A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses

This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transboundary and emerging diseases 2021-01, Vol.68 (1), p.110-126
Hauptverfasser: Hood, Grace, Roche, Xavier, Brioudes, Aurélie, von Dobschuetz, Sophie, Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo, Kalpravidh, Wantanee, Makonnen, Yilma, Lubroth, Juan, Sims, Leslie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 126
container_issue 1
container_start_page 110
container_title Transboundary and emerging diseases
container_volume 68
creator Hood, Grace
Roche, Xavier
Brioudes, Aurélie
von Dobschuetz, Sophie
Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo
Kalpravidh, Wantanee
Makonnen, Yilma
Lubroth, Juan
Sims, Leslie
description This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost‐effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non‐invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species‐specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic‐level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/tbed.13633
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8048529</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2509259775</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5143-bbb1cff6bc2e48d379654ce24bfa8e232a8788b7112185687bc5f885c6a846e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1LAzEURYMotlY3_gAZcCdUJ5lJJrMR_FYQ3HQfkvRNm5JmajIzpf560w-LbswmD97JyYWL0DlOr3E8N42C8TXOWJYdoD7mjA4x4-RwPxd5D52EMEtTlpaMHqNeRhglRZn20eQusaYBL5vWQ-KhM7BM6ippppC0AdYjuM742s3BNdImQc4X1rhJYtwGCq3vwFgrnd7QsjPSxWVlW3BfMolvoyecoqNK2gBnu3uARs9Po4fX4fvHy9vD3ftQU5xnQ6UU1lXFlCaQ83FWxLy5BpKrSnIgGZG84FwVGBPMKeOF0rTinGomec4gG6DbrXbRqjmMdczspRULb-bSr0Qtjfi7cWYqJnUneJpzSsoouNwJfP3ZQmjErG69i5EFoWlJaFkUNFJXW0r7OgQP1f4HnIp1J2Ldidh0EuGL35n26E8JEcBbYGksrP5RidH90-NW-g3r_pmK</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2509259775</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Hood, Grace ; Roche, Xavier ; Brioudes, Aurélie ; von Dobschuetz, Sophie ; Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo ; Kalpravidh, Wantanee ; Makonnen, Yilma ; Lubroth, Juan ; Sims, Leslie</creator><creatorcontrib>Hood, Grace ; Roche, Xavier ; Brioudes, Aurélie ; von Dobschuetz, Sophie ; Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo ; Kalpravidh, Wantanee ; Makonnen, Yilma ; Lubroth, Juan ; Sims, Leslie</creatorcontrib><description>This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost‐effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non‐invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species‐specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic‐level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1865-1674</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1865-1682</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13633</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32652790</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Hindawi Limited</publisher><subject>Animal welfare ; Avian flu ; avian Influenza ; Bird impact ; Birds ; Contamination ; Data management ; Environmental monitoring ; environmental sampling ; epidemiological monitoring ; Epidemiology ; Influenza ; Literature reviews ; Sampling ; Sampling methods ; Special Issue ; Surveillance ; Viruses</subject><ispartof>Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2021-01, Vol.68 (1), p.110-126</ispartof><rights>2020 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH</rights><rights>2020 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5143-bbb1cff6bc2e48d379654ce24bfa8e232a8788b7112185687bc5f885c6a846e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5143-bbb1cff6bc2e48d379654ce24bfa8e232a8788b7112185687bc5f885c6a846e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3038-1102</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Ftbed.13633$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ftbed.13633$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32652790$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hood, Grace</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brioudes, Aurélie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Dobschuetz, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalpravidh, Wantanee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makonnen, Yilma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lubroth, Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sims, Leslie</creatorcontrib><title>A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses</title><title>Transboundary and emerging diseases</title><addtitle>Transbound Emerg Dis</addtitle><description>This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost‐effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non‐invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species‐specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic‐level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.</description><subject>Animal welfare</subject><subject>Avian flu</subject><subject>avian Influenza</subject><subject>Bird impact</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Data management</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>environmental sampling</subject><subject>epidemiological monitoring</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Influenza</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Special Issue</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Viruses</subject><issn>1865-1674</issn><issn>1865-1682</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1LAzEURYMotlY3_gAZcCdUJ5lJJrMR_FYQ3HQfkvRNm5JmajIzpf560w-LbswmD97JyYWL0DlOr3E8N42C8TXOWJYdoD7mjA4x4-RwPxd5D52EMEtTlpaMHqNeRhglRZn20eQusaYBL5vWQ-KhM7BM6ippppC0AdYjuM742s3BNdImQc4X1rhJYtwGCq3vwFgrnd7QsjPSxWVlW3BfMolvoyecoqNK2gBnu3uARs9Po4fX4fvHy9vD3ftQU5xnQ6UU1lXFlCaQ83FWxLy5BpKrSnIgGZG84FwVGBPMKeOF0rTinGomec4gG6DbrXbRqjmMdczspRULb-bSr0Qtjfi7cWYqJnUneJpzSsoouNwJfP3ZQmjErG69i5EFoWlJaFkUNFJXW0r7OgQP1f4HnIp1J2Ldidh0EuGL35n26E8JEcBbYGksrP5RidH90-NW-g3r_pmK</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Hood, Grace</creator><creator>Roche, Xavier</creator><creator>Brioudes, Aurélie</creator><creator>von Dobschuetz, Sophie</creator><creator>Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo</creator><creator>Kalpravidh, Wantanee</creator><creator>Makonnen, Yilma</creator><creator>Lubroth, Juan</creator><creator>Sims, Leslie</creator><general>Hindawi Limited</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3038-1102</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses</title><author>Hood, Grace ; Roche, Xavier ; Brioudes, Aurélie ; von Dobschuetz, Sophie ; Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo ; Kalpravidh, Wantanee ; Makonnen, Yilma ; Lubroth, Juan ; Sims, Leslie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5143-bbb1cff6bc2e48d379654ce24bfa8e232a8788b7112185687bc5f885c6a846e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Animal welfare</topic><topic>Avian flu</topic><topic>avian Influenza</topic><topic>Bird impact</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Data management</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>environmental sampling</topic><topic>epidemiological monitoring</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Influenza</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Special Issue</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Viruses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hood, Grace</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brioudes, Aurélie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Dobschuetz, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalpravidh, Wantanee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makonnen, Yilma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lubroth, Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sims, Leslie</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Transboundary and emerging diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hood, Grace</au><au>Roche, Xavier</au><au>Brioudes, Aurélie</au><au>von Dobschuetz, Sophie</au><au>Fasina, Folorunso Oludayo</au><au>Kalpravidh, Wantanee</au><au>Makonnen, Yilma</au><au>Lubroth, Juan</au><au>Sims, Leslie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses</atitle><jtitle>Transboundary and emerging diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Transbound Emerg Dis</addtitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>110</spage><epage>126</epage><pages>110-126</pages><issn>1865-1674</issn><eissn>1865-1682</eissn><abstract>This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost‐effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non‐invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species‐specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic‐level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Hindawi Limited</pub><pmid>32652790</pmid><doi>10.1111/tbed.13633</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3038-1102</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1865-1674
ispartof Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2021-01, Vol.68 (1), p.110-126
issn 1865-1674
1865-1682
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8048529
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Animal welfare
Avian flu
avian Influenza
Bird impact
Birds
Contamination
Data management
Environmental monitoring
environmental sampling
epidemiological monitoring
Epidemiology
Influenza
Literature reviews
Sampling
Sampling methods
Special Issue
Surveillance
Viruses
title A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T22%3A32%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20literature%20review%20of%20the%20use%20of%20environmental%20sampling%20in%20the%20surveillance%20of%20avian%20influenza%20viruses&rft.jtitle=Transboundary%20and%20emerging%20diseases&rft.au=Hood,%20Grace&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=110&rft.epage=126&rft.pages=110-126&rft.issn=1865-1674&rft.eissn=1865-1682&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/tbed.13633&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2509259775%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2509259775&rft_id=info:pmid/32652790&rfr_iscdi=true