scholarly journals Modelling airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 using CARA: Risk assessment for enclosed spaces

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Henriques ◽  
Nicolas Mounet ◽  
Luis Aleixo ◽  
Philip Elson ◽  
James Devine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Natural Ventilation ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Critical Threshold ◽  
Respiratory Pathogens ◽  
Airborne Transmission ◽  
Protection Measure ◽  
Air Ventilation

The global crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a proper risk assessment of respiratory pathogens in indoor settings. This paper documents the COVID Airborne Risk Assessment (CARA) methodology, to assess the potential exposure of airborne SARS-CoV-2 viruses, with an emphasis on the effect of certain virological and immunological factors in the quantification of the risk. The proposed model is the result of a multidisciplinary approach linking physical, mechanical and biological domains, benchmarked with clinical and experimental data, enabling decision makers or facility managers to perform risk assessments against airborne transmission. The model was tested against two benchmark outbreaks, showing good agreement. The tool was also applied to several everyday-life settings, in particular for the cases of a shared office, classroom and ski cabin. We found that 20% of infected hosts can emit approximately 2 orders of magnitude more viral-containing particles, suggesting the importance of super-emitters in airborne transmission. The use of surgical-type masks provides a 5-fold reduction in viral emissions. Natural ventilation through the opening of windows at all times are effective strategies to decrease the concentration of virions and slightly opening a window in the winter has approximately the same effect as a full window opening during the summer. Although vaccination is an effective protection measure, non-pharmaceutical interventions, which significantly reduce the viral density in the air (ventilation, masks), should be actively supported and included early in the risk assessment process. We propose a critical threshold value approach which could be used to define an acceptable risk level in a given indoor setting.

scholarly journals Risk Assessment of Civil Aircraft during Operation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Longbiao Li
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
System Structure ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
System Risk ◽  
Hazard Level ◽  
Aircraft System

In this chapter, the risk assessment methods for aircraft system, structure, and aeroengine are investigated. For the aircraft system risk assessment, the probability level is divided into probable, improbable, and extremely improbable, and the hazard level of the failure condition is divided into minor, major, and catastrophic. Using Weibull analysis and Bayesian method to analyze the aircraft operation data, the risk level of aircraft system can be determined by combing methods provided in AC 25.1309-1A. For the aircraft structure risk assessment, the probability fracture mechanics approach can be used to determine the structure failure risk based on the data of material properties, environment, inspection, and so on. For the aeroengine risk assessment, the methods for classification of failure risk level, determination of hazard ratio, and calculation of the risk factor and risk per flight are given. The risk assessment process for aeroengine multi-failure modes based on the Monte Carlo simulation is presented to predict the occurrence of the failure and assess the failure risk.

DEVELOPING A GUIDELINE FOR OIL SPILL RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE PLANNING FOR OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 314-327
Author(s):  
Torild Ronnaug Nissen-Lie ◽  
Odd Willy Brude ◽  
Ole Oystein Aspholm ◽  
Peter Mark Taylor ◽  
David Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Offshore Installations ◽  
Oil Spill Response

ABSTRACT Following the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico (Macondo) oil spill and the 2009 Montara incident in Australia, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) formed the Global Industry Response Group. This Group identified nineteen oil spill response recommendations (OGP, 2011) that are being addressed via an Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project (OSR-JIP) during 2012–2014. The OSR-JIP is managed by IPIECA on behalf of OGP, in recognition of IPIECA's long-standing experience with oil spill response matters. One of the nineteen recommendations concerned the development of an international guideline for offshore oil spill risk assessment and a method to better relate oil spill response resources to the risk level. Consequently, the OSR-JIP has published a guideline covering oil spill risk assessment and response planning for offshore installations. This paper describes the development and content of the guideline, including how the oil spill risk assessment process provides structured and relevant information to oil spill response planning for offshore operations. The process starts by defining the context of the assessment and describing the activity to be assessed. Thereafter it addresses a series of key questions:What can go wrong, leading to potential release of oil?What happens to the spilled oil?What are the impacts on key environmental - both ecological and socio-economic - receptors?What is the risk for environmental damage?How is the established risk utilised in oil spill response planning? The guideline draws on existing good practices in the determination of oil spill response resources. It promotes consideration, in tactical and logistical detail, of the preferred and viable response strategies to address scenarios covering the range of potential oil spills up to the most serious. The methodology to evaluate the potential spill scenarios utilizes a series of questions:What are the viable techniques/strategies to deliver response with greatest net environment benefit?What are the tactical measures required to implement the identified response strategies, considering technical, practical and safety factors?What Tiered resources are required to mount the tactical measures and achieve effective response? The paper summarizes the useful tools, key information and the necessary level of detail essential to perform an oil spill risk assessment for use in oil spill response planning.

scholarly journals Manifestation of emergent properties in risk assessment of oil and gas companies

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 08001
Author(s):  
Inesa Khvostina ◽  
Nataliia Havadzyn ◽  
Nataliia Yurchenko
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Emergent Properties ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Level Indicator ◽  
Original Algorithm

The article presents a study on risks in oil and gas industry and reveals their causes investigating enterprises activity as a result of emergent properties of systems. The original algorithm of risk assessment process based on emergent properties study is offered. A taxonomy approach and factor analysis are used for purposes of risk evaluation. The risk assessment consists of risks taxonomy, database structure development, identification of risks through impact factors evaluation; economic system emergent properties risks prediction, an integral risk level indicator calculation using taxonomy approach, correlation analysis of integral indicators of risk assessment, preventive measures for minimizing of negative impacts and reducing risks.

Cumulative Risk Assessment Conceptual Model

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna Harron ◽  
Doug McCutcheon
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Cumulative Risk ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Risk Assessment Process ◽  
Operating Risk

The energy transportation network of the United States consists of over 2.5 million miles of pipelines operated by approximately 3,000 companies. Based on data generated from annual reports to PHMSA from pipeline operators, the network includes approximately: • 173,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline; • 324,000 miles of gas transmission and gathering pipelines; • 2,037,000 miles of natural gas distribution mains and service pipelines; • 113 LNG plants connected to natural gas systems. There are 580,000 kilometers of pipeline in Canada, transferring oil and natural gas to various locations within the country, North America, and to ports, where products can then be shipped globally. As organizations change and grow, there is a need to determine not only the risk of a specific project or new asset, but the effect of that project or new asset on the risk profile of the facility or pipeline. Different types of risk evaluations may be performed at a location, so obtaining a risk score that can integrate various risk assessment techniques can be a challenge. This paper proposes a new technique developed to meet this need, called the cumulative risk assessment process. The cumulative risk assessment provides a quantified value for the operating risk at a facility based on the following formulae: BaselineRiskValue=L×C(1)OperatingRiskValue=BaselineRiskValue×(1×10−MitCredits)(2)CumulativeRiskValue=Σ(OperatingRiskValue)scen(3) Baseline risk is defined as the risk value in the absence of mitigation or risk control. Operating risk is the current risk level with existing mitigation and risk controls in place, evaluated in the calculation as mitigation credits. For the baseline risk calculation (L) refers to Likelihood and (C) refers to Consequence. Both baseline and operating risk are evaluated per scenario, with all scenarios summed to obtain the cumulative risk value for a location, pipeline or pipeline segment. This paper describes the cumulative risk assessment process and provides examples of how this risk assessment technique can be applied to an existing facility with new assets constructed and to a segment of operating mainline pipe.

scholarly journals Health and Safety Risk Assessment Using a Combined FMEA and JSA Method in a Manufacturing Company

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-68
Author(s):  
Tayyebeh Jaddi Madarsara ◽  
Saeed Yari ◽  
Hamzeh Saeidabadi
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Corrective Action ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Occupational Accidents ◽  
Rational Approach ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Procedure Guidelines ◽  
Manufacturing Company ◽  
Corrective Actions

Background: Occupational accidents cause three to four times as many deaths in developing countries as industrialized countries. There are about 14,000 accidents in Iran every year, most of them involving workers in industries, To reduce these accidents, it is necessary to use risk assessment, which is a rational approach to hazard assessment and to identify hazards and potential consequences, on individuals, materials, equipment and the environment to reduce the risks of workplace accidents and consequently work-related accidents. Methods: This study was carried out in 1998 as an analytical-applied study in a manufacturing company. The Risk Assessment process, first with the formation of the relevant team, is selected from technical and production specialists who are more familiar with the concept of safety and risk assessment and again how to perform the Risk Assessment and Identify the risks involved, using the JSA Integrated Method for the analysis of business components and associated risks and FMEA method was trained and targeted to determine system failure states as well as assign risk priority number (RPN). Results: Risk assessment was carried out in 4 aspects, locations, equipment, main and sub-units and activities leading to the preparation of tables related to the risk assessment guide of locations, equipment, activities, RPN calculation, risk level classification and identification forms. Conclusions: In this study, 166 hazards were identified and, through follow-up and collaboration with senior management of the organization from 38 risks of fluids production hall, 22 corrective action (57.89%), from 46 risks of solids production hall, 37 corrective action (80.43%), from 33 risks of product warehouse, 28 corrective actions (84.84%), from 30 risks of raw materials warehouse, 21 corrective actions (70%), from 19 risk of incendiary materials, 10 corrective actions (52.63%) were performed. The overall results of the study showed that the major risk in the studied units was related to the dangers of inadequate cabling and placement of people in these work situations. key words: Safety and Health Risk Assessment, FMEA, JSA, AHA, JHA, THA, Executive Procedure, Guidelines.

Risk assessment method for aeroengine multiple failure risk using Monte Carlo simulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 384-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Longbiao Li ◽  
Suyi Bi ◽  
Youchao Sun
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Present Method ◽  
Corrective Action ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
Aero Engine ◽  
Corrective Actions

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a method to predict the multi-failure risk of aero engine in service and to evaluate the effectiveness of different corrective actions. Design/methodology/approach – The classification of failure risk level, the determination of hazard ratio and the calculation of risk factor and the risk per flight have been proposed. The multi-failure risk assessment process of aero engine has been established to predict the occurrence of failure event and assess the failure risk level. According to the history aero engine failure data, the multi-failure risk, i.e., overheat, blade wounding, pump failure, blade crack, pipe crack and combustor crack, has been predicted considering with and without corrective action. Two corrective actions, i.e., reduce the maintenance interval and redesign the failure components, were adopted to analyze the decreasing of risk level. Findings – The multi-failure risk of aero engine with or without corrective action can be determined using the present method. The risk level of combustor crack decreases from high-risk level of 1.18×1e−9 without corrective action to acceptable risk level of 0.954×1e−9 by decreasing the maintenance interval from 1,000 to 800 h, or to 0.912×1e−9 using the redesign combustor. Research limitations/implications – It should be noted that probability of detection during maintenance actions has not been considered in the present analysis, which would affect the failure risk level of aero engine in service. Social implications – The method in the present analysis can be adapted to other types of failure modes which may cause significant safety or environment hazards, and used to determine the maintenance interval or choose appropriate corrective action to reduce the multi-failure risk level of aero engine. Originality/value – The maintenance interval or appropriate corrective action can be determined using the present method to reduce the multi-failure risk level of aero engine.

The prospects of occupational risk management during reforms of regulatory legislation basis

2019 ◽  
pp. 39-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim B. Alekseev ◽  
Nina V. Zaitseva ◽  
Pavel Z. Shur
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Social Insurance ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Occupational Risk ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Work Safety ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Legal Principles

Despite wide legislation basis of regulating relations in work safety and workers’ health, one third of workplaces demonstrate exceeded allowable normal levels of workers’ exposure to occupational hazards and present occupational risk for health disorders.In accordance to national legislation acts, evaluation should cover factors of occupational environment and working process, and occupational risk is understood in context of mandatory social insurance. This approach has been formed due to mostly compensatory trend in legal principles of work safety in Russia by now. Implementation of new preventive concept of work safety, based on idea of risk management for workers, necessitates development of legal acts that regulate requirements to evaluation of occupational risk and its reports with consideration of changes in Federal Law on 30 March 1999 №52 FZ “On sanitary epidemiologic well-being of population”.Those acts can include Sanitary Rules and Regulations “Evaluation of occupational risk for workers’ health”, that will contain main principles of risk assessment, requirements to risk assessment, including its characteristics which can serve as a basis of categorizing the risk levels with acceptability.To standardize requirements for informing a worker on the occupational risk, the expediency is specification of sanitary rules “Notifying a worker on occupational risk”. These rules should contain requirements: to a source of data on occupational risk level at workplace, to informational content and to ways of notifying the worker. Specification and implementation of the stated documents enable to fulfil legal requirements completely on work safety — that will provide preservation and increase of efficiency in using work resources.

scholarly journals Biological risk assessment: A challenge for occupational health and safety practitioners during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Pandemic

Work ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Carlos Carvalhais ◽  
Micaela Querido ◽  
Cristiana C. Pereira ◽  
Joana Santos
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Occupational Safety ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Occupational Safety And Health ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Biological Risk ◽  
Occupational Risks ◽  
Qualitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
Medium Risk

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 global pandemic brought several challenges to occupational safety and health practice. One of these is the need to (re)assess the occupational risks, particularly, biological risks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to promote guidance to occupational safety and health practitioners when conducting a biological risk assessment in this context. METHODS: The main steps of the biological risk assessment are explained with some inputs regarding the novelty posed by SARS-CoV-2 and an example of a qualitative risk assessment method is presented. Also, its application to two different activities was exemplified. RESULTS: In both cases, the assessment considered that vulnerable workers were working from home or in medical leave. The results showed low or medium risk level for the assessed tasks. For medium risk level, additional controls are advised, such maintain social distancing, sanitize instruments/equipment before use, use proper and well-maintained PPE (when applicable), and promote awareness sessions to spread good practices at work. Employers must be aware of their obligations regarding biological risk assessment and OSH practitioners must be prepared to screen and link the abundance of scientific evidence generated following the outbreak, with the technical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This paper could be an important contribution to OSH practice since it highlights the need to (re)assess occupational risks, especially biological risk, to ensure a safe return to work, providing technical guidance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document