Abstract
In the field of odor detection, many tools exist to store target materials and deliver scent, but with such an abundance of choice comes a bombardment of misconceptions as to which option is best. Subjectivity fuels fallacies in the market, but as objectivity and research are beginning to enter the field, better practices for handling and storing training tools may become commonplace. Contamination of target odors remains a threat to the success of detection canines. In comparing two commonly used, commercially available containers, this study addresses the ingress of contaminants into the widely used mason jar compared to the Training Aid Delivery Device (TADD). This study aimed to determine if the TADD would outperform the mason jars in preserving the target material within and investigate the influence of time. Contaminant levels were analyzed at three different time points to establish a relationship between time and quantity, but discovered levels remained too low to be conclusive. Regardless, the findings of this study suggest that the mason jar did not effectively resist contamination stemming from neighboring explosive compounds during storage. At the same time, the TADD showed an ability to withstand the pollution of the materials stored within. Environmentally sourced contamination consistent with explosives leached into the mason jars after only four weeks in a storage magazine that housed a range of explosives detection training materials. The results suggest that rudimentary devices, such as mason jars, may be an inferior method of containing training materials and could result in signature odors being tainted.
Download Full Study Below
Responses