» Articles » PMID: 34183092

Evaluation of Rodent Cage Processing Using Reduced Water Temperatures

Overview
Date 2021 Jun 29
PMID 34183092
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Studies published in 1994 and 2000 established a temperature range of 143-180 °F for effective cage sanitization in animal facilities. These 2 studies were, respectively, theoretical and based on experiments using hot water to sanitize bacteria-coated test tubes. However, such experimental methods may not capture the practical advantages of modern washing technology or account for the routine use of detergent in cage wash. Moreover, these methods may not translate to the challenges of removing adhered debris and animal waste from the surfaces being sanitized. A sample of highly soiled cage bottoms, half of which were autoclaved with bedding to create challenging cleaning conditions, were processed at 6 combinations of wash and rinse cycles with 125 °F, 140 °F, and 180 °F water with detergent. All cycles were equipped with a data logging device to independently verify temperatures. After washing, cages underwent visual inspection and microbial sampling consisting of organic material detection using ATP detection and Replicate Organism Detection and Counting (RODAC) plates. Cages with any amount of visible debris failed inspection, as did cages that exceeded institutional sanitization thresholds. Results indicate that wash and rinse temperatures of 140 °F for a programmed wash duration of 450 s and rinse of 50 s effectively clean and disinfect both highly soiled and autoclaved cages. Accounting for both steam and electrical energy, these parameters result in an annual savings of $21,867.08 per washer on an equivalent run basis using the current institutional standard of 180 °F.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Low- and High-temperature Cagewash Cycles for Sanitation of Rodent Housing Equipment in Research Facilities.

Xu J, Hutchison P, Herndon N, Allison S, Goodly L J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2023; 62(1):48-54.

PMID: 36755204 PMC: 9936851. DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-22-000088.

References
1.
Wardrip C, Artwohl J, Bennett B . A review of the role of temperature time in an effective cage sanitization program. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 1994; 33(5):66-8. View

2.
Anderson R, Young V, Stewart M, Robertson C, Dancer S . Cleanliness audit of clinical surfaces and equipment: who cleans what?. J Hosp Infect. 2011; 78(3):178-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2011.01.030. View

3.
Emmer K, Celeste N, Bidot W, Perret-Gentil M, Malbrue R . Evaluation of the Sterility of Press'n Seal Cling Film for Use in Rodent Surgery. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2019; 58(2):235-239. PMC: 6433354. DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-18-000096. View

4.
Murphy S, Kozlowski S, Bandler D, Boor K . Evaluation of adenosine triphosphate-bioluminescence hygiene monitoring for trouble-shooting fluid milk shelf-life problems. J Dairy Sci. 1998; 81(3):817-20. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75639-5. View

5.
Chen F, Godwin S . Comparison of a rapid ATP bioluminescence assay and standard plate count methods for assessing microbial contamination of consumers' refrigerators. J Food Prot. 2006; 69(10):2534-8. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-69.10.2534. View