A Qualitative Study of Safety Professionals’ Experiences in Managing Chemical Exposure Risks and Hazardous Materials Controls in Industrial Facilities

Abstract

This study addresses the problem that enterprises often manage chemical exposure risks with limited visibility into non-routine tasks and inconsistent verification of control performance, leaving residual risk even when hazards are recognized. The purpose was to quantify and compare how hazardous-materials controls are documented across enterprise cases using the Hierarchy of Controls and structured evidence coding. A quantitative, cross-sectional, case-based design analyzed 30 eligible enterprise case studies from 2006 to 2020 (n=30): manufacturing 40%, chemical processing 23%, oil and gas 17%, pharmaceuticals 10%, and mixed/other 10%. Key variables were sector, hazard profile and exposure route, plus Likert-coded indices (1–5) for engineering robustness, administrative strength, PPE strength, and monitoring and verification maturity. The analysis used descriptive statistics, cross-case comparison matrices, and ranked frequency-severity pattern analysis. Solvent/VOC scenarios were most common (37%, 11/30), followed by dust/particulates (27%, 8/30), corrosives (20%, 6/30), and mixed profiles (16%, 5/30), with inhalation emphasized in 53% (16/30) of cases. Across cases, monitoring and verification was lowest (mean 2.9/5), while engineering robustness averaged 3.0/5 (SD 0.8), administrative strength 3.4/5, and PPE strength 3.7/5. The most prevalent breakdown was monitoring not representative of non-routine tasks (63%, 19/30; severity 4.2/5), followed by unverified ventilation or enclosure performance (57%, 17/30; severity 4.0/5).  Pharmaceuticals showed higher engineering robustness (4.1/5) and verification maturity (3.8/5) than mixed/other cases (2.9/5 and 2.8/5). Implications are to prioritize representative monitoring for non-routine work, routine verification of engineering performance, and point-of-work hazard communication.