Further evaluation of alternative air-filtration systems for reducing the transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by aerosol

被引:1
|
作者
Dee, Scott A.
Deen, John
Cano, Jean Paul
Batista, Laura
Pijoan, Carlos
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Coll Vet Med, Swine Dis Eradicat Ctr, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
[2] Univ Montreal, Dept Clin Sci, St Hyacinthe, PQ, Canada
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to compare 4 methods for the reduction of aerosol transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV): high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, 2x-low-cost filtration, bag filtration, and use of a filter tested against particles derived from dioctylphthalate (DOP). The HEPA-filtration system used a prefilter screen, a bag filter (Eurovent [EU] 8 rating), and a HEPA filter (EU13 rating). The low-cost-filtration system contained mosquito netting (prefilter), 2 fiberglass furnace filters, and 2 electrostatic furnace filters. Bag filtration involved the use of a filter rated EU8 and a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 14. The 95%-DOP, 0.3-mu m-filtration system involved a pleat-in-pleat V-bank disposable filter with a 95% efficiency rating for particles 0.3 mu m or greater in diameter and ratings of EU9 and MERV 15. No form of intervention was used in the control group. The experimental facilities consisted of 2 chambers connected by a 1.3-m-long duct containing the treatments. Recipient pigs, housed in chamber 2, were exposed to artificial aerosols created by a mechanically operated mister containing modified live PRRSV vaccine located in chamber 1. Aerosol transmission of PRRSV occurred in 0 of the 10 HEPA-filtration replicates, 2 of the 10 bag-filtration replicates, 4 of the 10 low-cost-filtration replicates, 0 of the 10 95%-DOP, 0.3-mu m-filtration replicates, and all 10 of the control replicates. Using a similar approach, we further evaluated the HEPA- and 95%-DOP, 0.3-mu m-filtration systems. Infection was not observed in any of the 76 HEPA-filtration replicates but was observed in 2 of the 76 95%-DOP, 0.3-mu m replicates and 42 of the 50 control replicates. Although the difference between the 95%-DOP, 0.3-mu m and control replicates was significant (P < 0.0005), so was the level of failure of the 95%-DOP, 0.3-mu m system (P = 0.02). In conclusion, under the conditions of this study, some methods of air filtration were significantly better than others in reducing aerosol transmission of PRRSV, and HEPA filtration was the only system that completely prevented transmission.
引用
收藏
页码:168 / 175
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of an air-filtration system for preventing aerosol transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
    Dee, S
    Batista, L
    Deen, J
    Pijoan, C
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH-REVUE CANADIENNE DE RECHERCHE VETERINAIRE, 2005, 69 (04): : 293 - 298
  • [2] Evaluation of systems for reducing the transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by aerosol
    Dee, SA
    Batista, L
    Deen, J
    Pijoan, C
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH-REVUE CANADIENNE DE RECHERCHE VETERINAIRE, 2006, 70 (01): : 28 - 33
  • [3] Experimental aerosol transmission of pseudorabies virus and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
    Lager, KM
    Mengeling, WL
    [J]. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SWINE PRACTITIONERS 2000, PROCEEDINGS, 2000, : 409 - 410
  • [4] Air filtration to prevent porcine reproductive / and respiratory syndrome virus infection
    Desrosiers, Robert
    Cousin, Vincent
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SWINE HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, 2023, 31 (02): : 77 - 81
  • [5] Evaluation of the aerosol transmission of a mixed infection of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
    Fang, E
    Pijoan, C
    Dee, S
    [J]. VETERINARY RECORD, 2005, 157 (04) : 105 - 108
  • [6] Evaluation of aerosol transmission of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus under controlled field conditions
    Otake, S
    Dee, SA
    Jacobson, L
    Torremorell, M
    Pijoan, C
    [J]. VETERINARY RECORD, 2002, 150 (26) : 804 - 808
  • [7] Evaluation of alternative strategies to MERV 16-based air filtration systems for reduction of the risk of airborne spread of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
    Dee, Scott
    Pitkin, Andrea
    Deen, John
    [J]. VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY, 2009, 138 (1-2) : 106 - 113
  • [8] Influence of isolate pathogenicity on the aerosol transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
    Cho, Jenny G.
    Deen, John
    Dee, Scott A.
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH-REVUE CANADIENNE DE RECHERCHE VETERINAIRE, 2007, 71 (01): : 23 - 27
  • [9] Aerosol transmission of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus: How frequently and what distance?
    Desrosiers, Robert
    [J]. CANADIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL-REVUE VETERINAIRE CANADIENNE, 2023, 64 (05): : 479 - 482
  • [10] Evaluation of alternative antemortem diagnostic samples for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
    Patterson, Abby R.
    Karriker, Locke A.
    Evans, Richard B.
    Yoon, Kyoung-Jin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SWINE HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, 2007, 15 (06): : 339 - 345