Assessment of Hazards in Confined Areas Studies Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: An Example Application

MakaleYalnız künye

Özet

Confined 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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/17001Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.1138886Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
İndeks kayıtları
Kaydın indeks veri tabanlarındaki sayfası (aktarımda alınan kayıt numarasıyla). Erişim, indeksin kendi koşullarına bağlıdır.
Atıflar
OpenAlex
2
TR Dizin
1
Her kaynağın kendi saydığı toplam atıf; aktarım ve zenginleştirme sırasında alındı.
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorDoğan, Onur
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-22T10:38:31.577948374Z
dc.date.available2026-10-22T10:38:31.577948374Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractConfined 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.
dc.identifier.doi10.31466/kfbd.1138886
dc.identifier.eissn2564-7377
dc.identifier.endpage32
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.startpage15
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/17001
dc.identifier.volume13
dc.language.isotr
dc.relation.ispartofKaradeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectEtik
dc.subjectHalk ve Çevre Sağlığı
dc.subjectTıbbi Etik
dc.subjectSağlık Politikaları ve Hizmetleri
dc.subjectİstatistik ve Olasılık
dc.titleAssessment of Hazards in Confined Areas Studies Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: An Example Application
dc.typeArticle
rdl.citation.openalex2
rdl.citation.trdizin1
rdl.source.indexTRDIZIN