Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk assessment of hot and humid environments through an integrated fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Working in hot and humid environments can jeopardize the health and safety of the workers and reduce their efficiency. Different physical, environmental, and human factors can influence the risk level of working in these atmospheres. Therefore, the risk assessment of such atmospheres must be carried out from a holistic point of view. This paper aims to introduce a novel risk assessment and prioritization model, using hybrid AHP and VIKOR methods in a fuzzy environment. The AHP method was adopted to determine the importance (weight) of the risk influencing parameters. Also, the VIKOR as a compromise solution method was applied to rank the different working stations against the risk criteria. Fuzzy set theory was used to handle the inherent ambiguity and vagueness of the data encountered in the evaluation process. Furthermore, the fuzzy TOPSIS was adopted to further represent the efficacy of the proposed model. To demonstrate the applicability of the model, a small size foundry shop was selected as the real case and a sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the validity of the model. The results revealed that the “Environment” has the most contribution to the risk level of hot environments (WE = 0.615). That is followed by “Temperature” (WDBT = 0.268), “Air velocity” (WAV = 0.170), “Safety training” (WST = 0.161), “Mean radiant intensity” (WMRT = 0.110), “Humidity” (WH = 0.066), “Seniority structure” (WSS = 0.063), “Work intensity” (WWI = 0.058), “PPE” (WPPE = 0.047), “Work nature” (WPPE = 0.034), and “ Work duration” (WT = 0.022), in sub-factors. Using the F-VIKOR method, the “melting furnace” workstation was determined as the compromise solution with the index value of Q = 1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

TpFN:

Trapezoid fuzzy number

\(L_{p,j}\) :

Distance of the alternative Aj from the best ideal solution

\(w_{j}\) :

Weight (relative importance) of jth criterion

\(f_{ij}\) :

Measured score of the jth alternative (Aj) against the ith criteria (Ci)

\(f_{j}^{*}\) :

The best values of all criterion ratings

\(f_{j}^{ - }\) :

The worst values of all criterion ratings

\(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} \left( x \right)\) :

Membership function of a TpFN

L, m, n, u :

Lower, mide, and upper numbers of the fuzzy set

\(\tilde{A}\), \(\tilde{B}\) :

Two positive TpFNs

\(\oplus , \ominus, \otimes , { \oslash }\) :

Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division operators of TpFNs

\(\tilde{a}\) :

Pair-wise comparison matrices of the criteria

\(a_{ij}^{k}\) :

Fuzzy rating of the kth decision-maker

\(\tilde{a}_{ij}\) :

Aggregated fuzzy ratings (\(\tilde{a}_{ij}\)) of criteria

CI:

Consistency index

RI:

Random index

CR:

Consistency ratio

\(\lambda_{\max }\) :

Largest eigenvalue of the matrix

\(\alpha , \beta , \gamma ,\delta\) :

Geometric mean of the lower, middle, and upper numbers of the fuzzy number

\(\tilde{W}\) :

Fuzzy weight vector

\(\tilde{w}_{j}\) :

Indicators weights

\((\tilde{x}_{ijk} )\) :

Aggregated fuzzy rating of evaluation

\(\tilde{D}\) :

Decision matrix

\(defuzz \left( {xij} \right)\) :

Defuzzified values of the decision matrix

\(defuzz \left( {wj} \right)\) :

Defuzzified values of the fuzzy weights

S i, R i :

Mean group utility and maximum regret values

Q:

Index value

\(\upsilon\) :

Weight of the maximum group utility (weight of the strategy)

1 – ν:

Weight of individual regret

References

  • Akram M, Al-Kenani AN, Alcantud JCR (2019) Group decision-making based on the VIKOR method with trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy information. Symmetry 11(10):1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akyuz E, Celik E (2015) A fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate critical operational hazards during gas freeing process in crude oil tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind 38:243–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ayağ Z, Özdemir RG (2006) A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. J Intell Manuf 17(2):179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethea D, Parsons K 0(2002) Health and safety executive staff. Development of a Practical Heat Stress Assessment Methodology for Use in UK Industry. HSE Books, London

  • Binazzi A, Levi M, Bonafede M, Bugani M, Messeri A, Morabito M, Baldasseroni A (2019) Evaluation of the impact of heat stress on the occurrence of occupational injuries: meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Ind Med 62(3):233–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brake R, Bates G (2002) A valid method for comparing rational and empirical heat stress indices. Ann Occup Hyg 46(2):165–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong D, Zhu N, Luo W, Zhang Z, Pan X (2020) Effects of heat acclimation on individual safety performance in hyperthermal indoor environments. Build Environ 168:106537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csutora R, Buckley JJ (2001) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: the Lambda-Max method. Fuzzy Sets Syst 120(2):181–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DHSS. (2018). NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to heat and hot environments: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

  • Dong XS, West GH, Holloway-Beth A, Wang X, Sokas RK (2019) Heat-related deaths among construction workers in the United States. Am J Ind Med 62(12):1047–1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparrini A, Guo Y, Hashizume M, Lavigne E, Zanobetti A, Schwartz J, Armstrong B (2015) Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet 386(9991):369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh A, Kar SK (2018) Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood risk assessment: a case study in Malda district of West Bengal India. Nat Hazards 94(1):349–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golbabaei F, Omidvar M, Nirumand F (2019a) Risk assessment of heat stress using the AHP and TOPSIS methods in fuzzy environment: a case study in a foundry shop. J Health Safety Work 8(4):397–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen AL, Williams S, Hanson-Easey S, Varghese BM, Bi P, Heyworth J, Pisaniello DL (2020) Using a qualitative phenomenological approach to inform the etiology and prevention of occupational heat-related injuries in Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(3):846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilangkumaran M, Karthikeyan M, Ramachandran T, Boopathiraja M, Kirubakaran B (2015) Risk analysis and warning rate of hot environment for foundry industry using hybrid MCDM technique. Saf Sci 72:133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.08.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inaba R, Mirbod SM (2007) Comparison of subjective symptoms and hot prevention measures in summer between traffic control workers and construction workers in Japan. Ind Health 45(1):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (2004) ISO 7933:2004, Ergonomics of the thermal environment—analytical determination and interpretation of heat stress using calculation of the predicted heat strain. Geneva, Switzerland.

  • International Organization for Standardization (2017) 7243 Ergonomics of the thermal environment—assessment of heat stress using the WBGT (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature) Index (ISO 7243: 2017). In International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland

  • Khashei-Siuki A, Sharifan H (2020) Comparison of AHP and FAHP methods in determining suitable areas for drinking water harvesting in Birjand aquifer Iran. Groundwater Sustain Dev 10:100328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjellstrom T, Briggs D, Freyberg C, Lemke B, Otto M, Hyatt O (2016) Heat, human performance, and occupational health: a key issue for the assessment of global climate change impacts. Annu Rev Public Health 37:97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H-C, Chang C-T (2018) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 92:883–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li RYM, Wing CK, Zeng F (2019) Ranking of risks for the existing and new building works. Sustainability 11:2863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu H-C, Liu L, Liu N, Mao L-X (2012) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 39(17):12926–12934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyu H-M, Zhou W-H, Shen S-L, Zhou A-N (2020) Inundation risk assessment of metro system using AHP and TFN-AHP in Shenzhen. Sustain Cities Soc 56:102103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Solanas È, López-Ruiz M, Wellenius GA, Gasparrini A, Sunyer J, Benavides FG, Basagaña X (2018) Evaluation of the impact of ambient temperatures on occupational injuries in Spain. Environ Health Perspect 126(6):067002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasseri, H. (2008). Fuzzy numbers: positive and nonnegative. Paper presented at the International Mathematical Forum.

  • Omidvar M, Mazloumi A, Mohammad Fam I, Nirumand F (2017) Development of a framework for resilience measurement: Suggestion of fuzzy Resilience Grade (RG) and fuzzy Resilience Early Warning Grade (REWG). Work 56(3):463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omidvar M, Nirumand F (2017) An extended VIKOR method based on entropy measure for the failure modes risk assessment–A case study of the geothermal power plant (GPP). Saf Sci 92:160–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Res 178(2):514–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons K (2019) Human heat stress. CRC Press

  • Prevention CFDC (2008) Heat-related deaths among crop workers-United States, 1992--2006. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(24):649–653

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Samaniego-Rascón D, da Silva MCG, Ferreira AD, Cabanillas-Lopez RE (2019) Solar energy industry workers under climate change: a risk assessment of the level of heat stress experienced by a worker based on measured data. Saf Sci 118:33–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M, Tarokh MJ (2011) A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):12160–12167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector JT, Masuda YJ, Wolff NH, Calkins M, Seixas N (2019) Heat exposure and occupational injuries: review of the literature and implications. Curr Environ Health Rep 6(4):286–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swaen GMH, Van Amelsvoort LGPM, Bültmann U, Kant IJ (2003)0 Fatigue as a risk factor for being injured in an occupational accident: results from the Maastricht Cohort Study. Occupat Environ Med 60 (Suppl 1), i88–i92. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i88

  • Wang F, Kuklane K, Gao C, Holmér I (2010) Can the PHS model (ISO7933) predict reasonable thermophysiological responses while wearing protective clothing in hot environments? Physiol Meas 32(2):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/32/2/007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Zhu N, Lv S (2021) Human response and productivity in hot environments with directed thermal radiation. Build Environ 187:107408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng G, Zhu N, Tian Z, Chen Y, Sun B (2012) Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Saf Sci 50(2):228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Iran (Grant No. BPUMS-213H-20).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health and Nutrition, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

    Bahman Ramavandi

  2. Tropical Medicine Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

    Amir Hossein Darabi

  3. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Health and Nutrition, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

    Mohsen Omidvar

Authors
  1. Bahman Ramavandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amir Hossein Darabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohsen Omidvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Omidvar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 39 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramavandi, B., Darabi, A.H. & Omidvar, M. Risk assessment of hot and humid environments through an integrated fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 35, 2425–2438 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-01995-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-01995-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation