IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i2p245-264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Risk Predicted by Multiple Norovirus Dose–Response Models and Implications for Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Van Abel
  • Mary E. Schoen
  • John C. Kissel
  • J. Scott Meschke

Abstract

The application of quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRAs) to understand and mitigate risks associated with norovirus is increasingly common as there is a high frequency of outbreaks worldwide. A key component of QMRA is the dose–response analysis, which is the mathematical characterization of the association between dose and outcome. For Norovirus, multiple dose–response models are available that assume either a disaggregated or an aggregated intake dose. This work reviewed the dose–response models currently used in QMRA, and compared predicted risks from waterborne exposures (recreational and drinking) using all available dose–response models. The results found that the majority of published QMRAs of norovirus use the 1F1 hypergeometric dose–response model with α = 0.04, β = 0.055. This dose–response model predicted relatively high risk estimates compared to other dose–response models for doses in the range of 1–1,000 genomic equivalent copies. The difference in predicted risk among dose–response models was largest for small doses, which has implications for drinking water QMRAs where the concentration of norovirus is low. Based on the review, a set of best practices was proposed to encourage the careful consideration and reporting of important assumptions in the selection and use of dose–response models in QMRA of norovirus. Finally, in the absence of one best norovirus dose–response model, multiple models should be used to provide a range of predicted outcomes for probability of infection.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Van Abel & Mary E. Schoen & John C. Kissel & J. Scott Meschke, 2017. "Comparison of Risk Predicted by Multiple Norovirus Dose–Response Models and Implications for Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 245-264, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:245-264
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12616
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12616?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip J. Schmidt, 2015. "Norovirus Dose–Response: Are Currently Available Data Informative Enough to Determine How Susceptible Humans Are to Infection from a Single Virus?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1364-1383, July.
    2. S. Fiona Barker, 2014. "Risk of Norovirus Gastroenteritis from Consumption of Vegetables Irrigated with Highly Treated Municipal Wastewater—Evaluation of Methods to Estimate Sewage Quality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 803-817, May.
    3. P. F. M. Teunis & A. H. Havelaar, 2000. "The Beta Poisson Dose‐Response Model Is Not a Single‐Hit Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 513-520, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wopke van der Werf & Lia Hemerik & Just M Vlak & Mark P Zwart, 2011. "Heterogeneous Host Susceptibility Enhances Prevalence of Mixed-Genotype Micro-Parasite Infections," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Arie H. Havelaar & Marie‐Josee J. Mangen & Aline A. De Koeijer & Marc‐Jeroen Bogaardt & Eric G. Evers & Wilma F. Jacobs‐Reitsma & Wilfrid Van Pelt & Jaap A. Wagenaar & G. Ardine De Wit & Henk Van Der , 2007. "Effectiveness and Efficiency of Controlling Campylobacter on Broiler Chicken Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 831-844, August.
    3. Eric G. Evers & Hetty Blaak & Raditijo A. Hamidjaja & Rob de Jonge & Franciska M. Schets, 2016. "A QMRA for the Transmission of ESBL‐Producing Escherichia coli and Campylobacter from Poultry Farms to Humans Through Flies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 215-227, February.
    4. Amie Adkin & Neil Donaldson & Louise Kelly, 2013. "A Quantitative Assessment of the Prion Risk Associated with Wastewater from Carcass‐Handling Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1212-1227, July.
    5. Miyu Fuzawa & Rebecca Lee Smith & Kang‐Mo Ku & Joanna L. Shisler & Hao Feng & John A. Juvik & Thanh H. Nguyen, 2020. "Roles of Vegetable Surface Properties and Sanitizer Type on Annual Disease Burden of Rotavirus Illness by Consumption of Rotavirus‐Contaminated Fresh Vegetables: A Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessme," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 741-757, April.
    6. Michael J. Messner & Philip Berger, 2016. "Cryptosporidium Infection Risk: Results of New Dose‐Response Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1969-1982, October.
    7. Steven Duret & Régis Pouillot & Wendy Fanaselle & Efstathia Papafragkou & Girvin Liggans & Laurie Williams & Jane M. Van Doren, 2017. "Quantitative Risk Assessment of Norovirus Transmission in Food Establishments: Evaluating the Impact of Intervention Strategies and Food Employee Behavior on the Risk Associated with Norovirus in Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2080-2106, November.
    8. Zhang, Xiaoge & Mahadevan, Sankaran, 2021. "Bayesian network modeling of accident investigation reports for aviation safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Peter F. M. Teunis & Cynthia L. Chappell & Pablo C. Okhuysen, 2002. "Cryptosporidium Dose Response Studies: Variation Between Isolates," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 175-185, February.
    10. Ascioti, Fortunato A. & Mangano, Maria Cristina & Marcianò, Claudio & Sarà, Gianluca, 2022. "The sanitation service of seagrasses – Dependencies and implications for the estimation of avoided costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    11. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Esther D. Van Asselt & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2007. "Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Microbial Hazards During Food Preparation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1065-1082, August.
    12. Mary J. Bartholomew & David J. Vose & Linda R. Tollefson & Curtis C. Travis, 2005. "A Linear Model for Managing the Risk of Antimicrobial Resistance Originating in Food Animals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 99-108, February.
    13. Sido D. Mylius & Maarten J. Nauta & Arie H. Havelaar, 2007. "Cross‐Contamination During Food Preparation: A Mechanistic Model Applied to Chicken‐Borne Campylobacter," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 803-813, August.
    14. Jack Schijven & Martijn Bouwknegt & Ana Maria de Roda Husman & Saskia Rutjes & Bertrand Sudre & Jonathan E. Suk & Jan C. Semenza, 2013. "A Decision Support Tool to Compare Waterborne and Foodborne Infection and/or Illness Risks Associated with Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2154-2167, December.
    15. Philip J. Schmidt & Katarina D. M. Pintar & Aamir M. Fazil & Edward Topp, 2013. "Harnessing the Theoretical Foundations of the Exponential and Beta‐Poisson Dose‐Response Models to Quantify Parameter Uncertainty Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1677-1693, September.
    16. Philip J. Schmidt & Monica B. Emelko & Mary E. Thompson, 2020. "Recognizing Structural Nonidentifiability: When Experiments Do Not Provide Information About Important Parameters and Misleading Models Can Still Have Great Fit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 352-369, February.
    17. Sushil B. Tamrakar & Charles N. Haas, 2011. "Dose‐Response Model of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever (RMSF) for Human," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1610-1621, October.
    18. Jack Schijven & Gerard B. J. Rijs & Ana Maria De Roda Husman, 2005. "Quantitative Risk Assessment of FMD Virus Transmission via Water," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 13-21, February.
    19. Lailai Chen & Helena Geys & Shaun Cawthraw & Arie Havelaar & Peter Teunis, 2006. "Dose Response for Infectivity of Several Strains of Campylobacter jejuni in Chickens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1613-1621, December.
    20. Delphine Pessoa & Caetano Souto-Maior & Erida Gjini & Joao S Lopes & Bruno Ceña & Cláudia T Codeço & M Gabriela M Gomes, 2014. "Unveiling Time in Dose-Response Models to Infer Host Susceptibility to Pathogens," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-9, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:245-264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.