Introduction
Laboratories play the main role in the skill development of students, particularly in health and engineering sciences [1]. Laboratories in research and teaching institutions and universities are accounted as crucial places for accidents and emergencies [2, 3]. University laboratories have been reported as even more dangerous places compared to industries [4]. There is a wide variety of potential exposures to occupational hazards in the work environments of laboratories. These exposures can be physical, chemical, biological, psychological, and social [5]. Furthermore, laboratories may be a threat to the national community by accidentally releasing hazardous chemicals into the air. In these cases, environmental pollution is the main concern in the affected communities. Furthermore, the lesson learned from some of the academic laboratory incidents indicates that such accidents could have been prevented if a more accurate method of risk assessment had been undertaken [6, 7]. Studies have shown that the most severe consequences in laboratories are related to chemicals that should be considered with high accuracy [8]. To create a safe working environment in the laboratories for faculties, students and staff are required to identify, assess, and control potential risks in health, safety, and environmental areas. Accidents in academic labs with injuries and loss of life are incidents that should be prevented and mitigated through risk management approaches [9]. Also, a literature review demonstrated that academic laboratories have parts of work-related accidents due to the wide range of diverse chemicals used [4]. The Chemical and Hazard Research Council received reports of 120 lab incidents from 2001 to 2011 in the United States [10]. Conducting a comprehensive risk assessment in academic laboratories is the first step to understanding the hazards of chemicals and prioritizing control measures based on estimated risk scores in the health, safety, and environmental domains individually [11, 12, 13]. Also, protection from accidents and emergencies in academic laboratories require a sound knowledge of the dangers and the practical measures that are to be taken. Effective training courses on chemical safety, health, and environment help to prevail the communication risk program in the universities and change the attitude of laboratory users to do safe procedures and practices that result in a positive safety culture in academic laboratories [14, 15]. 
The literature review indicated that previous studies have been primarily focused on risks associated with clinical laboratory operations in Iran [16-19]; however, academic and research laboratories also have a direct impact on the safety and public health impacts of staff and students. Accordingly, they deserve serious attention. Identifying hazards and predicting risks is the primary step toward managing risks for academic laboratory staff, students, the general population, and the environment. This study explores hazard identification in the work environments of laboratories and conducts a comprehensive risk assessment of the most widely used chemicals in academic laboratories. 

Materials and Methods
Study design
This study was conducted in 2021 as a survey. Five research and teaching laboratories in the School of Public Health affiliated with Semnan University of Medical Sciences were assessed. In the first stage, the collecting data tool was a checklist which was adopted from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), International Labor Organization (ILO), and the Princeton University laboratory safety manual and could identify hazards in the laboratories. The checklist was designed in 7 sections with 125 items and was completed in all laboratories understudy (Table 1).


These instruments were applied in previous studies to determine health, security, and environmental hazards and the validity and reliability of the checklist was acceptable. The reported Cronbach α and content validity index for the checklist were 0.8 and 0.76, respectively [20, 21]. The checklist was completed in each laboratory by walk-through observations and help with working individuals in laboratories.
In the second stage, we focused on the 10 most widely used chemicals in the assessed laboratories for calculating the risk scores in the health, safety, and environment sections, individually. We recognized the chemicals with the help of the laboratory manager and staff and also documented investigations about the time intervals of providing the chemicals. For conducting the comprehensive risk assessment of considered chemicals, the literature reviewed for hazard degree of carcinogenicity, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), safety of chemicals as identified by the international organizations and standards and national fire protection agency codes [22] and the hazard rate (HR) of using chemicals was determined. 
Further, the exposure rate (ER) for chemical risk assessment of using chemicals was quantified by calculating the Equation 1 [5]: 


Where F and D describe the number of exposure weekly and mean exposure time (h), respectively. The item “M” demonstrates the exposure rate (ppm or mg/m3) and W shows the mean of work hours (40 h/week).

Classification of risk assessment
The risk scores estimated the evaluated chemicals that categorized risk into 5 varying levels from “very low” to “very high”. The likelihood and severity were replaced with ER and HR, respectively. This risk categorization was conducted based on the risk matrix of ISO 31000 (Figure 1) [20].
Corrective actions and analysis
The collected information from hazard identification and risk score estimations were compared to identify the practical prevention and mitigation measures in the laboratory understudy. The collected data in each stage were entered into Excel data sheets, version 2016 and then analyzed. 

Results 
The results for hazard identification indicated that most non-compliances with health, safety, and environmental principles were observed in the categories of environment (100%), laboratory safety and health knowledge (82%), health (59%), and emergency planning (58%). In the category of security, compliance was equal to 100%; however, the figure in the safety and general work environment categories decreased to 51% and 59%, respectively. Training and awareness as the subcategories of laboratory safety and health knowledge did not have acceptable situations with 100% and 64% non-compliance, respectively. In the sub-categories of emergency planning, major considerations should be paid for establishing emergency procedures, such as spill control plans and chemical safety programs, providing information having risk communication plans, and providing the required facilities for accidents and emergencies. In the safety category, pressure systems, personal protective equipment (PPE), electrical safety, and chemical storage were the sub-categories that needed severe supervision for implementing correction measures in the assessed laboratories. Further, the maintenance of flammable liquids and compressed gases had an acceptable compliance level with guidelines. The results of the chemical risk assessment including health, safety, and environmental risks are demonstrated in Table 2.


The results of the risk assessment showed that the highest risk score is health hazards, with 50% in the likelihood of hazards, and 50% in the severity of consequences. A total of 40% of assessed chemicals in health hazards were categorized at very high-risk levels. These chemicals included hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid among the 10 most widely used chemicals in the laboratories. The other chemicals were categorized at moderate and low-risk levels with 20% and 40%, respectively. 
In the case of fire, explosion, and release into the air as safety hazards, the assessed chemicals are categorized into 4 existing risk levels from 5. The highest likelihood and severity of safety hazards with 30%. Ethanol and formaldehyde were categorized at very high-risk levels and constitute 20% of assessed chemicals; however, most chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, toluene, benzene, and di ethyl ether ranked at high-risk levels as flammable gases and liquids with 50%. The remainder of the chemicals were classified at moderate and very low risk levels with 10% and 20%, respectively. The ferric sulfate and ammonium chloride were the safest using chemicals in the assessed categorization of safety hazards.
In the environmental hazard categorization, including water, soil, and air pollution particularly wastewater effluent disposal, the highest risk of likelihood and severity of assessed chemicals were 40% and 20%, respectively. Hydrochloric acid was assessed at a very high-risk level but the most used chemicals ranked at a high-risk level with 30% in this hazard area. Further, 30%, 20%, and 10% of assessed chemicals were categorized at low, moderate, and very low-risk levels, respectively. Ammonium chloride was evaluated as the safest chemical in the environmental hazards in laboratories understudy. 

Discussion
Hazards identification and conducting a comprehensive risk assessment in the academic laboratories were the main parts of this study. Strict monitoring for considering prevention and mitigation measures must be focused on using chemicals with high-risk scores in health, safety, and environmental assessment [23, 24]. The findings revealed that the most remarkable non-compliance is waste disposal system as an important environmental risk factor. The findings of one study in Thailand were in line with our results and indicated that building a safety system for laboratory liquid waste disposal has become an important issue in the environmental protection of universities during their quick development [25]. Not sealing all waste containers, not establishing a procedure for disposing of empty glass chemical containers, or not applying chemical containers of materials that will not be affected by the substances that are stored in them were the important points in the environmental hazard categorization.
The other outstanding non-compliances are related to health hazards and emergency planning. The lack of appropriate ventilation systems in all assessed laboratories, including not strong and active hoods or not installing the local exhaust ventilation for controlling airborne, gases or vapor contaminants were the threatening risk factors for health users in the laboratories understudy. These findings are similar to a study that was conducted in 2016 [26]. Imperfective or non-availability of required procedures and equipment for emergency planning is another important risk factor in the laboratories. The lack of self-contained breathing apparatus damaged eyewash, and safety showers or having a written spill control plan for each laboratory were the instances of faults in emergency planning. Unless the safety non-compliances were more limited in comparison to health and environment hazards, some defects in electrical hazards, chemical storage, flammable liquids, or lack of appropriate PPE in relevance to identified hazards may result in catastrophic incidents, severe injuries, and even death in the academic laboratories. All the mentioned cases of safety hazards in this study were confirmed in a risk assessment study that has been done in establishing a chemical safety program at the University of Kufa, Iraq [27].
Providing a safety data sheet is sufficient as a part of chemical safety programs in the work environments of laboratories. The lab employees and managers should optimize the use of the information available in these documents, and most critically validate this information with other authoritative chemical safety information sources [28]. 
A general lack of safety culture among the faculties, staff, and students could be a main barrier to providing safe work environments in the laboratories to protect the users. One approach for promoting the safety culture is implementing compulsory training courses and increasing the awareness of target groups [29]. This point has been ignored in the laboratory understudy. Although, just this training might not result in providing a safety culture in laboratory environments; however, if it is associated with monitoring and inspecting, we could observe a positive modification in the behavior safety of laboratory users. All laboratory workers should receive an orientation to the laboratory which includes where the chemical safety plan is kept, how to use laboratory equipment, how and when to use PPE, where emergency equipment is, who to contact in accidents and emergencies, where SDS is kept, spill control procedures, emergency procedures, and incident reporting. Furthermore, all training should be repeated at specific intervals and documented [30, 31]. One study in 2019 in Mexico indicated that students reported a sense of safety in the workplace at laboratories because the laboratory employees who were around them had received adequate safety training and the students should take adequate safety training and act responsibly to be able to face unexpected situations in laboratories [32]. Also, the results of a study about electrical safety in academic laboratories highlighted that qualified personnel who work on energized equipment including direct contact or contact using tools must be trained on how to work safely on energized circuits [33].

Conclusion
An increasing number of health, safety, and environmental hazards in academic laboratories warrant the need for a comprehensive risk assessment alongside a compilation of the safest laboratory practices. 
The tools in this study identified the potential hazards and also helped to determine mitigative actions. Further, the results enable the lab managers to make informed decisions on the corrective measures required for using chemicals and work environments according to their estimated risk scores in health, safety, and environmental categories individually. Seriously, it is required to install disposal equipment at the source of pollutants, PPE used during activities in the laboratories, and labeling on the chemical containers or bottles such as images, symbols, letters, risk statements, or a combination of them. Furthermore, the training programs should be provided according to the knowledge level of staff and faculties and safety culture situation to improve health, safety, and environment in the laboratory environment. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct knowledge, attitudes, and practice studies of the users’ laboratories concerning being able to identify hazards. 

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The research protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Semnan University of Medical Sciences (Code: IR.SEMUMS.REC.1398.131).

Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors. 

Authors' contributions 
Study design and writing: Alireza Dehdashti and Farin Fatemi; Data collection and entering data into the dataset: Mohammadreza Janati; Final approval: All authors.

Conflict of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the staff laboratories that participated and collaborated in this study and Semnan University of Medical Sciences for their support in conducting this research.


References

1. Ménard AD, Trant JF. A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nature Chemistry. 2020; 12(1):17-25. [DOI:10.1038/s41557-019-0375-x] [PMID]
2. Yusuf M, Haqi DN, Alayyannur PA, Dwiyanti E, Nur LR. Risk analysis of accidents and occupatioal disease in Ohs (occupational health and safety) laboratory. Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development. 2019; 10(7):884-8. [DOI:10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01689.9]
3. Abunamous RE, Musalam AM, El-Ashgar NM. Security and safety procedures in universities and emergency management. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University Basic and Applied Sciences. 2021; 22(2):342-51. [Link]
4. Taheri E, Mollabahrami F, Farokhzad M, Ghasemi F, Assari MJ. Risk assessment in academic laboratories in the west of Iran: compare the CHRA and the RSLs methods. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 2020; 30(2):198-211. [DOI:10.1080/09603123.2019.1588232] [PMID]
5. Dehdashti A, Hafezi R. [Health, safety and environmental risk assessment in an academic laboratory: A case study (Persian)]. Source of the Document Iran Occupational Health. 2015:66-86. [Link]
6. Mohammadfam I, Abdolahi F, Karimi S. Assessment and risk management in the laboratories of the School of Public Health, a medical university using the ACHiL Technique (Persian)]. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2018; 5(2):20-7. [DOI:10.21859/johe.5.2.20]
7. De Felice M, D'Abramo M, Mormile P, Scatigna M, Bianchi S, Fabiani L. Risk assessment of biological hazards in university laboratories: checklist and critical control points. Annali di igiene: Medicina preventiva e di comunita. 2021; 33(6):589-601. [PMID]
8. Sundawa BV, Hutajulu E, Sirait R, Banurea W, Mulyadi S, editors. Risk assessment for safety laboratories in Politeknik Negeri Medan. Journal of Physics: Conference Series; 2017; 890:012147. [DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012147]
9. da Silva LH, de Abreu Rodrigues LC, Diogenes AN, Abrantes AC, Baptista A, de Araújo Ponte H. A risk reduction approach for academic research labs: A case study on naphthenic corrosion. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2020; 64:104061. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104061]
10. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Texas Tech University case study laboratory explosion No. 2010-05-I-TX [Internet]. 2011 [Updated 2011 Sptember 22]. Available from: [Link]
11. Talpade AD, Ghanekar P, Ezenwa S, Joshi R, Kravitz S, Tunga A, et al. Promoting a safe laboratory environment using the reactive hazard evaluation and analysis compilation tool. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety. 2021; 28(2):134-43. [DOI:10.1021/acs.chas.1c00006]
12. Husin S, Mohamad AB, Abdullah S, Anuar N. Implementation of chemical health risk assessment in teaching laboratories. Asian Social Science. 2012; 8(16):184-91. [DOI:10.5539/ass.v8n16p184]
13. Malakouti J, Jang SA, Mosaferchi S, Hasely F, Azizi F, Mahdinia M. [Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories of Qom University of Medical Sciences (Persian)]. Iran Occupational Health Journal. 2014; 11(2):13-25. [Link]
14. Schröder I, Huang DYQ, Ellis O, Gibson JH, Wayne NL. Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety. 2016; 23(1):12-23. [DOI:10.1016/j.jchas.2015.03.001]
15. Ozdemir Y, Gul M, Celik E. Assessment of occupational hazards and associated risks in fuzzy environment: A case study of a university chemical laboratory. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2017; 23(4):895-924. [DOI:10.1080/10807039.2017.1292844]
16. Kangarlou MB, Fatemi F, Dehdashti A, Iravani H, Saleh E. Occupational health risk assessment of airborne formaldehyde in medical laboratories. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2023; 30(17):50392-401. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-25523-6] [PMID]
17. Gharibi V, Barkhordari A, Jahangiri M. Semi-quantitative risk assessment of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in health center laboratories (Case Study). Shiraz E-Medical Journal. 2019; 20(10):e86764. [DOI:10.5812/semj.86764]
18. Jalali M, Moghadam SR, Baziar M, Hesam G, Moradpour Z, Zakeri HR. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, lifetime cancer probability, and hazard quotient in pathology lab employees in Iran: A quantitative risk assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. 2021; 28(2):1878-88. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-10627-0] [PMID]
19. Karami Mosafer A, Taheri E, Bahrami A, Zolhavarieh SM, Assari MJ. Comparing formaldehyde risk assessment in histopathology laboratory staff using three methods based on US EPA approaches in the west of Iran. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics: JOSE. 2022; 28(2):1066-76. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2020.1865618] [PMID]
20. Dehdashti A, Fatemi F, Jannati M, Asadi F, Kangarloo MB. Applying health, safety, and environmental risk assessment at academic settings. BMC Public Health. 2020; 20(1):1328. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-020-09419-5] [PMID]
21. Aberystwyth University. Example of general risk assessments. Aberystwyth: Aberystwyth University; 2015. [Link]
22. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA 704: Standard system for the identification of the hazards of materials for emergency response. Massachusetts: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); 2017. [Link]
23. Amelia A, Rahman A, Nursiah, Sitorus N, Viyata Sundawa B, Roslina. The importance of safety learning to increase student awareness when working in laboratories in vocational education institutions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series; 2021; 1830:012002. [DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1830/1/012002]
24. Omidvari M, Mansouri N, Nouri J. A pattern of fire risk assessment and emergency management in educational center laboratories. Safety Science. 2015; 73:34-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.003]
25. Ho CC, Chen MS. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chemical laboratories. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.). 2018; 71:578-588. [DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029] [PMID]
26. Oshima Y. Characteristics of chemical risks in academic research laboratory. Journal of Environment and Safety. 2016; 7(2):95-7. [DOI:10.11162/daikankyo.E15PROCK03]
27. Abood M, Al-Ibadi M. The chemical safety and security in the University of Kufa: Progress and challenges. Iraqi National Journal of Chemistry. 2016; 16(2):96-105. [Link]
28. McEwen L, Stuart R, Sweet E, Izzo R. Baseline survey of academic chemical safety information practices. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety. 2018; 25(3):6-10. [DOI:10.1016/j.jchas.2017.10.009]
29. Ayi HR, Hon CY. Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety. 2018; 25(6):6-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.jchas.2018.05.002]
30. Shu C, Lin M. Planning, managing and designing in laboratories safety and health. Taipei: Gau-Lih Book Co; 2004. [Link]
31. Ali AA, Shaalan N, Al-Dahhan W, Hairunisa N, Yousif E. A technical evaluation of a chemistry laboratory: A step forward for maintaining safety measures. Oriental Journal of Physical Sciences. 2017; 2(1):34-7. [DOI:10.13005/OJPS02.01.06]
32. Salazar-Escoboza MA, Laborin-Alvarez JF, Alvarez-Chavez CR, Noriega-Orozco L, Borbon-Morales C. Safety climate perceived by users of academic laboratories in higher education institutes. Safety Science. 2020; 121:93-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.003]
33. Araneo R, Dehghanian P, Mitolo M, editors. On electrical safety in academic laboratories. Paper presented at: 2019 IEEE/IAS 55^th Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference (I&CPS). 05-08 May 2019; Calgary, AB, Canada. [DOI:10.1109/ICPS.2019.8733357]