• 1.

    International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 11784-Radio-frequency identification of animals–Code structure. 2nd ed. 1996–08–15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 11785-Radio-frequency identification of animals–Technical concept. 1996–10–15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Coalition for Reuniting Pets and Families Web site. Available at: www.avma.org/readallchips/default.asp. Accessed May 27, 2008.

  • 4.

    Lord LK, Pennell ML & Ingwersen W, et al. Sensitivity of commercial scanners to microchips of various frequencies implanted in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:17291735.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Martin L, LeBlanc R, Toan NK. Tables for the Friedman rank test. Can J Stat 1993;21:3943.

  • 6.

    Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric statistical methods. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1999.

  • 7.

    Collating data on adverse reactions to microchips. J Small Anim Pract 2004;45:644645.

  • 8.

    World Small Animal Veterinary Association. International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR). Available at: www.wsava.org/Icar399.htm. Accessed May 27, 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Doc TC23/SC19/WG3/N362–ISO/DIS 24631–4 Agricultural equipment - Radio frequency identification of animals–Part 4: Evaluation of the performance of ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 RFID transceivers.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

In vitro sensitivity of commercial scanners to microchips of various frequencies

Linda K. LordDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Search for other papers by Linda K. Lord in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Michael L. PennellDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine and College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Search for other papers by Michael L. Pennell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Walter IngwersenBoehringer Ingelheim Canada Ltd, Vetmedica Division, 5180 S Service Rd, Burlington, ON L7L 5H4, Canada.

Search for other papers by Walter Ingwersen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DVSc, DACVIM
,
Robert A. FisherMichigan Humane Society, 30300 N Telegraph Rd, Ste 220, Bingham Farms, MI 48025.

Search for other papers by Robert A. Fisher in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
, and
Jeffrey D. WorkmanDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Search for other papers by Jeffrey D. Workman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate sensitivity of 4 commercially available microchip scanners used to detect or read encrypted and unencrypted 125-, 128-, and 134.2-kHz microchips under controlled conditions.

Design—Evaluation study.

Sample Population—Microchip scanners from 4 manufacturers and 6 brands of microchips (10 microchips/brand).

Procedures—Each microchip was scanned 72 times with each scanner passed parallel to the long axis of the microchip and 72 times with each scanner passed perpendicular to the long axis of the microchip. For each scan, up to 3 passes were allowed for the scanner to read or detect the microchip. Microchip and scanner order were randomized. Sensitivity was calculated as the mean percentage of the 72 scans for each microchip that were successful (ie, the microchip was detected or read).

Results—None of the scanners had 100% sensitivity for all microchips and both scanning orientations, and there were clear differences between scanners on the basis of operating frequency of the microchip, orientation of the microchip, and number of passes used to detect or read the microchip. For the 3 scanners designed to detect or read microchips of all 3 frequencies currently used in the United States, sensitivity was highest for 134.2-kHz microchips and lower for 125- and 128-kHz microchips. None of the scanners performed as well when only a single pass of the scanner was used to detect or read the microchips.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated that use of multiple passes in different directions was important for maximizing sensitivity of microchip scanners.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate sensitivity of 4 commercially available microchip scanners used to detect or read encrypted and unencrypted 125-, 128-, and 134.2-kHz microchips under controlled conditions.

Design—Evaluation study.

Sample Population—Microchip scanners from 4 manufacturers and 6 brands of microchips (10 microchips/brand).

Procedures—Each microchip was scanned 72 times with each scanner passed parallel to the long axis of the microchip and 72 times with each scanner passed perpendicular to the long axis of the microchip. For each scan, up to 3 passes were allowed for the scanner to read or detect the microchip. Microchip and scanner order were randomized. Sensitivity was calculated as the mean percentage of the 72 scans for each microchip that were successful (ie, the microchip was detected or read).

Results—None of the scanners had 100% sensitivity for all microchips and both scanning orientations, and there were clear differences between scanners on the basis of operating frequency of the microchip, orientation of the microchip, and number of passes used to detect or read the microchip. For the 3 scanners designed to detect or read microchips of all 3 frequencies currently used in the United States, sensitivity was highest for 134.2-kHz microchips and lower for 125- and 128-kHz microchips. None of the scanners performed as well when only a single pass of the scanner was used to detect or read the microchips.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated that use of multiple passes in different directions was important for maximizing sensitivity of microchip scanners.

Contributor Notes

Supported by the American Animal Hospital Association, American Kennel Club Companion Animal Recovery, American Society of Veterinary Medical Association Executives, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Schering-Plough HomeAgain LLC, and the Society of Animal Welfare Administrators.

Dr. Ingwersen is a consultant for PetHealth Inc, the parent company of 24PetWatch.

The authors thank Katie Kleinhenz for assistance with scanning.

Address correspondence to Dr. Lord.