Avian influenza outbreaks: evaluating the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection of vehicles and transport crates

• Published in: Poultry science Vol. 101; no. 1; p. 101569
• Main Authors: Huneau-Salaün, Adeline, Scoizec, Axelle, Thomas, Rodolphe, Martenot, Claire, Schmitz, Audrey, Pierre, Isabelle, Allée, Chantal, Busson, Rachel, Massin, Pascale, Briand, François-Xavier, Guillemoto, Carole, Louboutin, Katell, Souchaud, Florent, Cherbonnel-Pansart, Martine, Niqueux, Eric, Grasland, Béatrice, Souillard, Rozenn, Bouquin, Sophie Le
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.01.2022; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animals; avian influenza; Biosecurity; Chickens; cleaning; coliform bacteria; cross contamination; decontamination; detergents; Disease Outbreaks; Disease Outbreaks - prevention & control; Disease Outbreaks - veterinary; Disinfection; ducks; France; genome; IMMUNOLOGY, HEALTH AND DISEASE; Influenza A virus; Influenza in Birds; Influenza in Birds - epidemiology; Influenza in Birds - prevention & control; Life Sciences; Other; transport; France; cleaning; biosecurity; avian influenza; transport; disinfection
• ISSN: 0032-5791; 1525-3171; 1525-3171; 0032-5791
• DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101569

In 2021, France faced large avian influenza outbreaks, like in 2016 and 2017. Controlling these outbreaks required the preventive depopulation of a large number of duck farms. A previous study in 2017 showed that the quality of decontamination of trucks and transport crates used for depopulation was often insufficient. A new study was then set up to evaluate cleaning and disinfection (C&D) of trucks and crates used for duck depopulation and whether practices had changed since 2017. Three methods were used to assess decontamination: 1) detection of avian influenza virus (AIV) genome, 2) visual inspection of cleanliness, and 3) microbial counts, considering that 2 and 3 are commonly used in abattoirs. Another objective of the study was to evaluate the correlation between results obtained with the 3 methods. In 5 abattoirs, 8 trucks and their crates were sampled by swabbing to detect AIV genome by rRT-PCR before and after decontamination. Visual cleanliness scores and coliform counts were also determined on crates after C&D. Trucks and crates were decontaminated according to the abattoirs’ protocols. Before C&D, 3 quarters of crates (59/79) and 7 of 8 trucks were positive for AIV genome. C&D procedures were reinforced in 2021 compared to 2017; use of detergent solution and warm water were more common. Nevertheless, 28% of the crates were positive for AIV genome after C&D, despite the fact that cleaning scores and microbiological counts were satisfactory for 84% and 91% of the crates, respectively. No correlation was observed between results for AIV genome detection and results from visual control or from coliform counts. Abattoirs are encouraged to use environmental sampling coupled with AIV genome detection to monitor the quality of cleaning and disinfection of trucks and crates during AI outbreaks. Reinforcement of biosecurity measures at abattoirs is still needed to avoid residual contamination of the equipment and cross-contamination during the decontamination process.