» Articles » PMID: 22776118

Effectiveness of Shoe Covers for Bioexclusion Within an Animal Facility

Overview
Date 2012 Jul 11
PMID 22776118
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The personal protective equipment (PPE) required for entry into rodent barrier rooms often includes a hair bonnet, face mask, disposable gown, gloves, and shoe covers. Traditionally, shoe covers have been considered essential PPE for maintaining a 'clean' animal room. The introduction of microisolation caging and ventilated rack housing prompted us to reevaluate the contribution of shoe covers to bioexclusion. Contamination powder that fluoresces under black light was to track particle dispersal on the floor and personnel. The test mouse room contained a ventilated microisolation rack and biosafety cabinet. Powder was applied directly inside or outside the animal room doorway. PPE with or without shoe covers was donned outside of the animal room doorway and discarded on exiting. Participants either were scanned on entry into the room for the presence of florescence or asked to complete a simulated standard animal room activity while wearing full PPE. Animal rooms were scanned for florescence after exit of participants. All participants donning shoe covers fluoresced in multiple areas, primarily on gloves and gowns. Shoe covers had no effect on the spread of powder in normal traffic patterns, with no powder detected within caging. Powder also was used to determine the distance substances could be carried on the floor from building entry points. Results indicate that shoe covers do not improve (and actually may compromise) bioexclusion. Donning of shoe covers offers a potential for contamination of personnel from contact with shoe bottoms.

Citing Articles

Reuse of Disposable Isolation Gowns in Rodent Facilities during a Pandemic.

Collins T, Sparks A, Walker M, Kendall L, Dobos K, Bergdall V J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2021; 60(4):431-441.

PMID: 34172106 PMC: 8483644. DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000130.


Effectiveness of Various Floor Contamination Control Methods in Reducing Environmental Organic Load and Maintaining Colony Health in Rodent Facilities.

Estes J, Hayes Y, Freeman Z, Fletcher C, Baxter V J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2019; 58(3):329-337.

PMID: 31027519 PMC: 6526484. DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-18-000107.


Personal Protective Equipment in Animal Research.

Villano J, Follo J, Chappell M, Collins Jr M Comp Med. 2017; 67(3):203-214.

PMID: 28662749 PMC: 5482512.


Protection of Antarctic microbial communities - 'out of sight, out of mind'.

Hughes K, Cowan D, Wilmotte A Front Microbiol. 2015; 6:151.

PMID: 25762992 PMC: 4340226. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00151.


Using reduced personal protective equipment in an endemically infected mouse colony.

Baker S, Prestia K, Karolewski B J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2014; 53(3):273-7.

PMID: 24827569 PMC: 4128565.

References
1.
Tak S, Calvert G . The estimated national burden of physical ergonomic hazards among US workers. Am J Ind Med. 2010; 54(5):395-404. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20883. View

2.
Clough G, Wallace J, Gamble M, Merryweather E, Bailey E . A positive, individually ventilated caging system: a local barrier system to protect both animals and personnel. Lab Anim. 1995; 29(2):139-51. DOI: 10.1258/002367795780740221. View

3.
Hasegawa M, Kagiyama S, Tajima M, Yoshida K, Minami Y, Kurosawa T . Evaluation of a forced-air-ventilated micro-isolation system for protection of mice against Pasteurella pneumotropica. Exp Anim. 2003; 52(2):145-51. DOI: 10.1538/expanim.52.145. View

4.
Greenhalgh D, Diekmann O, de Jong M . Subcritical endemic steady states in mathematical models for animal infections with incomplete immunity. Math Biosci. 2000; 165(1):1-25. DOI: 10.1016/s0025-5564(00)00012-2. View

5.
Allen K, Csida T, Leming J, Murray K, Thulin J . Efficacy of footwear disinfection and shoe cover use in an animal research facility. Lab Anim (NY). 2010; 39(4):107-11. DOI: 10.1038/laban0410-107. View