Comprehension of hazard communication: Effects of pictograms on safety data sheets and labels
Introduction
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule in 2012 to modify the Hazard Communications Standard (HCS; OSHA, 1994) to conform to the United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. By modifying the HCS, OSHA will require changes to the information content of material safety data sheets (MSDS) and product labels. Using GHS terminology, MSDS documents are known as safety data sheets (SDS) and this term is used in this paper. OSHA stated in the final rule these modifications of the Hazard Communications Standard (HCS) (OSHA, 1994) will improve “the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and associated protective measures” (OSHA, 2012b). OSHA (2006) has also estimated there are over 945,000 hazardous chemical products in the workplace. The HCS (OSHA, 1994) is routinely one of the most commonly cited standards, including 2011 when it was the third most cited standard by OSHA (2012a). The goal of this study is to evaluate if there is a difference in comprehension of the information presented in a SDS or a product label if GHS hazard pictograms and European Union precautionary pictograms were present. It should be noted that the third revised edition of the GHS was used by OSHA to modify the HCS and this edition did not specify the use of precautionary pictograms on SDS. However, examples of precautionary pictograms are provided in Annex 3 Section 4 of the GHS from both the European Union (1992) and the South African Bureau of Standards (1999). Also, the precautionary statements in the third revised edition of the GHS (United Nations, 2009a) had not been agreed upon and harmonized by the United Nations at the time of this study.
Pictograms are often used in many types of technical documents (including owner's manuals and on-product labels) to help convey safety information. It has not been common practice in the United States to include additional pictograms on SDS or product labels beyond those required for transportation, even though the HCS is a performance-based standard and does not provide detailed guidance with regard to pictogram use. This paper will present the findings from two surveys: one for SDS and the other for product labels. In the first survey, participants referenced SDSs with and without pictograms to respond to items related to information provided on the SDS. In the second survey, participants responded to items about the information provided on product labels, both with and without GHS hazard and EU precautionary pictograms.
Section snippets
Prior research
The studies that have attempted to measure comprehensibility of chemical hazard communications have found that the level of comprehension of SDS is relatively low (Kolp et al., 1993, Phillips et al., 1999, Sadhra et al., 2002, Seki et al., 2001). Researchers have used a variety of approaches to evaluate risk, format, and comprehension. Studies using written surveys and allowing the participants to refer to the SDS to answer questions, have indicated that participants respond correctly to 64–71%
Subjects
Ninety (n = 90) Auburn University undergraduate students were recruited as participants from their psychology classes and are henceforth referred to as naïve users. Individuals whom by education, training, or work experience would have a high awareness of hazard communication and are members of selected professional societies: the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) are henceforth
Ability of SDS to convey information
Overall participants correctly responded on average to 73% of the material on the survey. The naïve users correctly responded to 67% of the material whereas the experts correctly responded to 86% of the material, t (253) = − 12.53, p < .001.1 The correct response percentage for the naïve users is comparable to other questionnaires of this type
Materials and methods for label survey
Another survey was conducted to test whether the addition of hazard and precautionary pictograms to product labels would improve the transfer of information to users compared to product labels containing text only. This survey tested to determine any potential differences among three user groups: naïve users, workers, and experts.
Results and discussion for label survey
There were 128 completed responses for this survey. Similar to Survey 1, the responses to the survey items and to open ended questions were subjectively evaluated by a panel of safety researchers (n = 3) to determine a point value and adhere strict grading criteria. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.
Effects of pictograms
The results of this study suggest that the presence of pictograms may improve the communication of safety information. Hazard and precautionary pictograms may be used on SDS and labels and still be in compliance with the current Hazard Communication Standard (OSHA, 1994), and during the transition period until June 2015 when the revised HCS will be in effect. At that time, the use of hazard pictograms or the names of the hazard pictograms on SDS will be required by OSHA. The use of
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge funding support from NIOSH grant number T42 OH008436. The authors would also like to thank the United Steelworkers Union, the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and the American Society for Safety Engineers for their participation. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH or the organizations which participated in this research.
Eric Boelhouwer earned his Ph.D. from Auburn University, Auburn, AL, on December 13th, 2010. Dr. Jerry Davis was his advisor. He has master degrees in business administration, and industrial and systems engineering from Tulane University and Auburn University respectively. He is board certified in safety.
References (32)
The influence of chemical warning label content and format on information retrieval speed and accuracy
Journal of Safety Research
(1998)- et al.
The efficacy of material safety data sheets and worker acceptability
Journal of Safety Research
(1999) South African farm workers' interpretation of risk assessment data expressed as pictograms on pesticide labels
Environmental Research
(2008)- et al.
The relative contributions of injury severity and likelihood information on hazard-risk judgments and warning compliance
Journal of Safety Research
(1999) Consumer product warnings: Review and analysis of effectiveness research
- et al.
Human factors in the design of effective product warnings
The effect of adding symbols to written warning labels on user behavior and recall
Human Factors
(1988)- et al.
Results of recognition tests on Japanese subjects of the labels presently used in Japan and the UN-GHS labels
Journal of Occupational Health
(2007) - et al.
Comprehensibility of material safety data sheets
American Journal of Industrial Medicine
(1993)
Encyclopedia of chemical labeling
Evaluating the efficacy of a mental models approach for improving occupational chemical risk protection
Risk Analysis: An International Journal
Hazard Communication
29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926 — Hazard communication; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal 2011
HCS/HazCom 2012 Final Rule & Appendices
Cited by (37)
How do organisations graphically communicate their sustainability? An exploratory analysis based on corporate reports
2021, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionBarriers to the safe use of chemical household products: A comparison across European countries
2020, Environmental ResearchCitation Excerpt :Within this system, chemical products are classified by hazard type (e.g. flammable, corrosive), which is communicated to consumers via pictograms (e.g. red triangle with black exclamation mark), signal words and hazard statements. Evaluation studies yielded mixed results regarding consumers’ understanding and use of the GHS and its communication elements but suggested overall that some pictograms might be ambiguous (Boelhouwer et al., 2013; Latham et al., 2013; Su and Hsu, 2008). Previous studies have found that consumers make a number of potentially dangerous errors in the transport, use, storage, and disposal of chemical household products, such as storage in low cabinets or transfer into drink bottles (Smolinske and Kaufman, 2007; TNS Opinion and Social, 2017; Wieck et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2012).
Situative and product-specific factors influencing consumers’ risk perception of household cleaning products
2019, Safety ScienceCitation Excerpt :Nonetheless, aside from these issues, it is yet unclear, whether lay consumers actually consider the pictograms as part of their thought process to evaluate perceived risk of a particular chemical product or usage situation, for instance when storing or using a cleaning product. In an exploratory study using labels of chemical products, Boelhouwer et al. (2013) found evidence that the presence of pictograms does not influence participants’ risk perception. Research also suggests that, asides from pictograms and other objective risk information, consumers consider less relevant or potentially misleading product- or situation-specific aspects (e.g., Bearth et al., 2017; Hinks et al., 2009; Kovacs et al., 1997; Riley et al., 2001; Rogers et al., 2000).
Demographic determinants of chemical safety information recall in workers and consumers in South Africa: A cross sectional study
2017, Journal of Safety ResearchCitation Excerpt :The finding that the recall of managers within industry were not better than the other groups is a concern requiring intervention as it indicates that safety information is not a priority within this group. The reason why symbols were the most frequently recalled label element could be due to the fact that pictograms improve recall as suggested in previous research (Boelhouwer, Davis, Franco-Watkins, Dorris, & Lungu, 2013; Erdinc, 2010; Wogalter, Conzola, & Smith-Jackson, 2002) because they are more easily noticed than words. The lower recall of those who work in the industrial, transport, and agriculture sectors of the symbols compared to consumers could be because the latter group pays more attention to the symbols.
Eric Boelhouwer earned his Ph.D. from Auburn University, Auburn, AL, on December 13th, 2010. Dr. Jerry Davis was his advisor. He has master degrees in business administration, and industrial and systems engineering from Tulane University and Auburn University respectively. He is board certified in safety.
Dr. Jerry Davis is an Associate Professor in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department at Auburn University and a professional member of ASSE. His teaching responsibilities include safety engineering courses in both the undergraduate and graduate curriculums. He is board certified in safety and ergonomics and pursues an active research agenda in safety related topics. He is a retired United States Naval Officer, having served over twenty years in the nuclear submarine fleet, and lives in Auburn, Alabama with his wife (Cathy).
Dr. Ana Franco-Watkins is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at Auburn University.
Dr. Nathan Dorris is an Affiliate Professor in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department at Auburn University.
Dr. Claudiu Lungu is an Associate Professor in the Environmental Health Sciences Department at the University of Alabama Birmingham. He has master degrees in nuclear material engineering, and physics from the University of Bucharest and the University of South Carolina respectively and a Ph.D. degree in environmental health sciences with emphasis in industrial hygiene from the University of South Carolina. His research interests are in occupational exposure assessment, respiratory protection, and the use of carbon nanotubes in air sampling devices.