Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:38:24.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical protection against airborne pathogens and pollutants by a novel animal isolator in a level 3 containment laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. M. Wathes  and
H. E. Johnson
C. M. Wathes
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Animal Husbandry, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
H. E. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Animal Husbandry, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A containment laboratory unit for research with aerosols of group 2 pathogenic microorganisms is described. The design criteria are based on current UK guidelines, which imply containment at group 3 level during aerosol production, storage, exposure of animals and sampling. Within the aerosol laboratory, primary containment is provided by a Henderson apparatus operating at a negative pressure to the external environment. Flexible film isolators under negative pressure are used for all hazardous microbiological work, e.g. tissue homogenization, and for housing infected laboratory rodents. A novel feature of the animal isolator is the separate ventilation of each cage, which minimizes the risk of cross-infection by aerosol transmission and ensures a similar environment within each cage. The results of an intentional release of a cloud of non-pathogenic microorganisms are presented to show the effectiveness of the containment barriers. Recommendations are given for the safe operation of a containment unit based upon practical experience.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 107 , Issue 1 , August 1991 , pp. 157 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

REFERENCES

1. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. Categorisation of pathogens according to hazard and categories of containment. London: HMSO. 1983: 48.Google Scholar
2.Collins, CH. Laboratory-acquired infections: history, incidence, causes and prevention, 2nd ed.London: Butterworths, 1988: 295.Google Scholar
3.Jemski, JV, Phillips, GB. Aerosol challenge of animals. In: Gay, WI. ed. Methods of animal experimentation. New York: Academic Press, 1965: 273–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Newman-Taylor, AJ, Longbottom, JL, Pepys, J. Respiratory allergy to urine proteins of rats and mice. Lancet 1977; ii: 847–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Druett, HA. A mobile form of the Henderson apparatus. J Hyg 1969; 67: 437–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Goldberg, LJ, Watkins, HMS, Boerke, EE, Chatigny, MA. The use of a rotating drum for the study of aerosols over extended periods of time. Am J Hyg 1958; 68: 85–93.Google Scholar
7.Walsh, M, Pritchard, JN, Black, A, Moores, SR, Morgan, A. The development of a system for the exposure of mice to aerosols of plutonium oxide. J. Aerosol Sci 1980; 11: 467–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Home Office. Code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures. London: HMSO. 1989: 33.Google Scholar
9. British Standards Institution. Environmental cleanliness in enclosed spaces. BS 5295. BSI: London. 1989.Google Scholar
10. British Patent No. 90/10799.6. Animal housing systems. Br Patent Appl No. 90/10799.6. Applicants Cambridge Isolation Technology Ltd. and University of Bristol. Application filed 14 May 1990.Google Scholar
11.Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. Guidance on the use, testing and maintenance of laboratory and animal flexible film isolators. London: HMSO: 1985: 12.Google Scholar
12.May, KR. The Collison nebulizer: description, performance and application. J Aerosol Sci 1973; 4: 235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Chatigny, MA, Clinger, DI. Contamination control in aerobiology. In: Dimmick, RL, Akers, AB. eds. An introduction to experimental aerobiology. New York: John Wiley, 1969: 194–263.Google Scholar
14.Cox, CS. The aerobiological pathway of microorganisms. Chichester: John Wiley, 1987: 293.Google Scholar
15.Lane-Petter, W. A ventilation barrier to the spread of infection in laboratory animal colonies. Lab Anim 1970; 4: 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Clough, G, Hill, A, Blackmore, DK. Evaluation of a filter rack for laboratory rodents. Lab Anim 1973; 7: 149–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Beall, JR, Torning, FE, Runkle, RS. A laminar flow system for animal maintenance. Lab Anim Sci 1971; 21: 1206–12.Google ScholarPubMed
18.McGarrity, GJ, Coriell, LL. Mass airflow cabinet for control of airborne infection of laboratory rodents. Appl Microbiol 1973; 26: 167–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Keller, GL, Mattingly, SF, Knapke, FB. A forced-air individually ventilated caging system for rodents. Lab Anim Sci 1983; 33: 580–2.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Jenkyn, JF, Hirst, JM, King, G. An apparatus for the isolated propagation of foliar pathogens and their hosts. Ann Appl Biol 1973; 73: 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Clough, G. Environmental factors in relation to the comfort and well-being of laboratory rats and mice. In: Standards in laboratory animal management. UFAW, Potters Bar, 1984: 7–24.Google Scholar
22.Yamauchi, C, Fujita, S, Obara, T, Ueda, T. Effects of room temperature on reproduction, body and organ weights, food and water intakes and haematology in mice. Expl Anim 1983: 32: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed