Air Filtration System for Animal Transport Vehicles

Project Team

Bernardo Predicala, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.

Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.

Francis Pouliot / Jacquelin Labrecque, CDPQ

Henry Gauvreau, Warman Veterinary Services

Sylvain Messier, Demeter Services Vétérinaires Inc.

Brent Jones, South West Ontario Veterinary Services

Angus Chambers, JSR Genetics

Funding

Canadian Swine Health Board

Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program

Project Overview

• Background

– Recognized risk of infection during transport

– Close the biosecurity gap, in conjunction with filtered barns

• Project goal

– Develop and evaluate an air filtration system for a transport trailer

to protect pigs from potential risk of infection

– Specific objectives:

1. Investigate options for different components of a trailer

filtration system

2. Design a practical air filtration system that can be applied

under Canadian conditions

3. Construct a prototype pig transport trailer with filtration

4. Evaluate effectiveness of the filtered-trailer system

2

Phase 1

• Literature review and survey of existing filtered

trailer/trucks designs

– Number of filtered truck designs surveyed: 2 from France, 2 from

Netherlands, 4 from U.S.

– European truck companies namely Berdex (Netherlands), Cuppers

(Netherlands), and Guitton (France) supply filtered trucks to different

swine production companies/organizations in Europe.

Project Activities

3

Existing filtered trailers

Organization Cap50 Porcs

(France)

Berdex

(Netherlands)

Hermitage-NGT PIC US SRTC-UWM

Trailer Length

40 to 45 ft (12 to

13.7 m)

45.4 ft (13.85 m) 53 ft (16 m) 32 ft (9.75 m) 20 ft (6.1 m)

Number of Decks 1 1,2,3,4 1 1 1

Capacity per deck 214 (50-lb pigs) 170 (50-lb pigs) 93 (50-lb pigs)

Fan Type Axial High-Pressure Fan Axial Axial Negative Air Machine

Ventilation Rate per

deck

Low (oxygen is

being monitored)

High,

Max – 4,500 CFM

Low,

Max – 500 CFM

Maximum Static

Pressure

1.4 inch water no setting 3 inch water

Filter Type HEPA HEPA + UV lights HEPA DOP HEPA, DOP

Air Conditioning Yes (Refrigeration

unit)

Yes No No Yes (3 4,000 W-units)

Power Requirement

~ 20,000 W

(Refrigeration unit)

5,500 W 10,000 W

Cost

$124K 3-deck

$150K 4-deck

$30K $40K parts

$20K labor, misc

Travel Time

(maximum)

24 hours 36 hours, rest every 5

hours

16 hours

Floor Bedding No Yes Yes

4

PIC, U.S.A.: (Photos courtesy of Bob Thompson)

Existing filtered trailers

5

Existing filtered trailers

6

Europe

Berdex (Netherlands) Cuppers (France)

Existing filtered trailers

7

Existing filtered trailers

8

Existing filtered trailers

9

Existing filtered trailers

10

Existing trailer – cost estimate

SRTC-UW Trailer: 20’ x 7’ x 7’ gooseneck; capacity: 200 10-lb pigs, 20 400-lb pigs

11

Existing trailer – cost estimate

Equipment cost Share (%)

Ventilation $6,000 15%

Filter $900 (HEPA)

$450 (DOP)

2%

A/C & Heating system $6,000 15%

Power $20,000

(10kW generator)

50%

Insulation $7,000 18%

Total $40,000

SRTC-UW Trailer: 20’ x 7’ x 7’ gooseneck; capacity: 200 10-lb pigs, 20 400-lb pigs

Trailer capital and labour costs (~$20,000) and miscellaneous

items (~$7,000) not included.

12

• Ventilation

Minimum ventilation per animal (summer and winter conditions)

Leakage and unintended inlets; filtered air distribution

Heat and moisture production in enclosed space

Air flow resistance; power requirement

• System performance monitoring – filter, air quality

• Emergency measures - in case of equipment failure

• Feeding and watering system

• Cleaning and disinfection

• Cost

Design challenges

13

• For the above options = 24 to 96 potential trailer configurations!

• Evaluation criteria (to select the option to include in the design):

- cost, power requirement, robustness, resulting trailer environment (air quality,

thermal conditions).

Trailer Components - options

Temperature control Filtration Fan Air Distribution

Ventilation HEPA Axial Poly bag duct

Air Conditioned MERV16 Centrifugal PVC pipe

Combination MERV14 Cross ventilation

Antimicrobial [None]

14

Construction and testing

• Design of filtration system - selected options

• Environment control – non-airconditioned,

mechanically-ventilated

• Filter – MERV 16 filters

• Air mover – axial fan

• Air distribution – no air diffuser

Phase 2

15

• Schematic diagram of trailer filtration system retrofit

Phase 2

Air inlets

Air outlets

Fan

Filter

16

Trailer retrofit:

Phase 2

17

Phase 2

18

Phase 2

19

Trailer test – bacteriophage φX174 aerosol

Phase 2

20

Bag (antimicrobial fabric) filter:

Phase 2

21

Trailer testing:

Phase 2

22

Trailer testing – MERV 16 filter

Results

23

Trailer testing – antimicrobial fabric filter

Results

24

• Information available on design components for a trailer filtration system

• Antimicrobial filters (MERV 16, fabric filter) can capture bioaerosols in the airstream and prevent entry to animal compartment

• Specific design challenges were identified:

Summary

25

• Ventilation rate requirements - no standard

– Size of fans, motors

• Significant airflow restriction – high HP

• Target filter efficiency – infective dose

• Power supply – capacity, quality

• Leakage – controlled airflow, wind effect

• Keep things simple – controls, monitors

• Cost

Challenges

26

Emergency Biocontainment System for Swine Facilities to Control Transmissible Airborne

Diseases

Project Team

Bernardo Predicala, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.

Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.

Francis Pouliot / Jacquelin Labrecque, CDPQ

Sylvain Messier, Demeter Services Vétérinaires Inc.

Henry Gauvreau, Warman Veterinary Services

Brent Jones, South West Ontario Veterinary Services

Funding

Canadian Swine Health Board

Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program

Project Overview

• Develop alternatives to current means of dealing with airborne disease outbreaks

• Project goal:

– Investigate potential measures for emergency biocontainment of a

barn during an outbreak

• Specific objectives:

1. Compile measures and strategies that can potentially be applied for

isolating a barn during an airborne disease outbreak

2. Evaluate effectiveness of selected measures in pilot scale

3. Develop best management practices and communication/

coordination protocols to be implemented during emergency

biocontainment

28

Exhaust bag-type filter

Photo courtesy: Brent Jones

29

Filtered enclosure

Photo source: Baumgartner Environics Inc.

30

Dust reduction curtain

31

Trailer with filter walls

32

Other exhaust filter options

33

Assessment criteria

a. time required for installation - within 1 or 2 days after an outbreak is detected

b. operational and maintenance requirements - minimal technical expertise and manpower needed for set-up and operation

c. portability and adaptability for installation - adaptable to different existing barn configurations

d. robustness and reliability of performance - must function reliably over biocontainment period

e. affordability - total cost must not offset the benefits of biocontainment; reusable measures

34

Assessment results Option Rank Comments

Bag-type filter at exhaust Dust control curtain at exhaust

1

2

Dust removal before filter – pre-filter (easily installation), upwind directed pre-filter and filter(gravitational settling), Filter- non-collapsible, ability to fit to different sized exhaust, easy air tight attachments (wet suit zippers, Velcro) , mechanical support Reduce pressure drop - fan inside the filtration system Maintenance- detection - measure dust level, pressure drop , Combination with dust control curtain Air outlet attachment to curtain – horizontal plane at ground level, modified wind hood, pipe Effectiveness – virus dissemination, snow accumulation

Trailer fitted with mechanical filters

3 Constraint - Installation issue, long hoses, complex, number of trailers

Filter roll assembly at exhaust

4 Constraint - installation, maintenance, incomplete seal, higher filter surface area (cost, pressure drop)

Flexible filter housing (green house style)

5 Constraint – installation, snow and water at bottom of the cover , snow load in the covered area

35

Pilot-scale test set-up

36

Test set-up

37

Test set-up

Experimental set-up located at IRDA.

Fan

HEPA filter Aerosol

injection port

Upstream sampling port Downstream sampling port

HEPA filter

Test section

38

Aerosol measurement

39

Measures tested

Photo of the tested measures:

(a) Noveko antimicrobial filter; (b) Noveko prefilter; and (c) dust reduction curtain.

(a) (b) (c)

40

Test results

Measures / configuration tested Air flow rate

(m3 h-1)

P across test

section (in.

H2O)

Reduction in

aerosolized

particles

(%)

NF (10 layers) with pre-filter 782 0.28 9

NF(20 layers) with pre-filter 782 0.38 32

NF (10 layers) with pre-filter 1156 >0.45 49

DRC1 (4 layers) - attached 1156 0.15 14

DRC1 (2 layers) - attached 1156 0.08 11

DRC1 (2 layers) - attached with NF (20 layers) 782 0.38 26

NF (20 layers) no pre-filter 782 0.35 31

NF (15 layers) with pre-filter 782 0.3 34

NF (15 layers) with pre-filter 1156 >0.45 63

NF (15 layers) with DRC2 (4 layers) - detached 782 0.33 31

NF (15 layers) with DRC2 (4 layers) - detached 1156 >0.45 67

NF - Noveko filter; DRC – dust reduction curtain; P – pressure drop 41

• Full-scale testing of selected measures

• Incorporate into Best Management Practices and

Emergency Response Protocol documents

• Assemble a prototype emergency trailer

Next steps

42

Questions?

43