ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of commercially available class A water-based foam concentrates for swine depopulation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, the swine industry is lacking an efficient method for large-scale emergency depopulation. Class A water-based foam (WBF) has been demonstrated as a viable option for large-scale depopulation of pigs in all stages of development. However, these studies exclusively used the PHOS-CHEK WD881 (WD881) Class A foam concentrate based on previously demonstrated efficacy for depopulation. This study investigated the suitability of 15 other commercially available WBF concentrates for depopulation based on foaming performance, physiological effects, and efficacy. The performance of each product was evaluated and compared to WD881 at 0.5, 1.0 and 3.0% water-foam concentrations for low- and high-pressure pump systems. The time to fill an 11.5 m3 construction container and decay rate over a 10-minute dwell time were assessed for each WBF. Top-performing foams were further evaluated for behavior and short-term physiological changes and gross lesions during a 15-minute exposure test on piglets. Finally, the top-performing foams were tested for their suitability to depopulate adult swine during large-scale field conditions. Subcutaneous dataloggers recorded swine activity which was used to estimate the time to cessation of movement (COM), an approximate analog for loss of consciousness. Four WBF concentrates (FireIce Polar EcoFoam, Buckeye Platinum, National Foams Knockdown and BioFor N) were shortlisted based on performance at 1% concentration. These products had a mean (±SD) fill time of 62.4s (± 14.9) and decay rate of 0.5 (± 0.66) cm/min compared to WD881 with 50.0s (± 3.5) and 0.2 (± 0.1) cm/min, respectively. No differences between treatment groups were observed during the exposure testing and subsequent necropsy. For the large-scale field trials, the mean (±SE) time to COM was 151.5 s (±10.5). All foams achieved 100% mortality of swine. This study identified four additional WBFs suitable for swine depopulation which are commercially available on the U.S market. These additional WBF options may facilitate large-scale swine depopulation during widespread infectious disease outbreaks by mitigating potential bottlenecks resulting from product availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.