Safety and Health at Work 13 (2022) 86e92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety and Health at Work

journal homepage: www.e-shaw.net

Original article

Analyzing Safety Culture in Sri Lankan Industrial Chemical

Laboratories
Ashen I. Samaranayake, Sajani Nishadya, Udaya K. Jayasundara*
Department of Chemistry, College of Chemical Sciences, Institute of Chemistry Ceylon, Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Background: A laboratory where chemicals are handled can be considered a hazardous environment, and
Received 14 August 2021 hence, prudent practices should be strictly enforced. If not, deadly accidents and incidents could occur
Received in revised form due to a lack of safety practices and poor safety culture. The purpose of this study is to analyze the
28 October 2021
existing safety culture and propose potential recommendations to enhance the level of safety education
Accepted 6 November 2021
Available online 13 November 2021
in the chemical laboratories in the Western Province of Sri Lanka.
Methods: A survey questionnaire was administered among the laboratory supervisors of the chemical
laboratories in the Western Province of Sri Lanka in 2019.
Keywords:
Accidents Results: Even though 80 surveys were distributed among prospective participants, only 46 surveys were
Chemicals submitted, which is 58% of the response rate. Most of the individuals who participated in the survey were
Attitude females below 35 years old, and approximately 96% of the participants had at least one year of working
Culture experience in the same laboratory setting. The majority considered safety as an important factor that
Survey questionnaire requires further improvements with third-party safety inspections; however, 54% of the respondents
mentioned that those inspections were conducted by the employees from their laboratory.
Conclusion: From the study, it has been discovered that employees have knowledge of safety culture to a
certain extent. A significant percentage (83%) of participants believed that further safety measures are
required for a safer laboratory. However, the study revealed that the attitudes of some employees should
be changed to have a better safety culture. Hence the authors would like to suggest having annual
training sessions and well-formulated safety policies to improve the safety culture.
Ó 2021 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction beneficial to the working environment [6,7]. An organization that

maintains a positive safety culture can be considered as a healthy
A chemical laboratory can be considered a dangerous workplace if working environment; however, a negative safety culture can seri-
proper safety practices are not followed and implemented. In Sri ously impact the workplace and workers, leading to high risks such as
Lanka and worldwide, many accidents ranging from minor injuries to chronic diseases, loss of limbs, or sometimes death [8,9]. Some lab-
deaths occurred in chemical laboratories due to a lack of safety culture oratories have well-developed safety procedures, also known as
[1e5]. Those events cannot be ignored as they raise concerns about safety policies, while others may not have any systematic procedures
the acceptable levels of safety that should be followed by all stake- to reduce the chemical exposures according to the hierarchy of con-
holders attached to a chemical laboratory. Hence, it is important to trols. Therefore, special precautions should be taken when hazardous
ensure that all the laboratory staff receives a suitable safety education. chemicals are handled [10]. It is the responsibility of the management
With a prudent safety culture, the laboratory is a safe workplace with of respective industries to develop a safety policy to safeguard the
a minimum level of risk to any individual or an instrument. employees by adopting globally acceptable standards [11e14].
The safety culture can be defined as the commitment of an orga- It is evident that industrial settings have more experienced staff to
nization to prioritize safety over other processes that might be manage tasks more efficiently and effectively with fewer incidents

Ashen I. Samaranayake: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3319-9477; Sajani Nishadya: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-239X; Udaya K. Jayasundara: https://orcid.org/

0000-0002-5468-9435
* Corresponding author. Department of Chemistry, College of Chemical Sciences, Institute of Chemistry Ceylon, 341/22 Kotte Road, Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka.
E-mail address: udayaj@ichemc.edu.lk (U.K. Jayasundara).

2093-7911/$ e see front matter Ó 2021 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2021.11.001
 A.I. Samaranayake et al / Safety Culture 87

compared to academic institutions [15]. Further, a recent study on approximately 58% of the total. The response rate was relatively
laboratory safety in academic institutions by Ayi and high compared to most of the similar surveys conducted online and
Hon demonstrated that most individuals do not assess risks before via email [20]. Table 1 shows the percentage of response for each
starting a chemical process that causes unexpected damages [16]. It question administered.
has been reported that conducting annual training programs to teach According to Q 1 in demographic data, 31 participants were
and train new procedures, rules, and regulations would be beneficial females while 15 were males. All the participants were in the age
for the industries to create awareness of the safety culture [17e19]. range (Q 2) of 30 to 35, and most of the participants engaged in
Although it is highly recommended that chemical laboratories research projects while the others were engaged in industrial and
maintain basic or minimum safety standards at a positive state, not other routine work (Q 3). In Q 3, the participants were allowed to
much is known in the Sri Lankan context. As far as authors are express their perspective on the area of working other than
aware, there is no literature available on chemical safety studies in academia, research, or industry. This question was given purposely,
Sri Lanka, and this could be the first of such. However, there is and the main objective was to seek whether the workers belong to
literature available on pesticide and occupationally related in- other activities other than those listed in the survey. Although nine
cidents, which demonstrate improper use of chemical-related respondents (20%) answered as “other,” no rationalization was
products in agriculture [2]. Therefore, the focus of this study is to given to support their choice. Most participants had a working
understand the level of safety culture established in chemical lab- experience of more than 10 years (Q 4), and out of them, 80% have
oratories in the Western Province of Sri Lanka and propose rec- been working in the same laboratory throughout that period (Q 5).
ommendations to educate employers and employees. According to the Q 6, more than 50% of participants spent 40 hours
The remainder of this study is organized in the following sections. or more per week handling chemicals in the laboratory, and 89% of
The research methodology is explained in Section 2. The results of the the participants believed that the level of risk was either moderate
current study with data analysis are provided in Section 3. Section 4 or low (Q 7).
of the article provides a detailed discussion of the current study, and According to the collected data (Q 8), the majority believed
Section 5 is dedicated to the conclusion of this research. that safety was very important for their laboratory work, while
7% considered it was quite important. About 87% (Q 9) of par-
2. Methods ticipants supported the fact that inspections can have a positive
impact on safety, while a few participants believed that safety
This study was conducted to determine the perceptions of the was slightly improved by inspections. About 89% of the partici-
laboratory workers in chemical industries about safety practices, pants (Q 10) believed that the laboratory inspections was carried
safety attitudes, and their emergency preparedness. A hard copy of out at different times of the year would not affect the produc-
the survey questionnaire with 34 questions was administered as a tivity (Q 16).
data collection tool with the assistance of students who attended Safety inspections (Fig. 1) are an integral part of any laboratory,
industrial training during the period from January 2019 to July and about 50% of the participants reported that safety inspections
2019. The laboratory supervisors, who were full-time workers, were conducted in the laboratory once a month, while 30% re-
completed surveys and confidentially sent them to the authors. ported such inspections were done once a quarter. About 15% re-
Although the data were collected anonymously, ethical approval ported that such inspections were conducted annually, and the
was taken from the respective industries and participants before remainder was not aware of such inspections. Although it was
conducting the study. The survey was conducted in English. unfortunate to see that about 4% did not know anything about the
This survey questionnaire adapted some of the questions from the safety inspections, it was good to observe that 96% of the partici-
2012 survey on “Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A com- pants had an idea of safety inspections which is an integral part of
parison of academic, government, and industry researchers” [15] and prudent laboratory practices.
additional questions were prepared to cover the use of personal According to the Q 17, about 54% of the respondents stated that
protective equipment, safety culture, etc. Before administering the the safety inspections were carried out by the employees from the
survey, the validity of the items was evaluated by three experts. same laboratory and only 17% said that they were conducted by a
The survey questionnaire consists of five parts (A-E) with multiple third party; 20% of the participants (Q 11) responded that safety
answer questions, yes/no type questions, and open-ended questions. was of equal importance as of other lab priorities such as admin-
Part A (questions 1 to 7) of the survey was mainly focused on de- istration work, cleaning, and any chemical-related procedures.
mographic data of the participants, while part B (questions 8 to 13) Although 39% of the participants thought that the safety proced-
consisted of questions based on workers’ attitudes and perceptions ures in the laboratory were stringent, about 33% of them claimed
toward laboratory safety. Part C (questions 14 to 25) was focused on that the safety procedures should be more stringent (Q 12). Ac-
workers’ laboratory practices, while part D (questions 26 to 30) was cording to Q 13, 93% of respondents reported that their safety
dedicated to laboratory management. The final part (questions 31 to culture could have been developed compared to past years.
34) of the survey covered workers’ opinions about laboratory safety About 96% of the participants (Q 14) reported that the em-
as applicable to the employer’s working environment. ployers had taken steps to avoid or minimize laboratory-related
The collected data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (2007), injuries. The data (Q 15) demonstrated that all the participants
and the percentage for each answer was calculated by dividing the had been given personal protective equipment (PPE) by the em-
number of responses received for that question by the total number ployers, which was indeed a good sign of a positive safety culture.
of respondents. Collected data from this study were compared with Although 93% of the participants were able to use the PPEs (Q 27),
some selected questions from the 2012 survey [15]. only 57% of the participants (Q 28) used them regularly, as shown in
Fig. 2.
3. Results About 78% of the participants had access to their safety records
as per Q 18, which was indeed a good sign of safety culture; how-
As a policy, the industrial training module would be supervised ever, 22% of the participants did not have access. Q 19 and Q 20
by managerial level employees who possess minimum education of demonstrate that the respondents received general and specific
master’s degree in the field. Although 80 surveys were distributed, safety training on hazards in the laboratory. However, according to
only 46 participants submitted completed surveys that were Q 19, it was questionable that about 10% of the participants did not
88 Saf Health Work 2022;13:86e92

Table 1
Opinions of the participants to the survey questionnaire

Question Category Subcategory No. Response frequency

Part A
Q1 Gender Male 15 32.61%
Female 31 67.39%
Q2 Age Under 18 years 0 0.00%
18e20 years 0 0.00%
21e25 years 1 2.17%
26e30 years 8 17.39%
31e35 years 14 30.43%
36e40 years 11 23.91%
41e50 years 10 21.74%
51e60 years 2 4.35%
Q3 Area of working Academic 0 0.00%
Industry 10 21.74%
Research 27 58.70%
Other (specify) 9 19.57%
Q4 Length of time spent working in any laboratory Less than 5 months 1 2.17%
setting 5e11 months 0 0.00%
1e2 years 5 10.87%
3e4 years 6 13.04%
5e10 years 14 30.43%
11þ years 20 43.48%
Q5 Length of time spent working in current laboratory Less than 5 months 2 4.35%
setting 5e11 months 0 0.00%
1e2 years 9 19.57%
3e4 years 3 6.52%
5e10 years 16 34.78%
11þ years 16 34.78%
Q6 Average Time spent handling chemicals in the 1e10 hrs/week 6 13.04%
laboratory 11e20 hrs/week 3 6.52%
21e30 hrs/week 13 28.26%
31e40 hrs/week 6 13.04%
40 hrs/week and more 13 28.26%
Not applicable 5 10.87%
Q7 Self-perceived level of risk in laboratory High 5 10.87%
Moderate 33 71.74%
Low 8 17.39%
Part B
Q8 How important is safety to you very important 43 93.48%
quite important 3 6.52%
moderately important 0 0.00%
not important 0 0.00%
Q9 Impact of inspections on laboratory safety Safety is greatly improved by inspections 40 86.96%
Safety is slightly improved by inspections 6 13.04%
Inspections have no significant impact on safety 0 0.00%
Safety is slightly compromised by inspections 0 0.00%
Do not know 0 0.00%
Q 10 Laboratory inspections and regulations negatively Agree 5 10.87%
impact my lab productivity Disagree 39 84.78%
Neither agree nor disagree 2 4.35%
Q 11 Which of the following statements best describes Safety is paramount and takes precedence over all 18 39.13%
your laboratory regarding safety? other laboratory priorities
Safety is very important 19 41.30%
Safety is of equal importance to other laboratory 9 19.57%
priorities
Q 12 Safety procedures in the laboratory are Stringent 18 39.13%
About right 13 28.26%
Should be more stringent 15 32.61%
Do not know 0 0.00%
Q 13 The overall safety in my laboratory could be Agree 43 93.48%
improved past years Disagree 1 2.17%
Neither agree nor disagree 2 4.35%
Part C
Q 14 Appropriate safety measures have been taken in my Agree 44 95.65%
laboratory to protect employees from injury Disagree 1 2.17%
Do not know 1 2.17%
Q 15 All the employees are provided with personal Yes 46 100.00%
protection equipment No 0 0.00%
Q 16 How often are safety inspections carried out in your At least once a month 23 50.00%
laboratory At least once a quarter 14 30.43%
At least once a year 7 15.22%
Do not know 2 4.35%
Q 17 Who does the safety inspections? Employees from the lab 25 54.35%
Outside employees 13 28.26%
Third party 8 17.39%
 A.I. Samaranayake et al / Safety Culture 89

Table 1 (continued )

Question Category Subcategory No. Response frequency

Q 18 I have access to the data and records which are Agree 36 78.26%
tracked regarding my laboratory’s safety and Disagree 0 0.00%
compliance Neither agree nor disagree 10 21.74%
Q 19 Have you received general safety training at your Yes 41 89.13%
current laboratory? No 5 10.87%
Q 20 I received safety training on the specific agent/ Agree 40 86.96%
hazards I work with Disagree 5 10.87%
Neither agree nor disagree 1 2.17%
Q 21 In your current laboratory, are you aware of what to Yes 45 97.83%
do in case of emergencies? No 1 2.17%
Q 22 Do you know the location of safety equipment? Yes 46 100.00%
No 0 0.00%
Q 23 What is the frequency of people working alone in Every day 7 15.22%
the laboratory? At least once a week 11 23.91%
A couple of times a month 5 10.87%
Less than once a month 16 34.78%
Do not know 7 15.22%
Q 24 My supervisor or principal investigator regularly Agree 40 86.96%
checks to make sure I am performing my Disagree 2 4.35%
laboratory duties in a safe fashion using proper Neither agree nor disagree 4 8.70%
safety equipment.
Q 25 In the time that you have been at your current Yes 15 32.61%
laboratory, have your ever sustained an injury of No 31 67.39%
any kind?
Part D
Q 26 Has the Risk assessment been conducted in Risk is formally assessed by third party 25 54.35%
laboratory before? Risk is assessed using my own format 4 8.70%
Risk is informally assessed 14 30.43%
No risk is assessed 3 6.52%
Q 27 In general, I feel that I am able to use the required Agree 43 93.48%
PPE properly Disagree 3 6.52%
Neither agree nor disagree 0 0.00%
Q 28 All the laboratory staff use PPE usage when All the time 26 56.52%
performing laboratory work Most of the time 10 21.74%
Some of the time 10 21.74%
Rarely 0 0.00%
Do not know 0 0.00%
Q 29 I feel comfortable speaking to my supervisor or Agree 43 93.48%
principal investigator about safety concerns Disagree 0 0.00%
Neither agree nor disagree 3 6.52%
Do not know 0 0.00%
Q 30 I have not reported any accident/incident/near miss This has happened only once 5 10.87%
to my supervisor or principal investigator. This has happened on more than one occasion 5 10.87%
This has never happened 36 78.26%
Part E
Q 31 My laboratory is a safe place to work Agree 41 89.13%
Disagree 0 0.00%
Neither agree nor disagree 5 10.87%
Q 32 Safety is utmost important in my laboratory Takes precedence over all other lab duties 25 54.35%
Is of equal importance to other lab priorities 21 45.65%
Less important than experiment/low priority 0 0.00%
Q 33 Safety rules negatively impact productivity Strongly agree/agree 3 6.52%
Strongly disagree/disagree 35 76.09%
Neither agree nor disagree 8 17.39%
Q 34 The level of risk associated with laboratory work is Low-very Low 13 28.26%
Moderate 26 56.52%
High-very high 7 15.22%

have any safety training. On the other hand, 98% of participants Although 93% of the participants were confident in communicating
were aware of the emergency procedures (Q 21) and the location of with supervisors (Q 29), only 22% of them were comfortable
safety equipment (Q 22). Some participants (Q 23) used to work reporting the accidents, incidents, or near misses (Q 30), which
alone, as shown in Fig. 3, depending on the nature of work they are contradicted the previous statement in Q 29.
involved in. However, answering “do not know” to Q 23 indicated About 89% of the participants (Q 31) believed that their labo-
less awareness of his/her subordinates. ratory was a safe place to work (Fig. 4), and all participants
It is appreciated to note that majority of supervisors regularly considered that safety was equal or above their other laboratory
check the laboratory (Q 24) to ensure workers perform their tasks priorities (Q 32). However, approximately 11% were not confident
in a safe manner using proper safety equipment. As per Q 25, 33% of about the safety precautions or procedures implemented by the
the participants sustained injuries while they were working in the laboratory. Most of the participants (i.e., 76%) felt that the safety
laboratory, which could be reduced by maintaining proper labo- rules did not impact their laboratory activities, according to Q 33. In
ratory safety. general, 72% of participants believed that the level of the risk in
According to Q 26, about 93% responded that a risk assessment their laboratory activities was to be moderate, or above according
had been conducted in the laboratory either formally or informally. to Q 34.
90 Saf Health Work 2022;13:86e92

Fig. 1. Frequency of safety inspections.

Fig. 3. Frequency of people working alone in the laboratory.

4. Discussion
accident or incident can be enormous compared to the cost of a
third-party inspection. This situation can be avoided by having
As far as the authors are aware, the safety culture in chemical
third-party inspections along with the first-party or second-party
laboratories in Sri Lanka had never been evaluated before, and this
inspections. Lack of strong commitment and strict laws in a country
might be the first of such. Our study was mainly focused on in-
could encourage industries to easily avoid such inspections, and
dustrial chemical laboratories in the Western Province of Sri Lanka,
hence, authorities should implement strict rules and regulations.
where most of them are located. The response rate of the study was
This is clear when some participants (Q 33, 7%) responded that
58% which is considered high in comparison to the response rate of
safety rules negatively impact their lab productivity which is
the pilot study on laboratory safety awareness, practice, attitude,
questionable and alarming. This reflects the lack of safety education
and perception of tertiary laboratory workers in Hong Kong [20].
and commitment toward the safety culture in the country. How-
This may be because the distribution of the survey was done in
ever, most participants (Q 9, 87%) do have a positive attitude toward
person instead of using online methods such as emails or other
safety inspections as they believe the safety can be greatly
online survey platforms. Most of the respondents were aware of the
improved by inspections which is a plus point. Astonishingly, some
laboratory safety culture as they have been working in the field for a
of the laboratory individuals, as well as their managers, did not
considerable time. However, according to the results, a significant
understand the importance of safety and safety rules (Q 11, Q 23,
number of participants demonstrated that their incompetency with
and Q 28). Moreover, this fact supports their reluctance to have
basic safety rules according to Figs. 2 and 3. This would negatively
third-party inspections. Regardless of that, a considerable number
impact both workers and the industry unless proper training is
of participants feel that the safety should be stringent or more
provided. Therefore, the authors suggest providing suitable training
stringent (Q 12, 72%), and it could have been improved as the
sessions and educating the employees about basic safety rules
workers may be less satisfied with the existing safety procedures.
before assigning laboratory work.
Sometimes maintaining occupational safety and health standards
Indicating that they never had a risk assessment shows the level
would not be adequate to maintain a proper safety culture for a
of safety culture in Sri Lankan laboratories, which should be
chemical laboratory as the guidelines cover a wide range of in-
immediately rectified before any incident occurs [1]. Further, the
dustries. Hence the rules and regulations must be redefined
survey demonstrated that the safety inspections were not carried
without destroying the original goals. Approximately 96% of par-
out by third-party auditors, which were alarming. These percep-
ticipants (Q 14) claimed that the appropriate safety measures had
tions can negatively influence workers as they tend to pay less
been taken to protect employees from injuries, which is a satis-
attention to safety. Hence, employers and employees need to follow
factory response. Some participants (Q 25, 33%) stated that acci-
the hierarchy of control to protect everyone in the organization
dents/injuries had happened to them while working in the
from hazards. Although the first-party inspections (Q 17, 54%)
laboratory, which reflected that those industries do need stringent
provide valuable information, it is highly recommended to conduct
safety practices. Therefore, it is recommended to read, study, and
third-party inspections to obtain better opinions on safety. In
review a safety document such as a safety data sheet (SDS) before
general, industries do not carry out such inspections simply
any activity to learn its adverse effects and be aware of basic first
because they would be an extra burden for the employer. However,
aid training to minimize the extent of the damage. Most
the management may not be aware that the compensation for an

Fig. 2. Usage of PPE when performing laboratory work. Fig. 4. The laboratory is a safe place to work.
 A.I. Samaranayake et al / Safety Culture 91

Table 2
Comparison of 2012 study with 2019 Sri Lankan study

Questions Options 2012 study (%) SL study (%)

(n ¼ 113) [15] (n ¼ 46)
My laboratory is a safe place to work Agree 90 89
Disagree 7 0
Neither agree nor disagree 3 11
Safety is utmost important in my laboratory Takes precedence over all other lab duties 67 54
Is of equal importance to other lab priorities 20 46
Less important than experiment/low priority 10 0
Safety rules negatively impact productivity Strongly agree/agree 16 7
Strongly disagree/disagree 64 76
Neither agree nor disagree 20 17
The level of risk associated with laboratory work is Low-very Low 55 28
Moderate 38 57
High-very high 7 15
n, number of participants.

participants (Q 29, 93%) said they were comfortable speaking with 11% of participants did not agree or disagree with the statement.
their supervisors regarding safety, but still, many participants (Q With a feeling of insecure environment, it is obvious that workers
30, 78%) had not reported accidents/incidents to their supervisor, cannot perform their duties efficiently and effectively.
which was contradictory. This indicates that there is no proper According to results (Table 2, Fig. 6), in both studies, more than
practice to report any incident, near miss, or an accident regardless half of the participants agreed that safety was of utmost importance
of the level of risk, which is not acceptable. The authors believe that over other laboratory priorities. Further, no respondent in the
the relevant authorities should take initiatives to implement pru- current study considered safety was less important than other
dential safety practices in the future. duties, while the 2012 survey had 10% of respondents who agreed
Part E (Q 31- Q 34) of the current survey focused on workers’ with the statement.
opinion about laboratory safety and were compared with the 2012 According to results (Table 2, Fig. 7), both 2012 and current
survey. Since the responses received were mainly from industrial study participants had a similar opinion on the impact of safety
research and development laboratories, the data were compared rules on laboratory productivity. Further, an approximately similar
only with the results obtained for the industrial sector of the 2012 percentage of participants responded as “neither agree nor
study [15]. disagree,” which is interesting to note, as shown in Fig. 7.
According to results (Table 2; Fig. 5), 89% of the participants As seen in (Table 2, Fig. 8), most participants from the current
from both studies believed that their laboratory was a safe place to study (Q 34, 85%) believed that the risk was moderate and low,
work, which was 90% in the 2012 study. However, in the current while 93% of 2012 survey participants agreed with that
study. statement.

Fig. 7. A comparison of 2012 study and Sri Lankan Participants’ response to the
Fig. 5. A comparison of 2012 study and Sri Lankan study: “My laboratory is a safe place
question “Safety rules negatively impact productivity.”
to work.”

Fig. 6. A comparison of the 2012 study and Sri Lankan participants’ responses to the Fig. 8. A comparison of the 2012 study and Sri Lankan Participants’ response to the
question “Safety is of utmost importance in my laboratory.” question “The level of risk associated with laboratory work is.”
92 Saf Health Work 2022;13:86e92

5. Conclusion Appendix A. Supplementary data

This study shows the opinion of employees from industrial Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
chemical laboratories located in the Western Province in Sri Lanka. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2021.11.001.
About 83% believed that their laboratories pause high and moderate
risk, which demonstrates that further safety measures are required.
References
Therefore, the authors would like to suggest that those laboratories
should formulate a suitable safety policy to minimize such incidents. [1] Lab safety & chemical hygiene program: laboratory accidents laboratory ac-
According to Part B of the survey, most respondents agreed on the cidents 2018; 2018 [cited 2021 May 14]. Available from: https://www.ehs.
safety rules that were needed to be applied. However, about 32% ucsb.edu/labsafety/laboratory-accidents.
[2] Ménard AD, Trant JF. A review and critique of academic lab safety
believed that the safety rules should be further stricter, which re- research. Nat Chem 2020;12:17e25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-019-
flects there are some gaps for improvement in their safety culture. 0375-x.
Hence, the authors suggest the management of respective labora- [3] Gibson JH, Schröder I, Wayne NL. A research university’s rapid response to a
fatal chemistry accident: safety changes and outcomes. J Chem Health Saf
tories take steps to strengthen the safety culture with recent de-
2014;21:18e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.01.003.
velopments. Conversely, a small percentage (15%) believed that the [4] Weaver EC. Laboratory accidents. J Chem Educ 1944;21:199. https://doi.org/
productivity of their laboratories would decrease with the imple- 10.1021/ed021p199.
[5] Papadopoli R, Nobile CGA, Trovato A, Pileggi C, Pavia M. Chemical risk and
mentation of safety rules. Therefore, it is essential to educate such
safety awareness, perception, and practices among research laboratories
employees by organizing tailor-made training programs conducted workers in Italy. J Occup Med Toxicol 2020;15:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/
by safety professionals to eradicate such beliefs. Although 95% of the s12995-020-00268-x.
employees were given PPE, it was discovered a higher percentage [6] Gosavi A, Schaufele M, Blayney M. A retrospective analysis of compensable
injuries in university research laboratories and the possible prevention of
(i.e. 32%) of accidents were due to a lack of awareness of PPE and its future incidents. J Chem Health Saf 2019;26:31e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
usage. It is strongly recommended to train them on the correct use of j.jchas.2018.10.003.
PPE and how to inspect the PPEs for defects before use. Although 95% [7] Nitsche CI. Promoting safety culture: an overview of collaborative chemical
safety information initiatives. J Chem Health Saf 2019;26:27e30. https://
of participants accepted their laboratories had safety inspections at doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2018.12.004.
least once a year, about 83% of them were carried out by the em- [8] Cadwallader LC, Pawelko RJ. Elements of experiment safety in the
ployees of the same establishment. For having constructive criticism, laboratory. J Chem Health Saf 2019;26:20e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jchas.2019.01.002.
it is highly recommended to include third party inspections as well. [9] Miller KA, Tyler KI. Impact of a pilot laboratory safety team workshop.
The authors believe that the responsible bodies should distinguish J Chem Health Saf 2019;26:20e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2018.12.
suitable safety professionals who are competent to carry out such 003.
[10] Salazar-Escoboza MA, Laborin-Alvarez JF, Alvarez-Chavez CR, Noriega-
tasks without being biased. The study further discovered that there Orozco L, Borbon-Morales C. Safety climate perceived by users of academic
are still some gaps to be filled, such as not reporting all incidents in laboratories in higher education institutes. Saf Sci 2020;121:93e9. https://
the laboratory although they were comfortable speaking to their doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.003.
[11] Occupational health and safety management systems d requirements with
supervisors. Hence, the authors believe this negative mindset should
guidance for use 2018; 2018 [Cited 2021 May 14]. Available from: https://
be corrected by addressing all pillars in safety culture. Finally, the www.iso.org/standard/63787.html.
authors would like to suggest that future studies of this nature must [12] Occupational health and safety; 2021 [cited 2021 May 14]. Available from:
be extended to the academic laboratories in Sri Lanka, which would https://www.tuvsud.com/en/services/auditing-and-system-certification/
ohsas-18001.
further increase the safety awareness among individuals who work [13] Occupational safety and health standards: toxic and hazardous substances;
in chemical laboratories. 2020 [cited 2021 May 14]. Available from: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/
regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910SubpartZ.
[14] Laboratory standard & design guidelines e stanford environmental health &
Funding safety; 2019 [cited 2021 May 14]. Available from: https://ehs.stanford.edu/
manual/laboratory-standard-design-guidelines.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding [15] Schröder I, Huang DYQ, Ellis O, Gibson JH, Wayne NL. Laboratory safety atti-
tudes and practices: a comparison of academic, government, and industry
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. researchers. J Chem Health Saf 2016;23:12e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jchas.2015.03.001.
Conflicts of interest [16] Ayi HR, Hon CY. Safety culture and safety compliance in academic labora-
tories: a Canadian perspective. J Chem Health Saf 2018;25:6e12. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2018.05.002.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. [17] Sigmann SB. Chemical safety education for the 21st century d fostering safety
information competency in chemists. J Chem Health Saf 2018;25:17e29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.11.002.
Acknowledgments
[18] Safety; 2021 [cited 2021 May 14]. Available from: https://teachchemistry.org/
classroom-resources/safety.
The authors would like to express gratitude to all the re- [19] Hedberg DD, Bussell E. Lab safety questionnaire. J Chem Educ 1978;55:148.
spondents who participated in the survey and all the students who https://doi.org/10.1021/ed055p148.
[20] Leung AHH. Laboratory safety awareness, practice, attitude, and perception of
assisted by distributing the survey to their supervisors. The authors tertiary laboratory workers in Hong Kong: a pilot study. J Chem Health Saf
also acknowledge the Institute of Chemistry Ceylon for the support. 2021;28:205e59. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.0c00122.