Priority setting for existing chemicals: European Union risk ranking method

1999 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjorn G. Hansen ◽  
Anniek G. van Haelst ◽  
Kees van Leeuwen ◽  
Peter van der Zandt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Ranking Method ◽  
Risk Ranking ◽  
Existing Chemicals

Priority setting for existing chemicals: Automated data selection routine

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 2372-2377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anniek G. van Haelst ◽  
Bjorn G. Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Data Selection ◽  
Existing Chemicals

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Los Alamos Nuclear Material Packaging Risk Ranking Method

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Smith ◽  
Elizabeth Kelly ◽  
Kimberly Kaufeld ◽  
Timothy Stone ◽  
David Prochnow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Material ◽  
Ranking Method ◽  
Los Alamos ◽  
Risk Ranking

scholarly journals Prioritization of pesticides in crops with a semi-quantitative risk ranking method for Taiwan postmarket monitoring program

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 347-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Chun Chou ◽  
Wei-Ren Tsai ◽  
Hsiu-Hui Chang ◽  
Shui-Yuan Lu ◽  
King-Fu Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Ranking Method ◽  
Risk Ranking

scholarly journals Analysis of the Risks arising from Fire Installations in Workplaces using the Ranking Method

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 5914-5920
Author(s):  
F. Yilmaz ◽  
S. Alp ◽  
B. Oz ◽  
A. Alkoc
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Fire Safety ◽  
Fuzzy Ahp ◽  
Fire Risk ◽  
Ranking Method ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Safety Factors ◽  
Risk Ranking ◽  
Work Area

The aim of this study is to analyze the risks arising from fire installations in workplaces. It also aims to propose a risk analysis method in the form of a “Fire Safety Risk Ranking System” for enterprises with a closed work area of more than 1000m2 in accordance with regulations in Turkey. The relative weights of fire safety factors were determined by Fuzzy AHP. The ranking points of the enterprises were calculated by using the weights obtained with FAHP. From the 45 enterprises where the risk assessment was applied, only 3 enterprises scored 100 full points according to the fire risk ranking method, and 30 enterprises had a score below 80 points. Out of these, 6 scored below 60 points, which is considered a low score. The distribution of enterprises within sectors was not equal. According to the results, only 6.6% of the enterprises are in compliance with legislation and standards, about 67% are inadequate in terms of fire safety and continue to operate under serious fire risks.

Priority setting of existing chemicals

Chemosphere ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1419-1443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Weiß ◽  
Werner Kördel ◽  
Dida Kuhnen-Clausen ◽  
Arno W. Lange ◽  
Werner Klein
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Existing Chemicals
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document