IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v60y2023i3d10.1007_s12597-023-00666-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

HSE hazard ranking of chemicals related to Petroleum Drilling Laboratory of University using Fuzzy TOPSIS

Author

Listed:
  • Syed Imran Ali

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

  • Shaine Mohammadali Lalji

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

  • Javed Haneef

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

  • Mohsin Yousufi

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

  • Kanza Bashir

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

  • Saman Sohail

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

  • Laiba Sajid Cheema

    (NED University Of Engineering and Technology)

Abstract

Health, Safety, Environment (HSE) risk management in academic environment has always remained a major concern. Implementation of reliable management system that could ensure good HSE culture in universities laboratories is challenging due to diverse complications involving complex and hazardous operations and operating conditions, conduction of variety of experimentation using dangerous machines or equipment, storage, handling, usage and disposal of hazardous chemical substances and experimental waste, and the engagement of personnel having different experience and expertise level. Deployment of HSE risk management of chemicals is one of the most important risk components since the presence of chemicals in the laboratories poses severe danger to HSE even if they are not in working operation. In this research study, hazard ranking of 39 chemical products, on the basis of three criteria which include health, safety, and environment, present in the Petroleum Drilling Laboratory of Department of Petroleum Engineering of NED University of Engineering and Technology has been performed. HSE hazard performance evaluation of chemicals is conducted using popular multi-criteria decision making technique i.e. Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS). Four Experts provided rating of relative importance of criteria and criteria performance of each chemical using linguistic variable which were converted into Trapezoidal fuzzy numbers for calculations. According to the final results, Methylene chloride, benzene, and isopropanol proved to be the three most dangerous chemical products while E.D.T.A Solution was found be the least dangerous substance according to HSE hazards. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was also performed by changing the weight criteria. Acetone and algae oil ranking proved to be the most sensitive to criteria weights. The proposed methodology of this study can be used to rank chemicals in other similar laboratories and fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed Imran Ali & Shaine Mohammadali Lalji & Javed Haneef & Mohsin Yousufi & Kanza Bashir & Saman Sohail & Laiba Sajid Cheema, 2023. "HSE hazard ranking of chemicals related to Petroleum Drilling Laboratory of University using Fuzzy TOPSIS," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(3), pages 1386-1406, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:60:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-023-00666-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-023-00666-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-023-00666-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12597-023-00666-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiao Zhang & Xiaofeng Hu & Yiping Bai & Jiansong Wu, 2020. "Risk Assessment of Gas Leakage from School Laboratories Based on the Bayesian Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Peyman Zandi & Mohammad Rahmani & Mojtaba Khanian & Amir Mosavi, 2020. "Agricultural Risk Management Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, October.
    3. Byomkesh Talukder & Alison Blay-Palmer & Keith W. Hipel & Gary W. VanLoon, 2017. "Elimination Method of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): A Simple Methodological Approach for Assessing Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Tim Verslycke & Kim Reid & Teresa Bowers & Sagar Thakali & Ari Lewis & Johnny Sanders & Denise Tuck, 2014. "The Chemistry Scoring Index (CSI): A Hazard-Based Scoring and Ranking Tool for Chemicals and Products Used in the Oil and Gas Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    6. Şengül, Ümran & Eren, Miraç & Eslamian Shiraz, Seyedhadi & Gezder, Volkan & Şengül, Ahmet Bilal, 2015. "Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 617-625.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    4. Xiangsheng Dou, 2022. "Agro-ecological sustainability evaluation in China," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 223-239, October.
    5. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Kiran Pandey & Abbas Mardani & Justas Streimikis & Dalia Streimikiene & Melfi Alrasheedi, 2020. "Novel Multi-Criteria Intuitionistic Fuzzy SWARA–COPRAS Approach for Sustainability Evaluation of the Bioenergy Production Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    7. Tan, R.R. & Aviso, K.B. & Ng, D.K.S., 2019. "Optimization models for financing innovations in green energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Hongyi Sun & Bingqian Zhang & Wenbin Ni, 2022. "A Hybrid Model Based on SEM and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-19, September.
    9. María Carmen Carnero, 2020. "Waste Segregation FMEA Model Integrating Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set and the PAPRIKA Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-29, August.
    10. Deveci, Muhammet & Cali, Umit & Kucuksari, Sadik & Erdogan, Nuh, 2020. "Interval type-2 fuzzy sets based multi-criteria decision-making model for offshore wind farm development in Ireland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    12. Gawlik Remigiusz & Głuszak Michał & Małkowska Agnieszka, 2017. "The Measurement of Housing Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 31-43, June.
    13. Witold Torbacki, 2021. "A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP and PROMETHEE II Methods for the Assessment of Cybersecurity in Industry 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-35, August.
    14. Jaros³aw Brodny & Magdalena Tutak, 2023. "The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(1), pages 47-102, March.
    15. Xiaolei Geng & Dou Zhang & Chengwei Li & Yanyao Li & Jingling Huang & Xiangrong Wang, 2020. "Application and Comparison of Multiple Models on Agricultural Sustainability Assessments: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    17. Ezbakhe, Fatine & Pérez-Foguet, Agustí, 2021. "Decision analysis for sustainable development: The case of renewable energy planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 601-613.
    18. Xiaoye Jin & Meiying Li & Fansheng Meng, 2019. "Comprehensive Evaluation of the New Energy Power Generation Development at the Regional Level: An Empirical Analysis from China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Ying Zhou & Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Chengju Gong, 2019. "Evaluation of City Sustainability from the Perspective of Behavioral Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    20. Chia-Nan Wang & Ngoc-Ai-Thy Nguyen & Thanh-Tuan Dang, 2023. "Sustainable Evaluation of Major Third-Party Logistics Providers: A Framework of an MCDM-Based Entropy Objective Weighting Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-27, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:60:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-023-00666-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.