Air Filtration System for Animal Transport Vehicles

Transcription

1 Air Filtration System for Animal Transport Vehicles Project Team Bernardo Predicala, Prairie Swine Centre Inc. Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre Inc. Francis Pouliot / Jacquelin Labrecque, CDPQ Henry Gauvreau, Warman Veterinary Services Sylvain Messier, Demeter Services Vétérinaires Inc. Brent Jones, South West Ontario Veterinary Services Angus Chambers, JSR Genetics Funding Canadian Swine Health Board Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program

2 Project Overview Background Recognized risk of infection during transport Close the biosecurity gap, in conjunction with filtered barns Project goal Develop and evaluate an air filtration system for a transport trailer to protect pigs from potential risk of infection Specific objectives: 1. Investigate options for different components of a trailer filtration system 2. Design a practical air filtration system that can be applied under Canadian conditions 3. Construct a prototype pig transport trailer with filtration 4. Evaluate effectiveness of the filtered-trailer system 2

3 Project Activities Phase 1 Literature review and survey of existing filtered trailer/trucks designs Number of filtered truck designs surveyed: 2 from France, 2 from Netherlands, 4 from U.S. European truck companies namely Berdex (Netherlands), Cuppers (Netherlands), and Guitton (France) supply filtered trucks to different swine production companies/organizations in Europe. 3

4 Existing filtered trailers Organization Trailer Length Cap50 Porcs (France) 40 to 45 ft (12 to 13.7 m) Berdex Hermitage-NGT PIC US SRTC-UWM (Netherlands) 45.4 ft (13.85 m) 53 ft (16 m) 32 ft (9.75 m) 20 ft (6.1 m) Number of Decks 1 1,2,3, Capacity per deck 214 (50-lb pigs) 170 (50-lb pigs) 93 (50-lb pigs) Fan Type Axial High-Pressure Fan Axial Axial Negative Air Machine Ventilation Rate per deck Low (oxygen is being monitored) High, Max 4,500 CFM Low, Max 500 CFM Maximum Static 1.4 inch water no setting 3 inch water Pressure Filter Type HEPA HEPA + UV lights HEPA DOP HEPA, DOP Air Conditioning Power Requirement Yes (Refrigeration unit) ~ 20,000 W Yes No No Yes (3 4,000 W-units) 5,500 W 10,000 W Cost (Refrigeration unit) $124K 3-deck $30K $40K parts $150K 4-deck $20K labor, misc Travel Time 24 hours 36 hours, rest every 5 16 hours (maximum) hours Floor Bedding No Yes Yes 4

5 Existing filtered trailers PIC, U.S.A.: (Photos courtesy of Bob Thompson) 5

6 6 Existing filtered trailers

7 Existing filtered trailers Europe Berdex (Netherlands) Cuppers (France) 7

8 8 Existing filtered trailers

9 9 Existing filtered trailers

10 10 Existing filtered trailers

11 Existing trailer cost estimate SRTC-UW Trailer: 20 x 7 x 7 gooseneck; capacity: lb pigs, lb pigs 11

12 Existing trailer cost estimate 12 SRTC-UW Trailer: 20 x 7 x 7 gooseneck; capacity: lb pigs, lb pigs Equipment cost Share (%) Ventilation $6,000 15% Filter $900 (HEPA) 2% $450 (DOP) A/C & Heating system $6,000 15% Power $20,000 50% (10kW generator) Insulation $7,000 18% Total $40,000 Trailer capital and labour costs (~$20,000) and miscellaneous items (~$7,000) not included.

13 Design challenges Ventilation Minimum ventilation per animal (summer and winter conditions) Leakage and unintended inlets; filtered air distribution Heat and moisture production in enclosed space Air flow resistance; power requirement System performance monitoring filter, air quality Emergency measures - in case of equipment failure Feeding and watering system Cleaning and disinfection Cost 13

14 Trailer Components - options Temperature control Filtration Fan Air Distribution Ventilation HEPA Axial Poly bag duct Air Conditioned MERV16 Centrifugal PVC pipe Combination MERV14 Cross ventilation Antimicrobial [None] 14 For the above options = 24 to 96 potential trailer configurations! Evaluation criteria (to select the option to include in the design): - cost, power requirement, robustness, resulting trailer environment (air quality, thermal conditions).

15 Phase 2 Construction and testing Design of filtration system - selected options Environment control non-airconditioned, mechanically-ventilated Filter MERV 16 filters Air mover axial fan Air distribution no air diffuser 15

16 Phase 2 Schematic diagram of trailer filtration system retrofit Air inlets Filter Fan Air outlets 16

17 Phase 2 Trailer retrofit: 17

18 18 Phase 2

19 19 Phase 2

20 Phase 2 Trailer test bacteriophage φx174 aerosol 20

21 Phase 2 Bag (antimicrobial fabric) filter: 21

22 Phase 2 Trailer testing: 22

23 Results Trailer testing MERV 16 filter 23

24 Results Trailer testing antimicrobial fabric filter 24

25 Summary Information available on design components for a trailer filtration system Antimicrobial filters (MERV 16, fabric filter) can capture bioaerosols in the airstream and prevent entry to animal compartment Specific design challenges were identified: 25

26 Challenges Ventilation rate requirements - no standard Size of fans, motors Significant airflow restriction high HP Target filter efficiency infective dose Power supply capacity, quality Leakage controlled airflow, wind effect Keep things simple controls, monitors Cost 26

27 Emergency Biocontainment System for Swine Facilities to Control Transmissible Airborne Diseases Project Team Bernardo Predicala, Prairie Swine Centre Inc. Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre Inc. Francis Pouliot / Jacquelin Labrecque, CDPQ Sylvain Messier, Demeter Services Vétérinaires Inc. Henry Gauvreau, Warman Veterinary Services Brent Jones, South West Ontario Veterinary Services Funding Canadian Swine Health Board Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program

28 Project Overview Develop alternatives to current means of dealing with airborne disease outbreaks Project goal: Investigate potential measures for emergency biocontainment of a barn during an outbreak Specific objectives: 1. Compile measures and strategies that can potentially be applied for isolating a barn during an airborne disease outbreak 2. Evaluate effectiveness of selected measures in pilot scale 3. Develop best management practices and communication/ coordination protocols to be implemented during emergency biocontainment 28

29 Exhaust bag-type filter Photo courtesy: Brent Jones 29

30 Filtered enclosure Photo source: Baumgartner Environics Inc. 30

31 31 Dust reduction curtain

32 32 Trailer with filter walls

33 33 Other exhaust filter options

34 Assessment criteria a. time required for installation - within 1 or 2 days after an outbreak is detected b. operational and maintenance requirements - minimal technical expertise and manpower needed for set-up and operation c. portability and adaptability for installation - adaptable to different existing barn configurations d. robustness and reliability of performance - must function reliably over biocontainment period e. affordability - total cost must not offset the benefits of biocontainment; reusable measures 34

35 Option Rank Comments Assessment results Bag-type filter at exhaust Dust control curtain at exhaust 1 2 Dust removal before filter pre-filter (easily installation), upwind directed pre-filter and filter(gravitational settling), Filter- non-collapsible, ability to fit to different sized exhaust, easy air tight attachments (wet suit zippers, Velcro), mechanical support Reduce pressure drop - fan inside the filtration system Maintenance- detection - measure dust level, pressure drop, Combination with dust control curtain Air outlet attachment to curtain horizontal plane at ground level, modified wind hood, pipe Effectiveness virus dissemination, snow accumulation Trailer fitted with mechanical filters Filter roll assembly at exhaust Flexible filter housing (green house style) 35 3 Constraint - Installation issue, long hoses, complex, number of trailers 4 Constraint - installation, maintenance, incomplete seal, higher filter surface area (cost, pressure drop) 5 Constraint installation, snow and water at bottom of the cover, snow load in the covered area

36 36 Pilot-scale test set-up

37 37 Test set-up

38 Test set-up Downstream sampling port Test section Upstream sampling port Aerosol injection port HEPA filter Fan HEPA filter Experimental set-up located at IRDA. 38

39 39 Aerosol measurement

40 Measures tested (a) (b) (c) Photo of the tested measures: (a) Noveko antimicrobial filter; (b) Noveko prefilter; and (c) dust reduction curtain. 40

41 Measures / configuration tested Test results Air flow rate (m 3 h -1 ) P across test section (in. H 2 O) Reduction in aerosolized particles (%) NF (10 layers) with pre-filter NF(20 layers) with pre-filter NF (10 layers) with pre-filter 1156 > DRC1 (4 layers) - attached DRC1 (2 layers) - attached DRC1 (2 layers) - attached with NF (20 layers) NF (20 layers) no pre-filter NF (15 layers) with pre-filter NF (15 layers) with pre-filter 1156 > NF (15 layers) with DRC2 (4 layers) - detached NF (15 layers) with DRC2 (4 layers) - detached 1156 > NF - Noveko filter; DRC dust reduction curtain; P pressure drop 41

42 Next steps Full-scale testing of selected measures Incorporate into Best Management Practices and Emergency Response Protocol documents Assemble a prototype emergency trailer 42

43 43 Questions?