Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34183092›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2021

Evaluation of Rodent Cage Processing Using Reduced Water Temperatures.

Mary M Walker, Dianne M Harrison, Toi A Collins, Valerie K Bergdall

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of Low- and High-temperature Cagewash Cycles for Sanitation of Rodent Housing Equipment in Research Facilities.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary M WalkerUniversity Laboratory Animal Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Dianne M HarrisonUniversity Laboratory Animal Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Toi A CollinsUniversity Laboratory Animal Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Valerie K BergdallUniversity Laboratory Animal Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

RodentiaWaterAnimalsHousing, AnimalSterilizationTemperatureWater

Identifiers

PMID34183092
PMCPMC8483641
OpenAlexW3173781589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.