Domestic Preparedness Program: Testing of Detectors Against Chemical Warfare Agents, Summary Report

• NCJ Number: 192250
• Author(s): Terri L. Longworth; Kwok Y. Ong
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 24 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM)
• Sale Source: National Technical Information Service; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Research Paper
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This summary report evaluated the ability of the UC AP2C Portable Chemical Contamination Control Monitor Collective Unit to detect chemical warfare agent vapors.

Abstract

The goal of this study was to provide the emergency responders concerned with chemical warfare (CW) agent detection a general overview of the detection capabilities of the instruments. This review attempted to characterize the CW agent detection capability of the UC AP2C. Because of time and resource limitations, the investigation was solely interested with Tabun (GA), Sarin (GB), and Mustard (HD). These agents were thought to be the most likely threats. Civilian first responders and HAZMAT personnel use Immediate Danger to Life or Health (IDLH) values to select levels or protection during management of an incident. The results showed that the threshold sensitivity of the AP2C monitor exceeded the IDLH sensitivity requirements and the current JSOR values for HD, GA, and GB at all conditions tested. The AP2C units also demonstrated dependable and rapid detection and recovery from HD, GA, and GB exposures. The instruments were sensitive and could detect CW agents quickly at all humidity and temperature extremes tested. The UC AP2C also showed that it had the ability to detect liquid surface contamination using the S4PE. While it had some problems detecting the residual contamination from porous surfaces such as asphalt under the tested conditions, the sampler represented an efficient way to collect and deliver the sample to the instrument for analysis. The controlled laboratory environment tests with possible interferent vapors demonstrated the AP2C falsely responded to 1 percent saturation of gasoline vapor. Other tested substances, as well as gasoline vapor at the reduced concentration (0.1 percent) did not adversely influence the AP2C. The field interferent testing, however, showed multiple responses to engine exhausts and the moderately smoky environments, demonstrating that the instrument could not be expected to result in false CW detection responses during smoky emergency incidents when there may not be actual CW agent vapors in the environment. References