Environmental Sampling as a Low-Technology Method for Surveillance of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus in an Area of Endemicity

Figures

• 

  FIG 1. Map showing locations of sampling sites. (A) Locations of sampling sites used for collection of samples. Sites are color coded for the time of the visit: November 2016 (red), April 2017 (blue), or November 2017 (magenta). (B) Kathmandu (yellow pin) in relation to surrounding countries. Map data ©2018 Google.

• 

  FIG 2. Sampling sites and collection. (a) Environmental sampling at the milk collection point at site 1. (b) Courtyard at household 6, site 1. (c) Courtyard at household 5, site 2. (d) Main pathway through the village at site 2. (e) Air sampling at site 2. (f) Environmental sampling at household 5, site 1.

• 

  FIG 3. Lesion age versus percentage of positive environmental samples at each farm site. The maximum lesion age was plotted against the percentage of positive samples detected at each household. Lesion ages were based on clinical examination of animals by experienced veterinarians. The different colors indicate the dates of the visits to the household: November 2016 (red), April 2017 (blue), or November 2017 (magenta). Where a household was visited twice, the result for the second visit is indicated by a triangle and is linked to the result for the first visit (indicated by a circle) by a dashed line.

• 

  FIG 4. Comparison of samples taken inside with those taken outside. Shown is the percentage of samples positive for FMD viral RNA per sampling surface type. Solid bars show percentages of FMDV RNA-positive samples collected outside, in farm courtyards (from wood [n = 54], brick [n = 17], the ground [n = 20], feed troughs [n = 10], and metal [n = 14]), and shaded bars show percentages of FMDV RNA-positive samples collected inside cattle barns (from wood [n = 5], brick [n = 38], the ground [n = 16], feed troughs [n = 12], and metal [n = 18]).