Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations to Assess Spatial Variability and Optimal Ventilation Scenarios for Biological Laboratory Exposures.

Introduction: A significant amount of uncertainty exists regarding potential human exposure to laboratory biomaterials and organisms in Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) research laboratories. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling is proposed as a way to better understand potential impacts of different combinations of biomaterials, laboratory manipulations, and exposure routes on risks to laboratory workers. Methods: In this study, we use CFD models to simulate airborne concentrations of contaminants in an actual BSL-2 laboratory under different configurations. Results: Results show that ventilation configuration, sampling location, and contaminant source location can significantly impact airborne concentrations and exposures. Depending on the source location and airflow patterns, the transient and time-integrated concentrations varied by several orders of magnitude. Contaminant plumes from sources located near a return vent (or exhaust like a fume hood or ventilated biosafety cabinet) are likely to be more contained than sources that are further from the exhaust. Having a direct flow between the source and the exhaust (through-flow condition) may reduce potential exposures to individuals outside the air flow path. Conclusion: Designing a BSL-2 room with ventilation and airflow patterns that maximize through-flow conditions to the return/exhaust vents and minimize dispersion and mixing throughout the room is, therefore, recommended. CFD simulations can also be used to assist in characterizing the impacts of supply and return vent locations, room layout, and source locations on spatial and temporal contaminant concentrations. In addition, proper placement of particle sensors can also be informed by CFD simulations to provide additional characterization and monitoring of potential exposures in BSL-2 facilities.

Biosafety: guidelines for working with pathogenic and infectious microorganisms.

This unit, in conjunction with local and national guidelines and regulations (see APPENDIX 1B), provides the basic biosafety information needed to perform the procedures detailed in this manual. Topics discussed include routine precautions when working with biohazards, disinfectants, disposal of biohazards, biosafety levels (as established by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), animal facilities, and clinical laboratories. In addition, resources for more information are provided in the Literature Cited and Key References sections and in URLs given within the text, as well as the Internet Resources section.

Biosafety Training and Incident-reporting Practices in the United States: A 2008 Survey of Biosafety Professionals.

Concern over the adequacy of biosafety training and incident-reporting practices within biological laboratories in the United States has risen in recent years due to the increase in research on infectious diseases and the concomitant rise in the number of biocontainment laboratories. Reports of laboratory-acquired infections and delays in reporting such incidents have also contributed to the concern. Consequently, biosafety training and incident-reporting practices are being given considerable attention by both the executive branch and Congress. We conducted a 51-question survey of biosafety professionals in June 2008 to capture information on methods used to train new laboratory workers within biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) laboratories, animal biosafety level 2 (ABSL-2) laboratories, biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratories, and animal biosafety level 3 (ABSL-3) laboratories. The survey results suggest nearly all senior scientists, faculty, staff, and students working in these biocontainment laboratories are required to have biosafety training, and three-quarters of respondents indicated a biosafety or environmental health and safety professional provides explicit instructions on reporting incidents to each new lab worker. Only half of the respondents with BSL-2/ABSL-2 laboratories at their institution and 59% of respondents from institutions with BSL-3/ABSL-3 laboratories indicated custodial or maintenance workers are required to receive biosafety training at the BSL-2/ABSL-2 and BSL-3/ABSL-3 levels, respectively. Opportunities for targeted improvement such as providing training to non-traditional laboratory workers (e.g., custodians, maintenance workers) and posting laboratory incident-reporting protocols on institutional environmental health and safety websites may exist. Variations in biosafety training requirements, incident-reporting practices, and attitudes towards laboratory safety revealed through this survey of biosafety professionals also support the development of core competencies in biosafety practice that could lead to more uniform practices and robust safety cultures.

Biosafety practices associated with potential agents of biocrime and biowarfare.

Conducting research in a manner that guards against theft and intentional misuse of biological materials requires a process of hazard identification and risk assessment to most effectively identify and implement a risk management plan. Procedures describing physical security, personnel reliability, and material control and accountability define a security plan for this type of research.