Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment of Processes and Products in Industrial Biotechnology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainability and Life Cycle Assessment in Industrial Biotechnology

Part of the book series: Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology ((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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Prophylactic measures include any measure taken to prevent disease before it occurs and procedures that help to prevent infection after exposure to a pathogen or to ease symptoms associated with an illness or health condition, such as vaccination and medical supervision.

  2. 2.

    A biological safety cabinet (BSC) is an enclosed, ventilated laboratory workspace for safely working. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classifies BSCs into three classes based on the level of personnel and environmental protection provided and the level of product protection provided by the BSC. The Class I biological safety cabinets provide personnel and environmental protection, but no product protection. The Class II biological safety cabinets provide personnel, environmental and product protection. The Class III biological safety cabinets are designed for work with microbiological agents assigned to biosafety group 4, and provides maximum protection to the environment and the employee.

  3. 3.

    Risk cofactors are characteristics that may affect the risk or the probability of the occurrence of a harmful effect, such as work condition parameters and characteristics of operators.

References

  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 engineering

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arendt J (1990) Management of quantitative risk assessment in the chemical process industry. Process Saf Prog 9(4):262–268

    Google Scholar 

  3. Flynn AM, Theodore L (2001) Health, safety, and accident management in the chemical process industries. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.2005.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lees F (2012) Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries: hazard identification, assessment and control. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  6. CCPS (1992) Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures2nd edn. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Meyer T, Reniers G (2016) Engineering risk management. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Covello VT, Merkhoher MW (2013) Risk assessment methods: approaches for assessing health and environmental risks. Springer Science & Business Media, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Markowski AS, Mannan MS (2008) Fuzzy risk matrix. J Hazard Mater 159(1):152–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kletz TA (1999) HAZOP and HAZAN: identifying and assessing process industry hazards. IChemE, Warwickshire

    Google Scholar 

  11. CCPS (2011) Guidelines for process safety in bioprocess manufacturing facilities. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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 262:221–245

    Google Scholar 

  13. Caucheteux D, Mathot P (2005) Biological risk assessment: an explanation meant for safety advisors in Belgium. Appl Biosafety 10(1):10–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeebhay MF (2002) An approach to hazardous biological agents in the workplace – legal provisions and practical considerations. Occup Health South Afr 8(2):8–13

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chosewood LC, Wilson DE (1999) Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories. U.S.GPO, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  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 374:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  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 DC

    Google Scholar 

  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.2015.04.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kotek L, Trávníčekb P, Blechaa P (2015) Accident analysis of European biogas stations. Chem Eng Trans 43:1933–1938

    Google Scholar 

  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.2014.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moreno VC, Giacomini E, Cozzani V (2016) Identification of major accident hazards in industrial biological processes. Chem Eng Trans 48:679–684

    Google Scholar 

  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.2015.10.017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. CSChE (2012) Process safety management guide4th edn. Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eckebrecht T (2000) Occupational standards for the protection of employees in biotechnology. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 73:4–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  26. Douwes J, Thorne P, Pearce N, Heederik D (2003) Bioaerosol health effects and exposure assessment: progress and prospects. Ann Occup Hyg 47(3):187–200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Authority HaS (2013) Safety health and welfare at work (biological agents) regulations 2013. The Stationery Office, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  28. HSA (2014) Guidelines to the safety, health and welfare at work (biological agents) regulations 2013. Health and Safety Authority, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  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.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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), Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  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):3–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hickson R, Moeed A, Hannah D (2000) HSNO, ERMA and risk management. New Zealand Sci Rev 57(3–4):72–77

    Google Scholar 

  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/CET1653042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.2017.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Safety and Security Science Group (S3G), TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands

    Chao Chen & Genserik Reniers

  2. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands

    Genserik Reniers

Authors
  1. Chao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Genserik Reniers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Genserik Reniers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TUM Campus Straubing for Biotechnology and Sustainability, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Straubing, Germany

    Magnus Fröhling

  2. Department of Business Chemistry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany

    Michael Hiete

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chen, C., Reniers, G. (2018). Risk Assessment of Processes and Products in Industrial Biotechnology. In: Fröhling, M., Hiete, M. (eds) Sustainability and Life Cycle Assessment in Industrial Biotechnology. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, vol 173. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2018_74

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation