Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T10:50:54.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of Sound in the Laboratory Animal Environment: A Survey of the Sounds Produced by Procedures and Equipment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

G D Sales ,
S R Milligan  and
K Khirnykh
G D Sales*
Affiliation:
Division of Life Sciences, King's College, Campden Hill Road, London W8 7AH, UK
S R Milligan
Affiliation:
Division of Biomedical Sciences, King's College, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
K Khirnykh
Affiliation:
School of Engineering Systems and Design, University of the South Bank, 101 Borough Road, London SEI 0AA, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and request for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sounds in the laboratory and animal house environment were monitored for sound pressure levels over both low frequency (10Hz-l2.5kHz) and high frequency (12.5—70 kHz) ranges and were recorded for frequency analysis over the range 10Hz-100kHz. Forty sources of sound were investigated at 10 different sites. Sources included environmental control systems, maintenance and husbandry procedures, cleaning equipment and other equipment used near animals. Many of the sounds covered a wide frequency band and extended into the ultrasonic (> 20kHz) range. Sound levels produced by environmental control systems were generally at a low level. High sound pressure levels (SPLs) up to and exceeding 85dB SPL were recorded during cleaning and particularly high levels were recorded from the transport systems studied. Equipment such as a tattoo gun, a condensation extractor system, a high-speed centrifuge, and an ultrasonic disintegrator produced high levels of sound over a broad spectrum.

As many laboratory animals are much more sensitive to a wider range of sound frequency than humans, it seems likely that the levels of sound reported here could adversely affect animals through physiological or behavioural changes, or may even cause sensory damage in extreme cases. There appear to have been no studies on the minimal threshold levels for such adverse responses, or on the long-term effects of exposure to the types of sounds recorded here. It is not yet possible to set realistic exposure limits for laboratory animals.

Keywords

acoustic environmentanimal welfarelaboratory animalsnoisesound levels
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 1999 , pp. 97 - 115
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anthony, A 1963 Criteria for acoustics in animal housing. Laboratory Animal Care 13: 340–350Google Scholar
Clough, G 1982 Environmental effects on animals used in biomedical research. Biological Reviews 57: 487–523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fay, R 1988 Hearing in Vertebrates: A Psychophysics Data Book. Hill Fay Associates: Winnetka, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
Gamble, M R 1982 Sound and its significance for laboratory animals. Biological Reviews 57: 395–421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, J J 1967 The hazards of airborne ultrasound. Ultrasonics (October): 267Google Scholar
Kruyter, K D 1985 The Effects of Noise on Man. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Lockett, M F 1970 Effects of sound on endocrine function and electrolyte cxcretion. In: Wclch, B L and Welch, A S (eds) Physiological Effects of Noise pp 21–42. Plenum: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, S R, Sales, G D and Khirnykh, K 1993 Sound levels in rooms housing laboratory animals: an uncontrolled daily variable. Physiology & Behavior 53: 1067–1076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, D B, Jennings, M, Batchelor, G R, Bell, D, Birke, L, Davies, K, Eveleigh, D G, Heath, M, Howard, B, Koder, P, Philips, P, Poole, T, Sainsbury, A W, Sales, G D, Smith, D J A, Stauffacher, M and Turner, R J 1993 Refinements in rabbit husbandry. Second report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals 27: 301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, E A 1980 Noise and laboratory animals. Laboratory Animal Science 30: 422–439Google ScholarPubMed
Peterson, E A 1983 High frequencies and overstimulation of the guinea pig ear. Journal of Auditory Research 8: 43–61Google Scholar
Pfaff, J 1974 Noise as an environmental problem in the animal house. Laboratory Animals 8: 347–354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfaff, J and Stecker, M 1976 Loudness level and frequency content of noise in the animal house. Laboratory Animals 10: 111–117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saibaba, P, Sales, G D, Stodulski, G and Hau, J 1996 Behaviour of rats in their home cages: daytime variations and effects of routine husbandry procedures analysed by time sampling techniques. Laboratory Animals 30: 13–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sales, G D 1991 The effect of 22 kHz calls and artificial 38 kHz signals on activity in rats. Behavioural Processes 24: 83–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sales, G D and Milligan, S R 1992 Ultrasound and laboratory animals. Animal Technology 43: 89–98Google Scholar
Sales, G D, Wilson, K, Spencer, K E V and Milligan, S R 1988 Environmental ultrasound in laboratories and animal houses: a possible cause for concern in the welfare and use of laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 22: 369–375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, J W 1993 Proposed European Directive on physical agents at work Acoustics Bulletin 18: 23–24Google Scholar