FELASA-AALAS Recommendations for Biosecurity in an Aquatic Facility, Including Prevention of Zoonosis, Introduction of New Fish Colonies, and Quarantine

Abstract

FELASA and AALAS established a joint working group to advise on good practices for the exchange of fish for research. In a first manuscript, the working group made recommendations for health monitoring and reporting of monitoring results. The focus of this second related manuscript is biosecurity in fish facilities. First, we define the risk of contamination of personnel by zoonotic pathogens from fish or from system water, including human mycobacteriosis. Preventive measures are recommended, such as wearing task-specific personal protective equipment. Then we discuss biosecurity, highlighting the establishment of biosecurity barriers to preserve the health status of a facility. A functional biosecurity program relies on integration of the entire animal facility organization, including the flow of staff and animals, water treatments, and equipment sanitation. Finally, we propose 4 steps for introducing new fish colonies: consideration of international trade and national restrictions; assessing risk according to fish source and developmental stage; establishing quarantine barriers; and the triage, screening, and treatment of newly imported fish. We then provide 3 realistic sample scenarios to illustrate practical biosecurity risk assessments and mitigation measures based on considerations of health status and quarantine conditions.

A FELASA Working Group Survey on Fish Species Used for Research, Methods of Euthanasia, Health Monitoring, and Biosecurity in Europe, North America, and Oceania

“…Furthermore, less than one-fifth screen fish while in quarantine. This, along with the fact that more than half of the respondents accept all fish into quarantine, regardless of information on health status, should be a cause for concern [ 53 ].…”

“…While most survey participants use PPE such as dedicated shoes, gloves, or specific clothing when entering the aquatic facility, one in five reported having no compulsory PPE. More than one-quarter also do not disinfect nets, tanks, etc., a simple biosecurity measure that would be easy to implement [ 53 ].…”

“…Standardizing health monitoring processes and how these are reported in scientific papers may aid researchers in keeping up to date and obtaining more reproducible results. Despite monitoring and reporting being called for on several occasions over the last decades [ 32 , 34 , 40 , 50 , 53 , 57 , 58 ], some may still face difficulty implementing standard operational protocols. This might be due to staffing challenges, limited knowledge of the potential impact of pathogens on animal health, research results, and personnel, as well as the financial burden of routine screening [ 40 ].…”

“…Should such reporting be made mandatory by research journals? Based on the information that this survey provided on current practices, the FELASA-AALAS working group has prepared two manuscripts with recommendations for health monitoring, management of zoonotic hazards, quarantine, and biosecurity in fish research laboratories [ 34 , 53 ]. The aim of these recommendations is to aid facilities in exchanging fish safely by developing strategic health management and biosecurity protocols, reporting health status and husbandry practice in standardized templates, and strengthening their practices.…”

The results of the survey on Fish Species Used for Research, Methods of Euthanasia, Health Monitoring, and Biosecurity in Europe, North America, and Oceania are published

“…1 You can find the publication on the FELASA website https://felasa.eu/working-groups/id/5, with the publications of the FELASA-AALAS health monitoring working group and the relevant templates to report the health status of your aquatic colonies (Supplementary Tables S4 and S5). 2,3…”