## 4 Conclusions  
From the feedback received from end-user participants, the CHAP-Risk tool improved both worker and employers' understanding of WHMIS and SDSs, encouraged workers to engage in the management of the chemicals they use, provided workers with a better understanding of their own workplace's chemical hazards and risks, allowed workers to compare and rank the health effects of the different chemicals they use, helped identify effective and workplace-specific safe handling practices, and improved how workplaces make decisions on control measures.  
The target audience for the CHAP-Risk tool remains the WHSCs of small- to medium-sized workplaces. However, there was mixed acceptance for long-term use. Those with OHS training were very positive about the development and use of the tool. However, the OHS managers in some workplaces were concerned that it may be too difficult for many of their WHSC members, and that it would be too difficult to use for most shop-floor workers. As such, the most appropriate audience is likely to include supervisors who understand the chemicals their workers are exposed to, and the processes undertaken in their work areas (e.g., use the tool in a 'train the trainer' approach). At the opposite extreme from those who said it was too difficult to use, the Project Reference Group has brought up the issue that the CHAP-Risk tool may be too simplistic for a thorough examination of the hazards and risks of workplace chemicals and does not meet the comprehensive standards used by occupational hygiists. These two extremes of opinion--that CHAP-Risk demands too much information, and that CHAP-Risk does not give enough information--have made the researchers painfully aware of the balancing act that is needed to conduct workplace-based occupational health and safety research, particularly with small businesses and for chemical hazards.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14167167/sl](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14167167/sl)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14167167/sl](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14167167/sl)). 'Screen shots' of the CHAP-Risk tool along with example pages which demonstrate the use of the tool.  
Conceptualization, T.T., D.M.K., P.S., C.E.P., S.C. and D.L.H.; methodology, T.T., D.M.K., P.S. and D.L.H.; software, D.D. and T.T.; validation, T.T., D.M.K., P.S., C.E.P. and D.L.H.; formal analysis, D.M.K.; investigation, T.T., D.M.K., P.S. and D.L.H.; resources, T.T., D.D. and S.C.; data curation, D.M.K.; writing--original draft preparation, D.M.K. and T.T.; writing--review and editing, T.T., D.M.K., D.D., P.S., C.E.P., S.C. and D.L.H.; visualization, T.T.; supervision, T.T.; project administration, T.T.; funding acquisition, T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by WorkSafeBC, Innovation at Work grant RS2020-IG04.  
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by the Toronto Metropolitan University Research Ethics Board (protocol #2020-379) due to collecting information from individuals who are not themselves the focus of the research and asking them to evaluate an assessment tool is exempt from REB review.  
Despite the REB exemption, informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
The raw (deidentified/anonymized) data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.  
We gratefully acknowledge the involvement of the participants and their workplaces. We are also thankful for the guidance provided by the Project Reference Group members.  
Author [PERSON] was employed by the company Superior Propane. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.