An evaluation of current working canine decontamination procedures and methods for improvement

Handler training improves decontamination of working canines with oil-based exposure in field conditions using disposable kits

“…Handlers receiving no training failed to remove soiled collars from the canine’s neck, thus the collar acted as a vector for reintroduction of contaminants. This is similar to prior work demonstrating a failure to remove soiled collars from canines during decontamination procedures (Venable et al, 2017). In addition, training also had an impact on the amount of contaminant reduction on the canine’s paw.…”

“…Soaps and detergents, also known as surface active agents, work as emulsifiers to surround and lift organic matter from hair, which can then be rinsed away with water (Soric et al, 2008). Although that chemical characteristic provides a sound theory for the use of dish soap, when Dawn® was compared to baby shampoo in a recent study, baby shampoo (Johnson & Johnson Head-To-Toe Baby Wash, Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) was found to be more effective at reducing oil-based contaminants than Dawn® (Venable et al, 2017). These pilot data are the first to suggest that dish soap may be ineffective at oil-based contaminant reduction using standard decontamination techniques in working canines.…”

“…Photos were analyzed using two methods 1) assignment of visual score; 2) measurement of fluorescent reduction. Scores were assigned on visual inspection of each of the four anatomic sites, using two blinded reviewers with a >80% agreement as previously described with no score discrepancies of >1 between reviewers (Venable et al, 2017). Visual score assignments were allotted as follows: 0 = <24% contaminant reduction; 1 = 25–50% contaminant reduction; 2 = 51–75% contaminant reduction; and 3 = >76% contaminant reduction adapted from prior work (Lee et al, 2014).…”

“…Following calculations of both data sets, PROC REG was used to identify relatedness. The P value for all analysis was set at 0.05 and effective decontamination was defined as a reduction in fluorescence by at least 50% or a contaminant reduction score of ≥ 2 (Venable et al, 2017).…”

“…Although some efforts have been made to identify methods associated with decontamination following disasters, few data have identified effective techniques applicable to working canines deployed as part of a response team (Welte et al, 1991; Soric et al, 2008; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009; Venable et al, 2017). Previous work has demonstrated current techniques are inadequate for complete removal of oil-based contaminants (Venable et al, 2017). In contrast, data from wildlife studies have reported complete contaminant removal, but suggest a protocol that is prohibitive due to the extensive amount of time required (Welte et al, 1991; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009).…”