Environmental Sampling as a Low-Technology Method for Surveillance of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus in an Area of Endemicity

Abstract

Prompt confirmation and diagnosis of disease are key factors in controlling outbreaks. The development of sampling techniques to detect FMDV RNA from the environment will extend the tool kit available for the surveillance of this pathogen. The methods presented in this article broaden surveillance opportunities using accessible techniques. Pairing these methods with existing and novel diagnostic tests will improve the capability for rapid detection of outbreaks and implementation of timely interventions to control outbreaks. In areas of endemicity, these methods can be implemented to extend surveillance beyond the investigation of clinical cases, providing additional data for the assessment of virus circulation in specific areas.

Environmental and air sampling are efficient methods for the detection and quantification of foot-and-mouth disease virus

“…The virus is usually cleared by an animal at 10–14 days post-infection and is no longer detectable in their secretions and excretions ( Alexandersen et al, 2003 ). However, the virus can persist for weeks or months in the environment if the conditions are favourable, albeit at low levels ( Bartley et al, 2002 ; Colenutt et al, 2018 ; Cottral, 1969 ). Therefore, it is important that the environmental sampling method used is sensitive enough to detect low levels of virus or viral RNA.…”

“…The first was developed during environmental sampling in a laboratory environment ( Colenutt et al, 2020 ). The second was adapted from the first for use in the field ( Colenutt et al, 2018 ), where it was not feasible to use the equipment required for the laboratory method.…”

“…Foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) (family Picornaviridae, genus Aphthovirus) causes a highly infectious and contagious disease, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), of wild and domesticated cloven-hoofed animals. FMDV can be shed in all secretions and excretions from acutely infected animals, including exhaled air, nasal discharge, saliva, urine and faeces, resulting in contamination of the surrounding environment ( Bravo de Rueda et al, 2015 ; Colenutt et al, 2018 , 2020 ). FMDV is able to persist in the environment for a prolonged period of time if the conditions are suitable ( Bartley et al, 2002 ; Cottral, 1969 ), although high temperatures (>50 °C), extremities in pH (<6.0 or >9.0) and low relative humidity (<60 %) are known to cause degradation of the virus ( Bachrach et al, 1957 ; Bøtner and Belsham, 2012 ; Donaldson, 1973 ; Turner et al, 2000 ).…”

“…Environmental and aerosol sampling methods facilitate a less laborious sampling approach and are less stressful for animals than clinical sampling. Additionally, FMDV can be detected in the environment and in aerosols when clinical signs are not evident, for example in pre-clinical cases and after the recovery of animals ( Colenutt et al, 2018 ; Nelson et al, 2017 ), highlighting the advantage of utilising these methods in surveillance.…”

A systemic approach to assess the potential and risks of wildlife culling for infectious disease control

“…Non-invasive methods for pathogen detection in wildlife are needed. The recent development of techniques for specimen collection and pathogen detection from the environment 110 , oral fluids (i.e., saliva 111 ), feces 112 , and blood from blood-sucking flies 113 constitutes an important scientific breakthrough. It has the potential to open the black box of wildlife infectious disease dynamics.…”