ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Exploring dog saliva as a non-invasive alternative to blood sampling for chemical exposome studies: analysis of synthetic phenolic antioxidants and PFAS.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Humans and companion animals are continually exposed to mixtures of synthetic chemicals from household products, textiles, food, and personal care items. Epidemiological studies of emerging contaminants typically rely on invasive blood sampling, whereas saliva presents a non-invasive and cost-effective alternative matrix that reflects both local and systemic physiological changes. In this pilot study, paired dog saliva and blood serum were analysed for two chemical groups of concern, that is, synthetic phenolic antioxidants (SPAs) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), to investigate whether saliva can be used for chemical exposome studies. Methods: Blood serum and saliva samples of a total of 30 dogs were included in this study. All dogs were privately owned, representing different breeds, and were presented to private veterinary clinics in the Murcia Region, Spain. Samples were analysed using acetonitrile for denaturation and extraction, and clean-up using enhanced matrix removal powder. The extracts were analysed using complementary liquid and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometers. Dogs were divided into three groups ( Results: Fourteen SPAs (including five metabolites) and eight PFAS were quantified in the dog's saliva and/or serum. Generally, the levels were higher in serum than in saliva. None of the dogs were free of contaminants. The SPA levels were dominated by the 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (2,4-DBP), found in 93% of saliva and 100% of serum samples, ranging from <LOQ-860 ng/g in saliva and 130-2,100 ng/g in serum. The levels of PFAS were dominated by perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorosulfonic acid (PFOS), which were quantified in more than 70% of the samples. No correlation between levels and the three groups, or the paired serum and saliva samples could be established. Conclusion: This study confirmed that SPAs and PFAS can be found in the saliva of dogs. The levels of PFAS in dog's serum were similar to those generally reported in human blood. Furthermore, this study confirms that dogs are exposed to SPAs at concerningly high levels, given the limited knowledge regarding their toxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.