Fifty-six dog and handler teams participated in a study across three locations over two days to assess the effectiveness of current standards for bomb-sniffing dogs. The research, published in Frontiers, found that while the teams achieved an average success rate of 80 percent in detecting explosives, they often lacked sufficient access to explosives and proper training facilities. The target standard is a 90 percent success rate.
Lauryn DeGreeff, associate professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida International University’s Global Forensic and Justice Center, explained that these results point to issues with resource allocation rather than overly high standards. “I don’t think the standards are too high, I think we’re not supporting the handlers in the way they need to be supported,” DeGreeff said.
The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) set guidelines for how explosive-detection dogs should be trained and certified. This study was the first to examine how well those guidelines translate into real-world performance. Researchers used a “black box” approach, evaluating teams on both standardized OSAC tests and realistic scenario-based trials.
None of the participating teams passed the OSAC Standard certification test. Performance varied depending on location, type of explosive, and whether teams had regular access to training materials. “If they can’t find an explosive that’s in the test, that means they’re not going to detect it in real life,” DeGreeff said.
The study highlighted that federal handlers generally performed better because they had access to larger training facilities—resources not always available to contractors or smaller agencies. It also noted that repetitive training could lead dogs to find shortcuts rather than reliably detect explosives.
Training methods were another concern. In some parcel search scenarios, dogs were tested with boxes that did not accurately reflect real-world conditions. Additionally, many sessions risked giving unintentional cues because handlers knew where explosives were hidden; double-blind testing was recommended as a more accurate measure.
Odor contamination was identified as another challenge: when training aids are stored together for long periods, they develop a distinct scent unrelated to actual explosives. This can hinder detection when new materials are introduced. DeGreeff suggested rotating training materials regularly.
Researchers plan further studies in Miami and Texas using new funding, which will also allow them to expand into drug-detection dog research. They recommend expanding research geographically and applying findings across other fields such as narcotics or human-remains detection.
“I hope the people who are making the policies, hold the money, and have the ability to purchase explosives, become more engaged with the handlers and help them get access to what they need,” DeGreeff said. “We want to be sure they’ll find the real explosives. I’m excited, and I hope this will start a conversation.”
DeGreeff emphasized that continued research and improved access to resources could lead to safer communities.
