The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The objective of this review is to analyse the progress of Risk Assessment during the last decades and to offer an overview on its recent advancements and possible future direction for chemical and process industries. Despite the general approach of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is unchanged since its origin in the early 1980s, QRA has continuously evolved in different forms and its fields of application have enlarged significantly beyond process safety, where it has always been traditionally developed and used for chemical process industries. Now risk assessment techniques play a fundamental role in process design, implementation of safety systems, inspection and maintenance planning as well as operation management. Eventually risk assessment has become an essential tool for the development, continued operation and expansion of process installations. On the other hand, QRA limitations, such as its inability to update the risk picture, led to the development of several recent dynamic risk assessment approaches, whose methodological and applicative contributions are presented in this paper. This demonstrates that risk assessment is in continuous development; nevertheless, it still shows many challenges to face: the way forward is improving its preciseness and its capability to be dynamically updated, that it will be useful to support real-time decision-making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knight, F. H. (1921) · Cited by 9,948
On the quantitative definition of risk
Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x · Cited by 3,103
Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield
Slovic, P. (1999) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00439.x · Cited by 1,896
Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy
Slovic, P. (1993) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x · Cited by 1,870
(2010) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001 · Cited by 1,610
The Social Amplification of Risk
(2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511550461 · Cited by 1,284
Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,111
The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology
Siegrist, M. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020 · Cited by 1,092
Chemical process safety: fundamentals with applications
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-1486 · Cited by 992
On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain
Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669870802488883 · Cited by 783
Cited by
Zio, E. (2018) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.020 · Cited by 401
Fault Tree Analysis Improvements: A Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review
Yazdi, M., Mohammadpour, J., Li, H., Huang, H., Zarei, E., Pirbalouti, R. G., & Adumene, S. (2023) · Quality and Reliability Engineering International · doi:10.1002/qre.3271 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Villa, V., Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V.
- Venue
- Safety Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 89
- Pages
- 77-93
- ISSN
- 0925-7535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2417158417
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 23.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002
- The paper
- Villa, V., Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.