Article Text

PDF
O48-2 Exposure assessment to engineered nanomaterials within the french epinano program: inter-method reliability study
  1. Irina Guseva Canu1,
  2. Delphine Jezewski-Serra1,
  3. Laurène Delabra1,
  4. Stéphane Ducamp2,
  5. Yuriko Iwatsubo1,
  6. Sabyne Audignon-Durand2,
  7. Cécile Ducros3,
  8. Anca Radauceanu4,
  9. Olivier Witschger4,
  10. Catherine Durand3,
  11. Emmanuel Flahaut5
  1. 1Institut De Veille Sanitaire (InVS), Saint-Maurice, France
  2. 2Institut De Santé Publique, d’Epidémiologie Et De Développement, Bordeaux, France
  3. 3Commissariat À L’énergie Atomique Et Aux Énergies Alternatives, Grenoble, France
  4. 4Institut National De Recherche Et De Sécurité (INRS), Paris, France
  5. 5Université Paul Sabattier, Toulouse, France

Abstract

Inter-method reliability is a measure of the ability of two different methods which evaluate the same underlying exposure to yield similar results on the same subjects. In this study we compared an observational “EpiNano-method” developed for assessing exposure to nano-objects and their agglomerates and aggregates (NOAA) in workplaces within the framework of the French epidemiological surveillance program EpiNano with a more accurate but more expensive and time-consuming “Reference-method”.

Methods EpiNano-method consists in an onsite visit of facilities and an observation of workstations where NOAA are present using a standardised tool, the Onsite technical logbook. Reference-method involved an onsite visit, interviews with operators and supervisors, analysis of the available exposure measurements data, a debriefing meeting and an expert’s report to validate results through consensus. Seven workstations which synthesise and functionalize carbon nanotubes were assessed by Reference-method and by EpiNano-method implemented by three evaluators. All statistics were calculated based on pairwise comparisons of the evaluator’s respective results with the results from the Reference-method by using mainly Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) and weighted Fleiss kappa (kF).

Results The prediction of exposure to NOAA using EpiNano-method exhibited substantial agreement with that of the reference method ((kF = 0.70, sensitivity = 0.88, specificity = 0.92). The best reliability of quantitative exposure scores was found for the EpiNano-method results of Evaluator#1, when comparing with the Reference-method (ρ = 0.75). The correlation was positive but of moderate strength (ρ = 0.57) for Evaluator#2 and negative for Evaluator#3. When comparing the semi-quantitative exposure potential variable almost perfect correlation was found; all but one workstation were classified in the first category corresponding to “Negligible to low” exposure potential.

Conclusion This study allowed a first validation of the EpiNano-method. However, it should be confirmed by further comparison with more robust quantitative exposure measurement data, available for a larger workstation number, with more contrasting exposure conditions and various types of NOAA.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.