Research Vivarium Design Considerations Optimizing

and Supporting Biosignal, Biodevice, and Biomedical

Engineering

Patrick Sharp

Consultant, Logansport, U.S.A.

Abstract. Contemporary biomedical research supporting biosignal, biodevice,

and biomedical engineering will be conducted in either new or remodeled

animal facilities. It is important for researchers, veterinarians, and architects to

have a better understanding of each other’s needs when considering new or

remodeled facilities; especially in light of new regulatory and voluntary

compliance standards. Contemporary facilities are more than ‘animal

warehouses,’ they play an integral part of the research program by offering

procedure and research support facilities. By maintaining the animals in the

controlled environment found in the vivarium, fewer research variables are

introduced (e.g., transportation, disease). The presentation will offer insights on

facility needs, design considerations, and potential pitfalls to the attendees. The

cost of contemporary animal facilities is more expensive than most institutions

anticipate, but can be properly managed; the importance of life cycle cost will

also be discussed.

1 General Design

Vivarium design must be in close collaboration with a knowledgeable architect and

credentialed laboratory animal veterinarian. In the absence of either, it will be worth

the investment to bring in consultants in both these areas to ensure, among other

matters, appropriate materials, design, equipment, and perhaps most importantly

integrating investigator needs. Together the architect and veterinarian will work to

meet the current and future needs of researchers based on institutional data and an

institutional master plan. New construction is optimal as it permits the best ‘fit’ for

researcher needs and expectations. Remodeling, even extensive remodeling, may give

the illusion of cost savings, but may fail to meet research needs, construction

schedules, or poorly utilize space. New construction is frequently better at optimizing

savings from building orientation, construction materials, and most importantly

research integration.

Facilities must be designed and constructed to meet local regulatory requirements

and should meet the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory

Animal Care—International (AAALAC) accreditation standards; however, there are

instances where there is conflict between building codes and expected vivarium

design and construction practices. Here, the knowledgeable architect and credentialed

laboratory animal veterinarian can meet and work with the local authorities to

understand the need for the deviation(s). The vivarium must address the concerns for

Sharp P..

Research Vivarium Design Considerations Optimizing and Supporting Biosignal, Biodevice, and Biomedical Engineering.

DOI: 10.5220/0003863300030008

In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Veterinary Biosignals and Biodevices (VBB-2012), pages 3-8

ISBN: 978-989-8425-94-2

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

animal health and well being in addition to human health and safety.

The species used deserves strong consideration; however, building design must

ensure a high degree of flexibility. Species such as mice, rats, and rabbits must be

kept in a Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) environment, in a low traffic/vibration area

(best on higher floors), and away from noisier animals. Whatever species is used a

clear understanding of their entry into the vivarium, maintenance, and use must be

conveyed to the selected architect and veterinarian.

Small animal holding rooms frequently do not require drains and are flexible

enough to house many species. Large animal holding will require drains, and the

drains should be appropriately sized and supplemented with a rim flush or garbage

disposal.

Specialized equipment must be thoroughly understood and properly planned.

Equipment frequently includes imaging (e.g., MRI, radiography), behavior/

physiology core facilities, and an irradiator. The imaging and irradiator equipment

will drive construction practices including shielding, structural loading capacity,

security, and outside user access and availability.

Specialized services are an important component of contemporary vivaria. These

services frequently include the barrier and barrier practices for the SPF containment,

surgical facilities for both large and small animals, a transgenic core facility, and a

containment facility.

The facility must be close to the research or research hubs for the institution.

Centralized facilities are more cost effective and easier to keep in regulatory

compliance than decentralized facilities. Storage is a key component and usually the

first removed when ‘value engineering’ occurs; facilities will need at least 20%

storage space; storage needs are more recognized as the vivarium’s occupancy

increases. Closely evaluate storage needs and appropriately determining the HVAC

needs for these areas.

Facility design must include disaster and emergency preparedness. Although a

disaster’s likelihood is small, it must be incorporated into a facility disaster plan.

Clearly this is another advantage of having additional storage capacity for food,

bedding, water, and other essential supplies.

Doors, walls, and floors transcend all vivarium areas. Long lasting polymer doors

offer cost saving advantages over the alternatives and must incorporate door

protection (e.g., door guards, kickplates), sanitation, and equipment floor. Walls must

be sanitizable, free of cracks/pinholes, and protected. Flooring must be durable,

sanitizable, and low maintenance.

2 Housing

This section will focus on barrier housing as it has a greater impact on cost than most

other types of housing. Barrier housing will meet the requirements of an ABSL 2

facility as established by the US Health and Human Services [6]. Housing needs must

be established early as they impact a host of other areas including the doors, elevators,

cage wash, and autoclaves. It is important to remember that the barrier starts at the

cage level. Keeping the animals disease-free is important to ensuring research results

are reliable.

There is a general misconception that animal holding facilities must be dual

corridor (e.g., clean and dirty corridor). Corridor space can account for 30-50% of a

facility employing a dual corridor paradigm; while a single corridor facility can

account for as little as 17% [1]. Holding areas generally consist of a single-room or

suite off a main corridor.

Holding rooms employ various strategies to ensure disease prevention including

stocking with disease-free animals, testing various cell lines/tumors, sanitizing items

entering the cage (e.g., food, bedding, enrichment), employing IVCs/microisolator

tops, using cage change stations, and developing an effective sentinel and quarantine

program.

Other considerations include sterilization access for barrier and containment

housing, janitor’s closets, nearby research support space (e.g., surgery, imaging,

irradiator). It is ideal to provide sufficient facilities and procedure space to permit

most research activities to occur within the vivarium. Animals used in containment-

based research frequently cannot leave the facility. Barrier animals leaving the facility

cannot return to their original room, unless it has been determined they are disease-

free. Most facilities provide a ‘return room’ for those animals leaving the barrier

facility. This room must be of sufficient size to house sufficient animals, frequently

over a long period of time; alternatively animals can be quarantined to evaluate their

health status.

Housing, especially for small animals, will have the greatest cost impact on a

facility. This includes heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), high

efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filtered air, and caging. The caging must be

carefully considered and greatly impacts life cycle costs. For instance, in two cost

equivalent systems, one system 10 parts per cage, while the competitors have 5;

furthermore, one caging system (the same system with the higher parts) requires at

least annual HEPA filter replacement. Over a few years the additional cage equipment

storage requirement and HEPA filtration replacement costs for the ‘equal cost’ caging

system will greatly increase animal maintenance costs.

Room layouts are frequently driven by projects, money, or multiple users;

frequently a blend of layouts is required. Project layouts are frequently smaller

utilizing more single-sided cage rack. Money driven layouts want to maximize animal

population in a given floor area; this layout frequently employs ventilated racks and

smaller aisle widths. Money driven layouts while increasing animal density, may

come at the cost of decreased cage changing and worker productivity. The multiple

user rooms are quite common, especially in academic institutions. These consist of

larger holding rooms, ventilated racks, and wider aisle widths.

It is important for the facility to be properly wired and ‘future-proofed’ to ensure a

research benefit for many years. The building should be equipped with cell phone

repeaters, wired and wireless internet access, generous electrical outlets, and other

services needed for research and vivarium support equipment. A thorough

understanding of the various needs initially and a periodic review is essential to

ensuring the vivarium remains relevant.

3 Procedure Space

Generally a 1:1 ratio of housing to procedure rooms is ideal. It is advantageous to

incorporate a modicum of housing capabilities in the procedure space; in addition

incorporate a biosafety cabinet (e.g., Type II A2, Type II B2) and various piped

gasses (e.g., oxygen, vacuum, air, carbon dioxide). Additional services/equipment, or

augmentation of the existing, may be needed based on research paradigms employed.

It is important to understand which procedures an institution permits in a housing

room.

Research equipment brought into research space must be appropriately

disinfected; and since some research may occur outside of a HEPA filtered cage

change station, the room containing this equipment should be periodically sanitized.

The chemicals used on surfaces must be equipment friendly. Many institutions

fumigate large pieces of research equipment (e.g., microscopes, computers) before

entering animal facilities; this usually consists of exposure to vaporized hydrogen

peroxide (VHP) or chlorine dioxide (CD). VHP is corrosive to some surfaces,

requires longer exposure and a post-exposure wipe down, and is not a sterilant.

Overall CD is more advantageous than VHP.

Surgery is perhaps the most commonly required procedure space. The surgery

requirement will vary according to the species used. Regardless, it is important to

provide the following areas when surgery is performed: animal, surgeon, and

instrument preparation; operating area; and animal recovery. Specialized equipment is

frequently needed in the operation area and every effort should be made to

periodically clean and/or fumigate this area, especially in areas with unavoidable

clutter. Personnel exposure to anesthetic gases or carcinogenic anesthetics (e.g.,

urethane) must be minimized and appropriate control measures taken (e.g., downdraft

surgery tables, flexible snorkel, fume hood).

4 Vivarium Support Equipment

Sanitation is essential in contemporary vivarium and proper equipment is critical to

ensure minimal service disruption and safeguarding the institution’s investment in

their biomedical research models. Overall it is best to purchase equipment using non-

proprietary parts and to employ an suitably-trained engineer for repairs ad

preventative maintenance. The equipment below may require some degree of isolation

to ensure noise and vibration originating from it does not result in research

interference; in addition the HVAC and all equipment should undergo testing and

commissioning prior to occupancy and periodically thereafter.

4.1 Autoclave

Autoclaves must be of sufficient size to sterilize a wide variety of equipment (e.g.,

cages, water bottles, racks, IVCs). The autoclave is the most frequent bottleneck

therefore a accurate assessment of autoclave needs is essential along with an

evaluation of other strategies. Other strategies include purchasing irradiated diet over

autoclaveable and utilizing automatic watering over bottled, autoclaved water; the

latter is an important consideration as the liquid autoclave cycle can be twice as long

as that for dry goods. Alternatives exist to some autoclave uses; however, these may

be subject to regulatory approval.

4.2 Cage Wash

There are many ways to wash cages, with contemporary facilities using either a rack

or tunnel washer. Throughput must be evaluated as well as the cage wash dimensions.

Some cage wash vendors have smaller height rack washers that restrict their use to a

few cage manufacturers. In the process they may not meet the future needs of the

facility or may be unable to clean larger pieces of equipment. It is best to purchase a

full-height rack washer.

4.3 Automatic Watering

Automatic watering offers many cost saving advantages over providing bottled water

and it acts to increase the throughput of autoclaves and cage washers. It permits faster

cage changes and reduces work-related repetitive stress injuries. Data suggests [3-5]

that water bottle failures are greater than those of automatic watering systems.

5 Research Interference

• Partial build-out/shell space: This option is frequently considered; however,

when considering the potential losses associated with future research

interference, equipment cost increases, and research program stability, this

option must be carefully weighed. The outcome frequently depends on the

meaning ‘partial.’

• Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is gaining popularity to determine

animal census. Consideration must be given to determine if this technology

will interfere with telemetry and other studies. Likewise, what are the

impacts of neighboring telemetry devices/studies.

• Floors and walls are strong considerations as imaging modalities require

various forms of shielding (e.g., walls, ceiling) and concrete pad (e.g., MRI)

to minimize interference. It is important to have a broad understanding of the

research plans and needs to minimize the likelihood of a costly renovation.

• Punch-outs permit relatively easy building access via large removable walls

or ceilings. Punch-out placement may enhance the building’s flexibility

while ensuring it can be appropriately serviced and updated.

• Nearby construction can impact delicate research equipment. Likewise it can

negatively impact animals, especially those on behavioral and physiology

experiments. It is important to understand the construction occurring ‘in the

neighborhood’ as well as in a given building/facility. Vibration and noise can

and will negatively impact animal-based research.

6 Costs

There are many ‘costs’ impacting a vivarium. These include the building cost,

construction cost, equipment cost, and life cycle cost. Each must be closely evaluated

and options considered before ‘value engineering’ forces building alterations resulting

in a less than optimal research facility. Likewise, administrators and scientists must

develop realistic expectations of facility costs and their benefits.

7 Conclusions

There are many factors impacting the cost of contemporary vivarium design and

construction in addition to those presented. It is important to start with a

knowledgeable architect and credentialed laboratory animal veterinarian to provide

the researchers and institutional administration with options that best meet the needs

of the biomedical research team while reducing building, construction, and life cycle

costs. These additional costs will most frequently negatively impact the researchers

most by reducing a vivarium’s potential as a powerful research support tool.

References

1. Conti, PA; Hessler, JR. 2009. Circulation. In: Hessler, JR; Lehner, NDM, editors. Planning

and Designing Research Animal Facilities. Amsterdam, Academic Press.

2. Gonzalez, D; et al. 2011. Failure and Life Cycle Evaluation of Watering Valves. J Am

Assoc Lab Anim Sci 50(5):713-718.

3. Gonzalez, D; et al. 2008. Watering Valve Life Cycle Evaluation. Abstracts presented at the

59th AALAS National Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, 9-13 Nov 2008. J Am Assoc Lab Anim

Sci 47(5):120.

4. Rosa, MA; et al. 2009. Quality Control of the Automated Watering System at IDIBELL.

SECAL Conference Poster.

5. Smith, V; Coleman, M. 2010. Life with Automatic Water. IAT (UK) Conference Poster.

6. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Biosafety in Microbiological and

Biomedical Laboratories, 5

ed’n. HHS Publication No. (CDC) 21-112. Washington, DC.