Further evaluation of alternative air-filtration systems for reducing the transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by aerosol |
| |
| Authors: | Scott A Dee John Deen Jean Paul Cano Laura Batista and Carlos Pijoan |
| |
| Affiliation: | Swine Disease Eradication Center, University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine, St Paul 55108, USA. deexx004@umn.edu |
| |
| Abstract: | 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-microm-filtration system involved a pleat-in-pleat V-bank disposable filter with a 95% efficiency rating for particles 0.3 microm 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-microm-filtration replicates, and all 10 of the control replicates. Using a similar approach, we further evaluated the HEPA- and 95%-DOP, 0.3-microm-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-microm replicates and 42 of the 50 control replicates. Although the difference between the 95%-DOP, 0.3-microm and control replicates was significant (P < 0.0005), so was the level of failure of the 95%-DOP, 0.3-microm 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
