Comparison of sensitivity analysis methods based on applications to a food safety risk assessment model

被引:55
|
作者
Patil, SR [1 ]
Frey, HC [1 ]
机构
[1] N Carolina State Univ, Dept Civil Construct & Environm Engn, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
关键词
complex models; critical control points; food safety; risk assessment; sensitivity analysis;
D O I
10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00460.x
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Sensitivity analysis (SA) methods are a valuable tool for identifying critical control points (CCPs), which is one of the important steps in the hazard analysis and CCP approach that is used to ensure safe food. There are many SA methods used across various disciplines. Furthermore, food safety process risk models pose challenges because they often are highly nonlinear, contain thresholds, and have discrete inputs. Therefore, it is useful to compare and evaluate SA methods based upon applications to an example food safety risk model. Ten SA methods were applied to a draft Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp) risk assessment model developed by the Food and Drug Administration. The model was modified so that all inputs were independent. Rankings of key inputs from different methods were compared. Inputs such as water temperature, number of oysters per meal, and the distributional assumption for the unrefrigerated time were the most important inputs, whereas time on water, fraction of pathogenic Vp, and the distributional assumption for the weight of oysters were the least important inputs. Most of the methods gave a similar ranking of key inputs even though the methods differed in terms of being graphical, mathematical, or statistical, accounting for individual effects or joint effect of inputs, and being model dependent or model independent. A key recommendation is that methods be further compared by application on different and more complex food safety models. Model independent methods, such as ANOVA, mutual information index, and scatter plots, are expected to be more robust than others evaluated.
引用
收藏
页码:573 / 585
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Food Safety-Risk Assessment Strategies for Mycotoxin Analysis
    Tess, M. E.
    Saul, S. J.
    CEREAL FOODS WORLD, 2012, 57 (03) : 119 - 122
  • [22] Sensitivity Analysis of Software Project Risk Assessment Model
    Zhou, Chi
    Wang, Yingchun
    Huang, Huixia
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2016 IEEE ADVANCED INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, COMMUNICATES, ELECTRONIC AND AUTOMATION CONTROL CONFERENCE (IMCEC 2016), 2016, : 569 - 572
  • [23] Comparison and Analysis of Building Fire Risk Assessment Methods
    Wu, Lizhi
    Guo, Shigang
    2018 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND SAFETY (ICSRS), 2018, : 381 - 385
  • [24] A Comparison of Methods for Thorough QT Analysis for the Assessment of Cardiac Safety
    Ferber G.
    Johannesen L.
    Pharmaceutical Medicine, 2016, 30 (1) : 15 - 21
  • [25] Research hotspots and evolution trends of food safety risk assessment techniques and methods
    Wang, Liru
    Yu, Xueli
    EFOOD, 2024, 5 (06)
  • [26] A fuzzy enabled model for aggregative food safety risk assessment in food supply chains
    Wang, Xiaojun
    Li, Dong
    Shi, Xianliang
    IEEE/SOLI'2008: PROCEEDINGS OF 2008 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SERVICE OPERATIONS AND LOGISTICS, AND INFORMATICS, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2008, : 2898 - +
  • [27] Food safety risk assessment and countermeasures in China based on risk matrix method
    Yu, Huiqin
    Song, Yinghua
    Lv, Wei
    Liu, Dan
    Huang, Haining
    FRONTIERS IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS, 2024, 8
  • [28] Risk assessment in Chinese food safety
    Liu, Shan
    Xie, Zhimei
    Zhang, Weiwei
    Cao, Xia
    Pei, Xiaofang
    FOOD CONTROL, 2013, 30 (01) : 162 - 167
  • [29] Based on HHM of the Coal Mine Safety Risk Assessment Methods
    Liu, Shuangyue
    Jiang, Fei
    2012 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON QUALITY, RELIABILITY, RISK, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY ENGINEERING (ICQR2MSE), 2012, : 592 - 594
  • [30] Global sensitivity analysis in wastewater applications: A comprehensive comparison of different methods
    Cosenza, Alida
    Mannina, Giorgio
    Vanrolleghem, Peter A.
    Neumann, Marc B.
    ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2013, 49 : 40 - 52