Lydia R Burnett, Nick R Hebdon, Pete A Stevens, Monica D Moljo, Lindsay D Waldrop, Lauryn E DeGreeff
{"title":"不同物理性质气味检测试验中狗嗅闻的生物力学反应","authors":"Lydia R Burnett, Nick R Hebdon, Pete A Stevens, Monica D Moljo, Lindsay D Waldrop, Lauryn E DeGreeff","doi":"10.1093/jas/skae353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dogs are utilized in forensic science for their extensive scent detection capabilities. They are often considered the “gold standard” in field detection for targets such as illicit drugs and explosives. Despite their prevalence in the field, relatively little is known about how dogs interact with and transport volatile organic compounds through their olfactory system. In this study, two groups of dogs were utilized – Sport detection dogs (n=19) that participate in the National Association of Canine Scent Work and have achieved advanced standing through training and successful search competitions and law enforcement explosive detection dogs (n=8) which were included for comparison. Both groups were presented with two target odorants having differing molecular properties, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and ammonia, two non-target odorants, 1-bromooctane and methyl benzoate, and a negative control. Canines were tested prior to experience with the target odorants, when all odorants were novel, after some brief training with the target odorants, and after longer training time with the target odorants. The non-target odorants were never used in training. Sniffing was measured using flow sensors embedded in a wall immediately in front of the odorants held in a closed cylinder. Sensor data was used to calculate sniff flow rate, frequency (sniffs per seconds) and volume. Results indicated no difference in sniffing dynamics between target odorants; however, sniffing frequency increased significantly with increased experience with the target odorants (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test, W= 148, p=6×10-5). Sniff volume and flow rate showed a positive correlation to body mass for all sport detection dogs (slope = 2.71, F(1,17)= 9.48, p= 0.007, R2= 0.32), though the R2 was low, indicating other factors at play. Law enforcement detection dogs were shown to take in significantly higher mean total sniff volumes (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W= 7, p=10-4) and volume flow rates (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W= 5, p=6×10-5) compared to the sport detection dogs, but the sniff frequency remained similar for both groups.","PeriodicalId":14895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of animal science","volume":"127 16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dog sniffing biomechanic responses in an odor detection test of odorants with differing physical properties\",\"authors\":\"Lydia R Burnett, Nick R Hebdon, Pete A Stevens, Monica D Moljo, Lindsay D Waldrop, Lauryn E DeGreeff\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jas/skae353\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dogs are utilized in forensic science for their extensive scent detection capabilities. They are often considered the “gold standard” in field detection for targets such as illicit drugs and explosives. Despite their prevalence in the field, relatively little is known about how dogs interact with and transport volatile organic compounds through their olfactory system. In this study, two groups of dogs were utilized – Sport detection dogs (n=19) that participate in the National Association of Canine Scent Work and have achieved advanced standing through training and successful search competitions and law enforcement explosive detection dogs (n=8) which were included for comparison. Both groups were presented with two target odorants having differing molecular properties, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and ammonia, two non-target odorants, 1-bromooctane and methyl benzoate, and a negative control. Canines were tested prior to experience with the target odorants, when all odorants were novel, after some brief training with the target odorants, and after longer training time with the target odorants. The non-target odorants were never used in training. Sniffing was measured using flow sensors embedded in a wall immediately in front of the odorants held in a closed cylinder. Sensor data was used to calculate sniff flow rate, frequency (sniffs per seconds) and volume. Results indicated no difference in sniffing dynamics between target odorants; however, sniffing frequency increased significantly with increased experience with the target odorants (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test, W= 148, p=6×10-5). Sniff volume and flow rate showed a positive correlation to body mass for all sport detection dogs (slope = 2.71, F(1,17)= 9.48, p= 0.007, R2= 0.32), though the R2 was low, indicating other factors at play. Law enforcement detection dogs were shown to take in significantly higher mean total sniff volumes (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W= 7, p=10-4) and volume flow rates (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W= 5, p=6×10-5) compared to the sport detection dogs, but the sniff frequency remained similar for both groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of animal science\",\"volume\":\"127 16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of animal science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae353\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of animal science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae353","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dog sniffing biomechanic responses in an odor detection test of odorants with differing physical properties
Dogs are utilized in forensic science for their extensive scent detection capabilities. They are often considered the “gold standard” in field detection for targets such as illicit drugs and explosives. Despite their prevalence in the field, relatively little is known about how dogs interact with and transport volatile organic compounds through their olfactory system. In this study, two groups of dogs were utilized – Sport detection dogs (n=19) that participate in the National Association of Canine Scent Work and have achieved advanced standing through training and successful search competitions and law enforcement explosive detection dogs (n=8) which were included for comparison. Both groups were presented with two target odorants having differing molecular properties, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and ammonia, two non-target odorants, 1-bromooctane and methyl benzoate, and a negative control. Canines were tested prior to experience with the target odorants, when all odorants were novel, after some brief training with the target odorants, and after longer training time with the target odorants. The non-target odorants were never used in training. Sniffing was measured using flow sensors embedded in a wall immediately in front of the odorants held in a closed cylinder. Sensor data was used to calculate sniff flow rate, frequency (sniffs per seconds) and volume. Results indicated no difference in sniffing dynamics between target odorants; however, sniffing frequency increased significantly with increased experience with the target odorants (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test, W= 148, p=6×10-5). Sniff volume and flow rate showed a positive correlation to body mass for all sport detection dogs (slope = 2.71, F(1,17)= 9.48, p= 0.007, R2= 0.32), though the R2 was low, indicating other factors at play. Law enforcement detection dogs were shown to take in significantly higher mean total sniff volumes (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W= 7, p=10-4) and volume flow rates (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W= 5, p=6×10-5) compared to the sport detection dogs, but the sniff frequency remained similar for both groups.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Animal Science (JAS) is the premier journal for animal science and serves as the leading source of new knowledge and perspective in this area. JAS publishes more than 500 fully reviewed research articles, invited reviews, technical notes, and letters to the editor each year.
Articles published in JAS encompass a broad range of research topics in animal production and fundamental aspects of genetics, nutrition, physiology, and preparation and utilization of animal products. Articles typically report research with beef cattle, companion animals, goats, horses, pigs, and sheep; however, studies involving other farm animals, aquatic and wildlife species, and laboratory animal species that address fundamental questions related to livestock and companion animal biology will be considered for publication.