Evaluating Hazard Symbols for the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for Hazard Communication

Abstract

Sweeping globalization has resulted in unparalleled economic growth, including increased international trade of hazardous chemicals. Fundamental differences between nations trading these materials, including language, literacy rates, cultural values, and technical and governmental infrastructures has created an urgent need for a common system of risk communication to reduce the occurrence of deaths and serious injuries that result from unintended chemical exposures. To accomplish this goal, the United Nations (UN) created the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) in 1992. Unfortunately, there was no requirement for testing of the GHS labeling components, including pictograms intended to depict specific hazards, before their deployment. In Experiment 1, twenty GHS hazard pictograms were subjected to comprehension testing in two non-student samples from the U.S. and Brazil, respectively. In Experiment 2, alternatives for five of the GHS pictograms that were least well understood were created and then re-tested for comprehension. Several of the new pictograms outperformed their “original” GHS counterparts in terms of comprehension and participant preference. Overall, the results of testing showed that only a small portion of the original GHS hazard pictograms reached acceptable levels of comprehension. Therefore, additional systematic work is needed to develop GHS pictogram alternatives that effectively convey safety hazards to a global audience.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American National Standard Institute. (2007). ANSI Z535.3–2007: Criteria for safety symbols. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

Brugger

(1994). Public information symbols: A comparison of ISO testing procedures. Proceedings of Public Graphies. 26.1–26.11.

ILO. “Annex 6.” (2009). Globally Harmonized System. Proceedings of Comprehension Testing Methodology, Geneva. 3rd ed. New York: United Nations, 431–42.

Laughery

K.R.

(2006). Safety communications: Warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 467–478.

Lesch

M.F.

(2008A). A comparison of two training methods for improving warning symbol comprehension. AppFd Ergonomics, 39, 135–143.

Lesch

M.F.

(2008B). Warning symbols as reminders of hazards: Impact of training. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 1005–1012.

Zwaga

H.J.

(1989). Comprehensibility estimates of public information symbols: Their validity and use. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 33, 979–982.