Hydrophobic Sand Versus Metabolic Cages: A Comparison of Urine Collection Methods for Rats (Rattus norvegicus)
A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar cage with a wire-mesh floor. A new method involving hydrophobic sand, a material more similar to bedding, has become available recently but has...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science Vol. 57; no. 1; pp. 51 - 57 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
01.01.2018
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar cage with a wire-mesh floor. A new method involving hydrophobic sand, a material more similar to bedding, has become available
recently but has not been extensively compared with metabolic cages in regard to collection efficiency or stress. Using a within-subjects crossover design, we examined differences in stress markers, urinary markers, and urine volume of clinically healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats during
2-, 4-, and 6-h collection sessions in hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages. Stress response markers of weight loss, fecal pellet output, or corticosterone did not differ between hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages, and observed behavior suggested that sand may be less stressful than metabolic
cages. All clinically relevant urinary markers examined were normal, with no differences between collection methods. Total urine volume collected was greater from the metabolic cage than sand in 3 of the 5 sessions, but the volume collected during the shortest session (2 h) did not differ
between methods and accounted for 62% of the total volume collected during the longest session (6 h). Our results suggest that hydrophobic sand is a refinement of urine collection methods for rats that decreases isolation time, risk of injury, and stress and maintains the integrity of urine
samples. |
---|---|
AbstractList | A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar cage with a wire-mesh floor. A new method involving hydrophobic sand, a material more similar to bedding, has become available recently but has not been extensively compared with metabolic cages in regard to collection efficiency or stress. Using a within-subjects crossover design, we examined differences in stress markers, urinary markers, and urine volume of clinically healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats during 2-, 4-, and 6-h collection sessions in hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages. Stress response markers of weight loss, fecal pellet output, or corticosterone did not differ between hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages, and observed behavior suggested that sand may be less stressful than metabolic cages. All clinically relevant urinary markers examined were normal, with no differences between collection methods. Total urine volume collected was greater from the metabolic cage than sand in 3 of the 5 sessions, but the volume collected during the shortest session (2 h) did not differ between methods and accounted for 62% of the total volume collected during the longest session (6 h). Our results suggest that hydrophobic sand is a refinement of urine collection methods for rats that decreases isolation time, risk of injury, and stress and maintains the integrity of urine samples.A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar cage with a wire-mesh floor. A new method involving hydrophobic sand, a material more similar to bedding, has become available recently but has not been extensively compared with metabolic cages in regard to collection efficiency or stress. Using a within-subjects crossover design, we examined differences in stress markers, urinary markers, and urine volume of clinically healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats during 2-, 4-, and 6-h collection sessions in hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages. Stress response markers of weight loss, fecal pellet output, or corticosterone did not differ between hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages, and observed behavior suggested that sand may be less stressful than metabolic cages. All clinically relevant urinary markers examined were normal, with no differences between collection methods. Total urine volume collected was greater from the metabolic cage than sand in 3 of the 5 sessions, but the volume collected during the shortest session (2 h) did not differ between methods and accounted for 62% of the total volume collected during the longest session (6 h). Our results suggest that hydrophobic sand is a refinement of urine collection methods for rats that decreases isolation time, risk of injury, and stress and maintains the integrity of urine samples. A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar cage with a wire-mesh floor. A new method involving hydrophobic sand, a material more similar to bedding, has become available recently but has not been extensively compared with metabolic cages in regard to collection efficiency or stress. Using a within-subjects crossover design, we examined differences in stress markers, urinary markers, and urine volume of clinically healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats during 2-, 4-, and 6-h collection sessions in hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages. Stress response markers of weight loss, fecal pellet output, or corticosterone did not differ between hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages, and observed behavior suggested that sand may be less stressful than metabolic cages. All clinically relevant urinary markers examined were normal, with no differences between collection methods. Total urine volume collected was greater from the metabolic cage than sand in 3 of the 5 sessions, but the volume collected during the shortest session (2 h) did not differ between methods and accounted for 62% of the total volume collected during the longest session (6 h). Our results suggest that hydrophobic sand is a refinement of urine collection methods for rats that decreases isolation time, risk of injury, and stress and maintains the integrity of urine samples. A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar cage with a wire-mesh floor. A new method involving hydrophobic sand, a material more similar to bedding, has become available recently but has not been extensively compared with metabolic cages in regard to collection efficiency or stress. Using a within-subjects crossover design, we examined differences in stress markers, urinary markers, and urine volume of clinically healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats during 2-, 4-, and 6-h collection sessions in hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages. Stress response markers of weight loss, fecal pellet output, or corticosterone did not differ between hydrophobic sand and metabolic cages, and observed behavior suggested that sand may be less stressful than metabolic cages. All clinically relevant urinary markers examined were normal, with no differences between collection methods. Total urine volume collected was greater from the metabolic cage than sand in 3 of the 5 sessions, but the volume collected during the shortest session (2 h) did not differ between methods and accounted for 62% of the total volume collected during the longest session (6 h). Our results suggest that hydrophobic sand is a refinement of urine collection methods for rats that decreases isolation time, risk of injury, and stress and maintains the integrity of urine samples. |
Author | Vergara, Vernieda B Kalinich, John F Hoffman, Jessica F Fan, Anya X Neuendorf, Elizabeth H |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Jessica surname: Hoffman middlename: F fullname: Hoffman, Jessica F organization: Internal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. jessica.hoffman@usuhs.edu – sequence: 2 givenname: Anya surname: Fan middlename: X fullname: Fan, Anya X organization: Internal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA – sequence: 3 givenname: Elizabeth surname: Neuendorf middlename: H fullname: Neuendorf, Elizabeth H organization: Internal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA – sequence: 4 givenname: Vernieda surname: Vergara middlename: B fullname: Vergara, Vernieda B organization: Internal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA – sequence: 5 givenname: John surname: Kalinich middlename: F fullname: Kalinich, John F organization: Internal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402352$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp1kcFuEzEQhi1URNPCKyAfyyGSvRvHaw5IVYC2UlElKFytsXd248ixg-2NVJ4ehwQEB3zwjH7PfL_tuSBnIQZ8RmaNXKr5cinlGZlxIWrOmTonFzlvGBNStM0Lct6oBWta0cxIuH3qU9yto3GWfoHQ02-Y8pTpJyxgoq_qCkbMb-k1XcXtDpLLMdA40K_JBaya92iLq1rtWMc-0yEm-hlKpld1LxUVYtrj6OyU37wkzwfwGV-d4iV5_PjhcXU7v3-4uVtd389dq1SZyyV2hqHqje1Va_nQqEEMnEnLDLPSokHGlOG9EAu5WCgwABJBSGt6wVh7Sd4dsbvJbLG3GEoCr3fJbSE96QhO_3sS3FqPca9FJwVTXQVcnQApfp8wF7112aL3EDBOWXOlBBe8ZbyWvv7b64_J7z-uBe-PBS6M1Q70Jk4p1NdrAA9Zb46hYbzT7NcS8pQwriGVQ3K40sN_MM6eSId5H8at90IGXokNZx2XmnPR6h4HmHzRBZIef-jctT8B0lKt3Q |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2018 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2018 |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Zoology |
EISSN | 2769-6677 |
EndPage | 57 |
ExternalDocumentID | PMC5875098 29402352 aalas/jaalas/2018/00000057/00000001/art00008 |
Genre | Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- 29L 2WC 53G 5GY AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS DIK E3Z EBS EJD F5P FIJ GX1 HDH HYE IPNFZ OK1 RIG RPM CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM SJN 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-i399t-76e8b0e9dbcd93c1f29f5f107c0b0c7cebe009b1d5547449abaa7ea57cbd5003 |
IEDL.DBID | FIJ |
ISSN | 1559-6109 2769-6677 |
IngestDate | Thu Aug 21 18:22:22 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 15:21:43 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:36:47 EDT 2025 Thu Jan 27 13:03:55 EST 2022 Fri Nov 08 06:06:18 EST 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Language | English |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-i399t-76e8b0e9dbcd93c1f29f5f107c0b0c7cebe009b1d5547449abaa7ea57cbd5003 |
Notes | 1559-6109(20180101)57:1L.51;1- ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
PMID | 29402352 |
PQID | 1995151301 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 7 |
ParticipantIDs | ingenta_journals_aalas_jaalas_2018_00000057_00000001_art00008 proquest_miscellaneous_1995151301 pubmed_primary_29402352 ingenta_journals_ic_aalas_15596109_v57n1_20210817_1153_default_tar_gz_s8 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5875098 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 20180101 2018-01-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-01-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2018 text: 20180101 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science |
PublicationTitleAbbrev | J Am Assoc Lab Animal Sci |
PublicationTitleAlternate | J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci |
PublicationYear | 2018 |
Publisher | American Association for Laboratory Animal Science |
Publisher_xml | – name: American Association for Laboratory Animal Science |
SSID | ssj0057532 |
Score | 2.2636847 |
Snippet | A common method for urine collection from rats requires the use of a metabolic cage, thus exposing animals to extended periods of isolation in an unfamiliar... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed ingenta |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
StartPage | 51 |
SubjectTerms | Animals Experimental Use Housing, Animal Laboratory Animal Science Male Rats Rats, Sprague-Dawley Urine Specimen Collection - veterinary |
Title | Hydrophobic Sand Versus Metabolic Cages: A Comparison of Urine Collection Methods for Rats (Rattus norvegicus) |
URI | https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aalas/jaalas/2018/00000057/00000001/art00008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402352 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1995151301 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC5875098 |
Volume | 57 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Ja9wwFBZJINBLaZsu0w0FcmgPZmyPZUmFHsLQySSQHtoEhl6ENnemBDmM5UD76_sky6HTHnuRjS29gz4tn57egtAJ5bqQnKpMK2KyitUsk1aXmbZMKwajqmyile_nenldXazIKnnWdcmsMnkV6WDpof3g2BBCNTk_lcG5cPpjeMDexWL0xeBRmV7yYgpdHpnQPtovWbDyWpxfjIszkJOYsyxcxmV1NEPcdWLapZh_W0r-sfUsHqGHiTPi0wHkx2jPuifo8FsbNeJHyC1_mm17u27VRuOv0hkclGB9hy-tB4hv4OscVo3uAz7F8_u0g7ht8HVw_cNRdxDdG0KLdWs6DEwWf5G-w--g9CDKtds7C4tk371_iq4Wn67myyylUcg2wD58RmvLVG65UdrwmS6akjekgWOfzlWuqQYYgWipwgCzoFXFpZKSWkmoVobApH-GDlzr7AuEYXWwUf9hZqRSZiYptzEzeK1lrpSaoI-pM0WaCZ2IUIkBMREQEyNiYkRMjIhN0PKf9hudRATIAmLijlBXgCg4rLKCwhGGzISxjexvvPByK77_Eh2IOh7RFDBhwi2IdLbtQQ4HUklg6y4m6PmArrgdInuIklch_k85QXQH9_sKIRj37h-3Wceg3IQF7sVe_mcXvEIPQo1ByfMaHfhtb98A7fHqbRzIUJ6tit9v8QOG |
linkProvider | Ingenta |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Hydrophobic+Sand+Versus+Metabolic+Cages%3A+A+Comparison+of+Urine+Collection+Methods+for+Rats+%28Rattus+norvegicus%29&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+American+Association+for+Laboratory+Animal+Science&rft.au=Hoffman%2C+Jessica+F&rft.au=Fan%2C+Anya+X&rft.au=Neuendorf%2C+Elizabeth+H&rft.au=Vergara%2C+Vernieda+B&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.pub=American+Association+for+Laboratory+Animal+Science&rft.issn=1559-6109&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=51&rft.epage=57&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29402352&rft.externalDocID=PMC5875098 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1559-6109&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1559-6109&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1559-6109&client=summon |