Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management

in Taiwan University chemical laboratories
Chao-Chung Ho a,1, Ming-Shu Chen b,1,⇑
a
Department of Public Administration, Nanfang College of Sun Yat-Sen University, Conghua District, Guangzhou Hot Springs Road, No. 882, China
b
Department of Health Care Administration, Oriental Institute of Technology, No.58, Sec. 2, Sihchuan Rd., Pan-Chiao Dist., New Taipei City 22061, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The policy of establishing new universities across Taiwan has led to an increase in the number of univer-
Received 3 April 2017 sities, and many schools have constructed new laboratories to meet students’ academic needs. In recent
Revised 21 September 2017 years, there has been an increase in the number of laboratory accidents from the liquid waste in univer-
Accepted 22 September 2017
sities. Therefore, how to build a safety system for laboratory liquid waste disposal has become an impor-
Available online xxxx
tant issue in the environmental protection, safety, and hygiene of all universities. This study identifies the
risk factors of liquid waste disposal and presents an agenda for practices to laboratory managers. An
Keywords:
expert questionnaire is adopted to probe into the risk priority procedures of liquid waste disposal; then,
Waste management
Laboratory liquid waste
the fuzzy theory-based FMEA method and the traditional FMEA method are employed to analyze and
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) improve the procedures for liquid waste disposal. According to the research results, the fuzzy FMEA
Fuzzy theory method is the most effective, and the top 10 potential disabling factors are prioritized for improvement
according to the risk priority number (RNP), including ‘‘Unclear classification”, ‘‘Gathering liquid waste
without a funnel or a drain pan”, ‘‘Lack of a clearance and transport contract”, ‘‘Liquid waste spill during
delivery”, ‘‘Spill over”, ‘‘Decentralized storage”, ‘‘Calculating weight in the wrong way”, ‘‘Compatibility
between the container material and the liquid waste”, ‘‘Lack of dumping and disposal tools”, and ‘‘Lack
of a clear labels for liquid waste containers”. After tracking improvements, the overall improvement rate
rose to 60.2%.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction factors of liquid waste disposal, and presents a practice agenda

To improve higher education and research environments in
Taiwan, Taiwanese education management institutions have made
a series of policies to promote the establishment of new universi-
ties, departments, and research institutes in recent years, which
has indirectly accelerated the development of new technologies.
The number of Taiwanese universities has increased by 27, from
137 in 1996 to 164 in 2007, which reaches an historical peak
(Hsu and Hsieh, 2016). As the number of universities and research
institutes increases, it is necessary to provide laboratories for
students to conduct experiments or research, and thus, improve
their skills and abilities. While the objective of this study is 216
laboratories, focus is placed on 68 laboratories for chemical engi-
neering that generate liquid wastes. This study identifies the risk
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Public Administration, Nanfang
College of Sun Yat-Sen University, No.882, Wenquan Road, Wenquan Town,
Conghua District, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510970, PR China.
E-mail address: tree1013@gmail.com (M.-S. Chen).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
to laboratories managers. This paper contributes to the knowledge
of practices to improve laboratory liquid waste management. How-
ever, the continuous increase in the number of laboratories in uni-
versities and research institutes in recent years has resulted in a
greater number of industrial wastes, such as waste, liquid waste,
and effluent. The increasing number of laboratories has caused
an increase in industrial waste, as well as complex management
issues. In particular, the follow-up disposal of the liquid waste gen-
erated by school laboratories has gradually attracted social atten-
tion in recent years; therefore, the industrial management
institutions responsible for waste disposal have collaborated with
universities to take relevant management measures to meet the
social expectations on universities.
Most universities in Taiwan are equipped with a laboratory.
According to Article 2 of the Waste Disposal Regulations in the
revised announcement on October 24, 2001, school laboratories
have become a business designated by the law, and schools must
report their waste disposal online since July 1, 2005. In other
words, the liquid waste discharged by the laboratories of academic
or research institutes has been listed as an object to be strictly

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
0956-053X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
2 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

controlled, and must be well disposed of in accordance with rele- versities across the nation: 14 junior colleges, 21 technical
vant regulations for industrial waste management, as stipulated institutes, 126 universities, and 2 National Open Universities, for
in the Waste Disposal Regulations. There are regulations related a total of 160 higher education institutes. All these schools, espe-
to the management of waste; regulations related to academic insti- cially the departments of science, engineering, and chemistry, are
tutions include: Waste Disposal Act, Waste Disposal Act Enforce- equipped with a laboratory for the internship and practices of stu-
ment Rules, Methods and Facilities Standards for the Storage, dents. Chemical experiments in the laboratory would generate liq-
Clearance and Disposal of Industrial Waste, Measures for the uid waste.
Administration of the Common Disposal of Waste Disposal of Edu-
cational Institutions, Notice on the Required Waste Clearance Plan,
2.1. Laboratories liquid waste
Notice on the Regulation that the Waste Production, Storage, Clear-
ance, Disposal, Recycling, Input and Output Should Be Reported by
According to the ‘‘Improve each university campus pollution
Network Transmission, Resource Recycling Act, The handling of
control public facilities integrated planning (II)” by Taiwan’s Min-
toxic chemical substances by academic organizations management
istry of Education, Li (2000) conducted a questionnaire survey to
method, and Standards for Defining Hazardous Waste. Inspection
estimate the quantity of the laboratory wastes of schools at all
regulations for the waste management of for-profit institutions
levels in Taiwan, and the findings showed that the liquid waste
are stringent, while not-for-profit university laboratories are man-
of the laboratories of these schools in 2000 was around
aged by means of self-regulation due to their small size. The aspect
1,691,100 liters/year (as Table 1). The estimated quantity of liquid
of ‘‘waste management” is, however, marginal and relegated to the
waste of higher education institutes was about 740,100 liters/year,
administrative field due to very small quantities, which do not rep-
accounting for about 43.76%. The liquid wastes include organic liq-
resent a serious management problem. However, a lot of the acci-
uid waste, acid and alkaline liquid waste, cyanide liquid waste,
dents and personal injuries that have occurred in university
heavy metal liquid waste, hexavalent chromium liquid, mercury
laboratories or not-for-profit laboratories were caused by improper
liquid waste, and others. Specifically, heavy metal liquid waste
handling of waste from academic chemical laboratories. This
accounts for 47.9%; organic liquid waste accounts for 32.2%; acid
reveals that the disposal of the waste of school laboratories has
and alkaline liquid waste accounts for 12.4%. According to the
been controlled and standardized by relevant laws and regulations
research report, most liquid waste is hazardous industrial waste,
in Taiwan.
which affects human health and causes environmental pollution;
According to Kuo (2005), the use of chemicals in school labora-
if appropriate control measures are not taken, such liquid waste
tories have the following features: (1) a wide variety, (2) great
will have severe impact on the environment and affect public
change, (3) specialty, and (4) small amount. Regarding school lab-
health.
oratories, generation and management may lead to environmental
According to the research data from Ni (2002), there has been
pollution, and the potential risks and hazards caused by inappro-
great quantities of wastes generated by the laboratories of schools
priate management and disposal of liquid waste are all related to
at all levels in Taiwan every year; 92 ± 7% of them were hazardous
the hazards of laboratories that use chemicals. Therefore, the lack
according to the standards of hazardous industrial wastes; annu-
of effective measures of disposing of hazard wastes may cause
ally, the schools created about 1586 metric tons of hazardous
environmental pollution and pose harm to laboratory staff.
industrial wastes, and 1556 metric tons were the liquid wastes of
Horng and Kuo (2007) analyzed the 340 cases of chemical storage
laboratories. Kuo (2005) summarized the data released by the Min-
accidents between 1997 and 2006, and found that 30% were caused
istry of Education, and found that the annual estimated quantity of
by human error; 26% by storage factors; 44% by other problems,
the liquid wastes of school laboratories across the nation from
such as malfunction of safety equipment and wire fires. While lab-
2001 to 2005 ranged between 1,650,000 l to 1,700,000 l. These data
oratories consume less chemicals than factories, the wide variety,
show that liquid wastes account for a large proportion of labora-
great change, and special uses increase the complexity of the man-
tory wastes.
agement, storage, and disposal of laboratory chemicals. Worse still,
The most important result of the comprehensive program for
there is an inadequate number of laboratory maintenance staff in
hazardous waste management is the legacy of environmental care
schools, and staff management is inefficient. Hence, human errors
imparted to the student community. Lara et al. (2017) the scientific
may be the main causes of laboratory accidents. Jose et al. (2011)
value of this paper is the development of a new classification of
found that among the 15 companies studied, only four had adopted
hazardous waste, which can be useful in the chemistry depart-
a consistent set of diversified management and human resources
ments of universities. Finally, this work acknowledges the chal-
practices. These four companies were the only companies to affirm
lenge for universities and organizations to act, develop
that diverse management requires the strong support of top man-
sustainability, and change the paradigms and assumptions on
agement and continuous organization to sustain efforts toward
which these organizations are currently based.
incorporating diversity.
Chien et al. (2000) argued that the amount of hazardous mate-
rials used in university laboratories was small in quantity, but the
2. Literature review chemicals are widely varied. Although the experimental procedure
is simple, both teachers and students tend to overlook the potential
According to Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (2016), the Depart- hazards. Yu and Chou (2001) argued that the most common hazard
ment of Statistics website data announced the total number of uni- in laboratories was chemicals – meaning immediate harm or

Table 1
Total quantity of liquid waste of laboratories of schools at all levels in Taiwan in 2000.

Variety Acid and alkaline Heavy metal liquid Hexavalent liquid Cyanide liquid Organic liquid Mercury liquid Other liquid Total
liquid waste waste waste waste waste waste waste
Liters/Year 210,300 809,800 94,700 5,000 544,600 9,900 16,900 1,691,100
Percentage 12.4 47.9 5.6 0.3 32.2 0.6 1.0 100.0
(%)

Reference Li (2000).

Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
cumulative pathological changes to the internal and external parts
of the human body, as caused by fire, explosion, poisonous, and
erosive materials. According to Chang and Wang (2006), there
was an increasing number of equipment, facilities, and chemicals
in school laboratories, and the hazardous wastes of the laboratories
were complex, various, and highly changeable; worse still, the lack
of professional staff, standard operational management, and rele-
vant disposal channels would cause secondary pollution to the
environment.
2.2. Safety of laboratories
Sun (2015) indicated that chemical laboratories have numerous
potential safety problems, as inflammable, explosive, and poi-
sonous chemicals are stored there. Moreover, the electrical devices
in the chemical experiments are often in a state of high tempera-
ture and pressure, thus, they are more vulnerable to fire and explo-
sion than common laboratories. The organic compounds in
chemical laboratories are highly inflammable and explosive, and
hazardous chemicals have different critical temperatures, critical
pressures, and critical concentrations.
Universities are places where talents are trained, and nearly all
universities are equipped with various laboratories. In recent years,
there have been many reports of accidents in the laboratories or
practical sites of universities. Taiwan has also witnessed a series
of laboratory accidents in its universities since 2000 (as Table 2).
Table 2
A list of laboratory accidents in Taiwanese Universities since 2000. Source: Cases of Poisonous and Chemical Disasters in Laboratories (Tsai, 2012); news events and the data
summarized by the authors of this paper.
Date Location
2001/04/24 The laboratory of School of Sciences at Sun Yat-sen University
2001/07/22 The laboratory of Kaohsiung Medical University
2002/02/27 Fire in the laboratory of Tainan University of Technology
2003/03/06 Fire in the air pollution analysis laboratory of Chia Nan University of
Pharmacy & Science
2003/12/10 The spilling of formalin at National Taitung University, National
Primary School, and the Aquaculture Laboratory of National Cheng
Kung University
2007/09/20 Fire in the laboratory of National Pingtung University
2007/10/19 Fire in the research room of the Kaohsiung Medical University
2009/07/21 Gas explosion in the teaching building of Kaohsiung Medical
University
2012/03/10 Fire alarm in the laboratory of the water conservancy engineering
institute of National Cheng Kung University
2013/05/11 Chemical explosion in the Chemical Building of National Chung
Hsing University
2013/06/25 Fire in the dumpcart of National Yunlin University of Science and
Technology
2013/09/20 Fire in the laboratory of the Material Department of the Electrical
Science and Engineering Building of National Dong Hwa University
2014/01/28 Fire alarm in the Chemical Engineering Building of National Tsing
Hua University
2014/05/14 White smoke in the laboratory of Chemical Engineering Department
of National Cheng Kung University
2015/05/19 Gas explosion in the laboratory of Civic Engineering Research
Institute of National Taiwan University
2016/05/08 Poisonous gases spilled from the Mimicry Center of Physics
Department of National Taiwan University
2016/05/13 White smoke in the Petroleum Chemical Industry Research Center of
National Taiwan University
Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
3
These accident reports underline the importance of laboratory
safety and management on campus.
According to Tsai et al. (2000), the proportion of those in
charge of safety and hygiene in the establishment of safety and
hygiene units of Taiwanese universities was lower than 10%,
and most of the staff was spontaneously responsible for other
tasks. To date, many universities have formed safety and hygiene
teams; however, the leaders have not paid adequate attention to
the issues; the teachers and the students are not fully aware of
the safety problems; only a few of the people in charge of safety
and hygiene have expertise in this aspect. Although there are
schools in Taiwan conducting environment and safety manage-
ment by obtaining ISO certificates, ISO standards are less compul-
sory than laws and regulations. If there is only a slight violation of
ISO standards, they still have room for improvement; however,
once there is violation of law, punishment and improvement are
executed immediately. Consequently, safety and hygiene manage-
ment of the experimental rooms on campus remain to be imple-
mented. According to the research report of the ‘‘Investigation of
the fires and explosions in chemicals-related university laborato-
ries”, Lin et al., (2002) observed the collected cases, and found that
the causes of the accidents could be divided into three groups: (1)
inappropriate management of chemicals, (2) mechanical or device
malfunction, and (3) natural disasters. The inappropriate manage-
ment of chemicals includes four parts, namely, the inappropriate
storage of chemicals, the inappropriate use of chemicals, the
Cause
Alcohol mixed with chemicals was poured into a waste container
1, 2-Dimethoxyethane spilled due to high temperature, and there was a fierce
reaction between the spilled chemical and the adjacent Potassium
Permanganate
The control line of the heater caught fire and ignited the exhaust cabinet
In the extraction experiment in the exhaust cabinet of the air pollution analysis
laboratory, a bottle was broken and the evaporated materials were ignited,
which led to the fire
It was alleged that the sample containers fell onto the floor and broke due to an
earthquake, emitting a pungent odor
A collision in the delivery of chemicals stored in the chemical cabinet (it is
alleged that the collision caused the mixture of Toluene and other solvents and
Hydrogen dioxide and other oxidants, which led to fierce chemical reaction due
to the incompatibility of the chemical materials) (Heat and smoke)
The inappropriate storage of chemicals led to a spontaneous reaction, which
led to a gas explosion
It was alleged that the wire fire of the paraffin embedding machine caused the
fire
The accident occurred in the Termovap Sample Concentrator, and only Toluene
Hexane was affected
It was alleged that too much activated carbon was added into the Isopropyl
Alcohol in the experiment of re-crystallization, which led to excessive heat in a
short time
There were substances that should be kept away from water in the waste. It
was alleged that the fire was caused by the exposure of the substances to water
Chemicals featuring strong acid and base were not appropriately placed around
the air exhaust cabinet of the laboratory, which led to the fire
The laboratory counter caught fire for no reason. It was alleged that there was a
wire fire
Solid zinc was thrown onto a pile of solid wastes, including used test paper and
filtering paper used in the experiment. Active zinc should not be mixed with
other chemical substances
In a concrete pressure reinforcement device experiment, the inappropriate use
of high pressure gas cylinders resulted in the explosion
It was alleged that a little fluorine gas spilled due to a worn-out connection line
of the laser gun. Highly poisonous, this gas is pungent to eyes, skin, and
respiratory mucous membranes. A high concentration of the gas is lethal
It was alleged that the smoke and fire were caused by the inappropriate
maintenance of the circuit board of the Chemical Engineering Research Room
4 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
inappropriate delivery of chemicals, and the inappropriate dis-
posal of chemicals.
According to the disposal of liquid wastes of laboratories, as
described by Wu (2007), liquid wastes were first classified and
gathered in liquid waste containers, and then, stored in the labora-
tory or a regular liquid waste storage room. At the end of the seme-
ster, they would be transported to the school’s liquid waste storage
field, and a clearance company was called to deliver them to the
waste disposal plant when the quantity of liquid waste reached
the designated level. In addition to external factors, such as time,
space, and quantity, human errors, such as an unclear labelling of
liquid waste containers, a wrong record, an incorrect classification,
and overlooked compatibility would also lead to follow-up hazards
and threaten the safety of the campus. Therefore, relevant safety
measures should be added to waste management procedures in
addition to control over the environment and operation, in order
to avoid unexpected chemical hazards caused by human errors
and external factors. However, how to improve the automatic
examination and alarm mechanism in the procedure is a critical
part of liquid waste management.
2.3. Failure mode and effects analysis, FMEA
FMEA was developed in the 1950s in response to the low level
of reliability of oil pressure devices and the electrical devices of
American fighter planes, which often resulted in plane crashes.
The aircraft company Grumman was the first to apply the concept
of FMEA to the fault analysis of the main control system of planes.
In fact, FMEA has been widely used in space, aviation, national
defense, automobiles, electronics, mechanics, shipbuilding, medi-
cine, and even in the service industry. Willy (1998) applied FMEA
to the ISO14001 environment management system, and analyzed
the potential environmental risks of new product manufacturing.
Chen et al. (2016a,b) adopted FMEA to evaluate the priority of
the service demands of the elderly in policies regarding aging. Ho
and Liao (2011) employed the FMEA method to appraise the risk
factors of infectious waste disposal procedures according to the
score of the risk priority index. Additionally, Liao and Ho (2014)
used FMEA to evaluate risk in the evaluation of bio-waste disposal
plants. In addition to being applied to the disposal of bio-waste, the
revised FMEA was adopted for medical improvement. By applying
FMEA to the medical procedure, Burgmeier (2002) redesigned and
improved blood transfusion procedures, and thus, reduced the inci-
dents of untoward reactions in blood transfusions. Therefore, FMEA
will be of great help in strengthening the management of chemical
laboratories and reducing the risks of accidents. Cheng et al. (2004)
first conducted lithography process hazard analysis, and compiled
statistical analysis of the causes of the fires and losses at high-tech
plants in Taiwan. The research of Panchal and Kumar (2016) sought
to propose a quantitative and qualitative approach based inte-
grated framework for the behavior analysis of a process plant sys-
tem. Escande et al. (2016) identified a set of safety measures,
including design, technical, management, and emergency actions,
which shall be implemented in each step of a system’s life cycle.
Deus et al. (2017) aimed to evaluate the Greenhouse Gas emissions
and energy use of six scenarios in two landfills contexts (private
and consortium) for small municipalities (less than 100,000 inhab-
itants, as per Brazilian standards) located in São Paulo, Brazil. A
landfill consortium will only be advantageous if the location is
the most ideal. Small municipalities that do not dispose of their
waste in landfills compatible with regulatory standards may seek
inter-municipal cooperation, and adopt integrated waste-
management programs to reduce their environmental impacts.
Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
2.4. Objectives
This is a case study based on TK University (TKU); while the
objectives of this university are 216 laboratories, focus is placed
on the 68 laboratories of chemical engineering that generate waste
liquids. Most of the waste liquid production comes from the
department of science and engineering, including the Physics
Department and Chemistry Department from the School of
Science; Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering,
Chemical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering from the School
of Engineering, among which the Chemistry Department accounts
for the largest proportion of waste liquid production.
3. Material and methods
To confirm the effectiveness of the research tools in the evalu-
ation and analysis of the causes and risk of potential faults in lab-
oratory liquid waste disposal procedures, this study bases the
settings of the evaluation norms on the Guideline of ‘‘Safety and
Hygiene Plan for Laboratory Chemicals” (Jia and Shi, 2005) of the
Institute of Labor, Occupational Safety, And Health, Ministry of
Labor. The seriousness of evaluation norms and incident evaluation
norms are taken as the evaluation norms of laboratory liquid waste
disposal. Meanwhile, three directors in the Environment Safety
Center, including the head of the Toxic Substance Management
Team, the head of the Safety and Hygiene Team, and the Head of
the Environmental Protection Team, constructed an attribute fac-
tor graph through discussions to determine the risk and hazard
factors in the procedures (Fig. 1). Then, prevention and improve-
ment measures were sought according to the faults in the recy-
cling, storage, clearance, and delivery procedures of the
laboratory liquid waste disposal of universities. Therefore, this
study begins with the problems of the previous recycling, storage,
clearance, and delivery procedures of laboratory liquid wastes, and
creates a fault mode factor table (Table 3) of the laboratory liquid
waste disposal procedures, which is comprised of 4 systems and 26
indices” according to FMEA and discussions of the above three
experts. The table is taken as the analysis tool of this study.
This study adopts an expert questionnaire survey involving 8
experts of liquid waste disposal. The fault model factors in Table 3
are taken as the subjects to evaluate the risks in the recycling, stor-
age, clearance, and delivery of laboratory liquid wastes. The
detailed information about the experts is, as follows (Table 4):
Unlike the traditional application of FMEA, this study adopts the
fuzzy theory to calculate the severity (S), detection (D), occurrence
(O), and risk priority number (RNP) of the factors in the analysis of
potential risks, in order to define the priority of disposal. The fuzzy
set theory is, as follows:
3.1. Fuzzy set theory
The Fuzzy Set Theory was proposed by L. A. Zadeh in 1965,
which was different from the crisp set and definite value of tradi-
tional mathematics; the proposed fuzzy set and Membership
Degree refer to the Quantification of Meaning, which is used for
solving uncertainty, fuzziness, and other phenomena in realistic
environments.
3.2. Membership function (Zadeh, 1965)
The fuzzy set Ae on the universe of discourse X must satisfy
function le on the following X, calling function le as membership
A A
e that is, v 2 X, only exists in one value l (v) 2 [0,1],
function of A, e
A
leA (v) means level of v belonging to. A. e

Use a designated container
(a 20-liter HDPE container)
Lack of an alarm system
Decentralized storage
The data about newly-added
liquids waste are not added into
the waste liquid collection list
Correctness of the data about
clearance and transport
Lack of a clear label for liquid
waste container
Label of conformity to the
demands of the regulation
Irregular check on the alarm and
monitoring system
Lack of a plan for the clearance
of wastes
Lack of a clearance
and transport triplicate
Table 3
Potential factors of the default model of laboratory liquid waste disposal procedures.
Cause
Risk analysis of liquid
waste recycling
3.3. Positive Triangular fuzzy number (Kaufman and Gupta, 1991)
Positive Triangular Fuzzy Number A e is a fuzzy set, as indicated
e A
by A = (L, M, U), and the definition of the membership function
(Fig. 2) is, as follows:
8 A
< ML ; L 6 X 6 M
> XL
leA ðvÞ ¼ MU
XU
; M6X6U
>
:
0; otherwise
Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 5
The substances would
Storage evaporate and spill Recycling
over the container
Not stored in a low-temperature environment
Unclear classification
Gathering liquid waste without
a funnel or a drain pan
Spill over
Not using protective
tools during recycling
Compatibility between the container
material and the liquid waste Analysis of reducing
the risk in laboratory
liquid waste disposal
Lack of a clear label for
hazardous industrial wastes
Lack of a clearance and transport
Waste liquid spills during delivery
contract
Lack of a plan for emergencies
Lack of dumping and disposal tools
Lack of the weight
Lack of special of the liquid waste Lack of correct weight
management container
The clearance vehicle should meet
Lack of confirmation within 48 hours the regulations
Management Clearance and transport
Fig. 1. Factor attribute causes of risk hazards of laboratory liquid waste.
Systematic function Potential factors of the default mode Item
(Type A) Unclear classification A1
Recycling Gathering liquid waste without a funnel or a drain pan A2
Spill over A3
Not using protective tools during recycling A4
(Type B) The substances would evaporate and spill over the container B1
Storage Compatibility between the container material and the liquid waste B2
Use a designated container (a 20-liter HDPE container B3
Lack of an alarm system B4
Not stored in a low-temperature environment B5
Decentralized storage B6
(Type C) Lack of a clearance and transport contract C1
Clearance and transport Lack of dumping and disposal tools C2
Liquid waste spills during delivery C3
Lack of correct weight C4
The clearance vehicle should meet the regulations C5
Lack of weight of the liquid waste container C6
(Type D) Lack of a clear label for liquid waste containers D1
Management Irregular checks on the alarm and monitoring system D2
The data about the newly-added liquid wastes are not D3
added into the liquid waste collection list
Lack of a clearance and transport triplicate D4
Lack of special management D5
Lack of a plan for the clearance of wastes D6
Lack of confirmation within 48 h D7
Correctness of the data about clearance and transport D8
Lack of a clear label for hazardous industrial wastes D9
Lack of a plan for emergencies D10
According to the characteristics of triangular fuzzy numbers
and the extension principle (Zimmerman, 1991; George et al.,
2008), the operational laws of two triangular fuzzy numbers
e 2 = (L2, M2, U2) are, as follows:
e 1 = (L1, M1, U1) and A
e 2 ðL1 þ L2 ; M1 þ M2 ; U1 þ U2 Þ
e1  A
ð2Þ
ð1Þ e1  A
A e 2 ðL1  L2 ; M1  M2 ; U1  U2 Þ ð3Þ
6 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 4
The name list of those filling the expert questionnaire.

Expert no. Work unit Position Tasks in the environment safety center
Expert 1 Environment Engineering Department of a university Director Leader of the Environmental Protection Group
Expert 2 Environment Engineering Department of a university Technician Handle affairs related to environmental protection
Expert 3 Chemistry Department of a university Director Leader of the Safety and Hygiene Group
Expert 4 Chemistry Department of a university Technician Handle affairs related to safety and hygiene
Expert 5 Chemical Engineering and Material Department of a university Director Leader of the Toxic Substance Management Group
Expert 6 Chemical Engineering and Material Department of a university Specialist Handle affairs related to toxic substance management
Expert 7 General Affairs Office of a university Leader Executive secretary of the Environment Safety and Hygiene Committee
Expert 8 Environment Safety Center Technician Handle affairs related to environment safety and hygiene

method for each service aspect and item in the service quality
model.
As the cognition and opinions of each evaluator are different,
the delimited scope is not same, thus, the average value concept
is adopted to integrate fuzzy judgment, and the formula is shown,
as follows:

Ekij ð1=mÞ  ðE1ij  E2ij  :::  Ekij Þ ð4Þ

In which  refers to fuzzy number multiplication,  refers to

fuzzy number addition, Ekij refers to the average value of level m
evaluator reaching the j standard for i plan, which can be shown
with Triangular Fuzzy Number, as follows:
EijðLEi ; MEij; UEijÞ ð5Þ

Fig. 2. Positive triangular Fuzzy numbers. Endpoint values LEij, MEij and UEij in the above formula can be
calculated with the plan proposed by Buckley (1985).
!
X
m
LEij LEkij =m ð6Þ
k¼1

!
X
m
k
MEij MEij =m ð7Þ
k¼1

!
X
m
k
UEij UEij =m ð8Þ
k¼1

3.5.1. Defuzzification
Transforming fuzzy numbers, as calculated by fuzzification into
definite values, is called defuzzification. Normal defuzzification
methods include Center of Gravity Defuzzification; Center of Sum
e
Fig. 3. a-cut of positive triangular Fuzzy number A. Defuzzification; Center of Largest Area Defuzzification; First of
Maxima Defuzzification; Last of Maxima Defuzzification; Middle
of Maxima Defuzzification, and Height Defuzzification.
3.4. a-cut (Zimmerman,1991) This research adopts the relatively simple Center of Gravity
Defuzzification; according to Tseng and Klein (1989), the member-
For the given real number a, a [1, 0]; definition Aa = {v|le e is u ðxi Þ, when the fuzzy
A ship function of hypothetical fuzzy set A eA
(v) = a, v 2 X} is a-cut of fuzzy set A. e Aa = [ A
e lðaÞ , A
e uðaÞ ], in which
number is a Triangular Fuzzy Number, hypothetical Triangular
e e
A lðaÞ , A uðaÞ are left and right edge points, respectively, as shown in e i ¼ ðLi ; M i ; U i Þ; the formula is:
Fuzzy Number A
Fig. 3.
½ðU i  Li Þ þ ðM i  Li Þ
Fi ¼ þ Li ; 8i ð9Þ
3.5. Linguistic Variable and fuzzification 3

The so-called Linguistic Variable is to consider the phraseology 3.6. FMEA

used in language as variables. This research adopts the methods of
Chen and Hwang (1992) to design five linguistic universal wording
sets (quite important, very important, ordinary, not important,
quite not important) to collect relevant information about the
importance degrees of interviewees in each service item. The
membership function of these linguistic values can be shown in
Triangular Fuzzy Numbers to evaluate linguistic sequences of ser-
vice quality evaluators, which can be taken as the evaluation
The FMEA risk evaluation method has been widely used in dif-
ferent industries, and the data of risk priority number (RPN) play
the main role in evaluating the priority of disposal default factors.
In the traditional RPN calculation, risks are divided into three
parameter sources – severity (S), detection (D), and occurrence
(O). According to the Guidelines of ‘‘Safety and Hygiene Plan for
Laboratory Chemicals”, this study sets 4-level scoring for (S) and

Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 7

5-level scoring for (D) and (O) (Jia and Shi, 2005). The details of the
research calculations are, as follows:
(1) Severity (S), describes the degree of impact upon a system
caused by the failure of an individual component or an oper-
ational procedure.
(2) Detection (D) describes the degree of impact caused by the
failure of an individual component or operational process,
which cannot be detected by the customer or the
manufacturer.
(3) Occurrence (O) describers the degree of frequency with
which an individual component failure or an operation pro-
cess failure may occur.
The RPN (Risk Priority Numbers) are calculated using the fol-
lowing formula:
RPNðSÞ  ðDÞ  ðOÞ
4. Result
In order to obtain the relevant data of errors in laboratories,
basic inspections of the laboratories are conducted. Before the
improvements, sampling inspection was carried out twice a week
in accordance with the proportion of laboratories during the 5th–
8th week of the semester, which continued for one month. Inspec-
tion data was collected, and at the beginning of the 9th week, the
administrative staff of the laboratories was asked to carry out lab-
oratory waste recycle management and relevant training for the
above items until the end of the 12th week, which lasted for one
month. In the 13th–16th week, the laboratories were re-
inspected, and the inspection data was collected from the results.
This study only inspected the laboratories that produce waste liq-
uid. Each inspection was checked by the laboratory administrative
staff, which divided the laboratories evenly to the four inspection
weeks to meet the criteria that each laboratory was checked at
least once. Each inspection was checked by the laboratory admin-
istrative staff, and each department calculated the error items of
the project for verification. Some laboratories that conform to the
regulations might have no errors in the items, while some that
do not follow the regulations might have several errors in the
items. Finally, after adding up all of the error items of the depart-
ments, the data was reported to the Safety and Hygiene Center for
integration.
Hsieh (2006) argued that there were some disadvantages in the
traditional FMEA: (1) the information in FMEA was represented in
the form of subjective language, which renders the information
inadequately objective and definite; (2) the relative importance
among the three parameters was not necessarily the same; (3)
the same RPN did not necessarily indicate the same risk. To address
these problems, he suggested evaluating the RPN importance on
the bases of fuzzy theory. With the data collected from the expert
ð10Þ questionnaire survey, this study aggregates and averages the hier-
archical scores of (S), (D), and (O) of the 26 potential default factors
in Table 3. First, Eq. (10) is adopted to calculate the RPN and
sequence of the traditional FMEA method. Meanwhile, Eqs. (1)-
(10) are employed to calculate the RPN and prior disposal sequence
(as Table 5) of the fuzzy theory method, and the two sequences are
compared. After discussions with the experts, it was agreed that
the RPN and sequence calculated with the fuzzy theory were more
consistent with the actual disposal procedures, and thus, more
suitable for improvement.
As shown in Table 5, the RNP percentages calculated with the
fuzzy theory are sequenced, and the top 10 factors are listed for
‘‘priority improvement”, including (Type A) A1 ‘‘Unclear classifica-
tion”, A2 ‘‘Gathering liquid waste without a funnel or a drain pan”,
A3 ‘‘Spill over”, (Type B) B6 ‘‘Decentralized storage”, B2 ‘‘Compati-
bility between the container material and the liquid waste”, (Type
C) C1 ‘‘Lack of a clearance and transport contract”, C3 ‘‘Liquid waste
spill during delivery”, C4 ‘‘Lack of correct weight”, C2 ‘‘Lack of

Table 5
RPN numbers and sequences of potential factors of the two methods. Source: Compiled by this study.

Item Traditional FMEA method R Fuzzy Theory FMEA method R

S(T) D(T) O(T) RPN (%) S(F) D(F) O(F) RPN (%)
(Type A) A1 3.50 4.25 4.38 65.08 13.53 1 3.14 4.05 4.10 52.21 11.39 1
Recycling A2 2.88 3.50 3.50 35.22 7.32 2 2.94 3.49 3.14 32.14 7.01 2
A3 2.75 3.25 3.13 27.93 5.81 4 2.57 3.41 3.01 26.33 5.74 5
A4 1.38 2.25 2.25 6.96 1.45 20 1.43 2.02 2.05 5.92 1.29 21
(Type B) B1 2.75 3.38 2.63 24.36 5.06 9 2.57 3.08 2.53 20.00 4.36 12
Storage B2 2.88 3.00 2.88 24.80 5.15 8 2.62 2.96 2.94 22.73 4.96 8
B3 1.13 3.00 4.50 15.19 3.16 15 1.36 2.96 4.49 18.10 3.95 14
B4 1.13 1.38 2.50 3.87 0.80 26 1.36 1.43 2.48 4.85 1.06 26
B5 1.88 1.75 1.88 6.15 1.28 21 1.92 1.56 1.92 5.77 1.26 22
B6 2.50 3.25 3.25 26.41 5.49 5 2.48 3.37 3.06 25.58 5.58 6
(Type C) C1 3.75 1.75 4.00 26.25 5.46 6 3.57 1.87 4.00 26.79 5.84 3
Clearance and transport C2 2.63 2.75 3.63 26.17 5.44 7 2.53 2.51 3.53 22.41 4.89 9
C3 2.50 3.13 3.75 29.30 6.09 3 2.48 3.01 3.57 26.68 5.82 4
C4 1.88 2.88 4.50 24.26 5.04 10 1.92 2.92 4.49 25.24 5.50 7
C5 3.75 1.00 1.38 5.16 1.07 24 3.57 1.00 1.43 5.12 1.12 24
C6 1.63 2.00 3.63 11.78 2.45 16 1.51 1.95 3.47 10.26 2.24 18
(Type D) D1 3.13 2.38 3.25 24.12 5.01 11 3.02 2.38 3.06 21.98 4.79 10
Management D2 2.13 1.50 3.25 10.36 2.15 18 2.37 1.79 3.06 12.95 2.82 16
D3 1.63 2.88 1.25 5.84 1.21 22 1.83 2.94 1.40 7.50 1.64 20
D4 4.00 1.00 1.38 5.50 1.14 23 4.00 1.00 1.43 5.73 1.25 23
D5 2.00 2.25 3.63 16.31 3.39 14 1.95 2.40 3.50 16.46 3.59 15
D6 3.75 1.00 1.25 4.69 0.97 25 3.57 1.00 1.40 4.99 1.09 25
D7 3.38 1.63 1.38 7.54 1.57 19 3.10 1.83 1.43 8.12 1.77 19
D8 2.75 1.00 3.88 10.66 2.22 17 2.89 1.00 3.94 11.40 2.49 17
D9 3.63 1.50 3.63 19.71 4.10 12 3.53 1.47 3.85 20.02 4.37 11
D10 3.63 1.38 3.50 17.45 3.63 13 3.53 1.43 3.81 19.28 4.20 13

Food note: S(T): Severity by Traditional FEMA method, etc., S(F): Severity by Fuzzy theory FEMA method, etc., R: Ranking.

Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
8 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

dumping and disposal tools”, and (Type D) D1 ‘‘Lack of a clearance
and transport contract”. The top 3 are A1, A2, and C1.
To confirm the ranking relevance of the top 10 default factor
indices of RPN, and obtain the data regarding errors in laboratories,
this study undertakes follow-up laboratory sampling inspection
and checking. This case study is based on TK University; while
the objectives of this study are 216 laboratories, focus was placed
on the 68 laboratories of chemical engineering that had generated
liquid wastes. The administrative staff evenly divided the laborato-
ries into four weeks, in order that each laboratory was checked at
least once. The checking was performed by the same laboratory
administrators before and after the improvements. All the depart-
ments counted the 10 default items to be checked. Some laborato-
ries that conformed to the regulations might have no errors in the
items, while some that did not follow the regulations might have
several errors in the items. Then, all the error items of the depart-
ments are counted and reported to the Safety and Hygiene center.
The error items before and after the improvement are as shown in
Table 6, which reveals the differences in the 10 factors before and
after the improvements. The total improvement rate is 60.2%, and
the item with the highest improvement rate is A3 ‘‘Spill over” (80%)
(Table 6). It is obvious that setting special requirements when
pouring liquid wastes into a recycling container could effectively
reduce spill over incidents. The items that followed A3 are: A2
‘‘Gathering liquid waste without a funnel or a drain pan” (66.7%),
A1 ‘‘Unclear classification” (64.3%), B6 ‘‘Decentralized storage”
(55.6%). With the exception of C1 ‘‘Lack of a clearance and trans-
port contract”, which had no errors, the item with the lowest
improvement rate is C3 ‘‘liquid waste spill during delivery”
(42.9%), which is the only item with an improvement rate of less
than 50%. This indicates that the 10 items chosen according to
RPN ranking, as based on the fuzzy theory FMEA method, are
indeed important potential risk factors of laboratory liquid waste
disposal, and thus, must be improved. For the 26 risk factors sorted
by this study, the average RPN calculated by the traditional FMEA
is 18.50 ± 13.13, while the average RPN calculated by the fuzzy
FMEA is 17.63 ± 10.84. After one-tailed testing, the P value equals
0.08, and although it does not reach the significant difference of
0.05 in statistics, it does indicate that the PRN calculated by fuzzi-
fication is different from the result produced by the traditional
method.
5. Discussion
Further analysis of the data sources of the error items show that
the Physics Department had the highest improvement rate
(100.0%); followed by the Department of Mechanical and Electrical
Engineering and Department of Electric Machines (66.7%); the
Environmental Engineering Department (56.3%), the Chemical
Engineering and Material Department (55.0%); and the Chemistry
Department (56.8%). As the Physics Department disposes of fewer
liquid wastes, those in charge of laboratories could focus on the
small number of laboratories that do generate liquid wastes, thus,
it could achieve a higher improvement rate. The departments that
had many error items before the improvements, including the
Chemistry Department; the Chemical Engineering and Material
Department, and the Environmental Engineering Department, have

Table 6
Data about the error items of laboratory liquid waste disposal before and after improvements. Source: Compiled by this study.

Item Before After Reduction in number Percentage after Reduction in

(n1) (n2) after improvement improvement percentage
(N)a (%)b after improvement (%)c
A1: Unclear classification 14 5 9 64.3 16.1
A2: Gathering liquid waste without a funnel or a drain pan 6 2 4 66.7 7.1
C1: Lack of a clearance and transport contract 0 0 0 NA NA
C3: Liquid waste spill during delivery 7 4 3 42.9 5.4
A3: Spill over 5 1 4 80.0 7.1
B6: Decentralized storage 18 8 10 55.6 17.9
C4: Lack of correct weight 11 5 6 54.5 10.1
B2: Compatibility between the container material and the liquid 5 2 3 60.0 5.4
waste
C2: Lack of dumping and disposal tools 6 2 4 66.7 7.1
D1: Lack of clear labels for liquid waste containers 21 8 13 61.9 23.2
Total 93 37 56 60.2 100
a
N = n1  n2.
b
N/n1.
N/RNi, eg, 9/56 = 16.1%.
c

Table 7
Data about the liquid waste disposal of the laboratories of science institute and engineering institute before and after improvements. Source: Compiled by this study.

Institute of science Institute of engineering Total

Item Department Department Department of Department of Department of chemical Department of
of physics of chemistry environmental mechanical and electrical engineering and electric
engineering engineering material machine
Before improvement 5 37 16 9 20 6 93.0
After improvement 0 16 7 3 9 2 37.0
Reduction in Number after 5 21 9 6 11 4 56.0
improvement
Percentage after 100 56.8 56.3 66.7 55.0 66.7 60.2
improvement (%)
Percentage of reduction in 8.9 37.5 16.1 10.7 19.6 7.1 100.0
number after
improvement (%)

Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
a greater number of laboratories that generate liquid waste. In par-
ticular, the Chemistry Department has the largest number of labo-
ratories, and each experiment involves chemicals; therefore, more
errors are detected in these three departments. Conversely, the
reduced percentage in the number of accidents after improvement
(Table 7) of the Chemistry Department is 37.5%; the Chemical Engi-
neering and Material Department is 19.6%; the Environmental
Engineering Department is 16.1%. The total of the percentages of
improvements of these three departments is 73.2%; hence, these
three departments made the biggest contribution to the improve-
ment rate.
6. Conclusion
With a sewage disposal plant as a case study, Hsieh (2006)
adopted the traditional FMEA method and fuzzy theory to analyze
the reliability of the sewage disposal system. In this study, the
fuzzy theory FMEA method was employed to discuss the causes
of the defaults in the liquid waste management of school laborato-
ries. If the traditional FMEA method was applied to calculate and
rank RPN, it would be impossible to detect D1 ‘‘Lack of clear labels
for liquid waste containers”, which is an important potential
default factor ranked 10th. According to the check after the
improvement, the number of error items in D1 was 21, and the
reduction percentage was 23.2%, which had the highest improve-
ment rate among the 10 factors (Table 6). It is obvious that the
fuzzy theory FMEA method is better than the traditional FMEA
method. Although liquid waste accounts for a small proportion of
waste management, it is an important part of school waste, and
is subject to regulatory requirements for recycling, storage, collec-
tion, and management. In the laboratory accidents presented in
Table 2, improper management of laboratory liquid waste occurs
frequently, resulting in different sizes of accidents.
This study aimed to explore the problems in the liquid waste
recycling and disposal of chemical laboratories in universities,
and mainly compared the two tools of the FMEA method. First,
the feature factor table was used to identify the default factors of
liquid waste recycling. Then, the scoring levels of severity, detec-
tion, and occurrence of the potential default factors of liquid waste
recycling and disposal were obtained from literature, and the RPNs
of the potential factors of liquid waste recycling and disposal were
calculated, in order to achieve a more objective and accurate eval-
uation benchmark for liquid waste recycling and disposal. With the
fuzzy theory FMEA method, this study identified the important
potential risk factors of laboratory liquid waste, and established
recycling and disposal procedures for school liquid waste. Cheng
et al. (2004) indicated that the fuzzy theory has been applied to lin-
ear and nonlinear programming, integer programming, networks,
multi-rating decision making, group decision making, and expert
systems. As it can make up for the simplicity of the simplified
model, it can provide a more flexible model to simulate real-life
large-scale and complex systems. As can be seen from Table 5,
the top 10 ranking from the Traditional FMEA method only
accounts for Type A, B, and C in Systematic Functions, while in
the Fuzzy Theory FMEA method, we can see it in all four Systematic
Functions, Types A, B, C, and D. Therefore, the Fuzzy Theory FMEA
method can be more balanced in the direction of each Systematic
Function. The difference of the two methods lies in Type C and D.
Type C C1 ranked 6th in the Traditional FMEA method, while in
the Fuzzy Theory FMEA method, its importance is ranked 3rd.
Another important factor is in Type D, and there is no factor reach-
ing the top 10 in the Traditional FMEA method; while in the Fuzzy
Theory FMEA method, we have the D1 factor in the top 10, which is
an important item for improvement. Through this study, the
experts agreed that the ranking of the top 10 factors, as calculated
Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
9
by the Fuzzy Theory FMEA method, is more appropriate than that
produced by the Traditional FMEA method. According to the
research results, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. In this study, the fuzzy theory FMEA method was adopted to
analyze the 68 laboratories of chemical engineering that had
generated liquid wastes, and 26 items for improvement were
proposed. The number of the improvement items whose RPN
percentage exceeded 40 was 10, and an improvement scheme
was made according to the 10 items. After re-checking, the
improvement rate was 60.2%, which indicated significant
improvement. The major action plans were education and train-
ing methods as the results section.
2. Regarding the improvement rate, the top three departments
were the Chemistry Department (37.5%), the Chemical Engi-
neering and Material Department (19.6%), and the Environmen-
tal Engineering Department (16.1%). The total improvement
rate of the three departments was 73.2%.
3. According to the improvement rates of the factors, the item
with the highest improvement rate was D1 ‘‘Lack of clear labels
for liquid waste containers” (23.2%), followed by B6 ‘‘Decentral-
ized storage” (17.9%) and A1 ‘‘Unclear classification” (16.1%).
The total improvement rate of the three items was 57.2%.
In addition, Christensen et al. (2007) provided Life-cycle assess-
ment (LCA) models, which are becoming the principal decision
support tools of waste management systems. Bakas et al. (2018),
which provides the application of LCA to solid waste management
systems, is distinctive in that system boundaries are rigorously
defined to exclude all life cycle stages, with the exception of the
end-of-life. Moreover, specific methodological challenges arise
when investigating waste systems. This study provides a similar
LCA model for ISO systems for continuous quality improvement,
and gives some suggestions to follow-up laboratory managers.
There are four steps to this LCA model, as follows:
1. Define goals and scope
First, definition of goal is to reduce risk of laboratory risk, the
higher probability of risk, the laboratory is in high unsafe state,
only to reduce risk, laboratory can be in a safe situation. The
scope of laboratory is to improve the liquid wastes, laboratory
accidents cause from many risk factors, this study focus on
the laboratory liquid wastes treatment to improve process
and reduce of liquid wastes treatment risk.
2. Risk factor analysis
There are many methods to determine risk factors. This study
uses an attribute factor graph (Fig. 1) to identify laboratory
waste risks according to related factors. This method identifies
laboratory waste treatment problems, which form the risk fac-
tors this study aims to improve.
3. Impact assessment
After the two above steps, risk factor assessment is conducted,
in order to determine the influencing risks, the major effects,
and the risk priority number (RNP) of the laboratory risk factors.
This study uses the FMEA method, and applies an expert ques-
tionnaire to establish the quantitative index parameters. As
high RNP values mean larger risk factors, this study conducts
detailed analysis and provides suggestions or solutions for
improvement. The assessment process must consider Severity,
Detection, and Occurrence.
4. Continuous tracking
After implementing the improvement suggestions, it is neces-
sary to regularly conduct laboratory liquid waste checks, in
order to determine whether the improvement suggestions or
solutions reach their intended goals. If improvement goals are
not achieved, re-establish new risk factors and provide new
10 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
solutions, as necessary. If the original risk factors are improved,
re-check to determine the degree that those risk factors have
been reduced. In addition, lower PRN values must also be
checked, one by one, and improved.
According to the results of this study, the fuzzy theory FMEA
method can effectively determine the major risk factors, enhance
the safety of laboratory liquid waste disposal, and protect the
safety and health of laboratory staff in the disposal of laboratory
liquid waste in universities. In addition to identifying the top 10
causes of abnormal liquid waste, the two methods of fuzzy FMEA
and traditional FMEA were analyzed and compared, which found
that the innovative fuzzy FMEA method is more discriminatory.
Moreover, the method is more effective than the traditional FMEA
method, which will be useful for higher education institutions that
are equipped with chemical laboratories. It is suggested that train-
ing for administrative staff regarding control over school chemical
laboratories should be intensified; students’ awareness of environ-
mental protection and safety should be enhanced; the liquid waste
control procedures and laboratory management mechanisms
should be further defined to reduce the chance of accidents. In
terms of school management, it is suggested that the number of
administrative positions in safety and hygiene management units
should be increased, and the professionals in charge of school man-
agement should implement the tasks of checking and manage-
ment, in order to improve the publicity of safety and hygiene
management. Finally, it is suggested that school leaders pay close
attention to school safety and hygiene, and require faculties and
students to attach importance to this aspect, thus, forming a safety
and hygiene network on campus, which will reduce the possibility
of accidents in an effective manner. The advantages of the applica-
tion of refined methods to understand quality control arise rather
clearly from this work. However, in specific field applications of
laboratories, the results seem to be well identifiable, even without
complex analysis, and the observed improvements attributable to
expert follow-up are due to the ranking exercise, and not to the
method itself. The ranking of the principal default factors seem
to result in typical situations, where the lack of proper control by
technical operators on students and/or untrained user activities
could be the most significant issue, and beyond all the other high-
lighted causalities. Despite the content not being strictly included
in a scientific or technological issue, the topic of wastes, risks,
and security in laboratories is of potential interest for many oper-
ators. Furthermore, the utilization of a chemometric statistical
approach to understand quality issues adds valuable elements to
this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the administration support of TK
University and Taiwan University of Science and Technology. The
authors would also like to thank the Directors of the Department
of Environment Engineering; Chemistry; Chemical Engineering
and Material; the leader of the General Affairs Office of TKU, and
all other team members at the Environment Safety Center in TKU
for their support and help.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
Bakas, I., Laurent, A., Clavreul, J., Saraiva, A.B., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.,
2018. LCA of solid waste management systems. In Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 887–
926.
Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029
Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Set Syst. 17, 233–247.
Burgmeier, J., 2002. Failure mode and effect analysis: an application in reducing risk
in blood transfusion. Joint Commiss. J. Quality Patient Saf. 28, 331–339.
Chang, Y.M., Wang, Y.X., 2006. Waste Disposal. New WunChing Developmental
Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chen, C.Y., Chang, K.C., Huang, C.H., Lu, C.C., 2016a. Study of chemical supply system
of high-tech process using inherently safer design strategies in Taiwan. J. Loss
Prevent. Proc. 29, 72–84.
Chen, Y.H., Lai, J.W., Wang, S.Y., Chen, J.L., Huang, Z.J., Li, B.W., Wu, Y.W., Chen, M.S.,
2016b. Risk assessment of radiopharmaceutical administration and
enhancement of the safety and imaging quality by using healthcare failure
mode and effect analysis (HFMEA) model. Ann. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 29, 105–
125.
Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., 1992. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Marketing Methods.
In Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp.
289–486.
Cheng, C.C., Tsai, L.M., Shyu, J.Z., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Fuzzy heuristic algorithm
method for transport route-choice of low-radiation waste junk. Chung Hua J.
Manage. 5, 41–56 (http://people.chu.edu.tw/chjm/document/5-1/003.pdf).
Chien, Y.S., Lin, C.L., Lu, C.W., Chiu, W.M., Wang, T.C., Tao, C.J., Kuo, Y.P., 2000. The
study on hazard assessment of school dangerous laboratories. Qin Yi J. 18, 95–
104.
Christensen, T.H., Bhander, G., Lindvall, H., Larsen, A.W., Fruergaard, T., Damgaard,
A., Hauschild, M., 2007. Experience with the use of LCA-modelling
(EASEWASTE) in waste management. Waste Manage. Res. 25 (3), 257–262.
Deus, R.M., Battistelle, R.A.G., Silva, G.H.R., 2017. Scenario evaluation for the
management of household solid waste in small Brazilian municipalities. Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 19 (1), 205–214.
Escande, J., Proust, C., Coze, J.C.L., 2016. Limitations of current risk assessment
methods to foresee emerging risks: Towards a new methodology? J. Loss
Prevent. Proc. 43, 730–735.
George, J., Klir, Yuan, B., 2008. Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic. Theory and Application,
ISSN 0-13-101171-5.
Hsieh, M.H., 2006. Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis based on Fuzzy
Theory-The Case of Sewage Treatment Plant. National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology. PhD thesis.
Hsu, P.C., Hsieh, P.H., 2016. The trend of changes in the number of Taiwanese
students over the Past 25 Years. Evaluat. Bimonthly 60, 30–31 (http://www.
airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=a0000268-201603-
201603080007-201603080007-30-31).
Ho, C.C., Liao, C.J., 2011. The use of failure mode and effects analysis to construct an
effective disposal and prevention mechanism for infectious hospital waste.
Waste Manage. 31, 2631–2637.
Horng, J.J., Kuo, J.Y., 2007. A preliminary study on the management system of
chemical storage and transportation in Taiwan. Environmental poison E-
paper5. (https://toxicdms.epa.gov.tw/edm/EpaperContent.aspx?EpaperTitleid=
50&type=5&id=610)
Jia, T.B., Shi, D.S., 2005. The Guideline of ‘‘Safety and Hygiene Plan for Laboratory
Chemicals”. Institute of Labor, Occupational Safety And Health, Ministry of
Labor. https://laws.ilosh.gov.tw/Book/Public_Publish.aspx?P=22/.
Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, C., Serotini Gordono, F., Henrique Caldeira de Oliveira, J.,
Carlos Martinez, J., Aparecida Gomes Battistelle, R., 2011. Diversity
management: challenges, benefits, and the role of human resource
management in Brazilian organizations. Equal., Divers. Inclus.: Int. J. 30(1),
pp. 58–74.
Kaufman, A., Gupta, M.M., 1991. Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and
Application. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Kuo, T.Y., 2005. Discussion of waste liquid flowing arrangement and control system
in lab of college. Graduate Institute of Environment Engineering National
Central University Master thesis. (http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/
02156482194155666466)
Lara, E.R., De la Rosa, J.R., Castillo, A.I.R., de Jesús Cerino-Córdova, F., Chuken, U.J.L.,
Delgadillo, S.S.F., Rivas-García, P., 2017. A comprehensive hazardous waste
management program in a Chemistry School at a Mexican university. J. Clean.
Prod. 142, 1486–1491.
Liao, C.J., Ho, C.C., 2014. Risk management for outsourcing biomedical waste
disposal – Using the failure mode and effects analysis. Waste Manage. 34,
1324–1329.
Li, K.C., 2000. Improve each university campus pollution control public facilities
integrated planning (II). Taiwan’s Ministry of Education commissioned of
environmental group plan.
Lin, C.W., Kuo, Y.C., Kuo, S.H., 2002. Investigation on the fires and explosions in
chemicals-related university laboratories. Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor. Laborand
Occupational Safety and Health Institutereport.
Ni, B.X., 2002. A study on treatment and management for hazardous wastes
generated from laboratories. Institute of Environment Engineering and
Management National Taipei University of Technology, Master thesis.
Panchal, D., Kumar, D., 2016. Sntegrated framework for behaviour analysis in a
process plant. J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 40, 147–161.
Sun, Y.M., 2015. Tsinghua Laboratory Explosion - the Campus Safety Management of
Dangerous Chemicals Cannot Be Underestimated, iRead, (https://read01.com/
QE6jAk.html).
Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2016. Department of Statistics. Education statistics
Search website. https://stats.moe.gov.tw/qframe.aspx?qno=MQAxAA2.
Tsai, H.Y., 2012. Laboratory poisoning case and strain mechanism. Taiwan’s
Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan report.
 C.-C. Ho, M.-S. Chen / Waste Management xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 11

Tsai, P.J., Su, H.J., Tong, Y.H., 2000. Sustainable campus environmental management
- evaluation and improvement of safety and health field in Chinese Universities.
Quart. J. Environ. Educ. 44, 18–29.
Tseng, T.Y., Klein, C.M., 1989. New algorithm for the ranking procedure in fuzzy
decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybernetics 19, 1289–1296.
Wu, H.T., 2007. The Development of a Chemical Incompatibility Warning System for
Wastewater of Laboratory. Graduate Institute of Environment Engineering
National Central University, Master thesis.
Willy, W.V., 1998. How to FMEA to reduce the size of your quality toolbox. Qual.
Progress 31, 97–100.
Yu, S.W., Chou, K.S., 2001. Introduction to Chemical Process Safety. GauLih Book Co.,
Ltd.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control 8, 338–353.
Zimmerman, H.J., 1991. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Application. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston.

Please cite this article in press as: Ho, C.-C., Chen, M.-S. Risk assessment and quality improvement of liquid waste management in Taiwan University chem-
ical laboratories. Waste Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.029