کاربرد روش تلفیقی TOPSIS و AHP در مدیریت مواد شیمیایی با رویکردHSE (مطالعه موردی: کارخانه تولید شکر)
محورهای موضوعی : آلودگی صنعتیامید اسپرغم 1 , محسن شفیعی 2 , شبنم صفاریان 3 , بهناز گودرزی 4
1 - مربی گروه شیمی، دانشگاه پیام نور، ایران
2 - باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و نخبگان، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران
3 - باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و نخبگان، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران *(مسوول مکاتبات).
4 - باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و نخبگان، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ، اهواز، ایران
کلید واژه: اتیل الکل, روش های تصمیم گیری چند معیاره, کارخانه تولید شکر, مواد شیمیایی,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف:افزایش تولید مواد شیمیایی و مصرف آن در فرآیندهای مختلف صنعتی از نشانه های جامعه صنعتی به شمار می رود که عدم مدیریت صحیح و استفاده نادرست از آنها باعث ایجاد حوادث و صدمات زیانبار بر سلامت انسان و محیط زیست خواهد شد. روش بررسی: در این تحقیق با در نظرگرفتن مخاطرات ایمنی، بهداشتی و جنبه های محیط زیستی موجود در رابطه با ذخیره سازی، نگهداری و کار با مواد شیمیایی در کارخانه تولید شکر مورد مطالعه، این مواد با استفاده از روش Walking&Talking Through مورد شناسایی قرارگرفتند. سپس جهت تجزیه و تحلیل انواع مخاطرات و فاکتورهای ریسک مواد شیمیایی شناسایی شده از روش های تصمیم گیری چند معیاره از جمله AHP،روش بردار ویژه وTOPSIS استفاده شد. در نهایت با تعیین میانه در نرم افزار SPSS مواد شیمیایی در سه طبقه از لحاظ خطر تقسیم بندی شدند. یافته ها: نتایج به دست آمده از محاسبه خطر مواد شیمیایی کارخانه شکر مورد نظر حاکی از آن است که اتیل الکل با وزن 646/0، آمونیاک با وزن 566/0 و کاستیک سودا با وزن 558/0 از مهمترین مواد شیمیایی اثر گذار بر بهداشت، ایمنی و محیط زیست کارخانه و محیط پیرامون آن است. در ادامه راهکارهایی جهت کنترل و کاهش خطر مواد شیمیایی شناسایی شده ارایه گردید. بحث و نتیجه گیری: در این پژوهش با معرفی یک روش چند معیاره برای محاسبه ضریب مخاطره بیش ترین تعداد ویژگی هایی را که سبب خطر آفرینی یک ماده برای کارکنان می شود درمحاسبات به کاربرده شد.
Background and Objective: Increased rate of chemicals production and their consumption in various industrial processes are consiederd as characteristics of an industrial community. Improper management and incorrect use of them will cause accidents and harmful damage to human health and the environment. Method: In this paper, considering the safety and health risks and the environmental aspects associated with storage, preservation and working with chemicals produced in sugar factory, these chemicals were identified by Walking & Talking Through method. Then, the multi-criteria decision-making methods such as AHP, TOPSIS and Eigenvector technique were used for analyzing the risks of the identified chemicals. Finally, the chemicals were divided into three categories in terms of risk by determining the median in SPSS. Findings: The results of calculating the risk of the chemicals used in sugar factory show that ethyl alcohol with weight of 0.646, ammonia with weight of 0.566 and caustic soda with weight of 0.558 are the most important chemicals affecting the safety, health and environment of the factory and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the strategies to control and reduce the risks of chemicals were identified. Discussion and Conclusion: In this study, introducing a multi-criteria method for calculating the risk factor, the highest number of features inducing the risk of a substance to the personnel is used in the calculation.
- Khan F.I, Abbasi, S.A. 1998. Risk Assessment in Chemical Process Industrial Advance Techniques, Discovery Publishing House:14-23
- Henry, J. M, McDermott, J.2004. Air monitoring for toxic exposure. 2th Ed. John Wiley& Sons, Inc; p.37.
- Phillip. LW, Robert CJ, Stephen MR.2000. Principles of Toxicology: Environmental and Industrial Applications. 2th Ed. Wiley-Interscience Publication, 2000. p.26.
- Azari, R; 2007; Environmental Health lesson; Health hazard assessment of chemicals in individual contacts; Third edition; Arjmand Publication (In Persian).
- Jafarzadeh, N, 1382, Hospital Management Management Plan of Khuzestan Province, Khuzestan Environmental Protection Organization (In Persian).
- UNITAR & ILO & IOMC, Developing and Implementing a National Chemical Hazard Communication and GHS Action Plan, Guidance Document, Working Draft; 2001.23-32.
- Karimi, A., Jamshidi, H., Islami Zad, S, 1393, Design of SQCRA Software to Assess Semi-Quantitative Risk of Working with Chemicals in the Workplace, Journal of Occupational Health Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 2014, Pages 47 to 56 (In Persian).
- Kocher, D.C., H. Gerim, H., 2002, An approach to comparative assessments of potential health risks from exposure to radionuclide and hazardous chemicals, Environmental international;27(8), 663–671
- 9Jahanbin, Sh, Shafiee: M, 1387, Identification and prioritization of the most significant safety, health and environmental hazards of sugarcane development and lateral industries using the Topsis method, the 4th National Conference on Global Environment Day, Tehran University (In Persian).
- Eastman, J. R.2006.IDRISI Andes, Guide to GIS and image processing, Clark labs, Clark University.
- Karimi, Sh, Nibibid Hindi, Gh, Jafari, H, Vahidi, H, 1392, Designing a Decision Support System for Chemical Management Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (Case Study: Arak Petrochemical), Journal of Environmental Studies, Years Thirty-Ninth, No. 1, pp. 53-62(In Persian).
- Dodangeh, J, Yusuff, R, Jassbi, J. 2010. Using Topsis Method with Goal Programming for Best selection of Strategic Plans in BSC Model. Journal of American Science, Vol. 6(3)
- Onut, S, Soner, S. 2008. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management, Vol. 28, PP.1552–1559
- Opricovic, S, Hshiung Tzeng, G. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, vol156, PP.445–455
- Asadi: M; Faez-Rad; D; Nabi Zade; R; Voghdani M; 1374; Dangerous Waste Management; Publications of the Environmental Protection Agency, Tehran, p. 360 (In Persian).
- Heydari: M; Omidvari: M; Mohammad FAM: A; 1392; Presenting a Health Risk Assessment Model for Contacting Chemicals in the Oil and Gas Industries (Case Study: Pars Special Economic Region). Journal of Health and Safety, Vol. 3, No. 4 (In Persian).
- Karami, Sh: Nabid hindi, Gh, Jafari, H, Hoveidi, H, Hedayati: A; 1393; Evaluation of the risk of exposure to chemicals using multi-criteria decision making (case study: Arak Petrochemical), Journal of Health and Environment, Journal of the Environmental Science Society of Iran, Vol. 7, No. 2, Pages 229-238 (In Persian).
- Dagdeviren. M, Yuksel. I, Kurt. M.2007.A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model to identify faulty behavior risk (FBR) in work system, Safety Science, Vol. 46, pp. 771–7
_||_
- Khan F.I, Abbasi, S.A. 1998. Risk Assessment in Chemical Process Industrial Advance Techniques, Discovery Publishing House:14-23
- Henry, J. M, McDermott, J.2004. Air monitoring for toxic exposure. 2th Ed. John Wiley& Sons, Inc; p.37.
- Phillip. LW, Robert CJ, Stephen MR.2000. Principles of Toxicology: Environmental and Industrial Applications. 2th Ed. Wiley-Interscience Publication, 2000. p.26.
- Azari, R; 2007; Environmental Health lesson; Health hazard assessment of chemicals in individual contacts; Third edition; Arjmand Publication (In Persian).
- Jafarzadeh, N, 1382, Hospital Management Management Plan of Khuzestan Province, Khuzestan Environmental Protection Organization (In Persian).
- UNITAR & ILO & IOMC, Developing and Implementing a National Chemical Hazard Communication and GHS Action Plan, Guidance Document, Working Draft; 2001.23-32.
- Karimi, A., Jamshidi, H., Islami Zad, S, 1393, Design of SQCRA Software to Assess Semi-Quantitative Risk of Working with Chemicals in the Workplace, Journal of Occupational Health Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 2014, Pages 47 to 56 (In Persian).
- Kocher, D.C., H. Gerim, H., 2002, An approach to comparative assessments of potential health risks from exposure to radionuclide and hazardous chemicals, Environmental international;27(8), 663–671
- 9Jahanbin, Sh, Shafiee: M, 1387, Identification and prioritization of the most significant safety, health and environmental hazards of sugarcane development and lateral industries using the Topsis method, the 4th National Conference on Global Environment Day, Tehran University (In Persian).
- Eastman, J. R.2006.IDRISI Andes, Guide to GIS and image processing, Clark labs, Clark University.
- Karimi, Sh, Nibibid Hindi, Gh, Jafari, H, Vahidi, H, 1392, Designing a Decision Support System for Chemical Management Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (Case Study: Arak Petrochemical), Journal of Environmental Studies, Years Thirty-Ninth, No. 1, pp. 53-62(In Persian).
- Dodangeh, J, Yusuff, R, Jassbi, J. 2010. Using Topsis Method with Goal Programming for Best selection of Strategic Plans in BSC Model. Journal of American Science, Vol. 6(3)
- Onut, S, Soner, S. 2008. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management, Vol. 28, PP.1552–1559
- Opricovic, S, Hshiung Tzeng, G. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, vol156, PP.445–455
- Asadi: M; Faez-Rad; D; Nabi Zade; R; Voghdani M; 1374; Dangerous Waste Management; Publications of the Environmental Protection Agency, Tehran, p. 360 (In Persian).
- Heydari: M; Omidvari: M; Mohammad FAM: A; 1392; Presenting a Health Risk Assessment Model for Contacting Chemicals in the Oil and Gas Industries (Case Study: Pars Special Economic Region). Journal of Health and Safety, Vol. 3, No. 4 (In Persian).
- Karami, Sh: Nabid hindi, Gh, Jafari, H, Hoveidi, H, Hedayati: A; 1393; Evaluation of the risk of exposure to chemicals using multi-criteria decision making (case study: Arak Petrochemical), Journal of Health and Environment, Journal of the Environmental Science Society of Iran, Vol. 7, No. 2, Pages 229-238 (In Persian).
- Dagdeviren. M, Yuksel. I, Kurt. M.2007.A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model to identify faulty behavior risk (FBR) in work system, Safety Science, Vol. 46, pp. 771–7