4.6 Article

A Bayesian Belief Network Model Assessing the Risk to Wastewater Workers of Contracting Ebola Virus Disease During an Outbreak

期刊

RISK ANALYSIS
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 376-391

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12827

关键词

Bayesian network; Ebola; epidemic; wastewater treatment

资金

  1. WERF [3C15]
  2. NSF [CBET-1619958]
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1619958] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During an outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD), hospitals' connections to municipal wastewater systems may provide a path for patient waste bearing infectious viral particles to pass from the hospital into the wastewater treatment system, potentially posing risks to sewer and wastewater workers. To quantify these risks, we developed a Bayesian belief network model incorporating data on virus behavior and survival along with structural characteristics of hospitals and wastewater treatment systems. We applied the model to assess risks under several different scenarios of workers' exposure to wastewater for a wastewater system typical of a mid-sized U.S. city. The model calculates a median daily risk of developing EVD of approximately 6.1x10(-12) (90% confidence interval: 1.0x10-1 to 5.4x10(-9); mean 1.8x10(-6)) when no prior exposure conditions are specified. Under a worst-case scenario in which a worker stationed in the sewer adjacent to the hospital accidentally ingests several drops (0.35 mL) of wastewater, median risk is 5.8x10(-4) (90% CI: 8.8x10(-7) to 9.5x10(-2); mean 3.2x10(-2)). Disinfection of patient waste with peracetic acid for 15 minutes prior to flushing decreases the estimated median risk to 3.8x10(-7) (90% CI: 4.1x10(-9) to 8.6x10(-5); mean 2.9x10(-5)). The results suggest that requiring hospitals to disinfect EVD patient waste prior to flushing may be advisable. The modeling framework can provide insight into managing patient waste during future outbreaks of highly virulent infectious pathogens.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据