D. M. Environmental risk communication 2008. through qualitative risk assessment. Toxics 2014, 2, 346−63. (25) Zalk, D. M.; Spee, T.; Gillen, M.; Lentz, T. J.; Garrod, A.; (49) Goossens, L.; Hourtolou, D. What is a barrier? Report ARAMIS Evans, P.; Swuste, P. Review of qualitative approaches for the project Sectie Veiligheidskunde; Technische Universiteit Delft, 2003. construction industry: designing a risk management toolbox. SH W (50) Hollnagel, E. Risk + Barrier = Safety? In 3rd International 2011, 2, 105−21. Conference Working on Safety, The Netherlands, 2006. (26) Swuste, P. Qualitative methods for occupational risk prevention (51) CCPS, Centre for Chemical Process safety. Guidelines for strategies in safety, or control bandingSafety; Safety Science Monitor, chemical process quantitative risk analysis; American Institute of 2007. Chemical Engineers: New York, 1989. (27) Duijm, N. J. Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management (52) Hale, A.; Swuste, P. Avoiding square wheels: international tool. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2009, 94, 332−341. experience in sharing solutions. Safety Science 1997, 25 (1−3), 3−14. (28) Hale, A.; Ale, B.; Goossens, L.; Hiejer, T.; et al. Modeling (53) Harms-Ringdahl, L. Safety Analysis. Principles and practices in accidents for prioritizing prevention. Reliability Engineering and occupational safety; Elsevier Applied Sciences: London, 1993. Systems Safety. 2007, 92, 1701−1715. (54) Harms-Ringdahl, L. Assessing safety functions − results from a (29) Hale, A.; Guldenmund, F. Barriers and delivery systems; case study at an industrial workplace. Safety Science. 2003, 41 (8), Technische Universiteit: Delft, 2003. 701−720.

227 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228 ACS Chemical Health & Safety pubs.acs.org/acschas Review

(55) Rosencrantz, H.; Edvardsson, K.; Hansson, S. O. Vision zero − is it irrational? Transport Research 2007, 41 (6), 559−567. (56) Swuste, P. Proposed classification of production processes: Occupational hazards, risks and solutions. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft University Press, The Netherlands, 1996. (57) ILO. Introductory Report; Decent Work - Safe Work. In XVIIth World Congress on Safety and Health at Work, Orlando, Geneva, International Labour Office, Geneva, 2005. (58) ILO. Towards decent work outcomes: a review of ILO work for 2005−08. In 8th ILO European Regional Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009. http://www.ilo.org/europe/meetings-and-events/WCMS_ 359778/lang--en/index.htm (accessed 04/06/2020). (59) Lehane, P.; Stubbs, D. The perceptions of managers and accident subjects in the service industries towards slip and trip accidents. Applied Ergonomics. 2001, 32 (2), 119−26. (60) Duijm, N. J.; Goossens, L. Quantifying the influence of safety management on the reliability of safety barriers. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 130, 284−292. (61) Celik, M.; Lavasani, S. M.; Wang, J. A risk-based modeling approach to enhance shipping accident investigation. Safety Science. 2010, 48,18−27. (62) Sklet, S. Safety barriers: definition, classification, and perform- ance. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2006, 19, 494−506. (63) Papazoglou, I. A.; Ale, B. J. M. A logical model for quantification of occupational risk. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2007, 92, 785−803. (64) Guest, I. The Chemical Industries Association guidance on allocating occupational exposure bands. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1998, 42 (6), 407−411. (65) Schulte, P.; Rinehart, R.; Okun, A.; et al. National Prevention through Design (PtD) Initiative. Journal of Safety Research. 2008, 39 (2), 115−121. (66) Frank, J.; Cullen, K. Preventing injury, illness and disability at work. Scand. J. Work, Environ. Health 2006, 32 (2), 160−167. (67) Rivara, F. P.; Thompson, D. C. Systematic reviews of injury- prevention strategies for occupational injuries: an overview. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2000, 18 (4), 1−3. (68) Zalk, D. M.; West, E.; Nelson, D. I. Control banding: background, critique, and application. In Patty’s Industrial Hygiene, 7th ed.; Wiley publishers, 2020, in print. (69) Zalk, D. M. Qualitative risk management techniques in emergency preparedness and response to identify and reduce occupational risk factors. 32nd Triennial Congress of the Interna- tional Commission on Occupational Health, Dublin, Ireland, April 2018. Occup and Environ. Med. 2018, 75 (S2), A117-3−A118. (70) OSHA. Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19. OSHA Publication 3990, (March 2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor. https://www.osha. gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf (accessed 04/06/2020). (71) EACO. “Emerging and Existing Pathogen Cleaning − Best Practices for Environmental Professional Services (version 1 2020)” Environmental Abatement Council of Ontario. http://eacoontario.com/ pdf/2020/EACO%20- %20Emerging%20and%20Existing%20Pathogen%20Cleaning%20- %20Best%20Practices%20for%20Environmental%20Professional%20 Services%20(version%201%202020).pdf (accessed 04/06/2020). (72) Ballhaus, R. Trump administration to issue guidelines for classifying U.S. counties by Coronavirus risk. Wall Street Journal,27 March, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-to- issue-guidelines-for-classifying-areas-by-coronavirus-risk- 11585248715 (accessed 04/06/2020).

228 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00021 ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 219−228