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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science Vol. 57; no. 1; pp. 51 - 57
Main Authors Hoffman, Jessica F, Fan, Anya X, Neuendorf, Elizabeth H, Vergara, Vernieda B, Kalinich, John F
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 01.01.2018
Subjects
Online AccessGet 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