Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2026

Safety Precautions and Operating Procedures in an (A)BSL-4 Laboratory: 3. Aerobiology
Published on: October 3, 2016
Hendra and Nipah viruses: Biosafety evidence for risk-based containment, inactivation practices, and one health
S D Blacksell1,2,3, K K Le1, P W Selleck4
1Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract:
Hendra virus (HeV) and Nipah virus (NiV) are highly pathogenic zoonotic henipaviruses that pose persistent risks at the human-animal-environment interface. Implementation of the WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual fourth edition (LBM4) requires evidence-based risk assessments tailored to specific pathogens, activities, and operational settings; however, the adequacy of biosafety evidence supporting risk-based containment decisions for henipaviruses remains unclear. Spillover from bat reservoirs, amplification in domestic animals, and subsequent human infection have resulted in recurrent outbreaks with high case fatality rates and significant occupational exposure risks for veterinarians, healthcare workers, and laboratory personnel. Effective management of these hazards requires coordinated biosafety approaches across human, animal, and laboratory systems within a One Health framework. We conducted a structured narrative review of evidence relevant to biosafety risk assessment for HeV and NiV, focusing on laboratory diagnostics, occupational exposure, and validated inactivation and decontamination practices. Evidence from experimental studies, outbreak investigations, occupational exposure reports, regulatory guidance, and biosafety literature was critically synthesised across human, veterinary, and laboratory domains using the LBM4 risk-based framework as an organising structure. Substantial gaps were identified in the biosafety evidence base. Human infectious dose thresholds remain undefined, transmission pathways, particularly for NiV, are incompletely characterised, and many recommended inactivation and decontamination procedures lack formal validation across relevant matrices and operational contexts. Key risk factors underpinning spillover and occupational exposure are poorly quantified, and for HeV, the causes of pronounced spatial and temporal clustering of cases remain unresolved. These limitations complicate risk-based decision-making, particularly for diagnostic, field, and laboratory activities conducted outside maximum containment facilities. Addressing these evidence gaps will strengthen implementation of the WHO LBM4 risk-based framework, improve protection of laboratory and field personnel, and enhance One Health preparedness for future spillover events.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Standard Precaution
Hand hygiene is the most crucial means to prevent the transmission of disease. Employers are legally required to provide their workers with personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize exposure or contact with...
Smallpox
Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
Inhibitors Of Virion Release

