Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May;53(3):273-7.

Using reduced personal protective equipment in an endemically infected mouse colony

Affiliations

Using reduced personal protective equipment in an endemically infected mouse colony

Samuel W Baker et al. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2014 May.

Abstract

Personal protective equipment (PPE) frequently is used to reduce the risk of spreading adventitial diseases in rodent colonies. The PPE worn often reflects the historic practices of the research institution rather than published performance data. Standard PPE for a rodent facility typically consists of a disposable hair bonnet, gown, face mask, shoe covers, and gloves, which are donned on facility entry and removed on exiting. This study evaluated the effect of a reduced PPE protocol on disease spread within an endemically infected mouse colony. In the reduced protocol, only the parts of the wearer that came in direct contact with the mice or their environment were covered with PPE. To test the reduced PPE protocol, proven naïve mice were housed in a facility endemically infected with murine norovirus and mouse hepatitis virus for 12 wk. During that time, routine husbandry operations were conducted by using either the standard or reduced PPE protocols. All study mice remained free of virus antibody when reduced PPE was implemented. These results indicate that reduced PPE is adequate for disease containment when correct techniques for handling microisolation caging are used. Reducing the amount of PPE used in an animal facility affords considerable cost savings yet limits the risk of disease spread.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Seroconversion rates (mean ± SEM) of dirty-bedding sentinels during the study period, according to virus and level of PPE. There was no significant difference between the sPPE and rPPE groups for either MNV or MHV.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Seroconversion rates (mean ± SEM) for dirty-bedding sentinels to MNV (red) and MHV (blue) over preceding years. 2013 quarter 1 represents the time when the sPPE study animals were housed, and 2013 quarter 2 represents rPPE. No significant difference was seen in average MNV or MHV seroconversion rates for the 2-y period leading up to the study or between the study period and the preceding 2 y.

References

    1. American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. [Internet]. 2010. ACLAM 2010 Forum Committee: personal protective equipment questionnaire. [Cited 11 July 13]. Available at: http://www.aclam.org/Content/files/files/Public/Active/forum2010_ppe_sur...
    1. Allen KP, Csida T, Leming J, Murray K, Thulin J. 2010. Efficacy of footwear disinfection and shoe cover use in an animal research facility. Lab Anim (NY) 39:107–111 - PubMed
    1. Cannon JL, Papafragkou E, Park GW, Osborne J, Jaykus LA, Vinje J. 2006. Surrogates for the study of norovirus stability and inactivation in the environment: a comparison of murine norovirus and feline calicivirus. J Food Prot 69:2761–2765 - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health 2009. Appendix A - primary containment for biohazards: selection, installation, and use of biological safety cabinets. In: Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories, 5th ed. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services
    1. Clifford CB, Clifford C. 2001. Samples, sample selection, and statistics: living with uncertainty. Lab Anim (NY) 30:26–31 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources