Know The Truth

Question: How does an automated animal drinking water design impact your ability in achieving certification from one of these agencies?

Answer: It doesn’t. Read on...

LEED: WHAT IT IS – WHAT IT IS NOT

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is, by its own definition, the nationally accepted and universally recognized benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings.

LEED was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), which is a non-profit buildings trade organization - not a government agency. The intent is to provide a concise green solution guideline for all aspects of the building trade. Since its inception numerous countries have adapted the program under their own banners.

The guidelines allocate ‘collectable’ credit points which are distributed across categories such as Sustainable Building Sites, Water Use Efficiency, Energy Conservation and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality.

LEED then provides independent, consensus-based, third-party verification that a building project meets the claimed green building and performance measures. There are environmental, financial and health/community benefits for earning LEED certification.

Animal facilities, however, with their qualitative and quantitative deviations from ‘typical’ new construction projects are exempt from some of the established criteria regarding water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, indoor environmental quality and innovation/design process. Hence, there are extremely limited credits to be earned toward certification regardless of the type of animal drinking watering system that is installed or proposed.

To fill the void, a new category - LEED-AGL (Application Guide for Laboratories) - is being adapted from Labs21, Environmental Performance Criteria (EPC) specifically to accommodate laboratory’s unique requirements. Labs21 itself does NOT provide certification.

Until LEED-AGL is codified, to state that any animal drinking water system meets the criteria for green building design is to step beyond the truth. The tenets as written are proscribed by design.

HOW DOES LEED WORK

Overall, the animal laboratory facility is governed by dictates set forth in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Cage size and housing methods for care administration are species-dependent and these factors determine the facility’s room sizes, room environment, and circulation patterns for air, equipment and personnel. Often, these guidelines necessitate intensive HVAC requirements to regulate factors such as airflow, air quality, CO2 levels, temperature, humidity, odor suppression, and contaminant reduction. This in addition to safety systems, security networks and various other resources and specialized equipment, none of which are addressed in the LEED criteria and most of which add significantly to total energy use.

In the absence of point-based criteria specific to laboratories, there remain numerous energy and water conservation methods which can, and should, be assessed from a holistic perspective. Laboratory animal facilities should engage in exploring and exploiting ‘green’ solutions to animal watering that meet the spirit of the conservation efforts and demonstrate quantifiable savings.

Vagaries in the existing guidelines can lead to misinterpretations, in effect circling around the issue of sustainability.

LEED SCORING

LEED comprises a whole-building approach to sustainability. The menu-based selection system allocates points in five key areas of human and environmental health. Laboratories add another crucial, but unaddressed category: animal welfare. One of the central performance areas of LEED is energy efficiency. Another is water conservation. These elements come together in the animal facility designer’s choice of automated watering system for the animal population.

Under the existing LEED scoring system, there is one point available for water conservation and up to ten points for electrical energy conservation. A flushing system uses double the water of a recirculation system (Room distribution flushing uses about 3 gallons of water per flush solenoid point. On-line rack flush uses about 1 gallon of water per solenoid per day – not necessarily, as some are wont to print, thousands of gallons daily!). A recirculation system, on the other hand, uses sixteen times more electricity that a flushing system to keep the pumps running 24/7. The pumps utilize electricity at a prodigious rate!

The numbers tell the story. If you’re dismissing a flushing system and all of the attendant advantages on the basis of LEED, then the numbers simply don’t add up.

Hybrid systems have been developed which reduce even further the amount of water used by a flushing system. We’ve studied the numbers in real world situations. We know the gallons; we know the kilowatts, and with LEED accredited personnel on staff we’re ready to help you select the best, most efficient system based upon your specific needs – not on a one-size-fits-all solution.

Indeed, the opportunities for resource saving, sustainability and amassing points toward LEED certification are manifold but, where animal watering is concerned, it helps to know the truth.

ANIMAL WATERING SYSTEM DESIGNS AND THEIR EFFECT ON LEED

The benefits of an automated Animal Watering System (AWS) in the laboratory in terms of ergonomics, cost saving, energy conservation, reduced maintenance, reduced water usage, employee productivity and facility life cycle are well established.

Also well-established is that LEED Application Guide for Laboratory Facilities (LEED-AGL) remains an emerging issue. Until released, it is not possible to apply LEED credits specifically to the design and construction of an AWS for laboratory animal facilities.

Certain providers who extol the virtues of one AWS solution to the exclusion of another do so because they only have one solution! Recirculation system are not always the greenest solution – but may well be the best solution for a given laboratory application.

Research animal facilities should strive to find solutions that consistently reduce energy and maintenance costs over the facility’s entire life cycle and that, by respecting both renewable and non-renewable resources, generate a smaller carbon footprint.

ENERGY AND WATER CONSUMPTION

We’ve monitored the energy and water demands of our animal watering systems. So have many of our thousands of customers. What they’ll tell you, vivarium managers worldwide, is that water quality standardization and the elimination of variables in animal drinking water is paramount to research accuracy – green considerations aside. Other factors, such as removing contaminants, ensuring supply and enabling ease of sanitation for eliminating biofilms, while significant, are not deemed nearly so vital.

What about an animal watering system design that purports to save water and reduce energy consumption? The animal watering system is not the most resource intensive operation in the vivarium – compared to HVAC, UPS, or cage and rack wash/sterilization procedures – yet the opportunity is there for incremental savings. Management must first take into account, however, the need to minimize or eliminate any non-protocol variables that could have a deleterious effect on repeatability or on the accuracy or validity of the scientific data. There are no shortcuts to accuracy in research.

Water quality assurance is an important consideration in the animal facility. Under AAALAC there is no universally accepted standard for the quality of the drinking water. That decision must be made by the facility to determine the necessary water quality according to their protocol requirements. In most cases the numbers favor the installation of a flushing system in deference to a recirculating one.

We’ve all heard the arguments against flushing systems. Flushing systems contain more components; pressure reducing stations, microprocessor controls, valves, regulators, filters, solenoids, etc., and they waste thousands upon thousands of gallons of RO water by dumping it down the drain several times a day. In truth, flushing systems have proved extremely reliable, built of dependable low-maintenance components, with little probability of failure. If there is a problem, then the repairs are quick, simple, inexpensive and do not jeopardize the health or well-being of the animal population. Flushing systems are also the only design which allows for simple sanitation when necessary. Compare that to a recirculation system which is energy intensive and still incapable of detecting a leak in the system. A potential disaster if animals become dehydrated, or subjected to cage flooding.

THE EFFECTS OF BIOCIDES/BIOSTATS, ACID, AND CHLORINE

The myth persists, perpetuated by single solution providers, that recirculating systems with integrated UV treatment eliminate the need for chlorine; a chemical that they pronounce is harmful for both animals and equipment.

In truth, study after study at home and abroad, by government research institutions, universities, pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms confirm that bactericidal levels of chlorine in animal drinking water pose no health risks to experimental animals and, if delivered in a high quality stainless steel watering system, presents no danger of equipment corrosion. It’s necessary to keep in mind what’s most important – the research.

Recirculating and flushing systems each have their unique benefits If you’re dismissing a flushing system on the basis that a recirculation system obviates the need for chlorine by using UV, you’re not hearing the whole story.

Continuous circulation through UV treatment alone is no guarantee that biofilm won’t develop downstream. And if the delivery system becomes contaminated then the entire system must be sanitized, which requires additional water, time and energy and also that an alternate watering method be used during the sanitization process.

There are numerous variables to consider when determining the level of water quality; biocides, acidity, demand levels and means to lower water usage in the animal research facility. Species, research protocols, animal population and other factors will determine how the facility needs to address issues of water quality.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Automated animal watering offerings include flushing, recirculation and hybrid systems which each have benefits in reducing the amount of water and energy consumed by the facility. Compared to the use of water bottles, automated watering serves to reduce the number and severity of ergonomic injuries, simplifies record keeping and significantly reduces the amount of water used.

Customers need to evaluate the many options available when choosing an automated animal watering system. The right choice will help realize cost savings, operational efficiencies and reduce consumption of valuable resources.