Identification, Application, and Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Methods for Food Safety Risk Assessment Models.

dc.contributor.advisorDr. HC Frey, Chairen_US
dc.contributor.advisorDr. Peter Cowen, Memberen_US
dc.contributor.advisorDr. van der Vaart, Memberen_US
dc.contributor.authorPatil, Sumeet Rajshekharen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-02T18:07:11Z
dc.date.available2010-04-02T18:07:11Z
dc.date.issued2001-12-10en_US
dc.degree.disciplineCivil Engineeringen_US
dc.degree.levelMaster's Thesisen_US
dc.degree.nameMSen_US
dc.description.abstractIdentification and qualitative comparison of sensitivity analysis methods that have been used across various disciplines, and that merit consideration for application to food safety risk assessment models are presented in this paper. Sensitivity analysis can help in identifying critical control points, prioritizing additional data collection or research, and verifying and validating a model. Ten sensitivity analysis methods, including four mathematical methods, five statistical methods and one graphical method, are identified. Application of these methods was also illustrated with the examples from various fields. These methods were compared on the basis of their applicability to different types of models, computational issues such as initial data requirement, time requirement, and complexity of their application, representation of the sensitivity, and the specific uses of these methods. No one method is clearly best for food safety risk models. In general, the use of two or more methods may be needed to increase confidence on the rank ordering of key inputs.To identify specific issues with respect to the application to a typical food safety risk model, the sensitivity analysis methods were applied to the risk assessment model of the public health impact of vibrio Parahaemolyticus (the Vp model). The Vp model was modified so that proper sensitivity analysis can be done on independent inputs. The results of the sensitivity analyses were interpreted and discussed in detail. The rank ordering of key inputs was reasonably similar for most of the methods. For example, five of the seven methods ranked water temperature, the number of oysters per meal, and a new input IUR in the top three. Time on water and an input IG were identified as the least important inputs by six methods.en_US
dc.identifier.otheretd-20011206-174616en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1761
dc.rightsI hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report.en_US
dc.titleIdentification, Application, and Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Methods for Food Safety Risk Assessment Models.en_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
etd.pdf
Size:
6.6 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections