Advertisement

Risk Assessment of Processes and Products in Industrial Biotechnology

  • Chao Chen
  • Genserik ReniersEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology book series (ABE, volume 173)

Abstract

Risk assessment has been used extensively as the main approach to prevent accidents in the chemical and process industry. Industrial biotechnology has many of the same hazards as chemical technology, but also encounters biological hazards related to biological agents. Employees in the biotechnology industry are susceptible to health risks because of different types of exposure to harmful agents. The external environment may also be affected by these agents in cases of accidental release. This chapter first presents several traditional risk assessment methods that may be used in industrial biotechnology after comparing differences between industrial biotechnology and chemical technology. Hazard identification in industrial biotechnology is then discussed, for biological as well as traditional hazards. Furthermore, risk assessment of occupational health and safety related to biological hazards is examined using exposure analysis and risk characterization. A two-stage risk assessment method is recommended to assess environmental and ecological risks in industrial biotechnology. Risk analysis of traditional accidents (fire, explosions, and toxic releases) in industrial biotechnology is also described.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Environmental and ecological risks Hazard identification Industrial biotechnology Occupational health and safety Risk assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    Rivera SS, Olivares RDC, Baziuk PA, McLeod JEN (2015) Assessment of biofuel accident risk: a preliminary study. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineeringGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arendt J (1990) Management of quantitative risk assessment in the chemical process industry. Process Saf Prog 9(4):262–268Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flynn AM, Theodore L (2001) Health, safety, and accident management in the chemical process industries. Marcel Dekker Inc, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reniers GLL, Dullaert W, Ale BJM, Soudan K (2005) Developing an external domino accident prevention framework: Hazwim. J Loss Prev Process Ind 18(3):127–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lees F (2012) Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries: hazard identification, assessment and control. Butterworth-Heinemann, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CCPS (1992) Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures2nd edn. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meyer T, Reniers G (2016) Engineering risk management. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Covello VT, Merkhoher MW (2013) Risk assessment methods: approaches for assessing health and environmental risks. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markowski AS, Mannan MS (2008) Fuzzy risk matrix. J Hazard Mater 159(1):152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kletz TA (1999) HAZOP and HAZAN: identifying and assessing process industry hazards. IChemE, WarwickshireGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CCPS (2011) Guidelines for process safety in bioprocess manufacturing facilities. AIChE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council E (2000) EU Council Directive 2000/54/EC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work. Off J Eur Communities L 262:221–245Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caucheteux D, Mathot P (2005) Biological risk assessment: an explanation meant for safety advisors in Belgium. Appl Biosafety 10(1):10–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeebhay MF (2002) An approach to hazardous biological agents in the workplace – legal provisions and practical considerations. Occup Health South Afr 8(2):8–13Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chosewood LC, Wilson DE (1999) Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories. U.S.GPO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Directive Council (1990) 90/679/EEC of 26 November 1990 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work. Off J Eur Communities L 374:1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richmond J, McKinney R (2000) Primary containment for biohazards: selection, installation and use of biological safety cabinets. United States Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institutes of Health, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreno VC, Cozzani V (2015) Major accident hazard in bioenergy production. J Loss Prev Process Ind 35:135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kotek L, Trávníčekb P, Blechaa P (2015) Accident analysis of European biogas stations. Chem Eng Trans 43:1933–1938Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calvo Olivares RD, Rivera SS, Núñez Mc Leod JE (2014) Database for accidents and incidents in the biodiesel industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 29:245–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreno VC, Giacomini E, Cozzani V (2016) Identification of major accident hazards in industrial biological processes. Chem Eng Trans 48:679–684Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moreno VC, Papasidero S, Scarponi GE, Guglielmi D, Cozzani V (2016) Analysis of accidents in biogas production and upgrading. Renew Energy 96:1127–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.10.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    CSChE (2012) Process safety management guide4th edn. Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eckebrecht T (2000) Occupational standards for the protection of employees in biotechnology. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 73:4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Douwes J, Thorne P, Pearce N, Heederik D (2003) Bioaerosol health effects and exposure assessment: progress and prospects. Ann Occup Hyg 47(3):187–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Authority HaS (2013) Safety health and welfare at work (biological agents) regulations 2013. The Stationery Office, DublinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    HSA (2014) Guidelines to the safety, health and welfare at work (biological agents) regulations 2013. Health and Safety Authority, DublinGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roes AL, Patel MK (2007) Life cycle risks for human health: a comparison of petroleum versus bio-based production of five bulk organic chemicals. Risk Anal 27(5):1311–1321.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00959.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patel M, Crank M, Dornburg V, Hermann B, Roes A, Huesing B, Overbeek L, Terragni F, Recchia E (2006) Medium and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources - the potential of white biotechnology. UU CHEM NW&S (Copernicus), UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Lenteren JC, Babendreier D, Bigler F, Burgio G, Hokkanen HMT, Kuske S, Loomans AJM, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Van Rijn PCJ, Thomas MB (2003) Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control. BioControl 48(1):3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hickson R, Moeed A, Hannah D (2000) HSNO, ERMA and risk management. New Zealand Sci Rev 57(3–4):72–77Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saracino A, Moreno VC, Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Cozzani V (2016) Application of a self-assessment methodology for occupational safety to biogas industry. Chem Eng Trans 53:247–252.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1653042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moreno VC, Guglielmi D, Cozzani V (2018) Identification of critical safety barriers in biogas facilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.07.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of TechnologyPolicy and Management, Safety and Security Science Group (S3G), TU DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations