Technical and Design Features of Laboratories Suitable for Work Involving Infected Animals

Introduction: The state biological safety system is an important component of the national security system. Handling of biological agents is always potentially hazardous. One of the types of work that poses the risk of developing laboratory-acquired infections includes studies of infected biological models used for experimental, production and diagnostic purposes in the laboratory facilities of various agencies authorized to deal with biological agents of pathogenicity groups I to IV.

Objective: The study aimed to analyze the up-to-date regulatory, methodological and legislative framework setting requirements for technical and design features of special purpose laboratories suitable for work involving infected animals in order to minimize health risks.

Methods: We analyzed regulatory documents and scientific publications found in bibliographic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and eLIBRARY) using keyword searches and selected 35 sources for the present review.

Results: Special attention is paid to the design of laboratories intended for experimental and diagnostic work with biological models infected with biological agents of pathogenicity groups I and II. Both construction and reconstruction of existing premises are carried out in accordance with the design documentation and have a number of specific features. The combination of facilities depends on the goals and objectives of the laboratory. The laboratory premises shall be provided with water supply, special sewerage, power supply, heating, exhaust ventilation, telephone communications, as well as security and fire alarms and fire extinguishing equipment in accordance with fire safety requirements.

Conclusions: The results of analyzing the current regulatory, methodological and legislative framework governing technical and design characteristics of special purpose laboratories suitable for work with infected animals confirm that strict compliance with the appropriate requirements enables their effective performance and guarantees safety for human health and the environment by eliminating biological risks.

1. Dobrokhotsky ON. [Biological risk assessment and management when handling pathogenic biological agents.] Biozashchita i Biobezopasnost'. 2010;2(3):18–22. (In Russ.)

2. Dobrokhotskiy ON, Dyatlov IA. The characteristics of health risk analysis when working with pathogenic biological agents. Health Risk Analysis. 2013;(1):24–29. (In Russ.)

3. Kolombet LV, Dyadishchev NR, Dobrokhotsky ON, Zynoviev GA. Biosafety assurance in laboratories handling pathogenic biological agents based on system approach to biorisk management. Meditsina Ekstremal'nykh Situatsiy. 2011;(3(37)):111–118. (In Russ.)

4. Malyukova TA, Boyko AV, Panin YuA, Bezsmertnyy VE, Kutyrev VV. Probability of biorisk occurrence attached to the performance of work with pathogenic biological agents of the I–II groups of hazard. Epidemiologiya i Infektsionnye Bolezni. 2016;21(3):136–145.(In Russ.) doi: 10.18821/1560-9529-2016-21-3-136-145

5. Lyapin MN. [On techniques of assessing hazard when handling pathogenic biological agents.] Infektsiya i Immunitet. 2017;(S):1059. (In Russ.)

6. Tyurin EA, Khramov MV, Dyatlov IA. Analysis of implementation of the requirements for provision of biological safety at a potentially hazardous facility. Problemy Osobo Opasnykh Infektsiy. 2018;(2):95–100. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21055/0370-1069-2018-2-95-100

7. Gushchin VA, Manuilov VA, Makarov VV, Tkachuk AP. The proper structure of a biosafety system as a way of reducing the vulnerability of a society, economy or state in the face of a biogenic threat. Vestnik RGMU. 2018;(4):5–18. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24075/vrgmu.2018.054

8. Efremenko DV. Biological safety of public events: features of laboratory diagnostics. Zhurnal Mikrobiologii, Epidemiologii i Immunobiologii. 2018;(1):45–52. (In Russ.) doi: 10.36233/0372-9311-2018-1-45-52

9. Efremenko DV, Vasilenko NF, Efremenko VI. Biological safety of public events: assessment of external epidemiological threat. Zhurnal Mikrobiologii, Epidemiologii i Immunobiologii. 2019;(2):76–82. (In Russ.) doi: 10.36233/0372-9311-2019-2-76-82

10. Udovichenko SK, Toporkov VP. On epidemiologic risks, their categories and predictors in sanitary-epidemiologic (biological) emergency situations. Health Risk Analysis. 2020;(1):83–91. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21668/health.risk/2020.1.09.eng

11. Boles KS, Kannan K, Gill J, et al. Digital-to-biological converter for on-demand production of biologics. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(7):672–675. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3859

12. Chernov AN. Current requirements for handling pathogenic biological agents in veterinary laboratories of the Russian Federation. Veterinarnyy Vrach. 2016;(2):3–8. (In Russ.)

13. Chernov AN, Miftakhov NR. [Current requirements for handling pathogenic biological agents in veterinary laboratories of the Russian Federation.] Aktual’nye Voprosy Sovershenstvovaniya Tekhnologii Proizvodstva i Pererabotki Produktsii Sel’skogo Khozyaystva. 2019;(21):452–454. (In Russ.)

14. Shishkina OB, Tyurin EA. Air barrier distribution boards of biosafety to protect the environment. Meditsina Truda i Ekologiya Cheloveka. 2015;(3):233–240. (In Russ.)

15. Trashchenko D, Kovaleva M. Individual cells ventilated extra investments or optimal protection of personnel and laboratory animals? Mezhdunarodnyy Vestnik Veterinarii. 2014;(1):100–103. (In Russ.)

16. Chekan LV, Tyurin EA. [Biosafety cabinets are a reliable tool for preventing laboratory-acquired infections when working with pathogens of highly hazardous communicable diseases.] In: Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Hazardous and Highly Hazardous Communicable Diseases. Biotechnology: Proceedings of the All-Russian Conference dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the 48th Central Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Kirov; 2008:426–428. (In Russ.)

17. Tyurin EA, Shishkina OB. [On the use of biosafety cabinets when handling biological agents of pathogenicity groups I and II in FSUE GETSEM.] In: Plague Control Institutions in Russia and Their Role in Ensuring Epidemiological Safety of the Population: Proceedings of the All-Russian Conference Dedicated to the 70th Anniversary of the Plague Control Center. Moscow; 2004:275–278. (In Russ.)

18. Tiurin EA, Ivanov SA, Marinin LI, Dyatlov IA, Lyapin MN. Biosafety cabinets used in the work with biological agents of I–II pathogenicity groups. Problemy Osobo Opasnykh Infektsiy. 2010;(4(106)):23–27. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21055/0370-1069-2010-4(106)-23-27

19. Health Canada. The Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines. 3rd ed. Canada; 2004. Accessed December 7, 2021. http://ivdc.chinacdc.cn/sysgl/swaq/jszl/201203/P020120323391888995991.pdf

20. Colf LA. Preparing for nontraditional biothreats. Health Secur. 2016;14(1):7–12. doi: 10.1089/hs.2015.0045

21. Germanchuk VG, Morozov KM, Semakova AP, Shavina NYu. Ensuring biological safety in laboratory for work with the infected animals. Zdorov’e Naseleniya i Sreda Obitaniya. 2016;(12(285)):44–48. (In Russ.)

22. Pastorino В, de Lamballerie X, Charrel R. Biosafety and biosecurity in European Containment Level 3 Laboratories: Focus on French recent progress and essential requirements. Front Public Health. 2017;5:121. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00121