Introduction
Search and rescue dogs and military working dogs provide valuable services to help keep us safe, but they are often deployed to areas contaminated with hazardous materials such as petroleum products, heavy metals, and volatile organic solvents. Regular decontamination of the dogs’ fur and skin is recommended, but there is little objective data on the best techniques and cleansers to do so. Therefore, AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF) funded investigators at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale conducted a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of decontamination procedures for these valuable dogs (CHF Grant 02847-A: Assessment of Field Wipe-Down Procedure for Removal of Aerosolized Contaminants on Dogs).
Key Points
- Veterinary cleansers like povidone-iodine and chlorhexiderm are just as effective as dish soap and offer antimicrobial benefits.
- Povidone-iodine wipes were most effective in low-water environments.
- Longer coats and chlorhexiderm require more water to rinse thoroughly.
- All cleansers affected skin pH, but did not damage the skin’s protective barrier.
- Shorter coats and povidone-iodine require less water—ideal for disaster zones with limited resources.
Challenge Background
Working dogs are often deployed to environments contaminated with hazardous materials. These contaminants can cling to their fur and skin, posing health risks through skin absorption or ingestion during grooming. While regular decontamination is recommended, there has been little objective data on which methods or products are most effective—especially in field conditions where water may be scarce.
The Breakthrough
Researchers at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale evaluated how well different decontamination methods remove simulated contaminants from the coats and skin of working dogs. They tested both wipe-down and full-wash procedures using povidone-iodine, chlorhexiderm, common dish soap (as recommended by FEMA), and plain water. In low-water environments, disposable wipes saturated with povidone-iodine were the most effective, outperforming both chlorhexiderm and water. When water was available for rinsing, all three cleansers—povidone-iodine, chlorhexiderm, and dish soap—were significantly more effective than plain water alone.
The study also revealed practical differences in how these cleansers perform. Povidone-iodine required less water to rinse off, making it ideal for field conditions where water is scarce. Chlorhexiderm, while effective, needed more water, especially for dogs with longer coats. Importantly, although all cleansers altered the dogs’ skin pH, none of them compromised the skin’s protective barrier, as measured by trans-epidermal water loss. These findings offer valuable, evidence-based guidance for safely and effectively decontaminating working dogs in hazardous environments.
Impact & Next Steps
This study gives dog handlers and veterinarians practical, science-based options for safely decontaminating working dogs in hazardous environments. Povidone-iodine and chlorhexiderm offer effective cleaning with added antimicrobial benefits, especially useful in disaster zones where water is limited. Future research will focus on how repeated use of these cleansers affects skin health, how coat type influences contaminant removal, and how to refine decontamination protocols to keep working dogs safe and healthy in the field.
