The building is currently operating at 56 percent efficiency, a number that will significantly increase once an additional floor is constructed in the future. The cost to add another floor will be slightly more than $6 million and the construction date will be contingent upon the University's mouse population, which until recently has been increasing by more than 20 percent each year.

The new building is designed to alleviate barrier housing overcrowding and to maintain the tight barrier protocols that are observed throughout the campus.

"We were out of space for new principal investigators and had existing scientists on a waiting list," says Steven Leary, assistant vice chancellor for veterinary affairs at the University. "The new construction was necessary to provide relief and it was constructed with current trends in animal facility design in mind."

Trends that were considered included being able to quarantine certain areas of a facility, ensuring the special design of rodent holding rooms, using cages and racks most suitable for rodents, accommodating frequent cage cleaning, being compliant with federal environmental regulations, addressing security issues, being prepared to handle biohazards, using appropriate floor and wall finishes, and designing labs that can meet present and future research needs of the University scientists.

Facility Details

The research facility is situated in a prime location near the preclinical science laboratories in the heart of the Washington University Medical Center campus. The first floor houses offices, an employee break room, lockers, cagewash support, and one core procedure space with associated rodent housing. Nearly 9,000 nsf are dedicated to the autoclave, cagewash, and staging areas with 6,470 for rodent holding; 2,420 for gowning/lockers and restrooms; 1,990 for rodent procedure space; 1,620 for storage; 800 for offices; and 500 for the break room.

The second floor is dedicated to rodent barrier housing. It is comprised of four suites, each of which features eight rooms and increased aisle widths, and one suite with only four rooms. The rooms will hold either six or eight racks, depending on their size. The suite arrangement with a single loaded corridor has been the most popular with investigators and facility managers.

"We did not have adequate space to stage equipment in our existing suites, so we decided to give up a bit of rack census and increase the width of the center of the suites, a feature that is proving useful," says Leary.

The suites are designed for research procedures or animal holding. The procedure room elevations include either biosafety cabinets or fume hoods to accommodate the type of research taking place. Mobile equipment is also used to enhance flexibility of the work space.

"Campus-wide, we picked up about 5,000 cages in census by going to high-density caging, but that was not enough, and we are currently at about 44,000 cages in space that was really originally designed for 36,000," says Leary. "The other important aspect is that we tied the new facility into an existing building and were able to close down the cagewash support in the old building. We have clean/dirty access into the new building this way and it provides a tight barrier. We will also be able to increase density in the old building because it was limited by autoclaving and cagewash capacities."

Looking to the Future

Although the building consists of two floors, it is designed for the addition of a third floor where another barrier housing floor would be placed over the interstitial space and existing roof. Another partial interstitial would be placed over the third-floor barrier housing and it would be topped with another roof and mechanical space.

"This would accommodate an additional 18,000 mouse boxes, giving us about 37,000 for this building," notes Leary. "The new building is contiguous with an existing building to facilitate the sharing of support services and to increase collaboration. Between the two buildings, we would have about 40,000 cages. That would give us about an 80,000-cage capacity on campus. There is also another building being programmed for an additional 25,000, which we will probably need over the next five to 10 years."

The proper location of mechanical space is an important factor in maintaining barrier integrity. Locating access panels within animal housing rooms is generally not a good choice. A better option would be to locate them along or at the end of corridors. Even better, as in this case, is interstitial mechanical space, which entirely eliminates the need for physical plant personnel to enter animal housing.

"The cost of adding the partial interstitial on this project was about $7 per gross square foot," says Leary. "By comparison, it was about $26 per gsf to add full interstitial space on another project."

It is imperative to consider the expense of interstitial space vs. traditional construction early in the programming phase. The construction cost of this building equates to about $350 per gsf, while the national average is $450 to $500.

Pros and Cons

"An upside of the project is that we partially automated cagewash equipment where we could add gantry robots for cages and water bottle robots when required. We need 20,000 to 22,000 cages before we hit the break point where the robots would actually pay for themselves," says Leary. "We also have the space necessary for an additional sterilizer, and a vacuum bedding supply system which uses 850-lb bales and eliminates the pallet approach."

Feed comes into the bedding area through a misting tunnel and is then transported to the second floor. An automatic waste disposal system was added to the soiled side of the tunnel washers, eliminating the need for manual labor.

The new facility, located near existing research buildings, features cage density of 2.3 cages per net square foot, which falls within the current national average. The HVAC is designed for ventilated racks and an irradiator is located inside the barrier on the upper floor.

"One of the downsides is that the building stands out as something different. Even though it is not labeled as such, it is very visible as a building for animal housing and research," says Leary.

A related aspect involves security concerns since the facility is a freestanding building. The entrance and office areas are at the opposite ends of the main research buildings and pre-clinical laboratories. The location was driven by the topography and access requirements for the loading dock.

Physical location is also an issue relative to biohazard use. "The location limits the use of the building. We will not be able to use the building for biohazard research since it would require hauling the materials not only across the street, but also across campus," says Leary.

Additionally, the building has minimal core lab and procedure space with a 3-to-1 ratio of animal rooms to procedure rooms. A ratio of 2-to-1 would be more desirable.

Although the building is not attractive and has its downsides, it is very popular with the researchers and support staff. Employees began moving into the building in late summer and the facility is currently 40 percent occupied.

"With our need to plan ahead and with the growth we had before we ran out of space, I've already told the administration that we need to carefully monitor the building census in considering the additional floor," says Leary.

By Tracy Carbasho

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894