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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BioRAM©
• Olasılık
• Şiddet
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bioram
• Probability
• Severity
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Kaynakça

1. 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
2. Başustaoğlu, N. (2012). Klinik mikrobiyoloji laboratuvarlarında biyogüvenlik. Başustaoğlu, A. C., Güney M. (Ed), Laboratuvar risk değerlendirmesi içinde (s.3-9). Ankara: Klımud.
3. 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
4. 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/
5. 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
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
7. 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
8. Linkov, I., (2006). “Comments on the OMB Risk Assessment Bulletin”, https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/inforeg/comments_rab/cei.pdf

9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Singh K. Laboratory-acquired infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):142-7. doi: 10.1086/599104.