Multi-criteria decision-making approach in biological risk assessment methodology with bioRAM© program

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 1801 - 1823, 29.12.2023

Ergün Eraslan , Nuray Alpoğlu Akbulut

Abstract

The Multi-Criteria Decision Making approach in risk assessment with the
BioRAM © methodology enables comparison of the relative risks posed by
biological agents and analysis in the laboratory environment. The
questionnaire used in this method is based on the principle of calculating the
weights of probability and severity criteria with expert opinions using Saaty's
semantic pairwise comparison scale. The model, which assigns values
between 0 and 1 to the sub-variables of the criteria, is used as a standard scale
in biological risk assessment. In the study, biological risk assessment of the
process "Detecting Coagulase positive Staphylococcus aureus in raw milk
samples" was carried out with the BioRAM© 2022 program. According to
the program that calculates the criterion weights with 2-dimensional
graphics, the risk level through inhalation, contact, and digestion is
calculated as high risk according to the biochemical properties of the
biological agent. When applying microbiological analysis procedures, it was
calculated as high risk through contact and ingestion, medium risk through
percutaneous injury, and medium risk through inhalation. It poses a high risk
to the public through inhalation, ingestion and contact. The risk level through
percutaneous injury is calculated as medium risk. After biosafety and risk
reduction measures were taken, the risk level of the analysis was calculated
as medium risk through ingestion, contact, and inhalation. However, despite
the precautions, the risk level posed by the analysis to society is high through
contact, ingestion, and inhalation. Although good precautions were taken,
the risk level could not be brought to an acceptable level. At the end of the
study, it was recommended to increase Personal Protective Equipment
measures to bring the risk level to an acceptable level during the
manipulations of this microorganism. In addition, it has been suggested to
use molecular techniques that reduce material volume and aerosol risk
instead of traditional microbiological analyses in the manipulation of this
microorganism.

Keywords

Bioram, Probability, Severity, Multi-Criteria Decision Making

BioRAM© programıyla biyolojik risk değerlendirme metodolojisinde çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımı

Abstract

BioRAM ©metodolojisi ile risk değerlendirmesinde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
yaklaşımı biyolojik ajanların ve analizlerin oluşturduğu göreli risklerin
laboratuvar ortamında karşılaştırılmasını sağlamaktadır. Bu yöntemde kullanılan
anket Saaty’nin semantik ikili karşılaştırma ölçeği kullanılarak uzman
görüşleriyle olasılık ve şiddet kriterlerinin ağırlıklarının hesaplanması prensibine
dayanmaktadır. Kriterlerin alt değişkenlerine 0-1 arasında değerler atayan model
biyolojik risk değerlendirmesinde standart ölçek olarak kullanılmaktadır.
Çalışmada “Çiğ süt numunesinde Koagülaz pozitif Staphylococcus aureus
aranması” proseslerinin BioRAM© 2022 programıyla biyolojik risk
değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. İki boyutlu grafiklerle kriter ağırlıklarını hesaplayan
programa göre biyolojik ajanın biyokimyasal özelliklerine göre solunum, temas,
sindirim yoluyla risk düzeyi yüksek riskli olarak hesaplanmıştır. Mikrobiyolojik
analiz prosedürleri uygulanırken temas ve sindirim yoluyla yüksek riskli,
perkütan yaralanma yoluyla orta riskli, inhalasyon yoluyla orta riskli olarak
hesaplanmıştır. Toplum için solunum, sindirim ve temas yoluyla risk düzeyi
yüksek risklidir. Perkütan yaralanma yoluyla risk düzeyi orta riskli olarak
hesaplanmıştır. Biyogüvenlik ve risk azaltma önlemleri alındıktan sonra analizin
risk düzeyi sindirim, temas ve inhalasyon yoluyla orta riskli olarak
hesaplanmıştır. Ancak önlemlere rağmen analizin toplum için oluşturduğu risk
düzeyi temas, sindirim ve solunum yoluyla yüksek risklidir. İyi düzeyde önlemler
alınmasına rağmen risk düzeyi kabul edilebilir düzeye getirilememiştir.
Çalışmanın sonunda bu mikroorganizmanın manipülasyonları sırasında risk
düzeyinin kabul edilebilir düzeye getirilmesi için Kişisel Koruyucu Donanım
önlemlerinin artırılması önerilmiştir. Ayrıca bu mikroorganizmanın
manipülasyonlarında geleneksel mikrobiyolojik analizlerinin yerine malzeme
hacmini ve aerosol riskini azaltan moleküler tekniklerin kullanılması önerilmiştir.

Keywords

BioRAM©, Olasılık, Şiddet, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme

References

• Assocıation of public health laboratories, (2016). Risk Assesment Best Practices. Retrived from https://www.aphl.org/programs/preparedness/Documents/APHL%20Risk%20Assessment%20Best%20Practices %20and%20Examples.pdf
• Başustaoğlu, N. (2012). Klinik mikrobiyoloji laboratuvarlarında biyogüvenlik. Başustaoğlu, A. C., Güney M. (Ed), Laboratuvar risk değerlendirmesi içinde (s.3-9). Ankara: Klımud.
• Beer, D., Vandermeer, B., Brosnikoff, C., Shokoples, S., Rennie, R., & Forgie, S. (2006). Bacterial contamination of health care workers' pagers and the efficacy of various disinfecting agents. The Pediatric İnfectious Disease Journal, 25(11), 1074–1075. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.inf.0000242649.27400.94
• Caskey, S, Gaudioso, J, Salerno R., Wagner, S., Shigematsu, M., Risi, G., Kozlovac, J., Prat,V.,H,.K,.E (2010). Biosafety Risk Assessment Methodology. Sandia Report. Sandia National Laborotories https://www.coursehero.com/file/29741758/Biosafety-Risk-Assessment-Reportpdf/
• Evangelos Triantaphyllou, (2000) Multi-Critera Decision Making Methods: A comparative Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
• Huang, E., Gurzau, A. E., Hanson, B. M., Kates, A. E., Smith, T. C., Pettigrew, M. M., Spinu, M., & Rabinowitz, P. M. (2014). Detection of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among swine workers in Romania. Journal Of İnfection And Public Health, 7(4), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2014.03.008
• Jans, C., Wambui, J., Stevens, M. J., & Tasara, T. (2022). Comparative genomics of dairy-associated Staphylococcus aureus from selected sub-Saharan African regions reveals milk as reservoir for human-and animal-derived strains and identifies a putative animal-related clade with presumptive novel siderophore. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13, 923080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.923080
• Linkov, I., (2006). “Comments on the OMB Risk Assessment Bulletin”, https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/inforeg/comments_rab/cei.pdf
• Linkov, I., satterstrom, F.K., Steevens, J.et al. (2007) Multicriteria decision analysis and enviromentai risk assesment for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res ), 543-554 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-007-9211-0
• Karaatli, M., Ömürbek, N., Budak, İ., & Okan, D. A. Ğ. (2015). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile yaşanabilir illerin sıralanması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (33), 215-228. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1724830
• Kluytmans, J., van Belkum, A., & Verbrugh, H. (1997). Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clinical microbiology reviews, 10(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.10.3.505
• Laboratory biosafety manual, fourth edition, (2020)(b). Laboratory biosafety manual, fourth edition and associated monographs Geneva: World Health Organization https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240011311
• LeClaire RD, Pitt MLM. (2005).Biological Weapons Defense: Effect Levels. In: Lindler LE, Lebeda FJ, Korch GW, editors. Biological Weapons Defense: Infectious Diseases and Counterbioterrorism. Totowa (NJ): Humana Press, Inc. 35, 41–61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7122899/pdf/978-1-60327-297-1_Chapter_23.pdf
• Madsen, A. M., Phan, H. U. T., Laursen, M., White, J. K., & Uhrbrand, K. (2020). Evaluation of Methods for Sampling of Staphylococcus aureus and Other Staphylococcus Species from Indoor Surfaces. Annals Of Work Exposures And Health, 64(9), 1020–1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa080
• Medina, P., Calzado, C., Centeno, R., Tandoc III, A., & Lupisan, S. (2016). Biological Risk Assessment: Zika Virus Detection at the Research Institute For Tropical Medicine. PJP, 1(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.21141/PJP.2016.004
• Mourya, D. T., Sapkal, G., Yadav, P. D., M Belani, S. K., Shete, A., & Gupta, N. (2020). Biorisk assessment for infrastructure & biosafety requirements for the laboratories providing coronavirus SARS-CoV-2/(COVID-19) diagnosis. The Indian journal of medical research, 151(2 & 3), 172–176. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_763_20
• National Institutes of Health, (2020). Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories 6th Edition https://www.cdc.gov/labs/pdf/SF__19_308133-A_BMBL6_00-BOOK-WEB-final-3.pdf
• Nacar, E. N., & Erdebilli, B. (2021). Tesis Yeri Seçimine Yeni Bir Bakış: Katmanlı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemi. Verimlilik Dergisi, (4), 103-117 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1419070
• Nunes, S. F., Bexiga, R., Cavaco, L. M., & Vilela, C. L. (2007). Technical note: Antimicrobial susceptibility of Portuguese isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis in subclinical bovine mastitis. Journal of dairy science, 90(7), 3242–3246. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-739
• Nwankwo, E. O., & Nasiru, M. S. (2011). Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of Staphylococcus aureus from clinical isolates in a tertiary health institution in Kano, Northwestern Nigeria. The Pan African medical journal, 8, 4. https://doi.org/10.4314/pamj.v8i1.71050
• Oliveira, K., Viegas, C., & Ribeiro, E. (2022). MRSA Colonization in Workers from Different Occupational Environments—A One Health Approach Perspective. Atmosphere, 13(5), 658. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13050658
• Özpınar, (2011). Erzincan tulum peynirinden izole edilen staphylococcus aureus izolatrında antibiyotik direncinin ve biyofilm oluşturma özelliğinin fenotipik ve genotipik olarak belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/bitstream/handle/20.500.12812/549713/yokAcikBilim_395034.pdf?sequence=-1&isAllowed=y
• Peng H, Bilal M, Iqbal HMN (2018). Improved Biosafety and Biosecurity Measures and/or Strategies to Tackle Laboratory-Acquired Infections and Related Risks. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 29;15(12):2697. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122697. Risk assessment (2020) (a). Laboratory biosafety manual, fourth edition and associated monographs. Geneva: World Health Organization https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240011458 Sandialabs Exceptional service in the national interest. Erişim adresi: https://github.com/sandialabs/BioRAM
• Shamsul A. Qasmi, Erum Khan, and Azhar Z. Maqbool. (2012) Survey of Biorisk Management in Clinical Laboratories in Karachi, Pakistan, Applied Biosafety. 198-207 https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/153567601201700405
• Siengsanan-Lamont J, Blacksell SD. A (2018). Review of Laboratory-Acquired Infections in the Asia-Pacific: Understanding Risk and the Need for Improved Biosafety for Veterinary and Zoonotic Diseases. Trop Med Infect Dis. 26;3(2):36. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed3020036.
• Smith, A. R., Johnson, B., Weaver, P. J., & Fitch, J. P. (2014). New Entity CDC Select Agent Registration Process—A Practical Guide to Lessons Learned. Applied Biosafety, 19(2), 56-67.
• Singh K. Laboratory-acquired infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):142-7. doi: 10.1086/599104.