Step two is evaluating the lab activities or the situation that you are working in which may modify the inherent biorisk of that pathogen.

Before we begin, I want you to stop here and take a few minutes to write down some laboratory activities and procedures that you think may influence biorisk. Things that you routinely do at your work that may change the level of risk. For example, growing the pathogen. When you amplify the amount of pathogen you are creating more of it, which obviously increases risk. Take a few minutes and then come back to the program with your list of procedures and activities that you think influence biorisk.

Let’s take a look at those elements now that may modify risk. I’ve just listed a few of them here, but there are many more. You should look at the processes and SOPs that the scientists are using for the isolation, characterization, modification and use of the pathogens. What procedures are being used? Are there procedures leading to aerosol creation and potential inhalation of agent? What equipment is being used? Are needles, centrifuges, homogenizers, or other equipment being used and how does it modify risk.

This next video you’re about to see is very good because it summarizes all the activities that we do in the laboratory and shows you very clearly how routine activities generate aerosols, splashes, splatters and droplets leading to contamination to your hands and to bench surfaces. 

This movie clearly showed that how we do routine practices and procedures in the laboratory are very important in trying to minimize aerosol creation, splashes, splatters and further distribution of contamination on fomites, gloves and laboratory surfaces. Therefore, it’s very important to pay attention to how you do what you do in the laboratory.

Other procedures that we do in the laboratory can lead to inoculation of the agent. Working with sharp objects, such as needles or cuts from sharps such as broken glassware. Needle hazards, such as shown here, like putting blood into blood tubes, recapping needles, throwing needles away in the trash all lead to percutaneous inoculation risk. You should always train laboratory workers not to do any of these activities. In addition, there’s also potential from insect bites as well (normal or infected). Anything that can puncture the skin leading to a percutaneous inoculation is also a procedural risk.

Are animals involved in the studies? When working with animals there is the potential for bites and scratches. When we’re drawing blood from animals or inoculating animals, there’s also a potential to inoculate ourselves with the needle leading to infection. People working with animals need to be extra careful.

You also have to ask yourself, does the environment where the work that you are doing change the risk. In most cases it does. It may lower the risk or it may increase the risk. Are you working in the laboratory or the field? If you’re working out in the open field or in a hospital setting collecting samples, it’s very different than working in the laboratory?

Summary

At the beginning of this risk assessment lesson, we talked about the agent factors. What are you working with and understanding the characteristics of the pathogens that you have in your laboratory and in your experiments? In this second part we explored the procedural and locational factors that modify inherent agent risk. Next, we’ll look at step three in this risk assessment process which is who is doing that work? Human factors can also greatly influence risk.

Human factors

Although this is the third factor that influences risk, it may well be the most important. Therefore, let’s look closely at human factors that influence risk. First, we have to make some assumptions about the people in the laboratory. We assume that the worker is a healthy adult, because younger and older people may be more susceptible to diseases. We also assume that the worker has a fully functional immune system. Again, anything that compromises the immune system makes the person more susceptible to disease. We also have to assume that the worker is capable of doing the work and that they have no physical disabilities that endanger their work. They can see clearly, hear clearly, they can move and do their work well. Keep in mind people do change and therefore it’s important to reassess the worker’s capability regularly.

So now I have another exercise for you related to human factors. I want you to stop here again and take a few minutes and write down all the factors that may be related to people and their ability to do the work that may influence the biorisk. Assume the worker is a healthy adult, with a fully functioning immune system and physically fit. When you are done come back to this program.

Here are some of the human factors that I’ve listed that may be involved. Is the worker well trained? Can you document their training? Have they done this work before? Are they experience or new? Do they have good microbiological technique?  – are they very meticulous when it comes to their work or sloppy. What is their attitude towards the use of safe practices and the use of PPE? Is the person emotionally stable or distraught? I am sure you have written down more, but I am going to stop with these.

In review, here are the three factors that I really want you to remember. In a risk assessment, start with the agent factors? What are you working with? Try to understand as much as possible the characteristics of the agent or agents that you are working with. Then take a close look at the procedures. What you’re doing and the location where you’re doing that work. It influences the inherent agent factors dramatically. Then, of course, don’t forget the human factors – who is doing that work? How they’re doing that work? Remember, biological risk can be influenced by the agent, the procedure and the people doing the work.