臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來因實驗室的不安全警示意外事故之發生有比往年下降許多，但實驗室型態性質也相對複雜，而實驗室也並不完全沒有任何風險及危害可能性發生，有時還會時有所聞實驗室發生的憾事和案例，因此藉以本研究目的探討大葉大學環工系實驗室為例，並以環工系一年級至四年級為研究對象，且針對環工系實驗室之危害風險因子評估及環工系學生對環工實驗室之危害認知、安全態度、安全行為問卷調查來進行本研究。環工實驗室風險評估表改編自之依據參用勞動部「風險評估技術之引」，編撰為適用本研究評估量表，並透過利用編撰蒐集完成之環工系實驗室危害風險評估因子利用於問卷調查，加以探討環工學生對實驗的危害認知、安全態度、安全行為等採取設計問卷題目。並依據環工系實驗室風險評估之危害因子和問卷調查後所得樣本，以描述性統計、獨立樣本 t 檢定、單因子異數分析、及皮爾森積差相關係數等統計方法進行探討主因之弱項，利用歸納及分析方法並找出改善方針而予以改善。研究結果顯示，透過環工危害風險評估蒐集分析大葉大學環工實驗室危害的嚴重性、可能性、風險較高之危害佔於少數器材、儀器設備和較危險之藥品，其餘風險危害性都較小，環工系實驗室可屬於中度之危險。且因問卷調查大葉大學環工系學生不同背景變項之危害認知、安全態度、安全行為整體面向且都達到有顯著之差異，代表環工系學生對於實驗室認知態度行為表現上，具有危害基本的知識和謹慎的態度、積極的行為。

In recent years, the occurrence of accidents due to unsafe warnings in laboratories has dropped a lot compared with previous years. However, the nature of the laboratory type is also relatively complex. And the laboratory is not completely free from any risks and hazards. , and sometimes there are regrets and cases that happened in the laboratory from time to time, Therefore, taking the purpose of this research to discuss the laboratory of the Department of Environmental Engineering of Daye University as an example, And take the first grade to the fourth grade of the Department of Environmental Engineering as the research object, This research is conducted based on the assessment of hazard risk factors in the laboratory of the Department of Environmental Engineering and the questionnaire survey on the hazard perception, safety attitude and safety behavior of the students of the Department of Environmental Engineering. The basis for the risk assessment table of the Environmental Engineering Laboratory is adapted from the Ministry of Labor's "Guide to Risk Assessment Technology", Compiled to apply the assessment scale for this study, And through the use of the compiled and collected laboratory hazard risk assessment factors of the Environmental Engineering Department, they are used in the questionnaire survey. To explore the environmental engineering students' perception of hazards, safety attitudes, safety behaviors, etc., the questionnaires were designed. And according to the hazard factors of the laboratory risk assessment of the Department of Environmental Engineering and the samples obtained after the questionnaire, Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, one-way outlier analysis, and Pearson product-difference correlation coefficient are used to explore the weaknesses of the main cause. Use induction and analysis methods and find improvement strategies to improve. The results of the research show that, through the collection and analysis of environmental hazards risk assessment, the severity, possibility, and risk of hazards in the Environmental Engineering Laboratory of Daye University account for a small number of equipment, equipment, and more dangerous drugs. The rest of the risks are less harmful. Environmental engineering laboratories can be classified as moderate risk. And because of the questionnaire survey, there are significant differences in the overall aspects of hazard cognition, safety attitude, and safety behavior of students from the Department of Environmental Engineering of Daye University with different background variables. On behalf of the students of the Department of Environmental Engineering, their cognitive attitudes and behaviors towards the laboratory, Possesses compromising basic knowledge and cautious attitude and positive behavior.
Keywords: Hazard identification, Risk assessment, Hazard risk perception, Safety attitude and behavior

封面內頁
簽名頁
中文摘要 ......iii
ABSTRACT......iv
誌謝......vi
目錄......vii
圖目錄......x
表目錄......xi
第一章.......... 1
1.1 研究動機與背景........1
1.2 研究目的.............3
1.3 研究範圍與研究限制....4
1.4 研究流程.............5
第二章 文獻探討...........8
2.1 實驗室安全............8
2.1.1校園實驗室意外事故........8
2.1.2校園實驗室災例............10
2.1.3工作場所事故原因..........12
2.2 實驗室危害因子探討............15
2.2.1實驗室危害因子概述...........15
2.2.2實驗室潛在危害分類...........17
2.2.3危害因子對人體健康的影響......19
2.3 風險認知......22
第三章 研究方法......25
3.1 研究設計......25
3.1.1風險評估表......25
3.1.2實驗室危害風險認知與安全態度、安全行為調查問卷......32
3.2 研究架構......33
3.3 研究假設......34
3.4 研究對象......36
3.5 研究工具......36
3.5.1 環工實驗室風險評估表......36
3.5.2 環工學生對環工實驗室危害風險認知與安全態度、安全行為調查問卷......37
第四章 結果與討論......43
4.1 環工實驗室風險評估表之結果彙整......43
4.2 學生問卷描述性分析......48
4.2.1 研究對象基本資料分析......48
4.2.2 信度分析......52
4.2.3 問卷內容分析......53
4.3 不同背景變項之學生對環工實驗室危害認知、安全態度、安全行為之差異分析......57
4.4 學生對實驗室危害風險認知、安全態度、安全行為之整體相關度......69
4.5 小結......72
第五章 結論與建議......74
5.1 結論......74
5.2 建議......76
參考文獻......78
附錄一 風險評估表初稿......82
附錄二 風險評估表專家審查......88
附錄三 風險評估調查正式結果......91
附錄四 問卷初稿......99
附錄五 專家審查CVI......107
附錄六 正式問卷......110

1.中興大學化學系（2022）。實驗室中的潛在危害。2022.6.1引自：
https://www.nchu.edu.tw/~infochem/%A4%C6%BE%C7%B9%EA%C5%E7%BD%D2%B5%7B%A6w%A5%FE/ls1.htm
2.百科知識（2022a），專家會議法，2022.6.1引自：https://www.newton.com.tw/wiki/%E5%B0%88%E5%AE%B6%E9%A0%90%E6%B8%AC%E6%B3%95/2668108。
3.百科知識（2022b）。實地調查法，2022.6.1引自：https://www.easyatm.com.tw/wiki/%E5%AF%A6%E5%9C%B0%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5%E6%B3%95。
4.甘魯生（2010）。實驗室意外和實驗室安全。化學，68(4)，313-319。
5.王靜儀（2000）。環境災害消費與比較性風險評估之研究。國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文，新北市。
6.李倩美、陳政任（2002）。實驗室事故案例分析與應變對策。化工，49(5)，43-54。
7.李聯雄（2018）。100-105年校園實驗室重大事故災害分析。學校安全衛生資訊網，教育部。2022.6.1引自：https://www.safelab.edu.tw/ePaper/ePaper_View.aspx?ePaperID=20181005153605F859
8.角本定南（1989）。安全管理（呂山海譯），臺北市：三民書局。
9.吳文成（1997）。風險社會學初探-以核四建廠一案為例。東海大學社會學研究所碩士論文，臺中市。
10.翁昌駿（2011）。勞工安全衛生法規對溫泉旅館安全衛生管理適用性之研究。嘉南藥理科技大學溫泉產業研究所碩士論文，臺南市。
11.國立成功大學（2019）。實驗室風險評估範例。2022.6.1引自：https://epsh.ncku.edu.tw/p/404-1012-192108.php?Lang=zh-tw。
12.許登盛（2021）。以風險認知探討都市河岸部落的韌性：以桃園市崁津部落為例。中央警察大學防災研究所碩士論文，桃園市。
13.勞動部職業安全衛生署（2015）。風險評估技術指引。臺北市：勞動部。
14.黃姵嫙（2018）。綠色招募活動對組織人才吸引力之影響：以個人組織配適知覺為中介變數與個人環保態度為干擾變數。東海大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文，臺中市。
15.楊朝祥（1984）。技術職業教育辭典。臺北市：三民書局。
16.郭曜煌（2005）。研究生對實驗室危害之認知行為研究-以某大專院校為例。國立交通大學工學院產業安全與防災學程碩士論文，新竹市。
17.陳金風（2006）。航空產業勞工作業環境危害認知之研究。大葉大學環境工程學系碩士論文，彰化縣。
18.魏漣邦（2005）。工業安全衛生。臺北市：五南圖書公司。
19.蕭逸騏（2019）。大學生對實驗（實習）場所安全衛生危害認知之探討-以國立虎尾科技大學為例。國立虎尾科技大學工業管理系工業工程與管理碩士班碩士論文，雲林縣。
20.戴基福（2000）。世界各國勞工安全衛生管理制度之比較研究。行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，新北市。
21.Cutter, S. L. (1993). Living with risk-the Geography of technological hazards, London: Edward Arnold.
22.Ferrer, R. A. and Klein, W. MP (2015). Risk perceptions and health behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5, 85-89.
23.Henson, R.K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34 (3), 177-189.
24.Ho, M. C., Shaw, D., Lin, S., and Chiu, Y. C. (2008). How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception, Risk Analysis, 28(3), 635-643.
25.Lanoie, P. & Trottier, L. (1998). Cost and Benefits of Preventing
Workplace Accidents: Going from a Mechanical to a Manual Handling System. Journal of Safety Research, 29(2), 65-75.
26.Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and Quantification of Content Validity Index. Nursing Research, 35, 382-386.
27.Martuza, V. R. (1977). Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
28.Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (2022). Culture of Safety. OSHA, Department of Labor, USA. 2022.6.1 retrieved from: https://www.osha.gov/laboratories/safety-culture
29.Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467.
30.Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Springer Science & Business Media.
31.Rahmat, N., Nur Annisa F., Muhammad, D., and Muhammad, H. (2020). Correlation of Safety Perceptions and Safety Behavior in University Teaching Laboratory. Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine, 20(1), 1-5.
32.Schröder, I., Huang, D. Y. Q., Ellis, O., Gibson, J. H., and Wayne, N. L. (2016). Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 23(1), 12-23.
33.Sitkin, S.B. and Weingart, L.R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1573-1592.