Evaluation of Truck Cab Decontamination Procedures following Inoculation with Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus and Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus.

This experiment aimed to evaluate commercially available disinfectants and their application methods against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) on truck cab surfaces. Plastic, fabric, and rubber surfaces inoculated with PEDV or PRRSV were placed in a full-scale truck cab and then treated with one of eight randomly assigned disinfectant treatments. After application, surfaces were environmentally sampled with cotton gauze and tested for PEDV and PRRSV using qPCR duplex analysis. There was a disinfectant × surface interaction (p < 0.0001), indicating a detectable amount of PEDV or PRRSV RNA was impacted by disinfectant treatment and surface material. For rubber surfaces, 10% bleach application had lower detectable amounts of RNA compared to all other treatments (p < 0.05) except Intervention via misting fumigation, which was intermediate. In both fabric and plastic surfaces, there was no evidence (p > 0.05) of a difference in detectable RNA between disinfectant treatments. For disinfectant treatments, fabric surfaces with no chemical treatment had less detectable viral RNA compared to the corresponding plastic and rubber (p < 0.05). Intervention applied via pump sprayer to fabric surfaces had less detectable viral RNA than plastic (p < 0.05). Furthermore, 10% bleach applied via pump sprayer to fabric and rubber surfaces had less detectable viral RNA than plastic (p < 0.05). Also, a 10 h downtime, with no chemical application or gaseous fumigation for 10 h, applied to fabric surfaces had less detectable viral RNA than other surfaces (p < 0.05). Sixteen treatments were evaluated via swine bioassay, but all samples failed to produce infectivity. In summary, commercially available disinfectants successfully reduced detectable viral RNA on surfaces but did not eliminate viral genetic material, highlighting the importance of bioexclusion of pathogens of interest.

Evaluating dry vs. wet disinfection in boot baths on detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and porcine reproductive and respiratory virus RNA.

Maintaining biosecurity between swine barns is challenging, and boot baths are an easily implementable option some utilize to limit pathogen spread. However, there are concerns regarding their efficacy, especially when comparing wet or dry disinfectants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of boot baths in reducing the quantity of detectable porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) genetic material using wet or dry disinfectants. Treatments included 1) control, 2) dry chlorine powder (Traffic C.O.P., PSP, LLC, Rainsville, AL), and 3) wet quaternary ammonium/glutaraldehyde liquid (1:256 Synergize, Neogen, Lexington, KY). Prior to disinfection, rubber boots were inoculated with 1 mL of a co-inoculants of PRRSV (1 × 105 TCID50 per mL) and PEDV (1 × 105 TCID50 per mL) and dried for 15 min. After the drying period, a researcher placed the boot on the right foot and stepped directly on a stainless steel coupon (control). Alternatively, the researcher stepped first into a boot bath containing either the wet or dry sanitizer, stood for 3 s, and then stepped onto a steel coupon. After one minute, an environmental swab was then collected and processed from each boot and steel coupon. The procedure was replicated 12 times per disinfectant treatment. Samples were analyzed using a duplex qPCR at the Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. Cycle threshold values were analyzed using SAS GLIMMIX v 9.4 (SAS, Inc., Cary, NC). There was no evidence of a disinfectant × surface × virus interaction (P > 0.10). An interaction between disinfectant × surface impacted (P < 0.05) the quantity of detectable viral RNA. As expected, the quantity of the viruses on the coupon was greatest in the control, indicating that a contaminated boot has the ability to transfer viruses from a contaminated surface to a clean surface. Comparatively, the dry disinfectant treatment resulted in no detectable viral RNA on either the boot or subsequent coupon. The wet disinfectant treatment had statistically similar (P > 0.05) viral contamination to the control on the boot, but less viral contamination compared to the control on the metal coupon. In this experiment, a boot bath with dry powder was the most efficacious in reducing the detectable viral RNA on both boots and subsequent surfaces.