Lessons Learned from the Design, Construction, and Commissioning of a Retrofitted Arthropod Containment Level 3 Insectary.

Arthropods are vectors for many pathogens that significantly harm human and animal health globally, and research into vector-borne diseases is of critical public health importance. Arthropods present unique risks for containment, and therefore insectary facilities are essential to the safe handling of arthropod-borne hazards. In 2018, the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University (ASU) began the process to build a level 3 arthropod containment (ACL-3) facility. Even with the COVID-19 pandemic, it took more than 4 years for the insectary to be granted a Certificate of Occupancy. At the request of the ASU Environmental Health and Safety team, Gryphon Scientific, an independent team with biosafety and biological research expertise, studied the project lifecycle through the design, construction, and commissioning of the ACL-3 facility with the goal of identifying lessons learned from the delayed timeline. These lessons learned convey insight into best practices for assessing potential facility sites, anticipating challenges with retrofitted construction, preparing for commissioning, equipping the project team with necessary expertise and expectations, and supplementing the gaps in available containment guidance. Several unique mitigations designed by the ASU team to address research risks not specifically addressed in the American Committee of Medical Entomology Arthropod Containment Guidelines are also described. Completion of the ACL-3 insectary at ASU was delayed, but the team thoroughly assessed potential risks and enabled appropriate practices for the safe handling of arthropod vectors. These efforts will enhance future ACL-3 construction by helping to avoid similar setbacks and streamlining progress from concept to operation.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Biosafety Perspectives from a Large Research and Teaching Institution.

Introduction: Although the COVID-19 pandemic began over 2 years ago, responses from institutions have not been thoroughly documented. Because of constantly evolving guidance from regulatory and public health agencies, the traditional evidence-based risk assessment process was disrupted. It took time to obtain enough actionable information about the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus and its transmission to be able to inform decision making and consistently make accurate recommendations. Objectives: The primary objective of this article is to detail the actions in chronological order taken by the biosafety team at Arizona State University in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This article includes a chronicling of actual experiences and observations with a retrospective review and analysis of the actions taken to document and share lessons learned to guard against future pandemics. Specific infection control practices, such as measuring saliva droplets from dropped test tubes, are described and different COVID-19 testing and vaccination site designs are evaluated. Results: The biosafety team helped collect more than 304,000 saliva samples, deliver 15,528 vaccinations, safely manage more than 170,000 gallons of biohazardous waste, and oversee the pandemic response inventory. The team also conducted inspections, developed safety procedures, and reviewed research protocols. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic required safety professionals to re-envision how they perform their work, not only at their place of employment, but also within their communities and at their homes. This presented a challenge to balance inquiry and the scientific process against the urgent need for understanding changing pandemic dynamics and information and developing new best practices.