Skip to main content

Building Related Illness (BRI)/ Sick Building Syndrome (SBS)

BayBiotech.NET
Built environments both residential and non residential are subject to number of indoor air quality (IAQ) and Indoor environment (IE) problems that may cause acute symptoms, health risks or discomfort.
A frequent IAQ and IE investigations can determine the occurrence of BRI and provide with healthier work environment. This is of utmost importance for Pharmaceutical/ Life Sciences industry where the product is directly subject to the human usage.
Non residential buildings are more prone to BRI as there is a high volume of occupants coming from diverse geographical areas interact in an environment where the ventilation of the building is not directly under the occupants control.
Health hazard evaluation teams from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts the investigation upon request and provides with strategies to avoid the recurrence of the problem. Some of the risk factors that may be used to evaluate biological contaminants as potential causes of allergy/asthma/sinusitis are as follows:
1. Mold: active mold infestation on building material, building history of water damage, wet building site, musty odors, viable mold test results of >1000 CFU/m3 and total mold counts >10,000 S/m3.
2. Dust mites: damp interiors, > 2 ug/g mite allergen levels in floor dust samples.
3. Apart from dust mites and mold, bacterias are major contributors to indoor health hazards and some of the diseases caused due to them are Tuberculosis, Pneumonia, Diphtheria, Anthrax, Meningitis, Respiratory infections and wound infections.

Poor IAQ contributed by various identifiable factors may cause decreased work performance and may impose significant economic costs on employers. Thus, it is important to have a regular investigations planned to test the health of the buildings used for performing the work.

In the US, NIOSH has developed a protocol to serve the needs of its health hazard evaluation teams. Such a team consists of an industrial hygienist, an epidemiologist, and a technical person familiar with the operation and maintenance of building mechanical systems.

To find out more on the topic, you may want to follow the readings as under:

1. www.epa.gov
2. USEPA/ NIOSH, EPA/400/1-91/003, DHHS Publication No. 91-1141-1991.
3. Thad Godish, Indoor Environmental Quality, CRC Press LLC, 2001.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Good Machine Learning Practices

BayBiotech.NET A joint effort by FDA,  United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Health Canada have developed guiding principles to help promote utilization of medical devices that are safe and effective and utilize artiificial intelligence and machine learning. To find out more details check out the link here!
Post a Comment
Read more

Group C (Treatment IND) Drugs

BayBiotech.NET Since 1976, National Cancer Institute (NCI) in agreement with FDA has established the Group C classification system to allow access to certain drugs for the cancer patients specifically falling under a category that adequate alternative therapy or if the available alternative therapy has significant toxic effects. Each Group C drug protocol specifies patient eligibility and drug use information. Group C drugs are provided only to properly trained physicians who have registered themselves with NCI using a special form to assure that their patient qualifies under guidelines - or protocols - for the drug. Physicians using drugs under Group C have no reporting requirements to the NCI other than the obligation to report adverse drug reactions. Group C drugs are provided free of charge, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides coverage for care associated with Group C therapy. Making Group C drugs available to the critically ill patients not only provi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more