Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 23, Number 11—November 2017
Research

Airborne Transmission of Highly Pathogenic Influenza Virus during Processing of Infected Poultry

On This Page
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Cite This Article
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Downloads
Article
RIS [TXT - 2 KB]
Article Metrics
Metric Details
43
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus
Related Articles
Swine Influenza A Viruses, Cambodia
HPAI A(H5N1) Virus in Cats, South Korea, 2023
Novel Eurasian Avian Influenza Virus, Australia
More articles on Influenza
Author affiliations: US Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia, USA (K. Bertran, C. Balzli, Y.-K. Kwon, D.E. Swayne); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (T.M. Tumpey); International Veterinary Consultant, Pendleton, Oregon, USA (A. Clark)

Cite This Article

Abstract

Exposure to infected poultry is a suspected cause of avian influenza (H5N1) virus infections in humans. We detected infectious droplets and aerosols during laboratory-simulated processing of asymptomatic chickens infected with human- (clades 1 and 2.2.1) and avian- (clades 1.1, 2.2, and 2.1) origin H5N1 viruses. We detected fewer airborne infectious particles in simulated processing of infected ducks. Influenza virus–naive chickens and ferrets exposed to the air space in which virus-infected chickens were processed became infected and died, suggesting that the slaughter of infected chickens is an efficient source of airborne virus that can infect birds and mammals. We did not detect consistent infections in ducks and ferrets exposed to the air space in which virus-infected ducks were processed. Our results support the hypothesis that airborne transmission of HPAI viruses can occur among poultry and from poultry to humans during home or live-poultry market slaughter of infected poultry.

Since 2003, approximately 850 human cases of Eurasian A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 (Gs/GD) lineage H5N1 virus infection have been reported; case-fatality rate is 53% (1–3). Most human infections with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) subtype H5N1 virus have occurred following direct or indirect exposure to infected poultry in live-poultry markets (LPM) in developing countries (1–3). The main risk factors associated with human infections include visiting an LPM or performing activities with intensive contact with infected poultry, like slaughtering, defeathering, or preparing poultry for cooking (3,4).

Poultry-to-human avian influenza (AI) virus transmission can occur from 3 types of exposure: fomite-contact transmission, including contact with contaminated surfaces; droplet transmission, in which large (>5 μm) particles contact a person’s conjunctiva or respiratory mucosa; and droplet nuclei transmission (or aerosol transmission), in which a person inhales small (<5 μm) particles suspended in the air (5–8). The LPM setting plays a critical role in maintaining, amplifying, and disseminating AI viruses among poultry and from poultry to humans (1,2,9), with indirect evidence of potential transmission via fomites, as supported by the detection of AI viruses in the environment (10–12), and airborne exposure, supported by the recent isolation of influenza A viruses from air sampled at LPMs in China (12). Furthermore, viable AI viruses can be detected in the air where live poultry are kept and processing activities, such as slaughtering and defeathering, are performed (12).

Collective epidemiologic and surveillance data suggest that the slaughter of infected poultry is a major public health concern. In our study, we determined that viable airborne HPAI virus particles were generated during simulated processing of HPAI virus–infected poultry and that the airborne virus was transmitted to virus-naive poultry and mammals.

Materials and Methods

Viruses

Eurasian goose/Guangdong lineage H5N1 viruses were selected from human cases of influenza A(H5N1) virus, representing various years, hosts, countries, and clades (1,3) (Table 1). For experiment 1, we used 7 viruses (Table 1, all but Mong/05) for challenge in chickens, of which 4 that generated airborne virus particles were used in ducks. For experiment 2, we used Mong/05 and VN/04 viruses as challenge viruses. We propagated and titrated the viruses in embryonating chicken eggs (ECE) by standard methods (13).

Animals

For experiment 1, we obtained 9-week-old specific pathogen free (SPF) white Leghorn chickens (Gallus domesticus from the US Department of Agriculture Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, Athens, GA, USA) and 8-week-old domestic Pekin ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domestica, from McMurray Hatchery, Webster City, IA, USA). All birds were serologically negative for influenza A virus infection by hemagglutinin inhibition (HI) test (13) before inoculation. For experiment 2, chickens and ducks were used as either infected or virus-naive exposed birds. Intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital (100 mg/kg) was used to euthanize naive exposed survivors. Naive 3- to 5-month-old female domestic ferrets (Mustela putorius furo; Marshall BioResources, North Rose, NY, USA, and Triple F Farms Inc., Sayre, PA, USA) were used as the mammalian model for HPAI virus transmission to humans (4). Ferrets were anesthetized with an intramuscular injection of a mixture of ketamine (25 mg/kg), xylazine (2 mg/kg), and atropine (0.05 mg/kg) before nasal sample collection or euthanasia by intracardiac injection of sodium pentobarbital. Ferrets were H5-seronegative by HI test and virus neutralization test, and nasal wash samples were negative for virus isolation in ECE before exposure. All procedures were performed in accordance with protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and the Institutional Biosecurity Committee.

Environmental Conditions in the Processing Enclosure

Figure 1

Thumbnail of Processing area. The star represents the location of the air sampler (experiment 1) or the naive hosts (experiment 2). The arrows indicate the airflow within the HEPA enclosure. The enclosure was 1.5 m wide x 6.7 m long x 2.1 m high, with 8.3 air changes/h (340 m3/h) and a velocity of 0.046 m/s.

Figure 1. Processing area for study of airborne transmission of highly pathogenic influenza virus during processing of infected poultry. The star represents the location of the air sampler (experiment 1) or the naive...

All experiments were conducted in Biosafety Level 3 animal facilities enhanced with additional biosafety features. The processing area was a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) enclosure (Class Biologically Clean Ltd., Madison, WI, USA) 1.5 m wide × 6.7 m long × 2.1 m high with unidirectional and single-pass airflow of 8.3 air changes/h (340 m3/h) at 0.046 m/s from the processing area toward the air samplers or the naive animals (Figure 1). The mean temperature in the enclosure during the slaughter runs was 24.2°C ± 0.4°C; mean relative humidity was 81.0% ± 1.7%. We performed all procedures using adequate personal protective equipment: respiratory protection (HEPA-filtered powered air purifying respirators with full-shroud shield), closed-front gown, double gloves, and rubber boots.

Air Sampling

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclone air sampler (model BC 251; NIOSH, Morgantown, WV, USA) collected particles and sorted them by their aerodynamic diameters into >4 µm, 1–4 µm, and <1 µm fractions at a flow rate of 0.0035 m3/min (14). We mounted 2 stationary samplers 1.2 m above ground, 1 within the enclosure 80 cm downwind from the processing area (center to center) and the other outside the enclosure as negative control. Samplers were operated for the duration of each slaughter run plus 10 minutes; we sampled a total of 0.158–0.280 m3 air per study trial, depending on the number of birds processed per trial.

Experimental Design
Experiment 1: Generation of Airborne HPAI Virus Particles during Simulated Processing of Infected Poultry

Each run (i.e., tested virus per bird species) was repeated at least twice for reproducibility. Chickens (10 for VN/04 and 5 for all other viruses) and ducks (5 per virus) were inoculated intranasally with 105.3–106.5 mean egg infectious dose (EID50)/0.1 mL per virus and housed in negative-pressure isolators with HEPA-filtered ventilation. We moved chickens at 24 h after inoculation and ducks at 2.5 days after inoculation, which corresponded to times of peak shedding titers, to the processing enclosure while they were still asymptomatic. We anesthetized them by intramuscular injection of ketamine (10 g/kg) and xylazine (1 g/kg) and collected oral swab samples to confirm infection. The anesthetized birds were processed following 5 steps (total duration 6–7 min/bird) (15): 1) manual killing by severing the right jugular vein with a scalpel blade, causing bleeding and agonal involuntary muscle contractions (1 min); 2) scalding in a covered pot (52–53°C/2 min); 3) manual defeathering (2 min); 4) evisceration and removal of head, feet, and internal organs (1.5 min); and 5) cleanup of processing area with water (0.5 min). We rubbed the ducks with detergent before the scalding step to remove preening oils and facilitate defeathering. During the processing, air samplers were used as aforementioned. After each run, we disinfected all materials and surfaces within the enclosure, as well as the units holding the infected birds, with Virkon S 2% (DuPont, Wilmington, DE, USA). We tested swab samples for viable virus in ECE and titrated aerosol samples in ECE (16). The minimum detectable titer in ECE was 0.9 log10 EID50/mL.

Experiment 2: Transmission of HPAI Viruses to Poultry and Ferrets during Simulated Processing of Infected Poultry

We performed 5 runs (Table 2). We inoculated chickens and ducks intranasally with 105.9–106.1 EID50/0.1 mL per virus (Table 2) and housed them in negative-pressure isolators. As in experiment 1, we anesthetized asymptomatic chickens and ducks, took oral and cloacal swab samples, and processed the birds using the 5-step method. During the processing, naive chickens, ducks, or ferrets (Table 2) were placed in cages at the same location and height as the air samplers in experiment 1 (with variations in experiment 2.1). After completion of each run, we placed the exposed animals in negative-pressure isolators and monitored them for clinical signs for 2 weeks. We collected oral and cloacal swab samples from exposed chickens at time of death and from exposed ducks at 3, 7, 10, and 14 days postexposure (dpe). We collected nasal wash samples and bodyweight measures from exposed ferrets at 3 and 7 dpe. We euthanized ferrets that had lost > 25% bodyweight or exhibited neurologic dysfunction. We performed necropsies on dead or euthanized exposed animals and collected tissues in 10% buffered formalin for hematoxylin/eosin and immunohistochemical staining (17). We titrated swab and nasal wash samples in ECE (16). At 14 dpe, we collected blood from the survivors for homologous HI and virus neutralization testing, then euthanized them.

Statistical Analysis

Using the D’Agostino-Pearson test, we determined that none of our parameters were normally distributed. We conducted 2-tailed Mann-Whitney test to determine significant difference in mean viral titers (p<0.05) using GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

Results

Experiment 1

Figure 2

Thumbnail of Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus isolation from air samples collected using cyclone air sampler during simulated slaughter of infected chickens (A) and ducks (B) in study of airborne transmission of highly pathogenic influenza virus during processing of infected poultry. Detection of virus was attempted in 3 different airborne particle sizes. Error bars indicate virus recovery from &gt;2 repeats per run. Dashed lines indicate limit of detection by virus isolation of 3.6 log10

Figure 2. Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus isolation from air samples collected using cyclone air sampler during simulated slaughter of infected chickens (A) and ducks (B) in study of airborne transmission of highly...

Preslaughter swab samples were positive for virus in all asymptomatic birds with titers >1.5 log10 EID50/mL. We isolated VN/04, VN/878/11, WJ/07, and Eg/11 viruses from air samples collected when processing virus-infected chickens, with highest virus quantity in >4 µm particles, moderate quantities in 1–4 µm particles, and no virus in <1 µm particles. We did not detect Eg/10, VN/67511, or VN/09 viruses in air samples (Figure 2, panel A). We used the 4 airborne viruses recovered from the chicken study in the duck slaughter experiment; we detected VN/04 and Eg/11 viruses in both >4 µm and 1–4 μm particles, and VN/878/11 virus in >4 µm particles. We did not detect airborne virus from slaughter of WJ/07 virus–infected ducks (Figure 2, panel B). We detected no virus from aerosol samplers located outside the enclosure.

Experiment 2
Experiment 2.1. Transmission of A/whooper swan/Mongolia/244/2005(H5N1) HPAI Virus to Naive Chickens Exposed during Simulated Processing of Infected Chickens

Swab samples were virus positive from asymptomatic Mong/05 virus–inoculated chickens. As a variation, for every 10 processed Mong/05 virus-infected chickens, we placed 5 exposed naive chickens 75 cm, 150 cm, or 300 cm from the slaughter area (all distances found in an LPM scenario) 1.2 m above ground, in a holding cage similar to those used in LPMs. Regardless of the distance from the processing area, all exposed chickens died between 3 and 6 dpe. All oral and cloacal swab samples collected at time of death were positive by virus isolation. We found lesions typical of those caused by HPAI and AI viral antigen in multiple internal organs of all exposed chickens, indicating infection after droplet/aerosol exposure (Table 2).

Experiment 2.2. Transmission of A/Vietnam/1203/04(H5N1) HPAI Virus to Naive Chickens and Ferrets Exposed during Simulated Processing of Infected Chickens

Figure 3

Thumbnail of Histologic lesions and immunohistochemical detection of viral antigen in ferrets exposed to LPM processing of A/Vietnam/1203/04(H5N1) HPAI virus–infected chickens. A) Olfactory bulb, 7 dpe. Diffuse and severe neuropil malacia with mild cavitation and focal hemorrhages. Scale bar = 50 μm. B) Olfactory bulb, 7 dpe. Viral antigen detected in neuropil, astrocytes, and neurons. Scale bar = 50 μm. C) Liver, 8 dpe. Confluent coagulative necrosis of hepatocytes and bile duct necrosis with m

Figure 3. Histologic lesions and immunohistochemical detection of viral antigen in samples from ferrets exposed to live poultry market processing of highly pathogenic avian influenza A/Vietnam/1203/04 (H5N1) virus–infected chickens in study of airborne...

Swab samples were virus positive from asymptomatic VN/04 virus–inoculated chickens. Following the processing of infected chickens, all 5 exposed naive chickens died between 3 and 5 dpe, and all oral and cloacal swab samples we collected at time of death were virus positive (Table 2). Out of 4 exposed ferrets, 2 died, 1 on 6 dpe and the other on 7 dpe; another ferret was euthanized on 12 dpe. Neurologic disease, with lesions typical of those caused by HPAI and AI virus in multiple internal organs including the brain, developed in these 3 ferrets (Figure 3). The ferret that died on 7 dpe had positive nasal wash samples collected at 3 dpe (3.0 log10 EID50/mL), and the ferret that was euthanized on 12 dpe seroconverted (Table 2). The survivor had no antibodies to AI or pathologic lesions and no virus in nasal wash samples, and it was the only ferret to gain weight; therefore, we considered it not infected. In summary, 3 of 4 naive ferrets became infected after droplet/aerosol exposure.

Experiment 2.3. Transmission of A/Vietnam/1203/04(H5N1) HPAI Virus to Naive Ducks and Ferrets Exposed during Simulated Processing of Infected Ducks

Figure 4

Thumbnail of Virus titers in oral and cloacal samples of ducks exposed to simulated live poultry market slaughter of highly pathogenic avian influenza A/Vietnam/1203/04(H5N1) virus–infected ducks in study of airborne transmission of highly pathogenic influenza virus during processing of infected poultry. Shedding titers are expressed as log10 with error bars included. Numbers on top of the bars indicate the number of positive samples out of the 5 tested samples at each time point. The limit of d

Figure 4. Virus titers in oral and cloacal samples of ducks exposed to simulated live poultry market slaughter of highly pathogenic avian influenza A/Vietnam/1203/04(H5N1) virus–infected ducks in study of airborne transmission of highly...

Swab samples were virus positive from asymptomatic VN/04 virus-inoculated ducks. Following the processing of infected ducks, exposed naive ducks and ferrets did not exhibit clinical signs nor did they die over the 2-week observation period (Table 2). We isolated virus from oral and cloacal samples of exposed ducks; peak individual titers were 3.1 log10 EID50/mL and mean titers were 1.6 log10 EID50/mL on 3 dpe (Figure 4). All exposed ferrets gained weight and had negative nasal wash samples and were considered to be uninfected (Table 2). All exposed ducks and ferrets were seronegative at termination with the exception of 1 duck (HI titer of 8) (Table 2).

Discussion

The epidemiology of human influenza A (H5N1) infections suggests that LPM slaughter processing of infected poultry could provide sufficient exposure to cause transmission to humans (1–4). Zhou et al. showed that viable H5, H7, and H9 AI viruses with human zoonotic potential are detectable in the air of LPMs in China (12). Here we demonstrated that the processing of asymptomatic HPAI virus–infected poultry in high biocontainment laboratory facilities produced airborne HPAI virus particles, which are airborne transmissible to naive poultry and mammals.

The simulated slaughter of infected poultry generated viable virus predominantly in droplets (>4 µm) and aerosols (1–4 µm) but none in particles (<1 µm). Our findings align with those of previous studies that used air samplers in LPMs (12) and swine barns (18,19), and farm-to-farm dissemination studies to demonstrate airborne virus (20). Determining the particle size distribution has key implications for the control of influenza in humans through droplet and aerosol transmission. Infectious particles with aerodynamic diameters <4 µm (i.e., aerosols) can more easily reach the lower respiratory tract of humans, where AI viruses with binding specificity for α-2,3 receptors primarily replicate, than larger particles can (21). The recovery efficiencies we obtained in this study (<10 log10 particles per m3 in >4 µm fraction) were higher than those from similar sampling methods in LPMs (12) possibly due to standardized high-dose challenge of all birds, optimized timing of slaughter, controlled environmental conditions, or other reasons. Human-origin viruses of clades 1 and 2.2.1 and avian-origin viruses of clades 1.1, 2.2, and 2.1.3 were detected in droplets and aerosols during the slaughter of infected chickens. However, other poultry-origin viruses (clades 2.2.1, 2.3.2.1, and 7.2) were not detectable (Figure 2). Three viruses (VN/04, VN/878/11, and Eg/11) generated consistent infectious droplets, aerosols, or both during the slaughter of infected ducks (Figure 2). Our results suggest that differences in the potential for incorporation of infectious HPAI viruses in airborne particles generated while processing infected poultry vary with the infected poultry species and specific HPAI virus. This study aimed to detect infectious virus; whether the viruses that were not detected or transmitted were not aerosolized, or whether they were present in airborne particles but were not infectious, warrants further study.

The processing of HPAI virus–infected chickens seems to be more effective at generating infectious droplets and aerosols than the processing of infected ducks. This finding may be due to greater infectivity, virulence, and pathogenicity (i.e., viral loads present systemically) in asymptomatic infected chickens than in ducks. Chickens are highly susceptible to HPAI viruses and in particular to Gs/GD lineage H5N1 viruses, which usually causes multiple organ failure associated with systemic virus replication and high mortality rates (22). By comparison, domestic ducks have shown moderate to high susceptibility to post-2002 Gs/GD H5N1 HPAI viruses (23). The lack of virus replication in duck endothelial cells and the absence of associated vascular damage has been identified as a key difference in pathogenesis between domestic ducks and chickens (23,24), which could determine not only the extent of replication for certain H5N1 HPAI viruses but also the quantities of virus found in different tissues. Previous reports have shown lower H5N1 virus titers in duck tissues than corresponding chicken tissues after intranasal inoculation (25–27). It is worth highlighting that age at infection can affect the pathogenicity of Gs/GD H5N1 HPAI viruses; VN/04 virus is more pathogenic and can replicate to higher titers (up to 4 log10 EID50/mL difference) in 2-week-old ducks than in 5-week-old ducks (23,28). The great majority of pathogenicity studies in domestic ducks use 2- to 5-week-old birds, whereas our studies required older ducks to match the age of slaughter in LPMs. The use of older ducks could have reduced the infectivity, replication, and virulence of H5N1 HPAI viruses, limiting systemic virus replication and reducing the quantity of virus incorporation into airborne particles generated during slaughter. Another factor responsible for differences between chickens and ducks is that the tested viruses were of chicken, human, and swan origin; whether a duck-origin virus would have been more efficient at generating infectious aerosols during duck manipulation needs to be investigated. In addition, all birds were confirmed to be infected at the moment of slaughter, but virus quantification in swab samples was not attempted; whether differences in oropharyngeal virus replication could explain differences in aerosolization and transmission is worth pursuing in future studies.

The slaughter of H5N1 virus–infected chickens had variable efficiency in producing infectious airborne particles and was not associated with specific HA genetic clades. However, specific changes in the HA and other gene segments could play a relevant role in airborne transmission. Similarly, sequence polymorphisms in internal proteins, in addition to those previously described for HA, may regulate airborne transmission of HPAI virus strains in mammals (4,29). Furthermore, the processing of A/chicken/Chile/184240–1(4322)/2002(H7N3) HPAI virus–infected chickens did not produce airborne virus (D.E. Swayne, unpub. data), compatible with the lack of human cases during the outbreak in Chile (30). However, human infections with H7N9 low pathogenicity AI virus have frequently been reported in China since 2013 (31), with a clear link between human cases and LPM exposure (1,2,9). These data suggest that not only H5N1 HPAI viruses have the potential to generate transmissible particles but also some H7 AI viruses (4) and potentially H9N2 viruses (4).

The LPM setting offers a variety of live bird species, providing an ideal environment to introduce and maintain AI viruses in the poultry population (9). Although intranasal administration is considered a standard practice for the study of AI virus pathogenicity, it is not the natural route of infection by contact or airborne routes. To our knowledge, this study is the closest re-creation of airborne transmission in the home or LPM slaughter setting. Naive chickens and ferrets exposed to the slaughter of Mong/05 and VN/04 virus–infected chickens, respectively, became infected and died. This finding confirms that the slaughter of infected chickens is an efficient source of exposure not only to other birds but also to ferrets, which are the model for human influenza transmission. The pathogenicity observed in chickens exposed to airborne Mong/05 was consistent with that observed in previous studies of systemic disease after intranasal inoculation of Gs/GD HPAI viruses (22). Similarly, the high pathogenicity and systemic infection in ferrets exposed to airborne VN/04 is consistent with that found by previous pathogenicity studies with this and other HPAI viruses in intranasally inoculated ferrets (32–35). Overall, these data confirm that the natural airborne route produces comparable infections to those produced by the commonly used intranasal route (5,36,37). Ocular exposure probably contributed to transmission because ocular mucosa represents a potential site for both replication and entry of airborne respiratory viruses (38–40).

In contrast, naive ducks and ferrets exposed to the same air space as the processing of VN/04 virus–infected ducks caused airborne infections in some of the animals. Although virus was isolated from swab samples of some exposed ducks, the lack of illness and death and lack of consistent seroconversion suggested that the slaughtering of infected ducks did not generate sufficient quantities of airborne viable virus to consistently produce infection in exposed ducks and failed to transmit virus to ferrets. Low levels of local replication at the mucosal level could have induced low levels of circulating antibodies in exposed ducks; therefore, systemic antibody titers may have been under the limit of detection. Collectively, these findings suggest that the processing of infected 8-week-old ducks may not be as consistent a source of airborne virus as processing infected chickens. One reason may be the age at slaughter: older ducks may not support such systemic virus replication as do chickens, lowering the quantities of generated airborne virus and, consequently, not reaching the minimum infectious dose required to efficiently infect naive adult ducks and ferrets. Another reason could be the lower number of slaughtered infected ducks (n = 5) compared with chickens (n = 10) per airborne exposure group, which implies a shorter exposure time for naive ducks.

In addition to the slaughter processes and the environmental conditions, time parameters were controlled to emulate field conditions (Table 2). Previous transmission studies in co-housed animals generally involve continuous exposure in which the recipient and donor animals are exposed to the same air space and sometimes fomites for 14 days (41). However, exposures of uninfected humans to others with seasonal influenza viruses are limited to a few hours (42), similar to HPAI virus exposure during slaughter or other manipulations of infected poultry. Each processing trial in our study lasted for < 1 h because of the need to mimic time-limited exposure events (41). Because this limit of exposure probably decreased successful transmission events compared with other animal studies with longer exposure times, we believe that our experiments more appropriately reflect the transmissibility of airborne AI viruses to humans and emphasize the high risk that slaughtering infected poultry entails (41). Although all the steps in the slaughter procedure may contribute to virus aerosolization, defeathering is often identified as a main risk activity (4,12). Further research to determine the most contaminat-ing steps will help develop efficient mitigating measures.

This study recreates generation and transmission of infectious influenza airborne virus particles by processing infected poultry in an experimental setting, matching time exposure events. We confirmed that the simulated slaughter of chickens infected with different clades of Gs/GD lineage H5N1 viruses generated infectious droplets and aerosols. Moreover, naive chickens and ferrets exposed to the same air space as the slaughter of infected chickens became infected and died, but the same could not be consistently confirmed following the slaughter of infected ducks. Further experiments investigating simple, feasible changes in slaughter methods to prevent or reduce infectious airborne particles during the slaughter process, and determining the effectiveness of such strategies on reducing virus transmission, are critical for preventing zoonotic HPAI (H5N1) virus infections of humans.

Dr. Bertran is a postdoctoral research fellow with the US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (Athens, Georgia, USA). Her primary interests are avian viral diseases, zoonotic diseases, animal models, pathogenicity, and vaccines.

Top

Acknowledgment

We thank Joan Beck, Kira Moresco, and James Doster for valuable technical assistance, and William G. Lindsley for providing the NIOSH BC 251 sampler used in this study. This study was funded by USDA Cooperative Research Information Service project nos. 6040-32000-063D and 6040-32000-048D, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Interagency Agreement no. 08FED896732-2.

Top

References

  1. Cumulative number of confirmed human cases of avian influenza A(H5N1) reported to WHO. [cited 2017 Aug 23]. http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/H5N1_cumulative_table_archives/en/.
  2. Lai  S, Qin  Y, Cowling  BJ, Ren  X, Wardrop  NA, Gilbert  M, et al. Global epidemiology of avian influenza A H5N1 virus infection in humans, 1997-2015: a systematic review of individual case data. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:e108–18. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdel-Ghafar  AN, Chotpitayasunondh  T, Gao  Z, Hayden  FG, Nguyen  DH, de Jong  MD, et al.; Writing Committee of the Second World Health Organization Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Human Infection with Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus. Update on avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in humans. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:261–73. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Richard  M, Fouchier  RA. Influenza A virus transmission via respiratory aerosols or droplets as it relates to pandemic potential. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2016;40:68–85. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gustin  KM, Belser  JA, Wadford  DA, Pearce  MB, Katz  JM, Tumpey  TM, et al. Influenza virus aerosol exposure and analytical system for ferrets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:8432–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowling  BJ, Ip  DK, Fang  VJ, Suntarattiwong  P, Olsen  SJ, Levy  J, et al. Aerosol transmission is an important mode of influenza A virus spread. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1935. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Milton  DK, Fabian  MP, Cowling  BJ, Grantham  ML, McDevitt  JJ. Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9:e1003205. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lindsley  WG, Noti  JD, Blachere  FM, Thewlis  RE, Martin  SB, Othumpangat  S, et al. Viable influenza A virus in airborne particles from human coughs. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12:107–13. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Suarez  DL. Influenza A virus. In: Swayne DE, editor. Animal Influenza. Ames (IA): Blackwell Publishing; 2016. p. 3–30.
  10. Indriani  R, Samaan  G, Gultom  A, Loth  L, Irianti  S, Adjid  R, et al. Environmental sampling for avian influenza virus A (H5N1) in live-bird markets, Indonesia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16:1889–95. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kang  M, He  J, Song  T, Rutherford  S, Wu  J, Lin  J, et al. Environmental sampling for avian influenza A(H7N9) in live-poultry markets in Guangdong, China. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0126335. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhou  J, Wu  J, Zeng  X, Huang  G, Zou  L, Song  Y, et al. Isolation of H5N6, H7N9 and H9N2 avian influenza A viruses from air sampled at live poultry markets in China, 2014 and 2015. Euro Surveill. 2016;21:30331. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. World Organisation for Animal Health. Avian influenza (infection with avian influenza viruses). In: Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 2015 [cited 2017 Aug 25]. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/fr/Health_standards/tahm/2.03.04_AI.pdf.
  14. Lindsley  WG, Schmechel  D, Chen  BT. A two-stage cyclone using microcentrifuge tubes for personal bioaerosol sampling. J Environ Monit. 2006;8:1136–42. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lohren  U. Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection. European Food Safety Authority Supporting Publications. 2012;EN-298 [cited 2017 Sep 6]. DOIGoogle Scholar
  16. Swayne  DE, Senne  DA, Suarez  DL. Avian influenza. In: Dufour-Zavala L, Swayne DE, Glisson JR, Pearson JE, Reed WM, Jackwood MW, et al., editors. Isolation and identification of avian pathogens. Jacksonville (FL): American Association of Avian Pathologists; 2008. p. 128–34.
  17. Perkins  LEL, Swayne  DE. Pathobiology of A/chicken/Hong Kong/220/97 (H5N1) avian influenza virus in seven gallinaceous species. Vet Pathol. 2001;38:149–64. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Corzo  CA, Culhane  M, Dee  S, Morrison  RB, Torremorell  M. Airborne detection and quantification of swine influenza a virus in air samples collected inside, outside and downwind from swine barns. PLoS One. 2013;8:e71444. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Alonso  C, Raynor  PC, Davies  PR, Torremorell  M. Concentration, size distribution, and infectivity of airborne particles carrying swine viruses. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135675. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Torremorell  M, Alonso  C, Davies  PR, Raynor  PC, Patnayak  D, Torchetti  M, et al. Investigation into the airborne dissemination of H5N2 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus during the 2015 spring outbreaks in the midwestern United States. Avian Dis. 2016;60:637–43. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindsley  WG, Green  BJ, Blachere  FM, Martin  SB, Law  BF, Jensen  PA, et al. Sampling and characterization of bioaerosols. In: Ashley K, O'Connor PF, editors. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati (OH): National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2017. p. BA1–115.
  22. Spickler  AR, Trampel  DW, Roth  JA. The onset of virus shedding and clinical signs in chickens infected with high-pathogenicity and low-pathogenicity avian influenza viruses. Avian Pathol. 2008;37:555–77. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pantin-Jackwood  MJ, Swayne  DE. Pathobiology of Asian highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus infections in ducks. Avian Dis. 2007;51(Suppl):250–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuiken  T, van den Brand  J, van Riel  D, Pantin-Jackwood  M, Swayne  DE. Comparative pathology of select agent influenza a virus infections. Vet Pathol. 2010;47:893–914. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kishida  N, Sakoda  Y, Isoda  N, Matsuda  K, Eto  M, Sunaga  Y, et al. Pathogenicity of H5 influenza viruses for ducks. Arch Virol. 2005;150:1383–92. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeong  OM, Kim  MC, Kim  MJ, Kang  HM, Kim  HR, Kim  YJ, et al. Experimental infection of chickens, ducks and quails with the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus. J Vet Sci. 2009;10:53–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Suzuki  K, Okada  H, Itoh  T, Tada  T, Mase  M, Nakamura  K, et al. Association of increased pathogenicity of Asian H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses in chickens with highly efficient viral replication accompanied by early destruction of innate immune responses. J Virol. 2009;83:7475–86. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pantin-Jackwood  MJ, Suarez  DL, Spackman  E, Swayne  DE. Age at infection affects the pathogenicity of Asian highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses in ducks. Virus Res. 2007;130:151–61. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Linster  M, van Boheemen  S, de Graaf  M, Schrauwen  EJA, Lexmond  P, Mänz  B, et al. Identification, characterization, and natural selection of mutations driving airborne transmission of A/H5N1 virus. Cell. 2014;157:329–39. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Max  V, Herrera  J, Moreira  R, Rojas  H. Avian influenza in Chile: a successful experience. Avian Dis. 2007;51(Suppl):363–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gao  R, Cao  B, Hu  Y, Feng  Z, Wang  D, Hu  W, et al. Human infection with a novel avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) virus. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1888–97. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hulse-Post  DJ, Franks  J, Boyd  K, Salomon  R, Hoffmann  E, Yen  HL, et al. Molecular changes in the polymerase genes (PA and PB1) associated with high pathogenicity of H5N1 influenza virus in mallard ducks. J Virol. 2007;81:8515–24. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lednicky  JA, Hamilton  SB, Tuttle  RS, Sosna  WA, Daniels  DE, Swayne  DE. Ferrets develop fatal influenza after inhaling small particle aerosols of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1). Virol J. 2010;7:231. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Giles  BM, Ross  TM. A computationally optimized broadly reactive antigen (COBRA) based H5N1 VLP vaccine elicits broadly reactive antibodies in mice and ferrets. Vaccine. 2011;29:3043–54. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Belser  JA, Tumpey  TM. H5N1 pathogenesis studies in mammalian models. Virus Res. 2013;178:168–85. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Gustin  KM, Katz  JM, Tumpey  TM, Maines  TR. Comparison of the levels of infectious virus in respirable aerosols exhaled by ferrets infected with influenza viruses exhibiting diverse transmissibility phenotypes. J Virol. 2013;87:7864–73. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Belser  JA, Gustin  KM, Katz  JM, Maines  TR, Tumpey  TM. Comparison of traditional intranasal and aerosol inhalation inoculation of mice with influenza A viruses. Virology. 2015;481:107–12. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bischoff  WE, Reid  T, Russell  GB, Peters  TR. Transocular entry of seasonal influenza-attenuated virus aerosols and the efficacy of n95 respirators, surgical masks, and eye protection in humans. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:193–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Belser  JA, Gustin  KM, Maines  TR, Pantin-Jackwood  MJ, Katz  JM, Tumpey  TM. Influenza virus respiratory infection and transmission following ocular inoculation in ferrets. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8:e1002569. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Belser  JA, Gustin  KM, Katz  JM, Maines  TR, Tumpey  TM. Influenza virus infectivity and virulence following ocular-only aerosol inoculation of ferrets. J Virol. 2014;88:9647–54. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lakdawala  SS, Subbarao  K. The ongoing battle against influenza: The challenge of flu transmission. Nat Med. 2012;18:1468–70. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Killingley  B, Enstone  JE, Greatorex  J, Gilbert  AS, Lambkin-Williams  R, Cauchemez  S, et al. Use of a human influenza challenge model to assess person-to-person transmission: proof-of-concept study. J Infect Dis. 2012;205:35–43. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Top

Figures
Tables

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2311.170672

1Current affiliation: Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, Gimcheon-si, South Korea.

Table of Contents – Volume 23, Number 11—November 2017

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.

Top

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

David E. Swayne, US Department of Agriculture, 934 College Station Rd, Athens, GA 30605, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: October 26, 2017
Page updated: October 26, 2017
Page reviewed: October 26, 2017
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external