English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives Several societies have published guidelines to limit the occupational exposure of workers. Several of these guidelines recommend periodic (once or twice a year) environmental monitoring of specific sites where antineoplastic drugs are prepared and administered. However, most of the guidelines provide no guidance concerning which antineoplastic drugs should be monitored, the preferred sampling sites, appropriate test methods or limits of detection. The aim of this study was to characterize providers that quantify antineoplastic drug measured on surfaces. Methods This was a cross-sectional descriptive study. To identify service providers offering environmental monitoring tests, we searched the PubMed database and used the Google search engine. We contacted each service provider by email between June 3rd and June 15th, 2020. We specified the objective of our study and described the information needed and the variables of interest with standardized questions. Additional questions were sent by emails or via teleconferences. No statistical analyses were performed. Results We identified six providers offering services to Canadian hospitals, either based in Canada or in the United States. Five of these providers were private companies and one was a public organization. Each service provider was able to measure trace contamination of 3–17 antineoplastic drugs. Five of the providers quantified drugs using ultra performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MSMS), which allowed for lower LODs. The sixth provider offered quantification by immunoassay, which has higher LODs, but offers near real-time results; the surface area to be sampled with this method was also smaller than with UPLC-MSMS. The services offered varied among the service providers. The information about LODs supplied by each provider was often insufficient and the units were not standardized. A cost per drug quantified could not be obtained, because of variability in the scenarios involved (e.g. drug selection to be quantified, number of samples, nondisclosure of ancillary costs). Four of the six service providers were unable to report LOQ values. Conclusions Few data are available from Canadian service providers concerning the characteristics of wipe sampling methods for antineoplastics. This study identified six north-American providers. Their characteristics were very heterogeneous. Criteria to consider when choosing a provider include the validation of their analytical method, a low limit of detection, the choice of drugs to be quantified and the sites to be sampled, obtaining details about the method and understanding its limits, and price. This should be part of a structured multidisciplinary approach in each center.

Characteristics of wipe sampling methods for antineoplastic drugs in North America: comparison of six providers