Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Within Occupational Risk Prevention, the assessment of risks due to exposure to biological agents has received little attention compared to risks such as those arising from chemicals. This was the case until the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of health effects related to exposure to biological agents in the work environment. However, the tools for hazard inventory, risk assessment, and implementation of control measures for biological agents are scarce. There are many reasons that make it challenging for OHS professionals to assess the exposure to biological agents such as, little knowledge on the biological agents potentially present in the different economic activities, their effects on health, the lack of standardized methods for quantitative sampling or the lack of reference values available for most biological agents. Different qualitative risk assessment tools for biological agents have been developed over the last decades. Some examples are the Simplified Evaluation of the INSST (Spain), the Biogaval-Neo of the INVASSAT (Spain), the Bioaerosol Tool of the IRSST (Canada) or the RIE Method of the NKAL (The Netherlands). These tools differ from each other in terms of their scope and the parameters used to determine risk and were compared in order to better understand their limitations and applicability. After the comparison was carried out some additional specific parameters have been proposed as essential for the development of this new model. The proposed improvements could be implemented in the development of a new qualitative biological risk assessment model in the Stoffenmanager® tool.

Abstract
Within Occupational Hygiene, risk assessments due to exposure to biological agents has received less emphasis compared to risks associated with other hazardous substances. Thus, the tools for hazard inventory, risk assessment, and implementation of control measures for biological agents remain scarce.
The COVID-19 pandemic raised awareness on the magnitude of potential health consequences linked to exposure to biological agents also in workplace environments. But concerns should not be limited to infectious biological agents. Non-infectious microorganisms might also impact in workers' health due to their sensitizing, toxic and even carcinogenic effects. Workers in various sectors may be exposed through aerosols or contact with infected persons or materials that are contaminated with microorganisms.
Different qualitative risk assessment tools for biological agents have been developed over the last decades, with differences in their scope, parameters used and results obtained. In order to propose a functional design for the development of a new risk assessment tool related to biological agents, four existing tools were compared to better understand their strengths, limitations and applicability.
Based on this comparison, a general structure for a complete new tool was proposed with some key requirements for determining occupational exposure to biological agents. Furthermore, we developed a new qualitative risk assessment model for bioaerosol inhalation created from a source-receptor conceptual model where scores for each parameter were assigned based on literature. The current model has been applied to seven different sectors and tested in more than 120 real workplace scenarios with satisfactory results.

AbstractIn this article, we have responded to the key statements in the article by Koivisto et al. (2022) that were incorrect and considered to be a biased critique on a subset of the exposure models used in Europe (i.e. ART and Stoffenmanager®) used for regulatory exposure assessment. We welcome scientific discussions on exposure modelling (as was done during the ISES Europe workshop) and criticism based on scientific evidence to contribute to the advancement of occupational exposure estimation tools. The tiered approach to risk assessment allows various exposure assessment models from screening tools (control/hazard banding) through to higher-tiered approaches. There is a place for every type of model, but we do need to recognize the cost and data requirements of highly bespoke assessments. That is why model developers have taken pragmatic approaches to develop tools for exposure assessments based on imperfect data. We encourage Koivisto et al. to focus on further scientifically robust work to develop mass-balance models and by independent external validations studies, compare these models with alternative model tools such as ART and Stoffenmanager®.