Toxicologic agents of concern for search-and-rescue dogs responding to urban disasters

Our plain-English summary of Toxicologic agents of concern for search-and-rescue dogs responding to urban disasters, by L.A. Murphy, S.M. Gwaltney-Brant, J.C. Albretsen, et al (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2003).

The study

• Authors: L.A. Murphy, S.M. Gwaltney-Brant, J.C. Albretsen, T.A. Wismer
• Journal: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
• Published: 2003;222(3):296-304
• Type of article: Comment
• Cited by: 18 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

This narrative review followed an earlier report on general toxicologic hazards for search-and-rescue (SAR) dogs. Its aim was to raise awareness of specific common substances that may be found at urban disaster sites and their potential short- and long-term health effects. Citing toxicology reference works and published studies, the authors described sources, absorption, metabolism and toxic effects for several groups of agents: hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, hazardous metals, asbestos, gases (hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, Freon, halogenated gases and carbon monoxide), soaps, detergents, acids and alkalis, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, phenol and alcohols. They noted that SAR dogs generally work without respiratory protection and search low to the ground, where dusts and gases may accumulate. On asbestos, they stated that compressive and explosive forces may release fibers from existing structures. Dogs sniffing settled dust may be at increased risk, and asbestos is predominantly an inhalation concern. The long-term effects of short-term, high-level exposure were not known. Studies in dogs had shown a pulmonary response similar to that of humans, although asbestos-related disease appeared less common in dogs. The authors said more investigation was needed to determine whether monitoring SAR dogs' pulmonary health could help predict risk in rescue workers. They concluded that awareness and planning are critical to minimizing dangerous exposures, and that veterinarians caring for these dogs need to know about potential long-term health problems.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This article was a review, not a new study. Writing from the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center, the authors drew on published sources to describe common toxic substances that search-and-rescue (SAR) dogs might meet at urban disaster sites. These included hydrocarbons, PCBs, hazardous metals, asbestos, gases, cleaning products, glycols, phenol and alcohols. On asbestos, the authors listed six fiber types and wrote that disaster forces may release asbestos from buildings. They added that dogs sniffing settled dust may face increased exposure. Citing other work, they wrote that inhaled asbestos has been associated with asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in humans. Asbestos-related mesotheliomas in dogs are associated primarily with chrysotile, and asbestos-related disease appears less common in dogs than in humans. They stated that the long-term effects of short-term, high-level asbestos exposure are not yet known. They called for more investigation into whether monitoring SAR dogs' lung health could help predict asbestos-related disease in rescue workers. The authors concluded that the article was meant to raise awareness of these hazards.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Narrative review of published sources on toxic hazards; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population; the article discussed search-and-rescue dogs working at urban disaster sites in general
• Exposure: Many substances at urban disaster sites. For asbestos, the article named six fiber types: amosite, chrysotile, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite.
• Main results:
  • The authors wrote that compressive and explosive forces during an urban disaster may release asbestos.
  • The authors wrote that SAR dogs may be at increased risk of asbestos exposure because they sniff settled dust.
  • Citing other sources, the authors described asbestos as mainly an inhalation concern, with no firm evidence of a clinically important hazard from ingestion.
  • Citing rodent studies by others, the authors wrote that a single exposure to concentrated asbestos may be associated with pulmonary fibrosis.
  • The authors stated that the long-term effects of short-term, high-level asbestos exposure are not yet known.
  • Citing other sources, the authors wrote that inhaled asbestos fibers have been associated with asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in humans.
  • Citing another study, the authors wrote that asbestos-related mesotheliomas in dogs are associated primarily with chrysotile fibers.
  • Citing another source, the authors wrote that mesotheliomas in humans are almost always associated with amphibole fibers.
  • Citing other sources, the authors wrote that asbestos-related disease appears to be less common in dogs than in humans.
  • The authors wrote that more investigation is needed into whether monitoring SAR dogs' lung health could help predict asbestos-related disease in rescue workers and others.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the article was meant to raise awareness of common toxic substances at urban disaster sites and how SAR dogs might be exposed to them.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors noted that not all toxic hazards SAR dogs may encounter can be anticipated.
  • The authors noted that less information exists on the effects of short-term, high-level asbestos exposure.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Respirator, Settled Dust.

Related studies

• Environmental aftermath — L. Claudio (2001)
• Technological disasters--towards a preventive strategy: a review — N. Andersson (1991)
• Safety and health of heavy equipment operators at Ground Zero — B.E. Lippy (2002)
• Occupational exposures during the World Trade Center disaster response — K.M. Wallingford, E.M. Snyder (2001)
• Community-level social support responses in a slow-motion technological disaster: the case of Libby, Montana — R.J. Cline, H. Orom, et al. (2010)
• Social Support Functions During a Slowly-Evolving Environmental Disaster: The Case of Amphibole Asbestos Exposure in Libby, Montana — R.J. Cline, H. Orom, et al. (2015)

Browse return to medical research.