2026-10-23T17:04:09Zhttps://gumushane-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/oai/request

oai:gumushane-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:gumushane/170012026-10-22T11:38:50Zopenairecom_gumushane_10000col_gumushane_10001

Assessment of Hazards in Confined Areas Studies Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: An Example ApplicationDoğan, OnurEtikHalk ve Çevre SağlığıTıbbi EtikSağlık Politikaları ve Hizmetleriİstatistik ve OlasılıkConfined spaces are places with only one entrance and exit, not designed for long-term work (reaction tanks, manholes, sewers, tunnels, silos, cellars, pipelines, warehouses, etc.). Confined spaces can contain many risks such as gas, dust, noise, vibration, swallowing, crushing, dent, chemical and biological. In some cases, these risks can occur in an integrated manner and cause serious material or moral losses. In this respect, it is vitally important for occupational safety and employee health to comprehensively analyze risks before indoor work. In this study, the risks in confined spaces were evaluated with the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. The main criteria and sub-criteria used in the study were prepared by considering the opinions and suggestions of experts in the field (with indoor working experience) and literature research (Aykaş, 2018; Güzel, 2013; Uysal, 2020). In the analysis, employee-related hazards, chemical and biological hazards, ergonomic hazards and physical hazards and a total of twelve sub-criteria affecting these criteria were formed. In the analysis of the study, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, one of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, was preferred. The AHP method is an advantageous method compared to other MCDM methods in terms of making the best choice, making easy and fast decisions, and combining objective and subjective decisions. Microsoft Excel was used to solve the analysis and as a result of the analysis made among the main criteria, the consistency index was found to be 0.1 > 0.0780. According to this result, the criterion with the highest weight was 0.3372 (chemical (oxidizing, corrosive, allergic, mutagen, etc.) and biological (bacteria, virus, infectious diseases, etc.) risks.) This was followed by 0.2683 ergonomic risks, 0.2208 employee-related risks, and 0.1737 physical hazards, respectively. In the study, a different method was applied rather than standard risk assessment methods and checklists. With the AHP method, the risks are ranked from the highest to the lowest. Thus, both the identification and prioritization of risks were made.2023Articlehttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/17001https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.1138886trKaradeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisiinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://gumushane-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/tr/items/gumushane/17001