Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38033641›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Control technologies to prevent aerosol-based disease transmission in animal agriculture production settings: a review of established and emerging approaches.

Hui Ouyang, Lan Wang, Deepak Sapkota, My Yang, José Morán, Li Li, Bernard A Olson, Mark Schwartz, Christopher J Hogan, Montserrat Torremorell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Hui OuyangDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Lan WangDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
Deepak SapkotaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas-Dallas, Richardson, TX, United States.
My YangDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
José MoránDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Li LiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Bernard A OlsonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Mark SchwartzDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
Christopher J HoganDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Montserrat TorremorellDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transmission of infectious agents via aerosols is an ever-present concern in animal agriculture production settings, as the aerosol route to disease transmission can lead to difficult-to-control and costly diseases, such as porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus and influenza A virus. It is increasingly necessary to implement control technologies to mitigate aerosol-based disease transmission. Here, we review currently utilized and prospective future aerosol control technologies to collect and potentially inactivate pathogens in aerosols, with an emphasis on technologies that can be incorporated into mechanically driven (forced air) ventilation systems to prevent aerosol-based disease spread from facility to facility. Broadly, we find that control technologies can be grouped into three categories: (1) currently implemented technologies; (2) scaled technologies used in industrial and medical settings; and (3) emerging technologies. Category (1) solely consists of fibrous filter media, which have been demonstrated to reduce the spread of PRRSV between swine production facilities. We review the mechanisms by which filters function and are rated (minimum efficiency reporting values). Category (2) consists of electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), used industrially to collect aerosol particles in higher flow rate systems, and ultraviolet C (UV-C) systems, used in medical settings to inactivate pathogens. Finally, category (3) consists of a variety of technologies, including ionization-based systems, microwaves, and those generating reactive oxygen species, often with the goal of pathogen inactivation in aerosols. As such technologies are typically first tested through varied means at the laboratory scale, we additionally review control technology testing techniques at various stages of development, from laboratory studies to field demonstration, and in doing so, suggest uniform testing and report standards are needed. Testing standards should consider the cost-benefit of implementing the technologies applicable to the livestock species of interest. Finally, we examine economic models for implementing aerosol control technologies, defining the collected infectious particles per unit energy demand.

Indexed as

agricultural biosecurityairborne infection controlairborne pathogen transmissionbioaerosolbioaerosol controlbioaerosol control technologylivestock biosecurityswine health

Identifiers

PMID38033641
PMCPMC10682736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.