Using trained dogs and organic semi-conducting sensors to identify asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections: an observational study

Recapitulating COVID-19 detection methods: RT-PCR, sniffer dogs and electronic nose

In December 2019, a number of subjects presenting with an unexplained pneumonia-like illness were suspected to have a link to a seafood market in Wuhan, China. Subsequently, this illness was identified as the 2019-novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by the World Committee on Virus Classification. Since its initial identification, the virus has rapidly sperad across the globe, posing an extraordinary challenge for the medical community. Currently, the Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the most reliable method for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2. This procedure involves collecting oro-pharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs from individuals. Nevertheless, for the early detection of low viral loads, a more sensitive technique, such as droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), has been suggested. Despite the high effectiveness of RT-PCR, there is increasing interest in utilizing highly trained dogs and electronic noses (eNoses) as alternative methods for screening asymptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2. These dogs and eNoses have demonstrated high sensitivity and can detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs), enabling them to distinguish between COVID-19 positive and negative individuals. This manuscript recapitulates the potential, advantages, and limitations of employing trained dogs and eNoses for the screening and control of SARS-CoV-2.

Canine olfactory detection and its relevance for the medical identification of patients with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath or sweat represents a potential non-invasive and rapid diagnostic tool for respiratory diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if trained dogs can reliably identify the odour associated with COVID19.

METHODS

This is a monocentric prospective study carried out in the Emergency Department (ED) of a university hospital fromJulyto November 2021.Axillary sweat samples from all patients were collected bytwo trained health care professionals. The samples were collected in the form of sterile gauze swabs placed under the armpits for at least 4 h for each patient.Then, Tubes wereshiftedto the double-blind dog training centre for VOC detection by two individuals.

RESULTS

Dogs were tested using a total of 129 axillary sweat samples; 69 of the 107 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 based on their odours had a positive PCR/Antigen test and 19 of the 22 patients who were tested negative for COVID-19 by the dogs had a negative PCR test. The sniffer dog infection detection method had a sensitivity of 95.83% and a specificity of 33.33%. The PPV was 64.49% and the NPVwas 86.36%. The measurement of the intensity of the connection between the two variables (disease/sign) was very strong (Q = 0.84). This link is statistically significant (X2 = 19.13) with a probability p ≤ 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the use of trained detection dogs as a screening method for SARS-CoV-2 is an interesting avenue of research that warrants further exploration and validation.

The science behind the nose: correlating volatile organic compound characterisation with canine biodetection of COVID-19

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic stimulated the advancement and research in the field of canine scent detection of COVID-19 and volatile organic compound (VOC) breath sampling. It remains unclear which VOCs are associated with positive canine alerts. This study aimed to confirm that the training aids used for COVID-19 canine scent detection were indeed releasing discriminant COVID-19 VOCs detectable and identifiable by gas chromatography (GC-MS).

Methods

Inexperienced dogs (two Labradors and one English Springer Spaniel) were trained over 19 weeks to discriminate between COVID-19 infected and uninfected individuals and then independently validated. Getxent tubes, impregnated with the odours from clinical gargle samples, used during the canines' maintenance training process were also analysed using GC-MS.

Results

Three dogs were successfully trained to detect COVID-19. A principal components analysis model was created and confirmed the ability to discriminate between VOCs from positive and negative COVID-19 Getxent tubes with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 77%. Two VOCs were found to be very predictive of positive COVID-19 cases. When comparing the dogs with GC-MS, F1 and Matthew's correlation coefficient, correlation scores of 0.69 and 0.37 were observed, respectively, demonstrating good concordance between the two methods.

Interpretation

This study provides analytical confirmation that canine training aids can be safely and reliably produced with good discrimination between positive samples and negative controls. It is also a further step towards better understanding of canine odour discrimination of COVID-19 as the scent of interest and defining what VOC elements the canines interpret as "essential".

Gas chromatography-flame ionization detector for sweat based COVID-19 screening

Simple approach for rapid screening of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been developed. This applied gas chromatography-flame ionization detector (GC-FID) analyzing the potential compound marker in sweat samples obtained from COVID-19 positive and negative volunteers in Bangkok, Thailand. The samples were collected by using cotton rods for 15 min, heated at 90 °C for 5 min, and the volatile compounds in the headspace (HS) were injected (5.00 mL) at 150 °C and separated within 13.7 min. The marker peak was tentatively identified as p-cymene by the authentic standard injection and comparison with the GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GC × GC)-MS analysis. Possible mechanisms for the presence of p-cymene were proposed. The marker peak area thresholds were then varied and optimized via construction of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. With the optimum threshold, the established method offered the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 96 %. This method was insignificantly affected (p-value >0.05) by genders, body mass indices, ages, and use of deodorants as well as the p-cymene containing food. However, the performance could be affected by the population with personal hygiene or experiencing the microbiomes producing p-cymene.

Unraveling the potential of breath and sweat VOC capture devices for human disease detection: a systematic-like review of canine olfaction and GC-MS analysis

The development of disease screening methods using biomedical detection dogs relies on the collection and analysis of body odors, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in body fluids. To capture and analyze odors produced by the human body, numerous protocols and materials are used in forensics or medical studies. This paper provides an overview of sampling devices used to collect VOCs from sweat and exhaled air, for medical diagnostic purposes using canine olfaction and/or Gas Chromatography-Mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Canine olfaction and GC-MS are regarded as complementary tools, holding immense promise for detecting cancers and infectious diseases. However, existing literature lacks guidelines for selecting materials suitable for both canine olfaction and GC-MS. Hence, this review aims to address this gap and pave the way for efficient body odor sampling materials. The first section of the paper describes the materials utilized in training sniffing dogs, while the second section delves into the details of sampling devices and extraction techniques employed for exhaled air and sweat analysis using GC-MS. Finally, the paper proposes the development of an ideal sampling device tailored for detection purposes in the field of odorology. By bridging the knowledge gap, this study seeks to advance disease detection methodologies, harnessing the unique abilities of both dogs and GC-MS analysis in biomedical research.

COVID-19 scent dog research highlights and synthesis during the pandemic of December 2019-April 2023

CONTEXT

This review was undertaken to provide information concerning the advancement of research in the area of COVID-19 screening and testing during the worldwide pandemic from December 2019 through April 2023. In this review, we have examined the safety, effectiveness, and practicality of utilizing trained scent dogs in clinical and public situations for COVID-19 screening. Specifically, results of 29 trained scent dog screening peer-reviewed studies were compared with results of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and rapid antigen (RAG) COVID-19 testing methods.

OBJECTIVES

The review aims to systematically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of utilizing trained scent dogs in COVID-19 screening.

METHODS

At the time of submission of our earlier review paper in August 2021, we found only four peer-reviewed COVID-19 scent dog papers: three clinical research studies and one preprint perspective paper. In March and April 2023, the first author conducted new literature searches of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library websites. Again, the keyword phrases utilized for the searches included "COVID detection dogs," "COVID scent dogs," and "COVID sniffer dogs." The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist was followed to ensure that our review adhered to evidence-based guidelines for reporting. Utilizing the results of the reviewed papers, we compiled statistics to intercompare and summarize basic information concerning the scent dogs and their training, the populations of the study participants, the types of sampling methods, the comparative tests utilized, and the effectiveness of the scent dog screening.

RESULTS

A total of 8,043 references were identified through our literature search. After removal of duplicates, there were 7,843 references that were screened. Of these, 100 were considered for full-text eligibility, 43 were included for qualitative synthesis, and 29 were utilized for quantitative analysis. The most relevant peer-reviewed COVID-19 scent dog references were identified and categorized. Utilizing all of the scent dog results provided for this review, we found that 92.3 % of the studies reached sensitivities exceeding 80 and 32.0 % of the studies exceeding specificities of 97 %. However, 84.0 % of the studies reported specificities above 90 %. Highlights demonstrating the effectiveness of the scent dogs include: (1) samples of breath, saliva, trachea-bronchial secretions and urine as well as face masks and articles of clothing can be utilized; (2) trained COVID-19 scent dogs can detect presymptomatic and asymptomatic patients; (3) scent dogs can detect new SARS-CoV-2 variants and Long COVID-19; and (4) scent dogs can differentiate SARS-CoV-2 infections from infections with other novel respiratory viruses.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of the trained scent dog method is comparable to or in some cases superior to the real-time RT-PCR test and the RAG test. Trained scent dogs can be effectively utilized to provide quick (seconds to minutes), nonintrusive, and accurate results in public settings and thus reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus or other viruses. Finally, scent dog research as described in this paper can serve to increase the medical community's and public's knowledge and acceptance of medical scent dogs as major contributors to global efforts to fight diseases.

Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

PURPOSE

To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.

METHODS

Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81%-97% sensitivity and 91%-100% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82%-97% sensitivity and 83%-100% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.

Sensitivity and specificity of in vivo COVID-19 screening by detection dogs: Results of the C19-Screendog multicenter study

Trained dogs can recognize the volatile organic compounds contained in biological samples of patients with COVID-19 infection. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo SARS-CoV-2 screening by trained dogs. We recruited five dog-handler dyads. In the operant conditioning phase, the dogs were taught to distinguish between positive and negative sweat samples collected from volunteers' underarms in polymeric tubes. The conditioning was validated by tests involving 16 positive and 48 negative samples held or worn in such a way that the samples were invisible to the dog and handler. In the screening phase the dogs were led by their handlers to a drive-through facility for in vivo screening of volunteers who had just received a nasopharyngeal swab from nursing staff. Each volunteer who had already swabbed was subsequently tested by two dogs, whose responses were recorded as positive, negative, or inconclusive. The dogs' behavior was constantly monitored for attentiveness and wellbeing. All the dogs passed the conditioning phase, their responses showing a sensitivity of 83-100% and a specificity of 94-100%. The in vivo screening phase involved 1251 subjects, of whom 205 had a COVID-19 positive swab and two dogs per each subject to be screened. Screening sensitivity and specificity were respectively 91.6-97.6% and 96.3-100% when only one dog was involved, whereas combined screening by two dogs provided a higher sensitivity. Dog wellbeing was also analyzed: monitoring of stress and fatigue suggested that the screening activity did not adversely impact the dogs' wellbeing. This work, by screening a large number of subjects, strengthen recent findings that trained dogs can discriminate between COVID-19 infected and healthy human subjects and introduce two novel research aspects: i) assessement of signs of fatigue and stress in dogs during training and testing, and ii) combining screening by two dogs to improve detection sensitivity and specificity. Using some precautions to reduce the risk of infection and spillover, in vivo COVID-19 screening by a dog-handler dyad can be suitable to quickly screen large numbers of people: it is rapid, non-invasive and economical, since it does not involve actual sampling, lab resources or waste management, and is suitable to screen large numbers of people.

Lessons Learned From a COVID-19 Dog Screening Pilot in California K-12 Schools

This diagnostic study describes a dog screening program used to identify COVID-19 infections among schoolchildren.

Breath Analysis of COVID-19 Patients in a Tertiary UK Hospital by Optical Spectrometry: The E-Nose CoVal Study

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, diagnostic technology played a crucial role in managing outbreaks on a national and global level. One diagnostic modality that has shown promise is breath analysis, due to its non-invasive nature and ability to give a rapid result. In this study, a portable FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-Red) spectrometer was used to detect chemical components in the breath from Covid positive symptomatic and asymptomatic patients versus a control cohort of Covid negative patients. Eighty-five patients who had a nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within the last 5 days were recruited to the study (36 symptomatic PCR positive, 23 asymptomatic PCR positive and 26 asymptomatic PCR negative). Data analysis indicated significant difference between the groups, with SARS-CoV-2 present on PCR versus the negative PCR control group producing an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87. Similar results were obtained comparing symptomatic versus control and asymptomatic versus control. The asymptomatic results were higher than the symptomatic (0.88 vs. 0.80 AUC). When analysing individual chemicals, we found ethanol, methanol and acetaldehyde were the most important, with higher concentrations in the COVID-19 group, with symptomatic patients being higher than asymptomatic patients. This study has shown that breath analysis can provide significant results that distinguish patients with or without COVID-19 disease/carriage.

Remote Medical Scent Detection of Cancer and Infectious Diseases With Dogs and Rats: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Remote medical scent detection of cancer and infectious diseases with dogs and rats has been an increasing field of research these last 20 years. If validated, the possibility of implementing such a technique in the clinic raises many hopes. This systematic review was performed to determine the evidence and performance of such methods and assess their potential relevance in the clinic.

METHODS

Pubmed and Web of Science databases were independently searched based on PRISMA standards between 01/01/2000 and 01/05/2021. We included studies aiming at detecting cancers and infectious diseases affecting humans with dogs or rats. We excluded studies using other animals, studies aiming to detect agricultural diseases, diseases affecting animals, and others such as diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases. Only original articles were included. Data about patients' selection, samples, animal characteristics, animal training, testing configurations, and performances were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies were included. Sensitivity and specificity varied a lot among studies: While some publications report low sensitivities of 0.17 and specificities around 0.29, others achieve rates of 1 sensitivity and specificity. Only 6 studies were evaluated in a double-blind screening-like situation. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in most evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical detection using animals' sense of smell lacks evidence and performances so far to be applied in the clinic. What odors the animals detect is not well understood. Further research should be conducted, focusing on patient selection, samples (choice of materials, standardization), and testing conditions. Interpolations of such results to free running detection (direct contact with humans) should be taken with extreme caution. Considering this synthesis, we discuss the challenges and highlight the excellent odor detection threshold exhibited by animals which represents a potential opportunity to develop an accessible and non-invasive method for disease detection.

Use of trained scent dogs for detection of COVID-19 and evidence of cost-saving

Background

One of the lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the importance of early, flexible, and rapidly deployable disease detection methods. Currently, diagnosis of COVID-19 requires the collection of oro/nasopharyngal swabs, nasal turbinate, anterior nares and saliva but as the pandemic continues, disease detection methods that can identify infected individuals earlier and more quickly will be crucial for slowing the spread of the virus. Previous studies have indicated that dogs can be trained to identify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced during respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether this approach could be applied for detection of COVID-19 in Rwanda and measured its cost-saving.

Methods

Over a period of 5 months, four dogs were trained to detect VOCs in sweat samples collected from human subjects confirmed positive or negative for COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Dogs were trained using a detection dog training system (DDTS) and in vivo diagnosis. Samples were collected from 5,253 participants using a cotton pad swiped in the underarm to collect sweat samples. Statistical analysis was conducted using R statistical software.

Findings

From August to September 2021 during the Delta wave, the sensitivity of the dogs' COVID-19 detection ranged from 75.0 to 89.9% for the lowest- and highest-performing dogs, respectively. Specificity ranged from 96.1 to 98.4%, respectively. In the second phase coinciding with the Omicron wave (January-March 2022), the sensitivity decreased substantially from 36.6 to 41.5%, while specificity remained above 95% for all four dogs. The sensitivity and specificity by any positive sample detected by at least one dog was 83.9, 95% CI: 75.8-90.2 and 94.9%; 95% CI: 93.9-95.8, respectively. The use of scent detection dogs was also found to be cost-saving compared to antigen rapid diagnostic tests, based on a marginal cost of approximately $14,000 USD for testing of the 5,253 samples which makes 2.67 USD per sample. Testing turnaround time was also faster with the scent detection dogs, at 3 h compared to 11 h with routine diagnostic testing.

Conclusion

The findings from this study indicate that trained dogs can accurately identify respiratory secretion samples from asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients timely and cost-effectively. Our findings recommend further uptake of this approach for COVID-19 detection.

In search of COVID-19: The ability of biodetection canines to detect COVID-19 odours from clinical samples

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 continues to be a public health concern and the demand for fast and reliable screening tests remains. SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans generates a specific volatile organic compound signature; this 'volatilome' could be used to deploy highly trained canine scent detection teams if they could reliably detect odours from infected individuals.

METHODS

Two dogs were trained over 19 weeks to discriminate between the odours produced by breath, sweat, and gargle specimens collected from SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected individuals. Third party validation was conducted in a randomized double-blinded controlled manner using fresh odours obtained from different patients within 10 days of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular result.

RESULTS

Cumulatively, the dogs completed 299 training sessions on odours from 108 unique participants. Validation was conducted over 2 days with 120 new odours. Twenty-four were odours collected from SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals (8 gargle, 8 sweat, and 8 breath); 21 were from SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals (5 gargle, 8 sweat, and 8 breath) and the remaining 75 were odours that the dogs could have associated with the target odour during training. The dogs were able to identify odours from positive specimens with an overall sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 87.5%. Considering a community prevalence of 10%, the combined negative predictive value of the dogs was 100% and the positive predictive value was 47.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple dogs can be trained to accurately detect SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Future research is required to determine how and when canine scent detection teams should be deployed.

Canine real-time detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the context of a mass screening event

Introduction

Previous research demonstrated that medical scent detection dogs have the ability to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 positive from negative samples with high diagnostic accuracy. To deploy these dogs as a reliable screening method, it is mandatory to examine if canines maintain their high diagnostic accuracy in real-life screening settings. We conducted a study to evaluate the performance of medical scent detection dogs under real-life circumstances.

Methods

Eight dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive samples. Four concerts with a total of 2802 participants were held to evaluate canines’ performance in screening individuals for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sweat samples were taken from all participants and presented in a line-up setting. In addition, every participant had been tested with a SARS-CoV-2 specific rapid antigen test and a RT-qPCR and they provided information regarding age, sex, vaccination status and medical disease history. The participants’ infection status was unknown at the time of canine testing. Safety measures such as mask wearing and distance keeping were ensured.

Results

The SARS-CoV-2 detection dogs achieved a diagnostic specificity of 99.93% (95% CI 99.74% to 99.99%) and a sensitivity of 81.58% (95% CI 66.58% to 90.78%), respectively. The overall rate of concordant results was 99.68%. The majority of the study population was vaccinated with varying vaccines and vaccination schemes, while several participants had chronic diseases and were under chronic medication. This did not influence dogs’ decisions.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 scent detection dogs achieved high diagnostic accuracy in a real-life scenario. The vaccination status, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, chronic disease and medication of the participants did not influence the performance of the dogs in detecting the acute infection. This indicates that dogs provide a fast and reliable screening option for public events in which high-throughput screening is required.

Travel in the Time of COVID: A Review of International Travel Health in a Global Pandemic

Purpose of Review

This review critically considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global travel and the practice of travel medicine, highlights key innovations that have facilitated the resumption of travel, and anticipates how travel medicine providers should prepare for the future of international travel.

Recent Findings

Since asymptomatic transmission of the virus was first recognized in March 2020, extensive efforts have been made to characterize the pattern and dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard commercial aircraft, cruise ships, rail and bus transport, and in mass gatherings and quarantine facilities. Despite the negative impact of further waves of COVID-19 driven by the more transmissible Omicron variant, rapid increases of international tourist arrivals are occurring and modeling anticipates further growth. Mitigation of spread requires an integrated approach that combines masking, physical distancing, improving ventilation, testing, and quarantine. Vaccines and therapeutics have played a significant role in reopening society and accelerating the resumption of travel and further therapeutic innovation is likely.

Summary

COVID-19 is likely to persist as an endemic infection, and surveillance will assume an even more important role. The pandemic has provided an impetus to advance technology for telemedicine, to adopt mobile devices and GPS in contact tracing, and to apply digital applications in research. The future of travel medicine should continue to harness these novel platforms in the clinical, research, and educational arenas.

Biomedical detection dogs for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 Infections from axillary sweat and breath samples

A PCR test of a nasal swab is still the "gold standard" for detecting a SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, PCR testing could be usefully complemented by non-invasive, fast, reliable, cheap methods for detecting infected individuals in busy areas (e.g. airports and railway stations) or remote areas. Detection of the volatile, semivolatile and non-volatile compound signature of SARS-CoV-2 infection by trained sniffer dogs might meet these requirements. Previous studies have shown that well-trained dogs can detect SARS-CoV-2 in sweat, saliva and urine samples. The objective of the present study was to assess the performance of dogs trained to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in axillary-sweat-stained gauzes and on expired breath trapped in surgical masks. The samples were provided by individuals suffering from mild-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), asymptomatic individuals, and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. Results: Seven trained dogs tested on 886 presentations of sweat samples from 241 subjects and detected SARS-CoV-2 with a diagnostic sensitivity (relative to the PCR test result) of 89.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 86.4-92.2%) and a specificity of 83.9% (95% CI: 80.3-87.0%) - even when people with a low viral load were included in the analysis. When considering the 207 presentations of sweat samples from vaccinated individuals, the sensitivity and specificity were respectively 85.7% (95% CI: 68.5-94.3) and 86.0% (95% CI: 80.2-90.3%). The likelihood of a false-positive result was greater in the two weeks immediately after COVID-19 vaccination. Four of the seven dogs also tested on 262 presentations of mask samples from 98 subjects; the diagnostic sensitivity was 83.1% (95% CI: 73.2-89.9) and the specificity was 88.6% (95% CI: 83.3-92.4%). There was no difference (McNemar's test P=0.999) in the dogs' abilities to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in paired samples of sweat-stained gauzes vs. surgical masks worn for only 10 minutes. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the promise of SARS-CoV-2 screening by detection dogs and broaden the method's scope to vaccinated individuals and easy-to-obtain face masks, and suggest that a "dogs + confirmatory rapid antigen detection tests" screening strategy might be worth investigating.