Quantitative risk assessment model of the presence of porcine epidemic diarrhea and African swine fever viruses in spray-dried porcine plasma

✅ 全文

喷雾干燥猪血浆中猪流行性腹泻病毒和非洲猪瘟病毒存在的定量风险评估模型

作者 Fernando Sampedro; Pedro E. Urriola; Jennifer L. G. van de Ligt; Declan C. Schroeder; Gerald C. Shurson 期刊 Frontiers in Veterinary Science 发表日期 2024 卷/期/页码 Vol. 11 ISSN 2297-1769 DOI 10.3389/fvets.2024.1371774 类型 原创研究 (Original Research)

📄 英文摘要 English Abstract

EN

IntroductionThere are no microbiological regulatory limits for viruses in animal feed and feed ingredients.MethodsA performance objective (PO) was proposed in this study to manufacture a spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) batch absent of any infectious viral particles. The PO levels of −7.0, −7.2, and −7.3 log TCID50/g in SDPP were estimated for three batch sizes (10, 15, and 20 tons).Results and discussionA baseline survey on the presence of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) in raw porcine plasma revealed a concentration of −1.0 ± 0.6 log TCID50/mL as calculated using a TCID50-qPCR derived standard curve. The mean African swine fever virus (ASFV) concentration in raw plasma was estimated to be 0.6 log HAD50/mL (0.1–1.4, 95% CI) during a pre-clinical scenario (collected from asymptomatic and undetected viremic pigs). Different processing scenarios (baseline: spray-drying + extended storage) and baseline + ultraviolet (UV) radiation were evaluated to meet the PO levels proposed in this study. The baseline and baseline + UV processing scenarios were >95 and 100% effective in achieving the PO for PEDV by using different batch sizes. For the ASFV in SDPP during a pre-clinical scenario, the PO compliance was 100% for all processing scenarios evaluated. Further research is needed to determine the underlying mechanisms of virus inactivation in feed storage to further advance the implementation of feed safety risk management efforts globally.

📄 中文摘要 Chinese Abstract

中文
喷雾干燥猪血浆(SDPP)是一种高消化率的功能性饲料原料,用于断奶仔猪日粮中,以支持健康并减少对抗生素促生长剂的依赖。然而,目前尚无针对动物饲料或饲料原料中病毒的既定微生物学监管限值。猪流行性腹泻病毒(PEDV)和非洲猪瘟病毒(ASFV)等病毒可能在采集过程中污染来自无症状病毒血症猪只的原料血浆——尤其是在疾病暴发的临床前期阶段。这带来了通过饲料传播疾病的风险。本研究旨在为SDPP生产提出一个性能目标(PO)水平,以确保批次无病毒,并评估各种加工策略——包括喷雾干燥、延长储存和紫外线(UV)辐射——在实现该PO方面的有效性。

📋 英文结构化总结 English Structured Summary

全文整理

EN

Background:

Spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) is a highly digestible functional feed ingredient used in weaned pig diets to support health and reduce reliance on growth-promoting antibiotics. However, there are no established microbiological regulatory limits for viruses in animal feed or feed ingredients. Viruses such as porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) and African swine fever virus (ASFV) can potentially contaminate raw plasma during collection from asymptomatic, viremic pigs—especially in pre-clinical stages of disease outbreaks. This poses a risk for disease transmission through feed. The study aimed to propose a performance objective (PO) level for SDPP production that ensures a virus-free batch and to evaluate the effectiveness of various processing strategies—including spray-drying, extended storage, and ultraviolet (UV) radiation—in achieving this PO.

Methods:

A quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) model was developed using Monte Carlo simulation (100,000 iterations) to estimate PO levels and virus inactivation across different SDPP batch sizes (10, 15, and 20 tons). Input data were derived from literature reviews and industry consultations, including viral load estimates in raw plasma, log reduction values for spray-drying, UV treatment, and extended storage, and concentration effects due to water removal. The PO was calculated using the equation: H₀ − ΣR + I ≤ PO, where H₀ is initial virus concentration, ΣR is total log reduction from processing steps, and I is the increase in concentration due to plasma concentration. Compliance rates with the PO were assessed using the ICMSF validation tool. Processing scenarios evaluated included baseline (spray-drying + extended storage) and baseline + UV.

Results:

The mean PEDV concentration in raw plasma was estimated at −1.0 ± 0.6 log TCID₅₀/mL, while ASFV concentration during a pre-clinical scenario was 0.6 log HAD₅₀/mL (95% CI: 0.1–1.4). The model estimated required inactivation levels of −7.0, −7.2, and −7.3 log TCID₅₀/g for 10-, 15-, and 20-ton batches, respectively, to achieve a virus-free lot. The baseline processing scenario (spray-drying + extended storage) achieved >95% PO compliance for PEDV and 100% for ASFV. Adding UV radiation increased compliance to 100% for both viruses. Mean inactivation levels ranged from 8.4 to 11.1 log for PEDV and ASFV under baseline conditions, exceeding the required PO thresholds.

Data Summary:

For PEDV, the baseline process achieved a mean inactivation of 8.4–11.1 log, with >95% compliance across batch sizes; with UV, compliance reached 100%. For ASFV, all processing scenarios achieved 100% PO compliance. UV alone contributed >6.5 log reduction for both viruses. The combination of spray-drying, storage, and UV provided total inactivation exceeding 15.0 log, surpassing international guidelines (e.g., WHO’s 4.0 log requirement for blood products).

Conclusions:

The SDPP manufacturing process—particularly when combining spray-drying, extended storage, and UV treatment—is highly effective at inactivating swine viruses like PEDV and ASFV. The proposed PO levels ensure virus-free batches even under worst-case pre-clinical contamination scenarios. The model validates current industry practices and supports the adoption of hurdle technology (multiple inactivation steps) to enhance feed safety. These findings provide a scientific basis for establishing virus-specific performance objectives in feed ingredients.

Practical Significance:

This risk assessment model offers a practical framework for feed manufacturers and regulators to validate and optimize processing protocols for viral inactivation in animal by-products. It supports global feed safety management by demonstrating that existing SDPP production methods, especially with added UV treatment, can reliably prevent virus transmission through feed—critical for controlling transboundary diseases like African swine fever and porcine epidemic diarrhea.

📋 中文结构化总结 Chinese Structured Summary

中文

背景:

喷雾干燥猪血浆(SDPP)是一种高消化率的功能性饲料原料,用于断奶仔猪日粮中,以支持健康并减少对抗生素促生长剂的依赖。然而,目前尚无针对动物饲料或饲料原料中病毒的既定微生物学监管限值。猪流行性腹泻病毒(PEDV)和非洲猪瘟病毒(ASFV)等病毒可能在采集过程中污染来自无症状病毒血症猪只的原料血浆——尤其是在疾病暴发的临床前期阶段。这带来了通过饲料传播疾病的风险。本研究旨在为SDPP生产提出一个性能目标(PO)水平,以确保批次无病毒,并评估各种加工策略——包括喷雾干燥、延长储存和紫外线(UV)辐射——在实现该PO方面的有效性。

方法:

采用蒙特卡洛模拟(100,000次迭代)建立了定量微生物风险评估(QMRA)模型,以估算不同SDPP批次规模(10吨、15吨和20吨)下的PO水平和病毒灭活效果。输入数据来源于文献综述和行业咨询,包括原料血浆中的病毒载量估算值、喷雾干燥、紫外线处理和延长储存的对数减少值,以及因水分去除导致的浓缩效应。PO采用以下公式计算:H₀ − ΣR + I ≤ PO,其中H₀为初始病毒浓度,ΣR为各加工步骤的总对数减少值,I为因血浆浓缩导致的浓度增加。使用ICMSF验证工具评估PO合规率。评估的加工场景包括基线方案(喷雾干燥 + 延长储存)和基线 + 紫外线。

结果:

原料血浆中PEDV的平均浓度估算为−1.0 ± 0.6 log TCID₅₀/mL,而ASFV在临床前场景下的浓度为0.6 log HAD₅₀/mL(95% CI:0.1–1.4)。模型估算为实现无病毒批次,10吨、15吨和20吨批次所需的灭活水平分别为−7.0、−7.2和−7.3 log TCID₅₀/g。基线加工方案(喷雾干燥 + 延长储存)对PEDV实现了>95%的PO合规率,对ASFV实现了100%合规率。增加紫外线辐射后,两种病毒的合规率均提升至100%。在基线条件下,PEDV和ASFV的平均灭活水平范围为8.4至11.1 log,超过了所需的PO阈值。

数据汇总:

对于PEDV,基线工艺实现了8.4–11.1 log的平均灭活,各批次规模的合规率>95%;增加紫外线后,合规率达到100%。对于ASFV,所有加工场景均实现了100%的PO合规率。单独紫外线处理对两种病毒均贡献了>6.5 log的减少量。喷雾干燥、储存和紫外线组合提供的总灭活量超过15.0 log,超过了国际指南(如WHO对血液制品4.0 log的要求)。

结论:

SDPP生产工艺——尤其是结合喷雾干燥、延长储存和紫外线处理时——对灭活猪病毒(如PEDV和ASFV)非常有效。所提出的PO水平即使在最坏情况的临床前污染场景下也能确保批次无病毒。该模型验证了当前行业实践,并支持采用栅栏技术(多重灭活步骤)以增强饲料安全性。这些发现为建立饲料原料中病毒特异性性能目标提供了科学依据。

实际意义:

该风险评估模型为饲料制造商和监管机构提供了一个实用框架,用于验证和优化动物副产品中病毒灭活的加工方案。它通过证明现有SDPP生产方法——尤其是增加紫外线处理时——能够可靠地防止病毒通过饲料传播,从而支持全球饲料安全管理,这对于控制非洲猪瘟和猪流行性腹泻等跨境疾病至关重要。

📖 英文全文 English Full Text

EN

TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 12 June 2024 DOI 10.3389/fvets.2024.1371774 OPEN ACCESS EDITED BY Jordi Casal, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain REVIEWED BY

Helen Roberts, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom Joaquim Segalés, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain *CORRESPONDENCE

Gerald C. Shurson shurs001@umn.edu RECEIVED 17 January 2024 ACCEPTED 22 May 2024 PUBLISHED 12 June 2024 CITATION

Sampedro F, Urriola PE, van de Ligt JLG, Schroeder DC and Shurson GC (2024) Quantitative risk assessment model of the presence of porcine epidemic diarrhea and African swine fever viruses in spray-dried porcine plasma. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1371774. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1371774 COPYRIGHT

© 2024 Sampedro, Urriola, van de Ligt, Schroeder and Shurson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Quantitative risk assessment model of the presence of porcine epidemic diarrhea and African swine fever viruses in spray-dried porcine plasma Fernando Sampedro 1, Pedro E. Urriola 2,3, Jennifer L. G. van de Ligt 2, Declan C. Schroeder 2 and Gerald C. Shurson 3* Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States, 2 Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States, 3 Department of Animal Science, College of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States 1

Introduction: There are no microbiological regulatory limits for viruses in animal feed and feed ingredients. Methods: A performance objective (PO) was proposed in this study to manufacture a spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) batch absent of any infectious viral particles. The PO levels of −7.0, −7.2, and −7.3 log TCID50/g in SDPP were estimated for three batch sizes (10, 15, and 20 tons). Results and discussion: A baseline survey on the presence of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) in raw porcine plasma revealed a concentration of −1.0±0.6 log TCID50/mL as calculated using a TCID50-qPCR derived standard curve. The mean African swine fever virus (ASFV) concentration in raw plasma was estimated to be 0.6 log HAD50/mL (0.1–1.4, 95% CI) during a pre-clinical scenario (collected from asymptomatic and undetected viremic pigs). Different processing scenarios (baseline: spray-drying + extended storage) and baseline + ultraviolet (UV) radiation were evaluated to meet the PO levels proposed in this study. The baseline and baseline + UV processing scenarios were >95 and 100% effective in achieving the PO for PEDV by using different batch sizes. For the ASFV in SDPP during a pre-clinical scenario, the PO compliance was 100% for all processing scenarios evaluated. Further research is needed to determine the underlying mechanisms of virus inactivation in feed storage to further advance the implementation of feed safety risk management efforts globally. KEYWORDS

African swine fever virus, performance objective, risk assessment, spray-dried porcine plasma, swine viruses, thermal inactivation

Highlights • The SDPP production process has been validated to inactivate PEDV and ASFV (8.4–11.1 mean log reduction). • Under the current conditions, the model estimated that an inactivation level (log-kill) of 7.0, 7.2, and 7.3 log must be achieved to manufacture a 10-, 15-, and 20-tons batch size, respectively. Frontiers in Veterinary Science

01 frontiersin.org Sampedro et al. 10.3389/fvets.2024.1371774 • Performance Objective compliance rates were >95% for the baseline SDPP production scenario and 100% for the baseline + UV processing scenario. • Chemical and physical factors that contribute to the inactivation of various swine viruses in feed ingredients during storage need to be determined.

Introduction concentration of a hazard in a food product at a specified step in the food chain before consumption is known as the Performance Objective (PO) (14–16). The PO is related to the contamination of the raw material and inactivation achieved during individual or multiple control steps and it can also be applied to feed safety. However, a PO level related to the presence of swine viruses has not been established for any feed ingredient. Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) is a field of study aimed at quantifying the risk of illness due to the exposure to a pathogen through the consumption of contaminated food or feed. QMRA models have been developed mainly targeting foodborne human pathogens in food, and the availability of quantitative models to estimate the exposure of animal viruses via feed are very limited (17). Therefore, the aim of this study was to propose a PO level in SDPP that is capable of achieving a virus-free batch involving potential contamination of swine viruses such as PEDV and ASFV in a preclinical scenario and develop a quantitative model to evaluate the performance of several processing strategies to achieve the proposed PO levels.

Spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) is an important highly digestible, functional feed ingredient obtained from the blood of healthy pigs that provides significant health benefits beyond the amino acids it provides to the diets of weaned pigs [(1), (2)]. The use of effective functional ingredients and nutrients in weaned pig diets is essential for supporting optimal pig health without the use of growthpromoting antibiotics and for combatting antimicrobial resistance (3). Furthermore, animal-derived proteins from SDPP and various by-products from the rendering industry (e.g., blood meal, meat, and bone meal) are concentrated, highly digestible sources of nitrogen and phosphorus, and have a much lower environmental footprint than corn, soybean meal, and other grain-based by-products used in swine diets (4). Therefore, a quantitative risk assessment of the presence of swine viruses in SDPP is needed to evaluate its potential disease transmission role in feed. Viruses that affect pigs and may contaminate swine blood and blood products are numerous and vary from enveloped to non-enveloped, single, and double-stranded DNA and RNA viruses, and range in size from the smallest (i.e., Porcine circovirus 2; PCV-2), to the largest (i.e., African swine fever virus; ASFV) (5–7). The SDPP manufacturers use a series of processing steps aimed at inactivating viruses in plasma, including spray-drying, and extended storage, and they are also evaluating the use of ultraviolet light as additional control steps for virus inactivation (Personal Communication, North American Spray Dried Blood and Plasma Producers; NASDBPP). The use of different inactivation mechanisms (i.e., rapid dehydration, UV, low-moisture storage) allows adding the inactivation levels achieved by each single processing step to estimate the total virus inactivation level, known as hurdle technology (8). Spray drying has been used since the 1970’s as an efficient drying method aimed at processing liquid concentrates into powders to provide extended shelf-life and retain the activity of bioactive components (9). The very rapid changes in moisture, temperature, and mass/volume of particles during drying (in a matter of seconds) increase microbial and virus inactivation, and depending on the process conditions, spray-drying can be used as a pasteurization-like process (10). The increased need for safe animal feeding programs has led the industry to seek reliable additional processing steps that can increase pathogen inactivation if contamination occurs. Ultraviolet light radiation is a processing technology aimed at reducing microbial and viral contamination in water and liquid foods. Most UV devices operate at 254 nm (UV-C), which is considered the “germicidal UV” (11). Viruses are inactivated by UV-C light caused by photochemical damage to their nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), and this damage is irreversible due to a lack of repair mechanisms which leave the organisms unable to perform vital cellular functions and, hence, prevent the virus from multiplying (12, 13). According to the International Commission of Microbiological Specifications in Food (ICMSF), the maximum microbiological

Methodology Spray-dried porcine plasma manufacturing process Information on SDPP manufacturing process was obtained from a literature review and consultation with industry experts (European Animal Protein Association, EAPA and NASDBPP) to determine the effect of UV, spray-drying and extended storage heat on the inactivation of PEDV and ASFV. The process of SDPP manufacturing begins with the collection of blood from animals inspected for human consumption at the slaughterhouse, which is subsequently treated with an anticoagulant, chilled, and transported to industrial facilities in which blood is centrifuged to separate the red blood cells from the plasma fraction. Plasma is then concentrated either by membrane filtration or a vacuum evaporator to achieve between 22 and 30% solids content and spray-dried at high temperatures (80°C) to convert it into a powder. The dried plasma then undergoes a particle filter and European and North American SDPP producers include an additional safety step of storing at room temperature (20°C) for 2 weeks (10). The SDPP manufacturers use a series of processing steps that can be identified as critical control points (CCP) in a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) aimed at removing or inactivating viruses in blood products. In the production of SDPP, a generic HACCP plan includes two CCPs (Table 1): spraydrying (CCP1) and extended storage at 20°C (CCP2). In addition, ultraviolet light (UV, CCP3) is currently being implemented in some European and US factories for virus inactivation (Personal communication, NASDBPP).

TABLE 1 Operational range of processing conditions evaluated in spraydrying (SD), extended storage and UV processing steps. Input Value/Distribution SD outlet particle temperature (°C) ~Uniform (82.7, 85.5)

SD particle residence time (s) ~Uniform (30, 60) UV dosage (J/L) ~Normal (3,251, 65) Extended storage time at 22°C (d) 14

ASFV load in raw plasma during a pre-clinical scenario The worst-case scenario in any animal disease outbreak occurs when viremic pigs (infected pigs that are shedding virus) go unnoticed during antemortem inspections and enter the food or feed chain. During this pre-clinical scenario, blood may be collected from viremic asymptomatic pigs. However, the concentration of ASFV in the blood collected under a pre-clinical scenario is unknown. A literature search was performed to identify studies that quantified the ASFV load in blood collected from naturally infected pigs during an ASF outbreak using different virus strains (pigs naturally infected from artificially inoculated pigs) from Georgia, Armenia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, China, and Russia (25–30). Supplementary Table S4 shows the modeling approach used to simulate the time to the appearance of clinical signs (assumed same as detection of clinical signs) and slaughtering time up to the detection of clinical signs in each of the studies to simulate the ASFV load in the blood of pre-clinical pigs. A probabilistic model was developed to simulate the mean ASFV concentration in blood and raw plasma of viremic animals at different time intervals during an ASF outbreak by characterizing the time to observe clinical signs (Tc) and the time blood from pigs would be collected before the detection of clinical signs (Stdb). The ASFV concentration in blood was simulated at different time intervals by IF statements depending on when the blood was collected before symptom detection (Supplementary Table S4). All ASFV values simulated in the model were assumed to be infective.

The literature review provided data on the effect of spray-drying on Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) and African swine fever virus (ASFV) in porcine plasma with reduction levels ranging from 4.0 to 5.0 log (Supplementary Table S1) (6, 18–20). The effect of SDPP storage at room temperature (20°C) for 14 days has also been evaluated using PEDV and ASFV with inactivation levels ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 log (Supplementary Table S2) (19–23). Data on the effects of UV processing in raw porcine plasma were obtained from published studies and used to estimate the D-values (energy in J/L required to reduce 1 log or 90% of the initial virus concentration) of PEDV and ASFV with values ~490 J/L (Supplementary Table S3) (5, 6).

Performance objective (PO) levels in spray-dried porcine plasma The PO concept applied to viruses in feed is related to the contamination of the raw ingredient and inactivation achieved during the individual or multiple CCP used in the production process, and was calculated using the following equation (16): H 0 − ∑ R + I ≤ PO

Monte Carlo simulation Probabilistic models were developed using Microsoft Excel and @ Risk 7.6 (Palisade Corp., NY) to estimate the PO levels under different batch size scenarios, log inactivation by different processing scenarios, and ASFV concentration in raw plasma. Each model input variable was characterized by its inherent variability (i.e., industrial processing conditions, standard deviation of virus concentration between SDPP batches, virus inactivation rates achieved in each processing technology) and uncertainty using a probability distribution. Model outputs were obtained by numerical simulation techniques (100,000 iterations to assure convergence). For each iteration, a Latin Hypercube sampling technique was used to draw one random value of each variable or parameter from its respective distribution, creating simulated populations that represented the model outcomes. Output estimates were characterized by the mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) values.

Where H0 is the contamination level of viruses in raw plasma (log HAD50 or TCID50/mL), the sum of R is the reduction level (log) achieved in all critical control points combined, and I is the increase in virus concentration due to water removal (plasma concentration). To estimate a generic PO level in the manufacturing of SDPP that can be applied to any swine virus, information about SDPP lot sizes was obtained from the NASDBPP as 10, 15, and 20 metric tons. Absence of any infectious viral particle in 1.0 × 107, 1.5 × 107 and 2.0 × 107 g of SDPP will result in less than 1.0 × 10−7, 6.7 × 10−8, and 5.0 × 10−8 viral particles/g (less than 1 viral particle in 1.0 × 107 g for a final concentration of 1×10−7 viral particles/g for the 10 metric ton example) analogous to a final concentration in log scale in plasma of −7.0, −7.2, and −7.3 log particles/g. These are the PO levels needed to produce a virus-free lot of plasma (less than one infectious particle in the entire lot) based on the different lot sizes produced. To estimate the total log reduction needed (R) to achieve an adequate PO level for SDPP, the concentration of infectious swine viruses in raw plasma was estimated from the raw material used to manufacture SDPP. Data on viral concentration of PEDV in SDPP were published from monthly collected samples during an entire year in EU, Brazil, and United States processing plants (24). Using a conservative approach, it was assumed that TCID50 values derived through a calibration curve from a qPCR corresponded to infective viral particles in SDPP in the model (24).

PO compliance rates Compliance rates (%) expressed as the probability that a PO level was achieved were estimated for PEDV and ASFV by using the ICMSF control measures validation (PO) tool (downloaded from the ICMSF website) and Equation 1 (16). Mean and standard deviation values were imputed into the tool for the initial PEDV and ASFV concentration in raw liquid plasma (H0), log reduction of each processing stage (R1-spray-drying, R2-UV and R3-extended storage) and increase in virus concentration due to water removal in plasma

(concentrating the liquid plasma from 8.5 to 30% solids for a 3.5 concentration factor or 0.5 log increase in virus concentration).

(35). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for pasteurization of fruit juices using non-thermal technologies such as UV, requires a 5.0 log reduction of the pathogen of concern (36, 37). The UV processing conditions used by SDPP manufacturers that have adopted this technology in the US and EU would meet these requirements for PEDV and ASFV. The combination of baseline + UV provides an additional inactivation level that exceeds 15.0 log (Table 2).

Results and discussion PO level in SDPP Traditionally, the main challenges with developing a Food and Feed Safety Objective (FSO) and related regulatory limits for viruses in food or feed are that there are no internationally accepted microbiological limits, there are numerous swine viruses, the uncertainty related to the oral dose required to produce infection in a large animal population, and the limited data availability related to the viral load of swine viruses in raw materials and feed ingredients. For these reasons, this study was focused on establishing a generic PO level at the end of SDPP manufacturing process that can be applied to any swine virus and the production of 10-, 15-, and 20-tons batches of SDPP that are virus-free.

PEDV and ASFV concentration in raw plasma during a pre-clinical scenario (H0) The PEDV virus load from SDPP samples collected were measured as TCID50 estimated from qPCR values using standard calibration and were assumed to indicate infectious viral particles (24). Viral load in liquid plasma was back calculated to assume 48 g of dried plasma was produced from 600 g of liquid plasma (12.5 dilution factor). Mean PEDV concentration in SDPP was estimated as 0.1 ± 0.6 log TCID50/g whereas the concentration of PEDV in liquid plasma was estimated as −1.0 ± 0.6 log TCID50/mL (mean ± SD) (H0). The ASFV concentration in blood during natural infection varies among studies conducted, where the time for pigs to show clinical signs after exposure ranged from 4-to 18-days post-infection (dpi), and ASFV was found in blood after 6–7 dpi reaching maximum values (106–109 HAD50/mL) after 9–16 dpi (Supplementary Table S4). The ASFV concentration in the blood of viremic undetected pigs can occur before the detection of clinical signs (signs) in a relatively short period. The mean concentration of ASFV during a pre-clinical scenario was estimated as the arithmetic mean of ASFV concentration values from all studies to be 0.6 (0.1– 1.4) log HAD50/mL (H0). A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) scientific opinion regarding the risk of ASFV entering the EU through feed and bedding materials, ranked spray-dried blood plasma as a low-risk feed matrix due the fact that there is a short period in which animals can be infected without showing clinical signs, combined with the production procedures for the SDPP products in the EU that avoid the collection of plasma from ASF-infected areas (17). In our current model, we assumed the time to detect ASF was equal to the appearance of clinical signs and thus after that time pigs would become clinical, and blood not collected. This may vary depending on the extent of active surveillance of clinical signs by swine producers and/or the virulence of the ASFV variant, where the disease transmission rate and the onset of clinical signs will greatly vary (38). Previous studies using Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak simulations in the U.S. have shown that outbreak detection may be delayed due to the lack of expertise to detect clinical signs by visual inspection and delays in official testing to detect the disease (39). The extent of delay in outbreak detection for ASFV is unknown. This potential scenario may increase the time pigs would enter the feed chain and increase the ASFV concentration in the collected blood. The EFSA (17) report also indicated that as ASFV continues to spread, there is an increased risk that preclinical viremic animals might go undetected at ante-and post-mortem inspection in slaughterhouses from recently ASFV-infected areas where official surveillance has not implemented yet (17).

Virus inactivation under different processing scenarios The extent of heat inactivation of viruses varies depending on virus type and strain, virus titer, substrate matrix characteristics (pH, fat and protein content, ionic strength), and heat application (wet vs. dry). The effect of heat treatment on animal viruses has been studied for the last 50 years, and thus, extensive research and knowledge are available on this topic. The main heat inactivation mechanisms observed for viruses are the damage/disintegration of the capsid protein, degradation/release of nucleic acid, and destruction of receptor binding (31). The baseline processing scenario used by porcine plasma manufacturers in the EU and US involves a combination of spraydrying and extended storage according to the conditions in Table 1. Drying inactivation kinetics can be summarized in two main events: dehydration and dry-heat inactivation. The effectiveness of dehydration depends on the inlet air temperature (T), solids content, and particle size whereas the dry-heat inactivation kinetics are affected by the outlet air T and residence time in the dryer (32, 33). Both CCPs rely on a combination of dehydration and dry-heat phenomena to reduce virus infectivity. Results from published studies (6, 20, 22, 34) have shown that spray drying in addition to extended storage (i.e., SD + extended storage) are capable of inactivating a wide range of naked and enveloped RNA and DNA swine viruses. The risk assessment model showed mean inactivation levels of PEDV and ASFV ranged from 8.4 to 11.1 log (Table 2). There is extensive research showing that UV-C is capable of significantly inactivating most human and animal viruses. The effectiveness of UV-C depends mainly on the liquid absorbance, which requires greater energy as the absorbance increases. Risk assessment model showed virus inactivation levels after UV processing >6.5 log of PEDV and ASFV (Table 2). Research results have shown that UV light induces reactive oxygen species that may interact with the lipid membrane of enveloped viruses causing lipid peroxidation (5). Current international guidelines by WHO for human blood plasma products require a 4.0 log reduction for viruses of concern

TABLE 2 Effect of spray-drying, UV, and extended storage on the inactivation of PEDV and ASFV by using the Monte Carlo simulation. Virus conventional name Inactivation level (log reduction ± SD) Spraydrying (SD)

Storage UV Combined SD + storage* Combined SD + UV + storage*

📖 中文全文 Chinese Full Text

中文

# 喷雾干燥猪血浆中猪流行性腹泻病毒和非洲猪瘟病毒定量风险评估模型

**类型** 原创研究 **发表日期** 2024年6月12日 **DOI** 10.3389/fvets.2024.1371774 **开放获取** **编辑** Jordi Casal,西班牙巴塞罗那自治大学 **审稿人**

Helen Roberts,英国环境、食品和农村事务部 Joaquim Segalés,西班牙巴塞罗那自治大学 *通讯作者*

Gerald C. Shurson shurs001@umn.edu **收稿日期** 2024年1月17日 **接受日期** 2024年5月22日 **发表日期** 2024年6月12日 **引用**

Sampedro F, Urriola PE, van de Ligt JLG, Schroeder DC and Shurson GC (2024) 喷雾干燥猪血浆中猪流行性腹泻病毒和非洲猪瘟病毒存在的定量风险评估模型。Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1371774. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1371774 **版权**

© 2024 Sampedro, Urriola, van de Ligt, Schroeder and Shurson。这是一篇根据知识共享署名许可协议(CC BY)分发的开放获取文章。在其他论坛使用、分发或复制是被允许的,前提是注明原作者和版权所有者,并且在本期刊的原始发表符合公认的学术实践。未经遵守上述条款的使用、分发或复制均不被允许。

---

## 喷雾干燥猪血浆中猪流行性腹泻病毒和非洲猪瘟病毒存在的定量风险评估模型

Fernando Sampedro¹, Pedro E. Urriola²,³, Jennifer L. G. van de Ligt², Declan C. Schroeder² and Gerald C. Shurson³*

¹ 明尼苏达大学公共卫生学院环境卫生科学系,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州,美国;² 明尼苏达大学兽医学院兽医群体医学系,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州,美国;³ 明尼苏达大学农业与自然资源科学学院动物科学系,圣保罗,明尼苏达州,美国

---

### 引言

动物饲料和饲料原料中尚无针对病毒的微生物学监管限值。

### 方法

本研究提出了一个性能目标(PO),即生产一批不含任何感染性病毒颗粒的喷雾干燥猪血浆(SDPP)。针对三种批次规模(10吨、15吨和20吨),估算出SDPP中PO水平分别为−7.0、−7.2和−7.3 log TCID₅₀/g。

### 结果与讨论

一项关于原料猪血浆中猪流行性腹泻病毒(PEDV)存在情况的基线调查显示,使用TCID₅₀-qPCR推导的标准曲线计算,其浓度为−1.0 ± 0.6 log TCID₅₀/mL。在临床前情景(采自无症状且未检出的病毒血症猪只)下,原料血浆中非洲猪瘟病毒(ASFV)的平均浓度估算为0.6 log HAD₅₀/mL(0.1–1.4,95% CI)。评估了不同加工情景(基线:喷雾干燥 + 延长储存)以及基线 + 紫外线(UV)辐射,以达到本研究提出的PO水平。基线和基线 + UV加工情景在使用不同批次规模时,对PEDV达到PO的有效性分别大于95%和100%。对于临床前情景下SDPP中的ASFV,所有评估加工情景的PO合规率均为100%。需要进一步研究以确定饲料储存中病毒灭活的潜在机制,从而进一步推动全球饲料安全风险管理工作的实施。

**关键词**

非洲猪瘟病毒,性能目标,风险评估,喷雾干燥猪血浆,猪病毒,热灭活

---

### 亮点

- SDPP生产工艺已被验证可灭活PEDV和ASFV(平均对数减少8.4–11.1 log)。 - 在当前条件下,模型估算出必须达到7.0、7.2和7.3 log的灭活水平(log-kill),才能分别生产10吨、15吨和20吨的批次。 - 基线SDPP生产情景的性能目标合规率大于95%,基线 + UV加工情景的合规率为100%。 - 需要确定在储存期间促进各种猪病毒在饲料原料中灭活的化学和物理因素。

---

### 引言

食品链中消费前某一特定步骤食品产品中危害物浓度的最大微生物学限值被称为性能目标(PO)(14–16)。PO与原料的污染程度以及单个或多个控制步骤中实现的灭活效果相关,也可应用于饲料安全。然而,尚未针对任何饲料原料建立与猪病毒存在相关的PO水平。

定量微生物风险评估(QMRA)是一个旨在量化因摄入受污染食品或饲料中的病原体而导致疾病风险的研究领域。QMRA模型主要针对食品中的人类食源性病原体开发,而用于估算通过饲料暴露于动物病毒的定量模型非常有限(17)。因此,本研究旨在提出一个SDPP中的PO水平,该水平能够在临床前情景下实现无病毒批次,涉及猪病毒如PEDV和ASFV的潜在污染,并开发一个定量模型来评估若干加工策略在实现所提出PO水平方面的性能。

喷雾干燥猪血浆(SDPP)是一种重要的、高消化率的功能性饲料原料,从健康猪的血液中获得,除了为断奶猪日粮提供氨基酸外,还具有显著的健康益处[(1),(2)]。在断奶猪日粮中使用有效的功能性原料和营养素对于在不使用促生长抗生素的情况下支持最佳猪只健康以及对抗抗菌素耐药性至关重要(3)。此外,来自SDPP的动物蛋白以及来自提炼工业的各种副产品(如血粉、肉和骨粉)是浓缩的、高消化率的氮和磷来源,与玉米、豆粕和其他用于猪日粮的谷物副产品相比,其环境足迹要低得多(4)。因此,需要对SDPP中猪病毒的存在进行定量风险评估,以评估其在饲料中潜在的疾病传播作用。

影响猪并可能污染猪血液和血液产品的病毒数量众多,从有包膜到无包膜、单链和双链DNA和RNA病毒不等,大小从最小的(即猪圆环病毒2型;PCV-2)到最大的(即非洲猪瘟病毒;ASFV)不等(5–7)。SDPP制造商采用一系列加工步骤旨在灭活血浆中的病毒,包括喷雾干燥和延长储存,并且他们还在评估使用紫外线作为病毒灭活的额外控制步骤(个人通讯,北美喷雾干燥血液和血浆生产商协会;NASDBPP)。使用不同的灭活机制(即快速脱水、UV、低水分储存)允许将每个单独加工步骤实现的灭活水平相加,以估算总病毒灭活水平,即所谓的"障碍技术"(8)。

喷雾干燥自20世纪70年代以来一直被用作一种高效的干燥方法,旨在将液体浓缩物加工成粉末,以延长保质期并保持生物活性成分的活性(9)。干燥过程中水分、温度和质量/体积的极快速变化(在几秒钟内)增加了微生物和病毒的灭活,根据工艺条件,喷雾干燥可用作类似巴氏杀菌的工艺(10)]。对安全动物饲养项目的日益增长的需求促使行业寻求可靠的额外加工步骤,以便在发生污染时增加病原体灭活。紫外线辐射是一种旨在减少水和液体食品中微生物和病毒污染的加工技术。大多数UV设备在254 nm(UV-C)下运行,这被认为是"杀菌UV"(11)。病毒被UV-C光灭活是由于其核酸(DNA/RNA)受到光化学损伤,这种损伤由于缺乏修复机制而不可逆,使生物体无法执行关键的细胞功能,从而阻止病毒增殖(12, 13)。

根据国际食品微生物规格委员会(ICMSF)的定义,食品链中消费前某一特定步骤食品产品中危害物的最大微生物学浓度被称为性能目标(PO)(14–16)。PO与原料的污染程度以及单个或多个控制步骤中实现的灭活效果相关,也可应用于饲料安全。然而,尚未针对任何饲料原料建立与猪病毒存在相关的PO水平。

定量微生物风险评估(QMRA)是一个旨在量化因摄入受污染食品或饲料中的病原体而导致疾病风险的研究领域。QMRA模型主要针对食品中的人类食源性病原体开发,而用于估算通过饲料暴露于动物病毒的定量模型非常有限(17)。因此,本研究旨在提出一个SDPP中的PO水平,该水平能够在临床前情景下实现无病毒批次,涉及猪病毒如PEDV和ASFV的潜在污染,并开发一个定量模型来评估若干加工策略在实现所提出PO水平方面的性能。

---

### 方法

#### 喷雾干燥猪血浆制造工艺

通过文献综述和行业专家咨询(欧洲动物蛋白协会,EAPA和NASDBPP)获取SDPP制造工艺信息,以确定UV、喷雾干燥和延长储存热量对PEDV和ASFV灭活的影响。

SDPP的制造过程始于从屠宰场经人类食用检验的动物采集血液,随后用抗凝剂处理,冷却并运输至工业设施,在此通过离心将红细胞与血浆组分分离。然后通过膜过滤或真空蒸发器将血浆浓缩至22%至30%的固形物含量,并在高温(80°C)下喷雾干燥,将其转化为粉末。干燥后的血浆经过颗粒过滤,欧洲和北美的SDPP生产商还包括一个额外的安全步骤,即在室温(20°C)下储存2周(10)。SDPP制造商采用一系列可识别为危害分析与关键控制点(HACCP)中关键控制点(CCP)的加工步骤,旨在去除或灭活血液产品中的病毒。在SDPP生产中,一个通用HACCP计划包括两个CCP(表1):喷雾干燥(CCP1)和在20°C下的延长储存(CCP2)。此外,紫外线(UV,CCP3)目前正在一些欧洲和美国工厂中用于病毒灭活(个人通讯,NASDBPP)。

**表1** 喷雾干燥(SD)、延长储存和UV加工步骤中评估的工艺条件操作范围。

| 输入变量/分布 | SD出口颗粒温度(°C) | SD颗粒停留时间(s) | UV剂量(J/L) | 22°C下延长储存时间(d) | |---|---|---|---|---| | | ~均匀分布(82.7, 85.5) | ~均匀分布(30, 60) | ~正态分布(3,251, 65) | 14 |

#### 临床前情景下原料血浆中的ASFV载量

任何动物疾病暴发中最坏的情况是病毒血症猪只(正在排毒的受感染猪只)在宰前检查中未被发现而进入食品或饲料链。在这种临床前情景下,血液可能采自无症状的病毒血症猪只。然而,在临床前情景下采集的血液中ASFV的浓度未知。进行了文献检索,以确定在ASF暴发期间使用不同病毒株(自然感染猪与人工接种猪)量化自然感染猪血液中ASFV载量的研究,这些猪来自格鲁吉亚、亚美尼亚、波兰、爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、波兰、中国和俄罗斯(25–30)。补充表S4显示了用于模拟临床症状出现时间(假设与临床症状检测时间相同)和屠宰时间直至各研究中临床症状检测的建模方法,以模拟临床前猪只血液中的ASFV载量。

开发了一个概率模型,通过表征观察到临床症状的时间(Tc)和在临床症状检测前采集猪血的时间(Stdb),来模拟ASF暴发期间不同时间间隔病毒血症动物血液和原料血浆中ASFV的平均浓度。ASFV在血液中的浓度通过IF语句在不同时间间隔进行模拟,取决于血液在症状检测前何时采集(补充表S4)。模型中模拟的所有ASFV值均假设为具有感染性。

文献综述提供了喷雾干燥对猪血浆中猪流行性腹泻病毒(PEDV)和非洲猪瘟病毒(ASFV)影响的数据,减少水平范围为4.0至5.0 log(补充表S1)(6, 18–20)。还评估了在室温(20°C)下储存SDPP 14天对PEDV和ASFV的影响,灭活水平范围为3.5至7.0 log(补充表S2)(19–23)。关于UV加工在原料猪血浆中影响的数据来自已发表的研究,用于估算PEDV和ASFV的D值(减少1 log或初始病毒浓度90%所需的能量,单位为J/L),其值约为490 J/L(补充表S3)(5, 6)。

#### 喷雾干燥猪血浆中的性能目标(PO)水平

应用于饲料中病毒的PO概念与原料的污染程度以及生产过程中使用的单个或多个CCP中实现的灭活效果相关,使用以下公式计算(16):

**H₀ − ∑R + I ≤ PO**

其中H₀为原料血浆中病毒的污染水平(log HAD₅₀或TCID₅₀/mL),∑R之和为所有关键控制点组合实现的减少水平(log),I为由于水分去除(血浆浓缩)导致的病毒浓度增加。

为了估算SDPP制造中可适用于任何猪病毒的通用PO水平,从NASDBPP获取了SDPP批量大小信息,分别为10吨、15吨和20公吨。在1.0 × 10⁷ g、1.5 × 10⁷ g和2.0 × 10⁷ g SDPP中不存在任何感染性病毒颗粒,将导致每克病毒颗粒数分别少于1.0 × 10⁻⁷、6.7 × 10⁻⁸和5.0 × 10⁻⁸(对于10公吨的例子,在1.0 × 10⁷ g中少于1个病毒颗粒,最终浓度为1 × 10⁻⁷病毒颗粒/g),类似于血浆中对数标度下的最终浓度−7.0、−7.2和−7.3 log颗粒/g。这些是基于所生产的不同批量大小,生产一批无病毒血浆(整个批次中少于一个感染性颗粒)所需的PO水平。

为了估算实现SDPP适当PO水平所需的总对数减少量(R),从用于制造SDPP的原料中估算了感染性猪病毒在原料血浆中的浓度。关于SDPP中PEDV病毒浓度的数据来自欧盟、巴西和美国加工厂全年每月采集的样本(24)。采用保守方法,假设通过qPCR校准曲线得出的TCID₅₀值对应于SDPP模型中的感染性病毒颗粒(24)。

#### PO合规率

使用ICMSF控制措施验证(PO)工具(从ICMSF网站下载)和公式1(16)估算PEDV和ASFV达到PO水平的合规率(%,表示达到PO水平的概率)。将原料液体血浆中PEDV和ASFV初始浓度(H₀)、各加工阶段对数减少量(R1-喷雾干燥、R2-UV和R3-延长储存)以及由于血浆中水分去除导致的病毒浓度增加(将液体血浆从8.5%浓缩至30%固形物,浓缩因子为3.5,或病毒浓度增加0.5 log)的平均值和标准差输入该工具。

#### 蒙特卡洛模拟

使用Microsoft Excel和@Risk 7.6(Palisade Corp., NY)开发概率模型,以估算不同批次规模情景下的PO水平、不同加工情景的对数灭活以及原料血浆中的ASFV浓度。每个模型输入变量通过其固有变异性(即工业加工条件、SDPP批次间病毒浓度的标准差、每种加工技术实现的病毒灭活率)和不确定性使用概率分布进行表征。通过数值模拟技术获得模型输出(100,000次迭代以确保收敛)。对于每次迭代,使用拉丁超立方抽样技术从各自分布中为每个变量或参数抽取一个随机值,创建代表模型结果的模拟群体。输出估算值以平均值和95%置信区间(CI)值进行表征。

---

### 结果与讨论

#### SDPP中的PO水平

传统上,制定食品和饲料安全目标(FSO)以及食品或饲料中病毒相关监管限值的主要挑战在于:没有国际公认的微生物学限值,猪病毒种类繁多,关于在大量动物群体中产生感染所需口服剂量的不确定性,以及与原料和饲料原料中猪病毒载量相关的有限数据可用性。由于这些原因,本研究专注于在SDPP制造过程结束时建立一个可适用于任何猪病毒的通用PO水平,以及生产10吨、15吨和20吨无病毒批次的SDPP。

#### 临床前情景下原料血浆中PEDV和ASFV的浓度(H₀)

采集的SDPP样本中的PEDV病毒载量通过标准校准从qPCR值估算为TCID₅₀,并假设其指示感染性病毒颗粒(24)。液体血浆中的病毒载量反推计算,假设600 g液体血浆生产48 g干燥血浆(12.5倍稀释因子)。SDPP中PEDV的平均浓度估算为0.1 ± 0.6 log TCID₅₀/g,而液体血浆中PEDV的浓度估算为−1.0 ± 0.6 log TCID₅₀/mL(平均值 ± SD)(H₀)。

自然感染期间血液中的ASFV浓度在不同研究中有所不同,猪只在暴露后出现临床症状的时间范围为感染后4至18天(dpi),ASFV在感染后6至7天在血液中被发现,在感染后9至16天达到最大值(10⁶–10⁹ HAD₅₀/mL)(补充表S4)。未检出的病毒血症猪只血液中ASFV的浓度可在临床症状检测前相对较短的时间内发生。临床前情景期间ASFV的平均浓度估算为所有研究中ASFV浓度值的算术平均值,为0.6(0.1–1.4)log HAD₅₀/mL(H₀)。欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)关于ASFV通过饲料和垫料进入欧盟风险的科学意见将喷雾干燥血浆列为低风险饲料基质,因为动物可在不显示临床症状的情况下被感染的时间段较短,加上欧盟SDPP产品的生产工艺避免了从ASF感染区域采集血浆(17)。

在我们当前的模型中,我们假设检测到ASF的时间等于临床症状的出现,因此在此之后猪只会变为临床型,不再采集血液。这可能因猪生产者对临床症状主动监测的程度和/或ASFV变异株的毒力而有所不同,其中疾病传播率和临床症状的出现时间将有很大的差异(38)。先前使用美国口蹄疫(FDM)暴发模拟的研究表明,由于缺乏通过目视检查检测临床症状的专业知识以及官方检测确认疾病的延迟,暴发检测可能会被延迟(39)。ASFV暴发检测延迟的程度尚不清楚。这种潜在情景可能会增加猪只进入饲料链的时间,并增加采集血液中ASFV的浓度。EFSA(17)报告还指出,随着ASFV的持续传播,临床前病毒血症动物在来自最近ASFV感染区域(尚未实施官方监测)的屠宰场宰前和宰后检查中未被发现的风险增加(17)。

#### 不同加工情景下的病毒灭活

病毒的热灭活程度因病毒类型和毒株、病毒滴度、底物基质特性(pH、脂肪和蛋白质含量、离子强度)以及热处理方式(湿法 vs. 干法)而异。热处理对动物病毒的影响已被研究了50年,因此该主题已有广泛的研究和知识。病毒热灭活的主要机制包括衣壳蛋白的损伤/崩解、核酸的降解/释放以及受体结合的破坏(31)。

欧盟和美国猪血浆制造商使用的基线加工情景包括喷雾干燥和延长储存的组合,条件如表1所示。干燥灭活动力学可概括为两个主要事件:脱水和干热灭活。脱水的有效性取决于进口空气温度(T)、固形物含量和颗粒大小,而干热灭活动力学受出口空气T和干燥器中停留时间的影响(32, 33)。两个CCP都依赖于脱水和干热现象的组合来降低病毒感染性。已发表研究(6, 20, 22, 34)的结果表明,喷雾干燥加上延长储存(即SD + 储存)能够灭活广泛的裸露和有包膜RNA和DNA猪病毒。风险评估模型显示PEDV和ASFV的平均灭活水平范围为8.4至11.1 log(表2)。

有大量研究表明UV-C能够显著灭活大多数人类和动物病毒。UV-C的有效性主要取决于液体吸光度,吸光度越高,所需能量越大。风险评估模型显示UV加工后的病毒灭活水平对PEDV和ASFV均大于6.5 log(表2)。研究结果表明,UV光诱导的活性氧可能与有包膜病毒的脂质膜相互作用,导致脂质过氧化(5)。世界卫生组织(WHO)目前关于人类血液血浆产品的国际指南要求对相关病毒实现4.0 log的减少(35)。美国和欧盟采用该技术的SDPP制造商使用的UV加工条件将满足PEDV和ASFV的这些要求(36, 37)。基线 + UV的组合提供了超过15.0 log的额外灭活水平(表2)。

**表2** 使用蒙特卡洛模拟评估喷雾干燥、UV和延长储存对PEDV和ASFV灭活的影响。

| 病毒通用名称 | 灭活水平(对数减少 ± SD) | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | | 喷雾干燥(SD) | 储存 | UV | 组合SD + 储存* | 组合SD + UV + 储存* |