Removal of Aerosolized Contaminants from Working Canines Via a Field Wipe-Down Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based canine decontamination protocols are underrepresented in the veterinary literature. Aerosolized microbiological and chemical contaminants can pose a risk in deployment environments highlighting the need for improved canine field decontamination strategies. Prior work has established the efficacy of traditional, water-intensive methods on contaminant removal from the coat of the working canine; however, it is not known if similar reductions can be achieved with simple field expedient methods when resources are limited. The objective of this study was to measure the reduction of aerosolized contamination via a practical “wipe-down” procedure performed on working canine coats contaminated with a fluorescent, non-toxic, water-based aerosol. Disposable, lint-free towels were saturated with one of three treatments: water, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHX), or 7.5% povidone-iodine scrub (PVD). Both CHX and PVD were diluted at a 1:4 ratio. Treatments were randomly assigned to one of three quadrants established across the shoulders and back of commonly utilized working dog breeds (Labrador retrievers, n = 16; German shepherds, n = 16). The fourth quadrant remained unwiped, serving as a control. Reduction in fluorescent marker contamination was measured and compared across all quadrants. PVD demonstrated greater marker reduction compared to CHX or water in both breeds (P < 0.0001). Reduction was similar between CHX or water in Labradors (P = 0.86) and shepherds (P = 0.06). Effective wipe-down strategies using common veterinary cleansers should be further investigated and incorporated into decontamination practices to safeguard working canine health and prevent cross-contamination of human personnel working with these animals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".