Table B2.
The Sensitivity Analysis Results Within 10,000 Euros Monitoring Budgets When the Sensitivity of Agnatical Method Decreased to 98% 1 and 98% 2 for AFB1/M1 and Dioxins Separately
| Contamination | FM 1 | DF 2 | MT 3 | Total DALYs reduced/ | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| scenarios | Npuh,i 4 | Nsh,i 5 | NAh,i 6 | Npuh,i 4 | Nsh,i 5 | Nah,i 6 | Npuh,i 4 | Nsh,i 5 | Nah,i 6 | 100,000 population | |
| S1 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 33 | 3 | 38 | 114 | 38 | 0.03 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 8 | 24 | 8 | ||
| S2 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 39 | 117 | 10 | 15 | 45 | 15 | 0.20 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 16 | 48 | 4 | 8 | 24 | 8 | ||
| S3 | AFB1/M1 | 4 | 28 | 4 | 36 | 108 | 9 | 8 | 24 | 8 | 0.42 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 60 | 5 | 7 | 21 | 7 | ||
| S4 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 56 | 168 | 14 | 14 | 42 | 14 | 0.16 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 60 | 5 | 11 | 33 | 11 | ||
| S5 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 32 | 96 | 8 | 8 | 24 | 8 | 0.36 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 16 | 48 | 4 | 11 | 33 | 11 | ||
| S6 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 32 | 96 | 32 | 0.12 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 24 | 2 | 6 | 18 | 6 | ||
| S7 | AFB1/M1 | 3 | 21 | 1 | 32 | 96 | 8 | 9 | 27 | 9 | 0.32 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 19 | 57 | 5 | 16 | 48 | 16 | ||
| S8 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 30 | 90 | 30 | 0.07 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 8 | 24 | 6 | ||
| S9 | AFB1/M1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 48 | 144 | 12 | 14 | 42 | 14 | 0.26 |
| Dioxins | 1 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 7 | 21 | 7 | ||
1
Expert opinion (personal communication).
2
Lascano‐Alcoser et al. (2013)
3
Optimal number of production units sampled at each control point for each chemical.
4
Optimal number of samples collected at each control point for each chemical.
5
Optimal number of analysis samples at each stage for each chemical.