Investigating audible and ultrasonic noise in modern animal facilities.
Investigating audible and ultrasonic noise in modern animal facilities.
复制标题
研究现代动物设施中的声音和超声波噪声。
DOI：
10.12688/f1000research.111170.1
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
背景：实验动物的环境饲养条件对于动物福利和可靠、可重复的数据都很重要。目前存在针对照明周期、温度、湿度和噪音等因素的指南，但对于后者，目前的指南可能忽略了重要的细节。以最常见的实验室物种老鼠为例，它们能听到的频率范围远远高于人类。目前的指南简要提到，超声波（>20 kHz）频率可能会对小鼠产生不利影响，并且应检查声学环境，但没有提供与可接受的超声波噪声水平相关的建议。 研究方法：为了研究大型小鼠饲养设施（MRC Harwell的玛丽里昂中心）中的超声环境，我们比较了两个系统，Hottinger Bruel和Kjaer PULSE声音分析仪和Avisoft生物声学系统。选择潜在的噪声源;我们使用PULSE系统对高达100 kHz的噪声进行实时傅立叶分析，并使用Avisoft系统记录高达125 kHz的噪声以供后续分析。两个系统的麦克风始终位于距声源相同的距离处，环境条件相同。为了进一步研究我们的结果，还使用了第三个系统AudioMoth（开放式声学设备）进行记录。我们使用DeepSqueak软件进行大部分记录分析，在某些情况下，我们还使用RX 8（iZotope，USA）进行进一步的光谱分析。 结果：我们发现这两种系统都可以检测到一系列的超声噪声源，并在这里讨论每种方法的优点和局限性。 结论：我们的结论是，测量动物设施的声学环境，包括超声波频率，可能会对动物的圈养产生不利影响，将有助于尽量减少对动物福利和科学研究的干扰。
Background: The environmental housing conditions of laboratory animals are important for both welfare and reliable, reproducible data. Guidelines currently exist for factors such as lighting cycles, temperature, humidity, and noise, however, for the latter the current guidelines may overlook important details. In the case of the most common laboratory species, the mouse, the range of frequencies they can hear is far higher than that of humans. The current guidelines briefly mention that ultrasonic (>20 kHz) frequencies can adversely affect mice, and that the acoustic environment should be checked, though no recommendations are provided relating to acceptable levels of ultrasonic noise. Methods: To investigate the ultrasonic environment in a large mouse breeding facility (the Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), we compared two systems, the Hottinger Bruel and Kjaer PULSE sound analyser, and an Avisoft Bioacoustics system. Potential noise sources were selected; we used the PULSE system to undertake real-time Fourier analysis of noise up to 100 kHz, and the Avisoft system to record noise up to 125 kHz for later analysis. The microphones from both systems were positioned consistently at the same distance from the source and environmental conditions were identical. In order to investigate our result further, a third system, the AudioMoth (Open Acoustic Devices), was also used for recording. We used DeepSqueak software for most of the recording analysis and, in some cases, we also undertook further spectral analysis using RX8 (iZotope, USA). Results: We found that both systems can detect a range of ultrasonic noise sources, and here discuss the benefits and limitations of each approach. Conclusions: We conclude that measuring the acoustic environment of animal facilities, including ultrasonic frequencies that may adversely affect the animals housed, will contribute to minimising disruption to animal welfare and perturbations in scientific research.