$EPA
EPA/600/R-07/104 I September 2007 I www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Testing of Screening Technologies
for Detection of Chemical Warfare
Agents in All Hazards
Receipt Facilities
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-07/104
September 2007
Technology
Evaluation Report
Testing of Screening
Technologies for Detection
of Chemical Warfare Agents
in All Hazards Receipt
Facilities
By
Thomas Kelly, Martha McCauley, Christopher Pricker,
Eric Burckle, and Brian Fahey
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Eric Koglin
Task Order Project Officer
National Homeland Security Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
944 East Harmon Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89119
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development's National Homeland Security Research Center, funded and managed this
technology evaluation through a Blanket Purchase Agreement under General Services
Administration contract number GS23F0011L-3 with Battelle. This report has been peer and
administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use of a specific product. This report does create or confer legal rights or impose any legally
binding requirements on EPA or any party.
11
-------
Preface
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
nation's air, water, and land resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) provides data and science
support that can be used to solve environmental problems and to build the scientific knowledge
base needed to manage our ecological resources wisely, to understand how pollutants affect our
health, and to prevent or reduce environmental risks.
In September 2002, EPA announced the formation of the National Homeland Security Research
Center (NHSRC). The NHSRC is part of the ORD; it manages, coordinates, and supports a
variety of research and technical assistance efforts. These efforts are designed to provide
appropriate, affordable, effective, and validated technologies and methods for addressing risks
posed by chemical, biological, and radiological terrorist attacks. Research focuses on enhancing
our ability to detect, contain, and clean up in the event of such attacks.
NHSRC's team of world-renowned scientists and engineers is dedicated to understanding the
terrorist threat, communicating the risks, and mitigating the results of attacks. Guided by the
roadmap set forth in EPA's Strategic Plan for Homeland Security, NHSRC ensures rapid
production and distribution of security-related products.
The NHSRC has created the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP) in an effort to
provide reliable information regarding the performance of homeland security-related
technologies. TTEP provides independent, quality-assured performance information that is
useful to decision makers in purchasing or applying the tested technologies. It provides potential
users with unbiased, third-party information that can supplement vendor-provided information.
Stakeholder involvement ensures that user needs and perspectives are incorporated into the test
design so that useful performance information is produced for each of the tested technologies.
The technology categories of interest include detection and monitoring, water treatment, air
purification, decontamination, and computer modeling tools for use by those responsible for
protecting buildings, drinking water supplies, and infrastructure and for decontaminating
structures and the outdoor environment.
The evaluation reported herein was conducted by Battelle as part of the TTEP program.
Information on NHSRC and TTEP can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ordnhsrc/index.htm.
in
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of all those who helped plan and conduct the
evaluation, analyze the data, and prepare this report. We also would like to thanks Lance Brooks
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Brian Schumacher and Manisha Patel of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their reviews of this report.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Technologies Tested 3
3.0 Testing Procedures 8
3.1 Performance Parameters 8
3.2 Test Procedures 9
3.3 Data Recording 14
4.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 15
4.1 Blank Samples 15
4.2 Reference Analyses 15
4.3 Audits 16
4.4 Data Review 17
5.0 Test Results 18
5.1 Accuracy 18
5.2 False Positive/False Negatives 24
5.3 Analysis Time 27
5.4 Repeatability 27
5.5 Operational Factors 27
5.6 Screening Technology Costs 30
6.0 Performance Summary 33
7.0 References 36
Appendix A Results of Testing with Vapor Phase Chemical Warfare Agents A-1
Appendix B Results of Testing with Chemical Warfare Agents in Liquid Samples B-l
Appendix C Results of Testing with Chemical Warfare Agents on Surface Samples C-l
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Pas
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
Table 5-5
Table 5-6
Table 5-7
Figure 1-1
Figure 3-1
List of Tables
Technologies Tested for CWA Screening
Challenge Concentrations for CWA Vapor Testing
Test Conditions Used in CWA Vapor Testing
TIC Concentrations Used in Liquid Testing
Summary Results of CWA Vapor Testing
Summary Results of CWA Liquid Testing
Summary Results of CWA Surface Testing
Summary of False Negative Responses
Summary of Sample Analysis Times
Summary of Observations on Operational Factors of the Technologies..
Cost Information on CWA Screening Technologies
List of Figures
Summary of All Hazards Receipt Facility Sample Screening Process
Test System Schematic
4
12
12
13
19
20
21
26
28
29
31
2
11
VI
-------
List of Acronyms
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level
AHRF All Hazards Receipt Facilities
ATSDR U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CGI combustible gas indicator
CH hydrocarbon indication of commercial flame spectrophotometer
COC chain of custody
CWA chemical warfare agent
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DI deionized
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
EC electrochemical
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FID flame ionization detection
FPD flame photometric detector
FSP flame spectrophotometer
G/V nerve agents
GB sarin
GC gas chromatography
HD sulfur mustard
HD/HL blister agents
HMRC Hazardous Materials Research Center
HN/AC blood agents
IMS ion mobility spectrometer
IP A isopropyl alcohol
L liter
L/SA arsenic compounds
LD50 lethal dose to half the population
ug microgram
uL microliter
MF mass flowmeter
MFC mass flow controller
MSD mass selective detection
MV metering valve
NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center
PE performance evaluation
PID photoionization detector
ppb part per billion
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
QMP Quality Management Plan
RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation
RH relative humidity
vn
-------
RSD relative standard deviation
T temperature
TIC toxic industrial chemical
ISA technical systems audit
TTEP Technology Testing and Evaluation Program
UV ultraviolet
VOC volatile organic compound
VX nerve agent designated VX
WMD weapons of mass destruction
Vlll
-------
Executive Summary
This document is the final report on an evaluation of commercially available screening
technologies that are designed to rapidly detect, and in some cases indicate the concentration of,
chemical warfare agents (CWAs) in air, in liquid samples, and on surfaces. The technology
evaluation described in this report was performed by Battelle under the direction of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Homeland Security Research Center
(NHSRC) through the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP). The technologies
evaluated were identified as possible candidates for use in EPA's All Hazards Receipt Facilities
(AHRF).
The EPA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) have teamed to develop, construct, and implement the AHRF for prescreening unknown
and potentially hazardous samples collected during suspected terrorist events. The AHRF are
intended for screening of samples for chemical, explosive, and radiological hazards, to protect
laboratory workers from injury and facilities from contamination, and to ensure the integrity of
collected samples. These facilities are not intended to provide detailed or quantitative analytical
results, but instead to provide initial screening of samples prior to full laboratory analysis, for the
safety of laboratory personnel. Screening technologies used in the AHRF are intended to be
rapid and qualitative, and may be of relatively low cost and "low tech" in design, but must
provide accurate identification of hazardous samples.
The procedures and target CWAs used in this evaluation were chosen to represent likely
conditions of use in the AHRF. In performing this technology evaluation, Battelle followed the
procedures specified in a peer-reviewed test/QA plan established prior to the start of the
evaluation, and complied with all the quality requirements in the Quality Management Plan for
the TTEP program. The screening technologies tested ranged from simple test papers, kits, and
color indicating tubes to hand-held electronic detectors based on ion mobility spectrometry
(IMS), photo ionization detection (PID), electrochemical (EC) sensors, and flame
spectrophotometry (FSP). Each technology was tested with CWAs and sample matrices for
which it was designed. The screening technologies were challenged with the CWAs sarin
(designated GB) and sulfur mustard (HD) in air at concentrations that would be seriously
hazardous to personnel within a few minutes of exposure. Those vapor phase challenges were
delivered at base conditions, i.e., room temperature and normal (50%) relative humidity (RH),
both with and without a volatile exhaust hydrocarbon mixture added as an interferent, and at
relatively high (30°C, 80% RH) and low (10°C, 20% RH) temperature and humidity conditions
without the interferent. Liquid samples were made up with GB, HD, and VX, in both isopropyl
alcohol (IP A) and water, at concentrations that would be hazardous upon physical contact with
the water sample. Surface samples consisted of glass coupons dosed with VX at one-tenth the
surface loading.
Regarding accuracy for screening vapor phase CWAs, five of the 10 technologies tested with GB
correctly detected that agent, and four of the eight technologies tested with HD correctly detected
that agent. The five screening technologies that accurately detected GB vapor did so even in the
presence of the hydrocarbon interferent mixture, and at low and high temperature and RH
IX
-------
conditions. Of the four screening technologies that accurately detected HD vapor at the base test
conditions, only two also did so at low and high temperature/RH conditions and with the
interferent mixture present.
Accurate detection of CWAs in water samples was limited to four technologies (out of 11 tested)
that were able to detect one or more CWAs. Two commercial color ticket technologies which
use acetylcholinesterase inhibition as their detection principle correctly detected GB and VX in
water (both without and with diesel fuel added as an interferent). The FSP instrument correctly
detected GB in all samples, but did not respond to VX, and responded strongly to HD only when
the diesel fuel interferent was also present. The various test papers (M8, M9, and 3-way) were
generally not able to detect the CWAs in water at the challenge concentrations used in this
evaluation.
Accuracy in detecting VX on test coupon surfaces was high, with all nine of the tested
technologies correctly detecting VX even at high and low temperature and RH conditions, and
with diesel fuel present on the surface as an interferent. Among those nine technologies were
various test papers (M8, M9, and 3-way).
False positive responses were rare in testing with GB and FID vapor, occurring in only a few test
conditions with only four of the 10 technologies tested. None of the tested technologies
produced any false positive responses in testing with CWAs in water samples. In surface testing,
the FSP gave two false positive responses when sampling blank coupons at the High temperature
and RH condition. Those responses appeared to be a memory effect after strong positive
responses were observed to the challenge (spiked) coupons at that condition.
False negatives were observed with several screening technologies in both the CWA vapor and
liquid sample testing, primarily in the inability of the technologies to detect a CWA under the
base test conditions. False negatives were also observed in only a few cases when testing with
an interferent, or at low or high temperature/RH conditions. Those occurrences are described
below. Notably, a few technologies showed false negative responses in CWA vapor testing even
though the GB or HD challenge concentration was equal to or higher than the detection limit of
the technology indicated by the vendor.
Most screening technologies showed no effect from the interferents used in the evaluation. In
vapor testing the hydrocarbon interferent mixture did reduce the ability of some technologies to
detect HD. Diesel fuel added as an interferent in water had a negative impact on one
technology's ability to detect the CWAs, a positive impact on another, and no effect on the rest.
Temperature and RH effects were also minimal.
The speed and simplicity of the vapor screening process varied widely among the tested
technologies, and ease of use was not necessarily correlated with accuracy in CWA screening.
The vapor detection technologies based on color indicating tubes were simple to use in principle,
but differed in the time and difficulty of obtaining the sample. With such technologies, the
number of manual pump strokes required to draw in the air sample ranged widely, and the
manual effort needed for those technologies requiring multiple pump strokes was sometimes
excessive. One technology used an electric air sampling pump that greatly reduced the physical
-------
effort needed, but still required a few minutes to draw the required volume. Use of color
indicating tubes that require the minimum sample volume would seem preferable for use in the
AHRF, and use of an electrical sampling pump might be helpful even then, if large numbers of
samples are to be screened. The three real-time analyzers tested (a PID, an FSP, and an IMS)
provided easy and rapid sample screening for CWA vapors, though with widely differing levels
of accuracy in CWA detection. A technology called the HazMat Smart Strip was the simplest
technology to use, requiring only removal of a protective film to expose the indicating patches on
the card, but this technology was not successful as a screening tool in this evaluation.
In terms of the speed and simplicity of liquid and surface sample screening, the M8, M9, and 3-
way indicating papers were especially easy to use. The two acetylcholinesterase color tickets
were also relatively simple, and the screening of water and surface samples with the FSP was
also relatively rapid, because of the simplicity of using that detector's "scraper" attachment and
desorbing these samples into the instrument inlet.
The applicability of a technology to screen for multiple CWAs at once is an important
component of the speed of analysis. Technologies using multiple color indicating tubes at once
can provide this capability. On the opposite end of the complexity spectrum, the FSP provided
multi-CWA capability, and was applicable to vapor, liquid, and surface samples.
The initial cost of the screening technologies varied substantially, with technology purchase
costs ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars for all but two of the tested
technologies. The two exceptions were the FSP at a discounted cost of nearly $16,000, and the
IMS at a cost of $10,000. However, when considering long-term use of the technologies in the
AHRF, the per-sample CWA screening costs were similar across many different technologies,
i.e., typically ranging from $4 to $20 per sample. The simple test papers were the least
expensive, with screening costs estimated at less than $0.50 per sample.
XI
-------
1.0 Introduction
This document is the final report on an evaluation of commercially available screening
technologies that are designed to detect the presence, and in some cases indicate the
concentration, of chemical warfare agents (CWAs) in air, on surfaces, or in liquid samples. The
technology evaluations described in this report were performed by Battelle under the direction of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Homeland Security Research
Center (NHSRC) through the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP) (Contract
GS-23F-0011L-3), and specifically under Task Order 1119 of the TTEP program. The
technologies evaluated were identified as possible candidates for use in EPA's All Hazards
Receipt Facilities (AHRF), and the testing was designed to evaluate their performance relative to
the needs of the AHRF as currently defined in the draft sample screening protocol developed for
the AHRF.1'2
The EPA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) have combined efforts to develop, construct, and implement AHRF capabilities for
prescreening unknown and potentially hazardous samples collected during suspected terrorist
events. AHRF development was initiated in response to requests from states and federal
agencies, particularly public health laboratories, for standardized guidance on screening samples
to protect laboratory staff and ensure sample integrity and the validity of analytical results. The
AHRF are intended for in-process screening of unknown samples for chemical, explosive, and
radiological hazards to protect laboratory workers and facilities from contamination and injury.
The AHRF are intended to serve as a front end assessment that can be used on an "as needed"
basis. These facilities are not intended to provide detailed or quantitative analytical results, but
instead to provide initial screening of samples prior to full laboratory analysis, for the safety of
all laboratory personnel. Screening technologies used in the AHRF are intended to be rapid and
qualitative, and may be relatively low cost and "low tech" in design, but must ensure meaningful
qualitative results.
This report presents the results of evaluation of commercially available screening devices for
rapid detection of CWAs in samples and on sample containers entering an AHRF. A separate
report3 presents the results of testing such technologies for detection of toxic industrial chemicals
(TICs). The procedures, target chemicals, and sample types used in this evaluation were chosen
to represent conditions of use likely to be present in the AHRF.1'2 Figure 1-1 is excerpted from
the AHRF Draft Protocol,1 and illustrates the sample screening process to be implemented
through the AHRF. As this figure shows, screening of an incoming sample or sample container
for chemical contamination occurs in multiple steps of the process, and may use multiple
screening technologies.
In performing this technology evaluation, Battelle followed the procedures specified in a peer-
reviewed test/quality assurance (QA) plan established prior to the start of the evaluation,4 and
complied with all the quality requirements in the Quality Management Plan (QMP)5 for the
TTEP program.
-------
Sample Receipt and Transport Container Screen: Outside AHRF
Establish/Continue chain of custody
Review corresponding documentation and interview the delivery technician
Visual inspect transport container (check for explosive device, radiation and unusual liquid or powder - If present, collect
sample, mitigate hazard and contact appropriate authorities)
Document observations, complete Sample Receipt Forms, and assign tracking identification
Carry out a threat assessment and develop a screening plan
Primary Sample Container Screen: Inside Fume Hood
Screen headspace for CWAs with ion mobility spectrometer (IMS) or flame spectrophotometer (FSP)
Remove contents from transport container and secondary container (if necessary)
Visually inspect and screen primary sample container for radioactivity (surface screen), explosives (colorimetric), and CWA
(colorimetric)
If hazards are indicated, collect exterior wipe sample, mitigate hazards indicated via decontamination of exterior surfaces or
shielding, and contact appropriate authorities
Document observations and results on AHRF Screening Results Form
Assess need to continue screening process and ability to transfer to glove box
Primary Sample Screen: Inside Glove Box and Biosafety Cabinet
Transfer primary sample container to glove box
Open primary container and screen for VOCs (photoionization detector) and combustible gases (combustible gas
indicator)
Screen primary sample for radiation (surface scan)
If sufficient amount of sample is present, split sample and continue screening process
Remove small portion of the sample and transfer into the biosafety cabinet. Conduct the optional screen using IMS and/or
FSP. Conduct thermal susceptibility test to determine if explosive materials are present.
Perform water solubility and reactivity test
Perform DB-3 dye test for alkylating agents (colorimetric)
Perform pH and starch iodide test (colorimetric)
Perform nerve agent test (colorimetric)
Perform the additional chemical screening as needed (colorimetric)
Document observation and results on AHRF Screening Results Form
Document Results
Complete and verify AHRF Screening Results Forms
Compile all forms into a single AHRF Screening Report
Contact sampling agency, appropriate local authorities, the local laboratory director, and the FBI WMD coordinator
Prepare sub sample and primary sample for delivery to the designated laboratory and/or sampling authority
Transfer to the biosafety cabinet to await transfer
Figure 1-1. Summary of All Hazards Receipt Facility Sample Screening Process
-------
2.0 Technologies Tested
The screening technologies tested were identified based on a review of commercially available
detection devices for the CWAs and TICs of interest. That review was wide ranging, in that
information on detection devices was initially obtained without concern about the applicability of
each device to the AHRF sample screening process. Screening technologies were then selected
for testing based on criteria specific to the intended use in the AHRF, i.e.:
• Applicability to multiple target CWAs and TICs
• Applicability as a qualitative screening tool
• Applicability to multiple sample types (vapor, liquid, surface)
• Speed and simplicity of use
• Cost of use and consumables
The technologies selected for testing were predominantly relatively inexpensive, simple test kits,
color tubes, and test strips, but also included a few hand-held electronic instruments employing
various detection principles. The reason for inclusion of the latter technologies was their
applicability to a wide range of CWAs and/or TICs, and their rapid response, which made them
attractive as potential screening devices despite their relatively high initial cost.
Table 2-1 lists the vendor and name of each technology selected for testing with CWAs in this
program, the detection principle, and the CWAs for which each technology was tested in the
surface, liquid, and vapor sample matrices. As Table 2-1 shows, the CWAs sarin (designated
GB), sulfur mustard (HD), and VX were used in this testing. Brief descriptions of each CWA
screening technology are provided below.
Agentase CAD Kit. This technology is designed to detect CWAs on surfaces, and consists of a
reservoir of reagent within a plastic pen-shaped container having a soft porous tip. Bending the
container breaks the reagent reservoir and soaks the porous tip. The surface to be tested is then
wiped with the porous tip, and the appearance of a color indicates the presence of agent. Only
Agentase pens designed to detect VX were tested in this project, because the low volatility of
that agent makes it the most likely agent to be present on sample surfaces entering the AHRF.
Appearance of a pink color in the porous tip indicated the presence of VX.
http: //www. agentase. com/cad-kit, php
Anachemia C2. This kit includes three distinct technologies for CWA detection, including 3-
way paper, a color ticket, and color indicating tubes. The 3-way paper indicates the presence of
CWAs by means of a color change, and was tested with liquid and surface samples. The color
ticket detects nerve agents based on acetylcholinesterase inhibition, and was tested for detection
of GB in the vapor phase. With this technology, a reagent pad must first be moistened with clean
water, and then exposed to the test atmosphere by means of a small pump. After exposure,
pressing the detector body into the holder contacts a test paper with the reagent pad. A white
color indicates the presence of agent, and the appearance of blue color indicates no agent
-------
Table 2-1. Technologies Tested for CWA Screening
Screening Technology
Vendor
Agentase
Anachemia
Draeger
MSA
Nextteq
Proengin
RAE Systems
Safety
Solutions
Severn Trent
Smiths Det'n
Truetech
Name
CAD Kit
C2
CM256A1
Civil Defense Kit
CWA Sampler Kit
Civil Defense Kit
AP2C
MultiRAE Plus
HazMat Smart
Strip
HazMat Smart M8
Eclox Pesticide
Strip
APD2000
M272 Water Kit
M18A3
Detection
Principle
color indicating
pen
3-way paper
color ticket
color tubes
3-way paper
multifunction card
color tubes
color tubes
M8 paper
M9 paper
3-way paper
color tubes
Flame
spectrometer
PID
multi-function card
M8 paper
color ticket
ion mobility
color ticket
M8 paper
color ticket
Sample Type
Surface
VX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Liquid
Sarin
(GB)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfur
mustard
(HD)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vapor
Sarin
(GB)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sulfur
mustard
(HD)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
present. The color indicating tube technology works by drawing sample air through a bed of
solid reagent in a glass tube; a color change in the reagent indicates the presence of the agent.
This technology was tested for detection of HD in the vapor phase, and includes a hand pump for
drawing the required sample volume through one tube at a time. With this technology, forty
compressions of the pump provide the required sample volume.
http://www.anachemia.com/defequip/product.html
Anachemia CM256A1. This kit includes two CWA screening technologies. One was 3-way
paper, which indicates the presence of CWAs by means of a color change, and which was tested
with liquid and surface samples. The second technology is a multifunction card that employs
reagents placed in selected locations on the card, with manual manipulation of portions of the
card to initiate reactions, produce heat, and observe color changes in the reagents. Each card can
indicate the presence of vapor phase TICs and CWAs by the performance of a series of about 15
sequential steps and manipulations, http://www.anachemia.com/defequip/product.html
-------
Draeger Civil Defense Kit. This technology uses a hand pump to draw air through five
different color indicating tubes simultaneously, with each tube providing an indication of one
vapor phase TIC or CWA, including GB and HD. All five tubes must be in place in the five-port
sampling holder for proper sampling to occur. Fifty compressions of the hand pump provide the
required sample volumes to all five tubes, http://www.ffpsafety.com/draeger/tube_sets_sub.htm
MSA Single CWA Sampler Kit. This device also uses color indicating tubes to detect GB and
HD, with a hand pump to draw sample air through a single indicating tube at a time. Thirty
compressions of the hand pump provide the required sample volume.
http://www.msanorthamerica.com/catalog/product679.html
Nextteq Civil Defense Kit. This technology incorporates four different CWA screening
approaches. Three of those approaches are color indicating papers, i.e., M8, M9, and 3-way
papers, which were tested with CWAs in liquid samples and on surfaces. The fourth approach
uses an electric pump (or optional hand pump) to draw air through five different color indicating
tubes simultaneously, with each tube providing an indication of one vapor phase TIC or CWA,
including GB and HD. All five tubes must be in place in the five-port sampling holder for
proper sampling to occur. The electric pump is preset to draw the required 3.5 L of air through
the five sampling tubes within a sampling period of 3.5 minutes.
http://www.nextteq.com/Products.aspx?category=3&subcat=16
Proengin AP2C. The Proengin AP2C is a hand-held flame spectrophotometer (FSP) that detects
characteristic emissions from hazardous chemicals as they are consumed in a flame. The device
burns hydrogen, supplied from a compact low-pressure cylinder inside the instrument, with
sample air drawn continuously by an internal pump. Detection of a target chemical triggers an
alarm from the AP2C, and the instrument provides identification and semi-quantitative readings
for the detected chemical. Such readings take the form of series of five bars that successively
turn orange depending on the intensity of response, with separate sets of bars for blister agents
(HD/HL), blood agents (HN/AC), nerve agents (G/V), and arsenic compounds (L/SA). The
AP2C also provides a general indication of the presence of hydrocarbon compounds by means of
a single bar "CH" display. A "scraper" attachment for the device allows liquid samples (either
neat samples or solutions) to be picked up on disposable scraper tips and vaporized into the inlet
of the AP2C by means of a heating circuit in the detachable scraper handle.
http://www.proengin.com/fp ap2c.htm
RAE Systems MultiRAE Plus. The MultiRAE Plus is a hand-held photoionization detector
(PID) for volatile organics in air that also can incorporate electrochemical sensors for oxygen,
explosive gases, and selected TICs. In the PID, an ultraviolet (UV) light source causes
ionization of those molecules in the sample air stream that have an ionization potential less than
the energy of the UV light. It should be noted that the PID principle of the MultiRAE Plus is not
necessarily expected to respond to the CWAs, but because the MultiRAE Plus is promoted for
use as a general toxic compound detector, it was tested with CWA vapors. The MultiRAE Plus
unit tested was also equipped with an electrochemical sensor for the TIC hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
http://www. raesystems. com/products/multi gas
-------
Safety Solutions HazMat Smart Strip. The HazMat Smart Strip is a card that may be attached
to a surface, such as a person's clothing, by means of its adhesive backing. The front surface of
the card has eight squares of colorimetric reagents, that produce qualitative indications of the
presence of several respective contaminants, including chlorine, acids or caustics (pH
indication), fluoride, nerve agents, oxidizers, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and cyanide. Removal
of a protective film exposes the reagent squares and allows any indicating reactions to take place.
The Smart Strip was tested with liquid and vapor phase samples, http://www. smart-strip.com/
Safety Solutions HazMat Smart M8. The HazMat Smart M8 is a badge that may be clipped to
a person's clothes, and consists of a piece of indicating paper in a cardboard frame. The Smart
M8 badge was tested with liquid and surface samples, http://www.smart-strip.com/order.htm
Severn Trent Eclox Pesticide Strip. This CWA screening technology is a nerve agent
detection ticket based on acetylcholinesterase inhibition, designed for water sample screening.
The technology uses two reagent pads under a foil protective covering. To use the ticket, the foil
covering is removed, and one of the reagent pads is wetted with the sample and then pressed
against the second reagent pad. A resulting white color on the first pad is the indication of the
presence of nerve agent; a blue color indicates no agent is present. The Eclox Pesticide Strips are
part of the Eclox portable field water quality assessment system, but may be purchased
separately.
http://www.severntrentservices.com/instrumentation_products/portable_water_assessment/index.
html
http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/vcenterl-38.html
Smiths Detection APD2000. This technology is a hand-held detector for vapor phase CWAs
based on the principle of ion mobility spectrometry (IMS). In this instrument, molecules in the
sampled air are ionized by a small radioactive source, and the ions are then separated by their
drift in air at atmospheric pressure in an electric field inside the instrument. The time/intensity
pattern of the ion signal is used to identify the target chemicals. This instrument is battery
powered, and draws its sample air using an internal pump. Displays include a relative intensity
indication, identification of the type of CWA detected (i.e., nerve, blister), and visible and
audible alarms. A confidence check sample, consisting of a source of simulant vapor, was
supplied with the APD2000. This source was used to confirm proper performance of the
detector at the start of each day of testing, and this check was repeated as needed during
performance of testing. http://www.sensir.com/Smiths/APD2000/APD200.htm
Truetech M272 Water Kit. The CWA screening technology in this kit is a nerve agent
detection ticket based on acetylcholinesterase inhibition, that is similar to the Severn Trent Eclox
Pesticide Strip in that it uses two reagent pads under a foil protective covering. This ticket is
intended for screening water samples. To use the ticket, the foil covering is removed, and one of
the reagent pads is wetted with the sample and then pressed against the second reagent pad. A
resulting white color on the first pad is the indication of the presence of nerve agent; a blue color
indicates no agent is present, http://www.tradewaysusa.com/eng/products/if_detection.htm
-------
Truetech M18A3. This kit includes two CWA screening technologies, namely M8 paper and a
color ticket. The M8 paper is applicable to CWAs in liquid samples and on surfaces. The color
ticket is similar to that in the Anachemia C2 kit. It is based on acetylcholinesterase inhibition,
and is intended for detection of nerve agents in the vapor phase. With this ticket the presence of
CWAs is indicated by a white color on the indicating pad after the conclusion of the indicating
reaction, http://www.tradewaysusa.com/eng/products/if detection.htm
-------
3.0 Testing Procedures
3.1 Performance Parameters
The key performance parameters evaluated for the CWA screening technologies were:
• Accuracy of identifying hazardous samples
• False positive/false negative rates
• Analysis time
In addition, technologies providing more than a simple yes/no response were evaluated for the
following performance parameter, using the responses displayed by these devices:
• Repeatability
These performance parameters are defined below, and general test procedures are described in
Section 3.2. The CWA evaluation was performed according to the requirements of the test/QA
plan4 and the TTEP QMP.5
In addition to these key performance parameters, operational characteristics of the screening
technologies were evaluated based on operator observations. These operational characteristics
included:
• Ease of use
• Data output
• Cost
3.1.1 Accuracy of Hazard Identification
Accuracy is the ability of a screening technology to identify hazardous samples, so that they can
be properly handled to minimize risk to laboratory personnel. Accuracy was measured in terms
of the percentage of prepared hazardous samples that were correctly identified as hazardous by
the screening technology in question.
3.1.2 False Positive/False Negative Rates
A false positive screening result occurs when a technology incorrectly identifies a safe sample as
being hazardous. A false negative screening result occurs when a technology incorrectly
identifies a hazardous sample as being safe. Responses that identified samples as hazardous
when they contained none of the target CWAs were denoted as false positives. The absence of a
hazard indication with a sample containing a target CWA was denoted as a false negative.
-------
3.1.3 Analysis Time
Analysis time is the time needed to screen a single sample or group of samples with an
individual technology. Analysis time is driven by the response time of a technology in indicating
a hazard upon presentation of a sample, and takes different forms for different screening
technologies. For continuous monitors (e.g., the Smiths Detection APD2000, or Proengin
AP2C) analysis time is dependent on instrument response and recovery time. For colorimetric
papers the speed of analysis is limited by the color development time after the start of exposure,
whereas for colorimetric gas sampling tubes, the time required to draw the required volume of
sample gas through the tube is likely to be the limiting factor. For all technologies tested, the
appropriate response time was noted to provide a consistent comparison of analysis times.
3.1.4 Repeatability
The responses provided by some sample screening instruments include quantitative readings.
Such readings were recorded and the repeatability of such indications was calculated in terms of
a percent relative standard deviation (% RSD) of the triplicate challenges at different test
conditions.
3.1.5 Operational Characteristics
Ease of use was assessed by operator observations, with particular attention to the conditions of
use during screening. This assessment was done in the course of evaluating other performance
parameters with VWAs, i.e., no additional test procedures were designed specifically to address
only the operational characteristics.
For each screening technology, the type of indication or data output was noted (e.g., color
change, intensity of color change, low/med/high indication, audio or visual alarm, quantitative
measure of concentration, etc.), and the clarity of the indication was assessed.
Costs for each technology were assessed based on the purchase and operational costs of the
technologies as tested. This technology evaluation was not of sufficient duration to test long-
term maintenance or operational costs of the technologies. Estimates for key maintenance items
were requested from the vendors as necessary.
3.2 Test Procedures
All testing with CWAs was conducted at Battelle's Hazardous Materials Research Center (HMRC),
in West Jefferson, Ohio. The HMRC is an ISO 9001-certified facility that provides a broad range of
materials testing, system and component evaluation, research and development, and analytical
chemistry services requiring the safe use and storage of highly toxic substances. Battelle operates the
HMRC in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and the
HMRC is authorized to store and use CWAs under a bailment agreement with the U.S. Army.
-------
3.2.1 Vapor Phase Testing
Screening technologies were evaluated based on their ability to respond to CWAs in the vapor
phase, using a test apparatus represented schematically in Figure 3-1. The test system consists of
a vapor generation system, a Nafion® humidifier, two challenge plenums, a clean air plenum,
metering valves (MVs), RH sensors, thermocouples, and mass flow meters (MFs) and controllers
(MFCs). Only one of the two challenge plenums was used in this evaluation. The challenge
vapor concentrations of GB and HD were generated by diluting vapors evolved from a diffusion
cell containing the neat agent, and maintained at a constant temperature. Testing was conducted
with one CWA at a time, and on one screening technology at a time, using this apparatus. As
illustrated in Figure 3-1, the test apparatus allows the temperature and relative humidity (RH) of
the challenge gases to be adjusted. To conduct evaluation of a screening technology, a flow of
clean air passed through the clean air plenum (Figure 3-1), and an equal flow of air containing a
constant concentration of the target CWA passed through one of the other plenums. Each
screening technology was connected to the 4-way valve shown in the figure, through which the
clean air or CWA challenge gas flowed before being vented into a chemical laboratory hood.
For technologies which draw their own sample flow, such as the color indicating tubes, Smiths
Detection APD2000, or Proengin AP2C, an appropriate direct connection was made to allow the
instrument to sample from the air flow without pressurization by the flow. Color indicating
cards were placed within a second enclosure through which the clean air or challenge mixture
was directed from the 4-way valve.
Each screening technology was first sampled (or was exposed to) the clean air flow, and any
response or indication from the screening technology was noted. After this background
measurement, the four-way valve was switched to the challenge plenum to deliver the CWA
challenge gas to the subject technology. Switching between the clean air and CWA challenge
gas flows was rapid, and the residence time of gas in the test system was short, so that the
analysis time determined for each screening technology was not biased by the limitations of the
test apparatus. The sequence of exposure to clean air followed by exposure to the CWA
challenge gas was carried out three successive times for each screening technology with each
CWA. For some of the screening technologies tested, this required using a new color indicating
card or tube for each clean air or CWA challenge. For other technologies, a color indicating tube
which showed no response on the clean air challenge was used for the subsequent CWA
challenge.
Table 3-1 shows the target CWAs used in vapor phase testing, the challenge concentrations used,
and the basis for the chosen concentrations. The target concentrations shown for both GB and
FID are Acute Exposure Guideline Level (AEGL) values, and specifically AEGL-2 values for a
10-minute exposure.6 The AEGL-2 value is defined as the airborne concentration of a substance
above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could
experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability
to escape. AEGL values are established specifically for the protection of personnel, and thus are
appropriate target values for AFIRF screening. Delivery of the vapor phase CWA challenges
was deemed acceptable if the CWA concentration determined by the reference method was
within ± 30% of the respective target value shown in Table 3-1.
10
-------
Challenge
Gas or CW
Agent Source
Temperature
Controlled Chamber
P) Pressure Sensor
Temperature Sensor
|T/RH| Temperature and Relative
I lmnl Humidity Sensor
[C] One Way Check Valve
Figure 3-1. Test System Schematic
11
-------
Table 3-1. Challenge Concentrations for CWA Vapor Testing
CWA
Sarin (GB)
Sulfur Mustard (HD)
Concentration3
0.015 ppm (0.087 mg/m3)
0.09 ppm (0.6 mg/m3)
Basis for Concentration11
AEGL-2 value
AEGL-2 value
a: At normal temperature and pressure, 1 ppm = (MW)(0.0409) milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), where
MW is the molecular weight of the compound.
b: AEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level.
For each screening technology, the test sequence of three clean air blanks interspersed with three
CWA vapor challenges was conducted with one CWA at a time at four different conditions: at a
base temperature and RH, at elevated temperature and RH, at low temperature and RH, and at
the base temperature and RH with an interferent (a mixture of hydrocarbons characteristic of
polluted urban air) added to both the blank and challenge mixtures. However, testing at the base
temperature and RH was conducted first, and if a technology failed to respond in all three CWA
challenges at that test condition, then no further tests were conducted at the other three test
conditions with that CWA. Table 3-2 summarizes the CWA vapor phase test conditions. The
interferent was a mixture of about 40 volatile organic compounds, characteristic of gasoline
engine emissions in urban air, in a compressed gas standard in nitrogen. This mixture was added
to the blank or CWA challenge air flows at a ratio of 1:100 interferent mix to air flow.
Table 3-2. Test Conditions Used in CWA Vapor Testing
Condition
Base
High T/RH
LowT/RH
Interferent Test
Temperature
(°C)
20
30
10
20
Relative Humidity
(%)
50
80
20
50
Interferenta
None
None
None
hydrocarbon mix
a: See text for description.
Reference analysis was used to quantify the CWA concentrations in the clean air and the
challenge mixtures, to confirm that the concentrations delivered were within the acceptable
tolerance of ±30% from the target value. For both GB and HD, the reference method involved
collecting the challenge mixture directly from the test apparatus into gas sample bags. The CWA
concentrations were then determined on these samples using a capillary gas chromatograph (GC)
with a flame photometric detector (FPD), according to existing HMRC test procedures. Calibration
for GB and HD was conducted by diluting stock agent to |J,g/mL concentrations, and then
injecting a 1-uL volume of each standard into the GC-FPD. Concentrations were determined
based on a linear regression of peak area with the amount of agent.
3.2.2 Liquid Sample Testing
The testing with CWAs in liquid samples used stock solutions of GB, HD, and VX in isopropyl
alcohol (IPA), which were then diluted in IPA or deionized (DI) water to make the challenge
samples used in testing the screening technologies. The DI water used was produced by a
12
-------
Labconco WaterPro PS water purification system in Battelle's laboratory. The dilution with IPA
or DI water to make the final challenge solutions was conducted immediately before the start of
testing each day, to minimize decomposition of the CWAs in solution. Each of the CWAs was
prepared at a single concentration in each of these solvents, and each liquid challenge sample
contained a single CWA, i.e., no mixed samples were prepared. Each screening technology was
tested with three blank samples of the solvent used to prepare the challenge solutions (i.e., IPA
or DI water), and three samples of the corresponding challenge solution containing the CWA.
Testing of each screening technology was conducted first with the CWA in the pure solvent. If a
technology detected the CWA in at least one of the three challenges in the pure solvent, then the
challenge was repeated with diesel fuel added to both the blank and challenge samples as an
interferent, at 1% of the total sample volume. Table 3-3 lists the CWAs tested in liquid samples,
the concentrations used in the evaluation of liquid screening technologies, and the basis for the
concentrations used.
Table 3-3. TIC Concentrations Used in Liquid Testing
CWA
Sarin (GB)
Sulfur Mustard (HD)
VX
Concentration
1 mg/mL
1.5 mg/mL
0.1 mg/mL
Solvent
IPA; water
IPA; water
IPA; water
Basis for Concentration"
0.5 x RDT&E limit
0. 15 xRDT&E limit
O.lx RDT&E limit
a: See text for discussion.
Because the purpose of the AHRF screening protocol is to protect analytical personnel from
toxic exposures in handling and analyzing samples, the use of CWA challenge concentrations
taken from drinking water standards was not appropriate, i.e., it is unrealistic to assume that an
analyst would ever ingest a sample provided for analysis. Furthermore, drinking water standards
assume the ingestion of several liters of water per day, and lead to allowable concentrations that
are too low to be detected by sample screening technologies (e.g., concentrations in the low
Hg/L, or part per billion (ppb) range for the CWAs). As a result, for this evaluation, the levels
set by the U.S. Government for samples in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDT&E) laboratories were used as a starting point for the CWAs. Allowable RDT&E levels
are set specifically to protect laboratory staff from hazards associated with spillage or inadvertent
contact with hazardous samples, and thus fit the intent of the AHRF screening protocol. For this
test, consistent with the usual practice in Battelle's laboratories, liquid concentrations of the CW
agents were kept at a fraction of their respective RDT&E limits.
Most of the liquid sample screening technologies were color indicating papers or cards (M8, M9,
or 3-way), and testing of those technologies involved simply applying a drop of the liquid sample
to the test paper. The Severn Trent Pesticide Strips and Truetech M272 Water Kit color tickets
were tested by wetting the appropriate reagent pad with the liquid sample. The Proengin AP2C
was tested with applying a drop of the liquid sample to one of the analyzer's scraper attachments
and then heating the scraper while positioned in the inlet of the AP2C analyzer. All liquid
sample testing was conducted at room temperature and approximately 50% RH.
Within a few minutes after the challenge samples were prepared by dilution of the IPA stock
solutions, samples were collected for reference method analysis by extracting an aliquot of the
challenge sample with chloroform. The chloroform extract was then analyzed by the same GC-
FPD reference method used for the vapor phase testing. All samples in IPA were stable, and GB
13
-------
and VX were sufficiently stable in water to meet the ±30% requirement in the test/QA plan,4 but
HD was found not to be stable in water samples. The impact of the instability of HD on the
water samples test results is discussed in Section 5.1.2.
3.2.3 Surface Sample Testing
The evaluation of screening technologies with surface samples used glass slides as the test
surface, and VX as the target CWA. The test samples were prepared by spiking 1 mg (i.e., 1
microliter) of neat VX into a rectangular area of approximately 5 cm2, marked on the center of a
1 inch x 3 inch glass slide, to produce a surface loading in that 5 cm2 area of approximately 0.2
mg/cm2. This loading is such that contact with the test area by unprotected skin would convey
one-tenth of the LD50 dose of VX by skin absorption for a person of normal size (the LD50 dose
is that expected to be fatal to half of the exposed population).4 Test coupons were spiked in the
morning of each test day and used immediately after spiking.
Most of the screening technologies tested with surface samples were color indicating papers
(M8, M9, or 3-way), and the evaluation was conducted by pressing the paper onto the test
sample and inspecting the paper for a color change. The Agentase CAD Kit color indicating pen
was tested by preparing the pen according to the manufacturer's instructions, and then swabbing
the center of the test coupon with the porous pen tip and inspecting the tip for a color change.
The Proengin AP2C was tested by scraping the center of a test coupon with one of the AP2C
scraper attachments, and then heating the scraper while positioned in the inlet of the AP2C
analyzer.
Tests were conducted with each technology using three blank glass coupons, and three glass
coupons spiked with VX, at room temperature and approximately 50% RH. For those
technologies that correctly indicated the presence of VX in at least one of these three tests,
interference challenges were then conducted by spiking approximately 1 mg of diesel fuel per
coupon onto both blank and VX-spiked coupons. Furthermore, for those same technologies, the
blank and spiked coupon tests (without interferent) were repeated at the same Low and High
temperature and RH conditions used for the CWA vapor testing (Table 3-2).
3.3 Data Recording
Because of the qualitative nature of most of the technologies being tested, the test observations
were recorded manually by the testing personnel on hard copy data sheets prepared for this
purposes. Upon completion of testing, the data sheets were reviewed and signed by a Battelle
staff member not conducting the testing but familiar with the test procedures. The data were
then entered from the hard copy data sheets into an Access® electronic database, which was used
for data analysis relative to the performance parameters being tested.
14
-------
4.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were performed in accordance with the
QMP for the TTEP program5 and the test/QA plan for this verification test.4 QA/QC procedures
and results are described below for the vapor- and liquid-phase TIC testing. Three deviations
from the test/QA plan4 occurred in this testing:
• In a few tests with GB vapor at room temperature, the RH exceeded the target upper
limit of 55%. Those tests were not repeated, as the conditions were not severely
different from the target conditions, but care was taken to maintain target RH in all
other tests.
• In testing with VX in water, reference analyses were not conducted for VX.
Reference analyses for GB were used as a surrogate for VX analysis, for the reasons
described in Section 4.2.
• In testing the Proengin AP2C or screening VX on test coupons at high T/RH
conditions, the three challenge coupons were analyzed first, and then the three blank
coupons, rather than the two types being interspersed. This error is noted in Section
5.1.3.
None of these deviations had a significant effect on the results of this test. These deviations were
documented on appropriate forms which are retained by the Battelle Quality Manager.
4.1 Blank Samples
As described in Section 3, challenges with CWA samples were interspersed with corresponding
blank challenges. In vapor testing, blank samples consisted of clean air at the same temperature
and RH as that used to dilute the CWAs. In liquid sample testing, blanks consisted of the same
high purity IPA and water used as solvents for the challenge samples. Surface blanks consisted
of clean glass coupons unspiked with VX. None of the blank samples produced any indication
of CWA contamination when analyzed with the applicable reference methods.
As described in Section 5.2.1, a few false positive responses were observed from the screening
technologies. However, those do not appear to be related to the cleanliness of the blank samples.
The most notable and false positive responses occurred with blank IPA samples, and appear to be
the result of incompatibility of the screening technologies with that solvent.
4.2 Reference Analyses
Reference analyses were made of the CWA challenge concentrations delivered during testing, to
confirm that those concentrations were within +30% of the target concentrations shown in
Section 3. In general, testing was not conducted unless the CWA challenge concentrations were
within that allowable range; HD in aqueous samples was one exception that is described below.
15
-------
In vapor phase CWA testing, for both GB and HD, the reference method involved collecting the
challenge mixture directly from the test apparatus into gas sample bags. The CWA concentration
was then determined using a capillary GC-FPD, according to existing HMRC test procedures.
Calibration for GB and HD was conducted by diluting stock agent to |_ig/mL concentrations, and
then injecting a l-|_iL volume of each standard into the GC-FPD. Concentrations were
determined based on a linear regression of peak area with the amount of agent.
In liquid sample testing, the same GC-FPD analysis method was used as the reference method.
Within minutes after the liquid challenge samples were prepared in IPA or water by dilution of
the IPA stock solutions, aliquots of the challenge samples were extracted with chloroform.
Testing with the challenge samples then began, while in parallel the chloroform extracts were
analyzed for GB or HD, as appropriate, by the GC-FPD reference method. Specific analysis for
VX proved difficult and too time-consuming for effective use in guiding the testing. Instead, the
reference results for the simultaneously prepared GB samples were used as a surrogate to
indicate the stability of VX in the samples. The slower hydrolysis rate of VX in water relative to
that of GB (i.e., about 1% per hour, as opposed to about 3% per hour for GB) makes this an
appropriate approach.7 These reference analyses showed that all challenge samples prepared in
IPA were stable. In addition GB (and by inference VX) challenge samples prepared in water met
the +30% requirement in the test/QA plan.4 However, HD was found not to be stable in water
samples. Loss of as much as 90% of the HD was seen in the water samples, between the time of
preparation and the time of analysis of the chloroform extract shortly thereafter. This finding
was not entirely unexpected, given the known rapid hydrolysis rate of HD (about 5% per
minute).7 The impact of the instability of HD on the water sample test results is discussed in
Section 5.1.2.
Because of the difficulty with VX analysis noted above in discussion of the liquid samples, it
was concluded that the extraction and analysis steps necessary to determine the amount of VX on
the surface test coupons would have greater uncertainty than the volumetric application of the
neat agent to the coupon by micro pipette. That is, the application of VX to the surface was
judged sufficiently reliable that confirmation of the VX dose by reference analysis was not
needed.
The decision not to conduct specific analysis for VX in liquid and surface testing was formally
documented as a deviation from the procedures stated in the test/QA plan,4 and was filed with
the Battelle QA Manager.
4.3 Audits
Two types of audits were performed during the CWA testing: a technical systems audit (TSA) of
the vapor phase test procedures, and a data quality audit of the recorded test data from the vapor,
liquid, and surface testing. Audit procedures and results are described below.
4.3.1 Technical Systems Audit
A Battelle Quality Management representative conducted a TSA of the CWA vapor testing
procedures at the HMRC on February 20, 2007. The purpose of that TSA was to ensure that the
16
-------
test was being conducted in accordance with the test/QA plan4 and the TTEP QMP.5 In the ISA,
the test procedures were compared to those specified in the test/QA plan,4 and data acquisition
and handling procedures, as well as the reference standards and methods, were reviewed.
Observations and findings from the ISA were documented and submitted to the Battelle Task
Order Leader for response. The only finding of this TSA was that the calibrations of certain flow
meters used in diluting the vapor phase CWAs were out of date. The flow measurements made
with these flow meters are not a critical part of the CWA delivery (i.e., challenge vapor
concentrations are set based on the reference method analyses, not on flow readings), so
substitution of appropriately calibrated flowmeters and labeling of selected flow meters as non-
critical was an acceptable response to address this QA issue. Records from the TSA are
permanently stored with the Battelle Quality Manager.
4.3.2 Data Quality Audit
At least 10% of the data acquired during each of the CWA vapor, liquid, and surface testing were
audited. Battelle's Quality Manager traced the data from the initial handwritten data record
through to final reporting, to ensure the integrity of the reported results. All summaries and
calculations performed on the data undergoing the audit were checked.
4.4 Data Review
Records generated in this test received a one-over-one review before these records were used to
calculate, evaluate, or report verification results. Data were reviewed by a Battelle technical staff
member involved in the verification test. The person performing the review added his/her initials
and the date of the review to a hard copy of the record being reviewed.
17
-------
5.0 Test Results
The primary results of this evaluation of potential AHRF sample screening technologies consist
of the observed responses to the CWA challenges, which establish the accuracy of each
technology for sample screening. Those responses were also reviewed to determine false
positive and negative rates for each technology, and to establish the repeatability of responses for
those few technologies tested that provide more than a qualitative (yes/no) response. Analysis
time and operational factors were also evaluated based on operator observations and test records.
5.1 Accuracy
The test results for each technology were compiled into databases that list the technology name,
the target CWA and its test concentration, reference method results confirming the delivered
CWA concentration, the test conditions (e.g., T, RH, presence/absence of interferent), and the
technology's response to the triplicate blank and challenge runs. The database of vapor phase
CWA results is included in this report as Appendix A, the database of liquid sample CWA
results as Appendix B, and the database of surface sample results as Appendix C. To make these
test results immediately understandable, a condensed version of each database has been prepared,
in which color coding of the test results is used to provide a visual indication of screening
technology performance. In this format, a technology which provides a positive response to all
three challenges in a single test condition with a CWA is indicated with the color green; positive
responses in only one or two of the three challenges are shown by the color yellow, and the
absence of a positive response in all three challenges is shown by the color red. This condensed
summary of screening technology performance is shown in Table 5-1 for those technologies
tested with vapor phase CWAs, in Table 5-2 for those technologies tested with CWAs in liquid
samples, and in Table 5-3 for those technologies tested with VX on surfaces.
5.1.1 Vapor Samples
Table 5-1 shows that of the 10 technologies tested with GB vapor, five showed correct positive
responses at the base test condition. Those five technologies were subsequently subjected to
testing with the hydrocarbon interferent, and at Low and High temperature and RH conditions. It
is noteworthy that for some of these five technologies, accurate detection of GB vapor at the
challenge concentration of 0.015 ppm (0.087 mg/m3) would not necessarily have been predicted
based on the vendors' stated detection limits. For example, the Draeger Civil Defense Kit had a
stated detection limit for GB of 0.025 ppm, but responded clearly and consistently to the GB
challenges in this evaluation. With this detection capability these technologies offer greater
protection in sample screening for GB than would be suggested by their stated detection limits.
Table 5-1 also shows that all five of the screening technologies that correctly detected GB vapor
at the base condition also did so with the hydrocarbon interferent present, and at the Low and
High temperature/RH conditions. Thus, these five technologies all exhibited accuracy of 100%
for GB vapor detection. However, a few unusual observations were noted with these
18
-------
Table 5-1. Summary Results of CWA Vapor Testing
Technology
Anachemia C2
Color Ticket
Color Tubes
Anachemia CM256A1
Multifunction Card
Draeger Civil Defense Kit
MSA Single CWA Kit
Nextteq Civil Defense Kit
Color Tubes
Proengin AP2C
RAE MultiRAE Plus
S. S. HazMat Smart Strip
Smiths Detection APD2000
Truetch M18A3 Ticket
CWA
GB
HD
GB
HD
GB
HD
GB
HD
GB
HD
GB
HD
GB
HD
GB
GB
HD
GB
Test Condition3' b
Base
Base + Int.
e
f
g
Low
c
d
High
d
h
a: Base = room T and 50% RH; Base + Int. = room T, 50% RH, and gas exhaust hydrocarbon mixture at 1% of
total flow; Low = 10°C and 20 %RH; High = 30°C and 80 %RH.
b: Green = proper response in all 3 challenges; Yellow = proper response in 1 or 2 of the 3 challenges; Red = no
responses in the 3 challenges. Absence of color indicates test not conducted.
c: A faint yellowish color (indicative of neither a positive nor negative response) observed in indicator area in 2 of
3 blank challenges.
d: Faint positive responses observed, but all blank and challenge runs produced the same color response.
e: Strong positive (red) responses were observed with the GB challenge, and a weak(light pink) response was seen
with the blank (i.e., interferent only) challenges.
f: Strong positive (yellow) responses were observed with the GB challenge, and a weak (faint yellowish) response
was seen with the blank (i.e., interferent only) challenges.
g: Only one positive response was observed, and that occurred while sampling the blank (clean air).
h: All responses were correct, however the unit was observed to switch into its AutoCal mode without any input
from the test operators.
19
-------
Table 5-2. Summary Results of CWA Liquid Testing
Technology
Anachemia
C2 3-way paper
CM256A1 3-way paper
Nextteq Civil Defense Kit
M8 paper
M9 paper
3-way paper
Proengin AP2C
Safety Solutions
HazMat Smart Strip
HazMat Smart M8
Severn Trent Eclox Strip
Truetech
M272 Wtr Kit color ticket
M18A3 M8 paper
CWA
GB
VX
HD
GB
VX
HD
Solvent and Composition8'15
IPA
Base
GB
VX
HD
GB
VX
HD
GB
VX
HD
GB
VX
HD
GB
VX
GB
VX
HD
GB
VX
GB
VX
GB
VX
HD
c
c
c
d
d
d
c
c
c
c
Base+Int
Water
Base
d
d
Base+Int
d
c:
d:
IPA = isopropyl alcohol; Base = challenge sample with CWA concentration shown in Table 3-3, and
Base+Int = same challenge sample with diesel fuel added at 1% by volume as interferent.
Green = proper response in all three challenges; Yellow = proper response in 1 or 2 of the 3 challenges;
Red = no response or incorrect response in all 3 challenges. Absence of color means test not conducted.
Technology also gave positive responses to the blank solvent.
See section 5.1.2 for a detailed explanation of performance under this condition.
20
-------
Table 5-3. Summary Results of CWA Surface Testing"
Technology
Agentase CAD Kit
Anachemia C2
3-way paper
Anachemia CM256A1
3-way paper
Nextteq Civil Defense Kit
M8 paper
M9 paper
3-way paper
Proengin AP2C
Safety Solutions
HazMat Smart M8
Truetch M18A3
M8 paper
Test Condition ' c
Base
Base + Int.
d
d
d
d
d
d
Low
High
e
a: All surface testing done with VX as the target CWA.
b: Base = room T and 50% RH; Base + Int. = room T, 50% RH, diesel fuel as interferent; Low = 10°C and 20
%RH; High = 30°C and 80 %RH.
c: Green = proper response in all three challenges; Yellow = proper response in 1 or 2 of the 3 challenges; Red =
no responses in the 3 challenges. Absence of color indicates test not conducted.
d: These papers showed a pink color when challenged with blank test coupons spiked with only diesel fuel; this
was clearly different from the dark green color shown when VX was also present.
e: See section 5.1.3 for a detailed explanation concerning performance under this condition.
technologies in the GB vapor testing. The Anachemia C2 color ticket showed a faint yellow
color in its indicator area in two of the three blank (i.e., clean air) challenges at the Low
temperature/RH condition. These are neither positive nor negative indications with this
technology. Also, the Draeger Civil Defense Kit showed a faint pink color, and the MSA Single
CWA Sampler Kit a faint yellowish color, suggesting a weak positive response with the blank
samples during interferent testing at the base temperature/RH conditions. Those blank sample
results are considered false positive responses.
Table 5-1 also shows that of the eight technologies tested with HD vapor, four showed correct
positive responses at the base test conditions. Those four technologies were subsequently
subjected to testing with the hydrocarbon interferent, and at Low and High temperature and RH
conditions. Notably, for each of these four technologies the HD vapor challenge concentration
of 0.09 ppm (0.6 mg/m3) was lower than the technology's stated detection limit for HD. These
21
-------
technologies thus offer greater protection in sample screening for HD vapor than would be
suggested by their stated detection limits.
Unlike the situation with GB, the screening technologies that successfully detected HD vapor at
the base condition did not necessarily do so at all other test conditions. The Draeger Civil
Defense Kit and Nextteq Civil Defense Kit both gave correct positive responses at all four test
conditions in Table 5-1, and thus achieved 100% accuracy for HD detection. However, the
Anachemia C2 color tubes showed no response to HD vapor challenges with the interferent
mixture present, and showed no difference between blank and HD challenge sample responses at
both the Low and High temperature/RH conditions. The result is 25% accuracy of HD detection
for that technology. The Smiths Detection APD2000 gave correct positive responses at the base
test condition and at both Low and High temperature/RH conditions, but gave no response to the
HD challenges when the hydrocarbon interferent mixture was also present. At that condition, the
only positive response occurred while sampling the clean air blank; that response is a false
positive. An accuracy of 75% in HD detection results for the Smiths Detection APD2000.
An unusual observation was also made in HD vapor testing with the Smiths Detection APD2000
at the High temperature/RH condition. The test operators observed that the APD2000 switched
into its AutoCal mode multiple times during normal operation at that condition, without
intervention by the operators. In each case the operators switched the APD2000 back into
routine monitoring mode and continued the test. It should be noted that proper operation of the
APD2000 was always checked before testing with the simulant source supplied with the unit,
and this check was sometimes repeated during testing. All such checks confirmed proper
operation of the APD2000.
5.1.2 Liquid Samples
Table 5-2 summarizes the screening results with liquid samples, showing for each technology the
CWAs used in testing and the results with both IPA and water samples, both without and with
diesel fuel added as an interferent. Table 5-2 shows that few successful screening results were
obtained with the liquid samples. Testing with the challenge solutions in IPA was especially
problematic, as the great majority of the screening technologies produced no positive responses
with the IPA samples. Furthermore, as the footnotes to Table 5-2 indicate, the three technologies
which did give a positive response to the IPA challenge solutions also responded positively to
the blank IPA solvent. As a result, no interferent tests were run with any of the technologies
with IPA samples. The most extreme response to the IPA samples was exhibited by the
Proengin AP2C, which displayed the highest response level of every alarm when challenged with
blank IPA solvent (i.e., simultaneous five-bar indications of HD/HL, HN/AC, G/V, and L/SA, as
well as the hydrocarbon indication CH). Because of this extreme response, no testing was done
of the AP2C with IPA solutions other than the blank solvent.
One explanation for the lack of successful screening results with the IPA samples may be that the
technologies are not designed for application to non-aqueous solvents. This is certainly plausible
for the M8 and 3-way color indicating papers tested. However, the water sample results in Table
5-2 indicate that the simple inability to detect the CWAs at the target screening levels may also
be a key factor. With the water samples, positive indications of the CWAs were found with only
22
-------
four technologies. The Severn Trent Eclox Pesticide Strip and Truetech M272 Water Kit color
ticket both responded correctly to the GB and VX challenge samples in water, and gave no
response to blank water samples. They also gave correct responses when diesel fuel was present
in the blank and challenge samples. Accuracy thus was 100% for those two technologies in
detecting GB and VX in water. The Proengin AP2C responded correctly to GB in all challenges
both with and without the diesel fuel interferent, resulting in accuracy of 100% for GB, but gave
no response to VX. With HD samples, the Proengin AP2C gave correct but very brief
(approximately one second duration) indications of HD/HL in two of the three challenges, but
gave strong indications of HD/HL with all three challenges when the diesel fuel interferent was
also present. Overall accuracy for HD thus was 83% (5 out of 6 challenges). The Nextteq Civil
Defense Kit M8 paper did not respond to GB in the water samples, but with all three VX samples
showed a light yellow color, which is a positive response for GB rather than for VX. Those
responses were recorded as correct because they are indicative of a nerve agent and provide a
protective response for laboratory personnel. When diesel fuel was also present in the water
sample with VX, the Nextteq M8 paper showed the light yellow positive response in only two of
the three challenges. Overall accuracy for the Nextteq M8 paper for VX thus was 83%. With
HD in water, the Nextteq M8 paper gave positive responses in two out of three challenges, but
gave no positive responses when diesel fuel was also present, resulting in 33% accuracy (2 of 6
challenges). Very little information was available on the expected detection limits of these
technologies for CWAs in water, so it is not possible to compare expected and observed
performance for these technologies.
It should be noted that the stability of HD in the water samples may affect the test results shown
in Table 5-2. All three CWAs are stable in the IPA samples, but in water the hydrolysis of the
CWAs can be significant. For GB and VX, published hydrolysis rates are about 3% per hour
and 1% per hour, respectively.7 Based on the time required to prepare, analyze, and use the
challenge samples of these CWAs in water, relatively little loss of these CWAs would be
expected during testing, and indeed the reference analyses confirm that expectation. However,
for HD the hydrolysis rate is about 5% per minute,7 and considerable decomposition of HD in
water solution would be expected during testing. In fact that was observed, as up to 90% loss of
HD from the water challenge solutions was seen by reference analyses, despite efforts to use the
challenge samples soon after they were prepared. Consequently, the results for HD screening
may underestimate the ability of the tested technologies to detect HD in water samples.
However, it should be noted that the rapid decomposition of HD in water will happen with real
samples, and will minimize the likelihood that water samples containing HD will actually enter
the AHRF. The decomposition products of HD are thiodiglycol and 1,4-thioxane in a roughly
4:1 ratio.7 Both compounds are much less toxic than HD itself.
A final comment on the liquid sample testing is that the Proengin AP2C scraper attachments
were difficult to wet with the water samples, i.e., water tends to run off the surface of the scraper.
According to the records of the testing personnel, this was less of a problem with the challenge
samples containing CWAs than with blank water samples.
23
-------
5.1.3 Surface Samples
Table 5-3 shows that all nine of the screening technologies tested with surface samples were
successful in detecting VX on the surface coupons, whether at the base condition, with diesel
fuel present as an interferent, or at Low or High temperature and RH. Thus all nine screening
technologies tested in this manner were 100% accurate in detecting VX on the coupon surfaces
under these test conditions.
As indicated in the footnote to Table 5-3, all of the M8 and 3-way papers also showed a pink
color after contact with the coupons spiked with only diesel fuel. This color change does not
resemble the color changes that indicate the presence of VX. As a result, these responses are not
considered false positives, but are noted for the information of potential users of these papers.
The only other unusual response noted with the surface samples occurred with the Proengin
AP2C at the High temperature and RH condition (Table 5-3). At that test condition, the three
challenge coupons (spiked with VX) were screened before the three blank coupons were
screened. The Proengin AP2C responses to the VX challenge coupons were markedly more
intense than the corresponding challenge responses at other test conditions, and the response was
very slow to clear after the challenge was completed. In fact, even several minutes after
screening a challenge coupon, the Proengin AP2C still showed a one-bar G/V response that did
not completely clear. Screening of the next challenge coupon at the High temperature and RH
condition then produced the strong G/V response, which again only slowly decreased after the
challenge. When the three blank coupons were subsequently screened, the first produced a three-
bar response indicating HD/HL, the second produced a brief one-bar response indicating G/V,
and the third produced a brief hydrocarbon (CH) indication. The first two of these blank coupon
responses are considered false positives. However, these observations are more suggestive of a
memory effect with the Proengin AP2C in screening VX at the High temperature and RH
condition, which caused slow recovery of readings after a challenge, and contributed to the false
positive responses on the first two blanks. It is unknown why this behavior was observed at the
High temperature and RH condition, and not at the base or Low temperature and RH conditions.
5.2 False Positive/False Negatives
5.2.1 False Positives
Testing for false positive responses was done through challenges with a completely blank sample
(i.e., clean air in the vapor testing, pure solvents in the liquid testing, and a clean coupon in the
surface testing), and through challenges with interferent in the absence of a target CWA (i.e., the
hydrocarbon mixture in air in the vapor testing, and the diesel fuel in liquid and surface testing).
In the GB vapor testing, three weak false positive responses were seen with the Draeger Civil
Defense Kit, and with the MSA Single CWA Sampler Kit, with clean air plus the added
hydrocarbon mixture (Table 5-1). In the HD vapor testing, the Smiths Detection APD2000 gave
a false positive response to one of the three blank challenges with the hydrocarbon interferent
mixture.
24
-------
In liquid sample testing false positives were observed only with the IPA solvent blanks, as
discussed in Section 5.1.2, likely due to incompatibility of the screening technologies with that
solvent. The Proengin AP2C in particular responded positively with every possible alarm when
tested with blank IPA samples. No false positives occurred with any water samples.
In the surface sample testing the only two false positive readings were with the AP2C at the High
temperature and RH condition, as discussed in Section 5.1.3. Those appeared to be the result of
slow clearance of the AP2C readings after challenge runs at those conditions.
5.2.2 False Negatives
False negatives are shown by the red or yellow cells in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, which indicate the
absence of a response in all three CWA challenges, or in one or two challenges, respectively.
For clarity, Table 5-4 draws information from Tables 5-1 and 5-2 (excluding the results with IPA
solutions) to list the false negative responses observed in the vapor and liquid CWA testing. No
false negatives occurred in the surface testing (Table 5-3).
In the vapor testing, most of the false negatives were due to the inability of the technology to
detect the CWA at the vapor challenge concentration under the base test conditions. The only
exceptions were that the Anachemia C2 color tubes were ineffective at detecting HD at any
condition except the base condition, and the Smiths Detection APD2000 did not detect HD when
the hydrocarbon interferent mixture was also present.
Similarly in the liquid testing, almost all false negatives occurred due to the complete inability of
the technologies to detect the CWAs in the base test condition, i.e., in otherwise clean water at
the challenge concentrations. Also, the Nextteq M8 paper showed an effect of the diesel fuel
interferent, in the form of one false negative for VX with that interferent present (as opposed to
no false negatives without the interferent), and three false negatives for HD with that interferent
present (as opposed to one without the interferent). The Proengin AP2C also showed one false
negative response for HD at the base test condition.
False negative responses are of great concern in the AHRF sample screening process, so an
assessment was made of how the expected detection capabilities of the screening technologies
compare to the actual detection behavior summarized in Table 5-4. This assessment could only
be done for vapor phase CWA detection, as summarized in Table 5-1, because very little
information was available from the technology vendors on the likely detection limits of their
technologies for CWAs in the liquid phase. Even for vapor phase CWA detection, stated
detection limits were not available from the vendors for all the technologies tested. Regarding
the detection of GB vapors, the Anachemia CM256A1 multifunction card, the Nextteq Civil
Defense Kit color tubes, and the Smiths Detection APD2000 all failed to detect that CWA even
though the target challenge concentration was equal to or greater than the stated detection limit
for the technology. The RAE MultiRAE Plus did not detect GB, as expected based on its stated
detection limit, and the GB detection limit of the Safety Solutions HazMat Smart Strip was
unknown. Regarding HD vapor detection, the Proengin AP2C was the only technology among
those that failed to detect HD that had a stated detection limit lower than the challenge
concentration.
25
-------
Table 5-4. Summary of False Negative Responses
Technology
Vapor8
Anachemia
C2 Color tubes
CM256A1 Multfn Card
MSA Single CWA Kit
Nextteq Civil Defense Kit
Proengin AP2C
RAE MultiRAE Plus
S.S. HazMat Smart Strip
Smiths Detection APD2000
Liquid"
Anachemia
C2 3-way paper
CM256A1 3-way paper
Nextteq
M8 paper
M9 paper
3-way paper
Proengin
AP2C
Safety Solutions
HazMat Smart Strip
HazMat Smart M8
Truetech
M18A3 M8 paper
CWA
HD
GB,HD
HD
GB
HD
GB,HD
GB
GB
HD
GB, VX, HD
GB, VX, HD
GB
VX
HD
GB, VX, HD
GB, VX, HD
VX
HD
GB, VX, HD
GB, VX, HD
GB, VX, HD
Number of
False Negatives
3 each
3 each
3
3
3
3 each
3
3
3
3 each
3 each
3
1
1(3)
3 each
3 each
3
1
3 each
3 each
3 each
Condition
Base + Int.,
Low, High
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base + Int.
Base
Base
Base
Base +Int
Base (Base +Int)
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base
Base
a: See Table 5-1.
b: See Table 5-2. False negative responses with IPA solvent in liquid sample testing are not listed; that solvent not
compatible with many screening technologies.
26
-------
5.3 Analysis Time
The time required to screen a sample with each of the screening technologies was determined by
the effort required for sample collection (e.g., drawing of air sample with a hand pump) or
manipulation (e.g., mixing of reagents, breaking of tubes), as well as by the inherent response
time of the detection principle of each technology. Table 5-5 summarizes the analysis time
observations for each technology, listing the type of samples (vapor, liquid, or surface), the
approximate typical analysis time characteristic of each technology, and comments on the
analysis time. Table 5-5 includes only those technologies which actually gave a response to at
least one CWA at the base test condition for one or more sample types, i.e., a technology which
did not respond does not have a measurable response time. It should be noted that these results
apply to the target CWA concentrations used in this test. The presence of higher concentrations
may produce more rapid responses with some technologies.
Table 5-5 shows that many of the screening technologies responded to the challenge samples
within seconds. Among the longest analysis times (up to approximately three minutes) were
those for the Anachemia, Severn Trent, and Truetech color tickets, which require substantial
reaction time. The Anachemia, MSA, and Nextteq color indicating tubes also had analysis times
of a few minutes, due to the time to draw the air sample through the tube. It should be noted that
for the Proengin AP2C, the analysis times shown for liquid and surface samples are determined
from when the scraper attachment is inserted into the AP2C inlet and heated to drive any CWA
into the AP2C. The process of then disposing of the used scraper tip, attaching a new scraper tip,
and contacting the next liquid or surface sample will require additional time (perhaps 15 to 30
seconds per sample in routine operation).
5.4 Repeatability
None of the screening technologies tested for detection of CWAs provided a quantitative
indication of CWA concentration. As a result, no such readings exist from the CWA testing with
which to evaluate repeatability. (Repeatability of quantitative readings was evaluated for a few
technologies in the corresponding TIC screening report.3)
5.5 Operational Factors
Operational factors were assessed based on the observations of the test operators, and are
summarized in Table 5-6, which for each CWA technology describes the general ease of use, any
problems noted in using the technology, and the physical effort required for use. The latter issue
was included because a few of the vapor sampling technologies rely on drawing sample air
through a colorimetric tube using a hand pump, and such effort can become tedious if performed
repetitively. Note that in Table 5-6 the several types of very similar test papers (M8, M9, and 3-
way) from different vendors (Anachemia, Nextteq, Safety Solutions, and Truetech) are grouped
together for discussion of operational factors.
27
-------
Table 5-5. Summary of Sample Analysis Times"
Technology
Agentase CAD Kit
Anachemia C2
Color Ticket
Color Tubes
3-way Paper
Anachemia CM256A1
3-way Paper
Draeger Civil Defense Kit
MSA Single CWA Kit
Nextteq Civil Defense Kit
M8 Paper
M9 Paper
3-way Paper
Color Tubes
Proengin AP2C
Safety Solutions
HazMat Smart M8
Severn Trent Eclox Strip
Smiths Detection APD2000
Truetech
M18A3 Color Ticket
M18A3 M8 Paper
M272 Color Ticket
Sample Type
Surface
Vapor
Vapor
Surface
Surface
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid/Surface
Surface
Surface
Vapor
Vapor
Liquid/Surface
Surface
Liquid
Vapor
Vapor
Surface
Liquid
Analysis
Timeb
Sec
Min
Min
Sec
Sec
Sec
Min
Sec
Sec
Sec
Min
Sec
Sec
Sec
Min
Sec
Min
Sec
Min
Comments
Color change within 1 second at room
conditions, up to 26 seconds at Low T/RH or
with diesel fuel present
Response within 2 minutes, due to reaction
time needed for color change
A few minutes needed for 40 pump strokes
Color change within 5 seconds
Color change within 5 seconds
Initial response within a few pump strokes; a
few minutes required for requisite 50 pump
strokes
2 minutes (30 pump strokes) needed
Color change within about 10 seconds with
liquid and surface samples.
Color change within 25 seconds
Color change within 5 seconds
Sample drawn for 3.5 minutes
Response within 10 seconds
Water responses within 10 seconds; surface
responses within 25 seconds.
Color change typically within 5 seconds
Response within 3 minutes, due to reaction
time needed for color change.
Most responses within 30 seconds
Response within 3 minutes, due to reaction
time needed for color change
Color change within 10 seconds
Response within 3 minutes, due to reaction
time needed for color change
a: Only technologies that detected at least one CWA in at least one sample matrix are listed here.
b: Indication of whether typical time to respond is in minutes (Min) or seconds (Sec).
28
-------
Table 5-6. Summary of Observations on Operational Factors of the Technologies
Technology
Agentase CAD
Kit
Anachemia C2
Color Tubes
Anachemia C2
Color Ticket
Anachemia
CM256A1
Multifunction
Card
Color
Indicating
Papers (M8,
M9, 3-way)
Draeger Civil
Defense Kit
MSA Single
CWAKit
Nextteq Civil
Defense Kit
Color Tubes
Proengin AP2C
RAE
MultiRAE Plus
Safety
Solutions
HazMat Smart
Strip
General Ease of Use
Simple procedure of bending
pen to break internal reagent
capsule and wiping surface with
pen tip
Relatively complex procedure
(with some analytes) of
breaking tube, inserting into
pump, drawing sample through,
then adding reagent to tube
Simple procedure of wetting
reagent pad, exposing to air, and
pressing second pad onto the
first to produce color change
Moderately simple procedure of
breaking ampoules on a card to
wet/activate test patches and
exposing patches to sample;
easily distinguishable color
changes
Very simple to use, require only
contacting paper with sample or
surface to be tested and
observing color change;
multiple types and vendors
Simple procedure of breaking
tubes, inserting into manifold,
and drawing sample through
tubes; easily distinguishable
color changes; five compounds
can be tested for at one time
Simple procedure of breaking
tube and inserting into pump
Simple procedure of breaking
tubes, inserting into manifold,
and drawing sample through
tubes; five compounds can be
tested for at one time
Direct air sampling instrument;
simple procedure of starting
device and observing readings
(for vapors), or taking sample
with scraper tip, heating scraper
tip inline with device and
observing readings (for liquids
and surface samples)
Direct air sampling instrument;
simple procedure of starting
device and waiting for
electronic reading
Peel off protective cover for
immediate use
Problems with Use
No problems.
Sample tube packets say not to use after
September 10 with no specific year
indicated - distributor says 2010; pump
difficult to use, and could not tell if
working properly
No problems.
Breakage of two green ampoules at one
time causes rapid exothermic reaction -
creates fumes and sprays green liquid
No problems
Prolonged use can cause fatigue to hands;
Draeger sells five-tube sets to be used
with kit which are approximately five
times more expensive on a per-tube basis
compared to single tubes purchased
separately
Prolonged use can cause hand fatigue;
squeeze counter on pump broke after a
couple uses
Impregnating adsorbent layer by breaking
liquid ampoules sometimes difficult;
electric pump flow was easily disrupted
causing pump to stop
No problems; low-pressure hydrogen
supplies will need replacement
periodically in regular use (12-hour
supply life easily maximized by turning
instrument on and off)
PID sensor did not respond to CWAs
Instructions say mainly used for aerosols
making reliability of vapor and liquid tests
uncertain; no response to vapor or liquid
samples
Physical Effort Needed
Minimal
Arm/hand strength needed for
pump
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal. Papers can be cut into
smaller pieces for use to extend
supply
Hand strength needed for pump
operation
Hand strength needed for pump
operation
Minimal effort with electric pump;
manual pump also available
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
29
-------
Table 5-6. (Continued)
Technology
Severn Trent
Eclox Pesticide
Strip
Smiths
Detection
APD2000
Truetech
M18A3 Color
Ticket
Truetech M272
Water Kit
Color Ticket
General Ease of Use
Simple procedure of wetting
pad with sample, and pressing
together with a second reagent
pad
Direct air sampling instrument;
simple procedure of starting
instrument and observing
readings
Simple procedure of wetting
reagent pad, exposing to air, and
pressing second pad onto the
first to produce color change
Simple procedure of wetting
pad with sample, and pressing
together with a second reagent
pad
Problems with Use
No problems.
No problems. Chemical surrogate vapor
source provided with instrument provides
rapid indication of proper operation.
APD2000 contains a small radioactive
source.
No problems.
No problems.
Physical Effort Needed
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Table 5-6 shows that most of the CWA screening technologies were simple and reliable to use.
The most common operational difficulty noted was the operator fatigue that occurred with
repeated use of hand pumps to draw air through the color indicating tubes. Substitution of an
electric pump or other automated sampling system would be a potential remedy if such
technologies were used repeatedly in the AHRF. Test operators reported that the direct air
sampling instruments (Proengin AP2C, RAE MultiRAE Plus, and Smiths Detection APD2000)
were all simple to use and understand, and operated reliably (though with different levels of
success in CWA detection) in this evaluation. The Smiths Detection APD2000 was the one
detector tested that incorporates a small radioactive source. Proper disposal of this source will be
required should the instrument need to be discarded. The Proengin AP2C uses an internal low-
pressure hydrogen supply, which will require occasional replacement. The useful life of the
hydrogen supply can be extended by turning the FSP off between measurements, and the
operators reported no adverse behavior when the AP2C was operated in this way during the
evaluation.
5.6 Screening Technology Costs
In choosing technologies for screening large numbers of samples in an AHRF, both the initial
cost of a CWA screening technology and the cost per sample of the technology in extended use
are important. Table 5-7 summarizes the cost information for each technology tested, showing
the identity of each technology, the purchase price of the technology as tested, and the per-
sample cost of consumable items.
Table 5-7 shows that the purchase costs of most of the screening technologies are approximately
$3,000 or less, with the Smiths Detection APD2000 and Proengin AP2C the exceptions at
approximately $10,000 and $16,000, respectively. (As noted in the table, the Proengin AP2C
purchase price was a discount from the vendor because of the nature of this program; the normal
purchase price is likely to be approximately 30% higher.) However, comparison of the purchase
30
-------
Table 5-7. Cost Information on CWA Screening Technologies
Vendor
Agentase
Anachemia
Draeger
MSA
Nextteq
Proengin
RAE Systems
Safety
Solutions
Severn Trent
Smiths
Detection
Truetech
Technology
CAD Kit
C2
CM256A1
Civil Defense Kit
Single CWA
Sampler Kit
Civil Defense Kit
AP2C
MultiRAE Plus
HazMat Smart
Strip
HazMat Smart M8
Eclox Pesticide
Strip
APD2000
M272 Water Kit
M18A3
Technology
Cost
$286
$684
$189
$3,114
$1,295
$1,875
$15,708
(discount for
testing)
$3,290
$20
$6
$510
$9,620
$386
$1,189
Consumable
Items
Color indicating pens
(pack of 5)
Color tubes
(pack of 5)
3 -way paper (booklet)
Color ticket
Multifunction card
3 -way paper (booklet)
Tubes
(boxes of 10)
Tubes
(boxes of 10)
Tubes
(boxes of 10)
M8 paper
(booklet)
M9 paper
(roll)
3 -way paper
(booklet)
Hydrogen supplies;
batteries.
Scraper tips for liquid
sampling
(packs of 10).
Batteries
Card
Card
Color tickets
(pack of 25)
Batteries
Color tickets (purchased
as part of kit)
Color tickets (purchased
as part of kit)
M8 paper
Cost per
Sample"
$47
$7
<$0.50
$9
$17
<$0.50
GB: $11
HD:$9
GB:$8
HD:$8
GB:$5
HD: $5
<$0.50
<$0.50
<$0.50
<$3b
plus
$4 (for liquid or
surface
sampling)
«$1
$20
$6
$20
«$1
~$4C
~$4
<$0.50
a: Except as noted otherwise, approximate cost per sample analysis in extended use, based on cost of consumable
items (excluding original purchase price of the technology).
b: Per sample cost assumes 100 samples can be screened per hydrogen supply, and that refill costs are worst-case
$250 per supply (see text).
c: Cost per sample estimated based on original purchase price and number of analyses provided by original
materials (consumables not available except as part of kit).
31
-------
prices of different technologies can be misleading, because many of the technologies as
purchased can screen relatively few samples with the original materials. For example, for the
technologies in Table 5-7 that rely on color indicating tubes, the purchased technology typically
allows screening of between 10 and 40 samples. Testing larger numbers of samples requires
obtaining additional tubes, and indeed numerous purchases of additional consumable items were
needed to complete the testing reported here. At the lowest extreme in terms of original
purchase price are the Safety Solutions HazMat Smart Strip and HazMat Smart M8 at $20 and
$6, respectively. However these indicator card technologies are purchased one at a time, so only
a single sample screening is obtained for that price. At the other extreme, the RAE MultiRAE
Plus, Smiths Detection APD2000, and Proengin AP2C detectors are capable of screening large
numbers of samples without frequent replacement of consumables.
Table 5-7 shows that for many of the color tubes, tickets, and cards tested, per-sample costs in
long-term use are typically $4 to $20, with some variation depending on the CWA in question.
The various indicating papers (M8, M9, and 3-way) from multiple vendors provide the lowest
per-sample cost, estimated at $0.50 or less. These technologies are purchased as packets or rolls
of paper, and can be cut into small pieces for use without affecting their indicating properties.
The Agentase CAD Kit is relatively expensive, at approximately $47 per single-use indicating
pen.
The long term per-sample costs of the RAE MultiRAE Plus, Proengin AP2C, and Smiths
Detection APD2000 are relatively low, but are also less well defined. For the MultiRAE Plus,
the primary expendable cost will be replacement of batteries, but battery life was not assessed in
this test. This cost would probably equate to pennies per sample in continuous use. Ultimately,
however, the per-sample cost of the MultiRAE Plus may not matter to a decision-maker, as this
device was ineffective at detecting vapor phase CWAs.
The Proengin AP2C uses low-pressure hydrogen supplies that are designed to last for 12 hours of
continuous use. Supply life was not tested in this program but this life seems reasonable based
on the experience in testing the instrument. The Proengin AP2C is designed to be turned off
whenever sample screening is not in progress, so the 12-hour supply life can equate to
substantially longer periods of use depending on the frequency of sample screening. An
indicator on the instrument shows the status of the hydrogen supply. Two fully charged
hydrogen supplies are provided in the Proengin AP2C package. These supplies can be refilled
by Proengin at a cost of $25 each, plus a charge of $225 for shipping of 1 to 10 supplies at a time
to and from Proengin's office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Purchase of single, new, fully charged
hydrogen supplies, separate from purchase of the detector, costs $488 each. A refilling bench
that allows the user to recharge the supplies from a high pressure cylinder of hydrogen is also
available for approximately $65,000. The Proengin AP2C also uses batteries, however the cost
of battery replacement is likely trivial compared to the cost of replacing the hydrogen supply.
The Smiths Detection APD2000 will also require periodic battery replacement, and rarely the
replacement of the surrogate chemical source that is used as a check of proper instrument
operation. Costs for these items in long-term use should be small.
32
-------
6.0 Performance Summary
The ideal characteristics of a CWA screening technology for use in the AHRF include accurate
detection of CWAs; absence of false positive and negative responses; absence of temperature,
RH, or interferent effects; a rapid and simple sample screening process; and low initial and
operating costs. The testing reported here was designed to evaluate the screening technologies
on each of these characteristics, and that purpose was accomplished. However, the limitations of
this evaluation relative to screening samples in the AHRF should also be noted. This evaluation
addressed a wide variety of screening technologies, and focused on the relative performance of
those technologies for use in the AHRF, rather than on in-depth investigation of any single
technology. Similarly, testing of vendor performance claims was not an objective of the
evaluation. For example, determination of the detection limits of the screening technologies was
specifically not a goal of this evaluation. Rather, the challenge CWA concentrations were chosen
based on health risk information and the desire to protect AHRF staff, and the ability to detect
the
presence of CWAs at those levels was assessed regardless of vendor claims about detection
limits. Also, test conditions in this evaluation were intended to represent those under which the
screening technologies might actually be used in the AHRF, but those actual screening
conditions are not completely known at this time. Thus the sample matrices, temperature and RH
ranges, and interferences used may not fully address the reality of AHRF operations. This
evaluation also focused on relatively inexpensive technologies suitable for screening large
numbers of samples. Other, far more expensive, technologies exist that might prove useful in
some aspects of AHRF operations. However, this evaluation tested each technology in realistic
use by a skilled practitioner, in a manner that closely represents how the technology would be
used under the AHRF screening protocol (Figure 1-1). As a result, the results summarized below
represent a valuable assessment of the usefulness of each technology for AHRF screening.
Regarding accuracy for screening vapor phase CWAs, five of the 10 technologies tested with GB
correctly detected that agent, and four of the eight technologies tested with HD correctly detected
that agent. The five screening technologies that accurately detected GB vapor (Anachemia C2
Color Ticket, Draeger Civil Defense Kit, MSA Single CWA Kit, Proengin AP2C, and Truetech
Ml 8 A3 Color Ticket) did so even in the presence of the hydrocarbon interferent mixture, and at
Low and High temperature and RH conditions. Of the four screening technologies that
accurately detected HD vapor at the base test conditions (Anachemia C2 Color Tubes, Draeger
Civil Defense Kit, Nextteq Civil Defense Kit, and Smiths Detection APD2000), only the Draeger
Civil Defense Kit and Nextteq Civil Defense Kit also did so at all temperature/RH conditions
and with the interferent mixture present.
Accurate detection of CWAs in water samples was limited to four technologies (out of 11 tested)
that were able to detect one or more CWAs. The Severn Trent Eclox Pesticide Strip and
Truetech M272 Water Kit color ticket, both of which use acetylcholinesterase inhibition as their
detection principle, correctly detected GB and VX in water (both without and with diesel fuel
added as an interferent). The Proengin AP2C correctly detected GB in all samples, but did not
respond to VX, and responded strongly to HD only when the diesel fuel interferent was present.
Without the diesel fuel present, the AP2C gave very brief positive responses in two of three HD
33
-------
challenges. The Nextteq Civil Defense Kit M8 paper responded to VX challenge samples with a
light yellow color indicating GB, but did not respond to GB challenges, and showed positive
responses to HD in only two of three challenge samples. The other test papers (M8, M9, and 3-
way) were not able to detect the CWAs at the challenge concentrations used in water samples in
this evaluation.
Accuracy in detecting VX on test coupon surfaces was high, with all nine of the tested
technologies correctly detecting VX even at High and Low temperature and RH conditions, and
with diesel fuel present on the surface as an interferent. Among those nine technologies were
the various test papers (M8, M9, and 3-way).
In terms of false positive responses, two color tube technologies (the Draeger Civil Defense Kit
and MSA Single CWA Sampler Kit) each showed three faint positive responses when sampling
the hydrocarbon interferent mixture in otherwise clean air during GB vapor testing. The Smiths
Detection APD2000 gave one false positive response with that same interferent in HD vapor
testing. The Anachemia C2 Color Tubes showed faint positive responses with blank challenges
at both Low and High temperature/RH conditions (the same faint positive responses were also
observed with the HD challenges at those conditions). None of the tested technologies produced
any false positive responses in testing with CWAs in water samples. In surface testing, the
Proengin AP2C gave two false positive responses when sampling blank coupons at the High
temperature and RH condition. Those responses appeared to be a memory effect after strong
positive responses were observed to the challenge (spiked) coupons at that condition.
False negatives were observed with several screening technologies in both the CWA vapor and
liquid sample testing, in the inability of the technologies to detect a CWA under the base test
conditions. False negatives were also observed in a few cases when testing with an interferent,
or at Low or High temperature/RH conditions. Those occurrences are described in the next
paragraph. A few technologies showed false negative responses in CWA vapor testing even
though the GB or HD challenge concentration was equal to or higher than the stated detection
limit of the technology.
Most screening technologies showed no effect from the interferents used in the evaluation.
However, the Anachemia C2 Color Tubes and Smiths Detection APD2000 both were unable to
detect HD vapor when the hydrocarbon interferent mixture was present, though they accurately
detected HD in the absence of that interferent. Diesel fuel added as an interferent reduced the
ability of the Nextteq Civil Defense Kit to detect VX and HD in water samples, but in contrast
the Proengin AP2C detected HD in water more accurately with diesel fuel present than without
it. Temperature and RH effects were also minimal; the only effect was that the Anachemia C2
Color Tubes showed faint positive responses with all blank and challenge samples in HD vapor
testing at both the Low and High temperature/RH conditions.
The speed and simplicity of the screening process varied widely among the tested technologies,
and the easiest technologies to use were not necessarily the most accurate in CWA screening.
The vapor detection technologies based on color indicating tubes were simple to use in principle,
but differed in the time and difficulty of obtaining the sample. With such technologies, the
number of manual pump strokes required ranged widely, and the manual effort needed for those
34
-------
technologies requiring multiple pump strokes was sometimes excessive even when screening
small numbers of samples as in this test. The electric air sampling pump in the Nextteq Civil
Defense Kit greatly reduced the physical effort needed but still required a few minutes to draw
the required volume. Use of color indicating tubes that require the minimum sample volume
would seem preferable for use in the AHRF, and use of an electrical sampling pump might be
helpful even then, if large numbers of samples are to be screened. The three real-time analyzers
tested (RAE MultiRAE Plus, Proengin AP2C, and Smiths Detection APD2000) provided easy
and rapid sample screening for CWA vapors, though with differing levels of success in CWA
detection. The HazMat Smart Strip was the simplest technology to use, requiring only removal
of a protective film to expose the indicating patches on the card. However, this technology did
not respond to GB vapor.
In terms of the speed and simplicity of liquid and surface sample screening, the M8, M9, and 3-
way indicating papers were especially easy to use. The Severn Trent Pesticide Strips and
Truetech M272 Water Kit color tickets were also relatively simple, and the screening of water
and surface samples with the Proengin AP2C was also relatively rapid, because of the simplicity
of using the "scraper" attachment and desorbing the sample into the instrument inlet.
The applicability of a technology to screen for multiple CWAs at once is an important
component of the speed of analysis. Technologies using multiple color indicating tubes at once
(e.g., the Draeger Civil Defense Kit and Nextteq Civil Defense Kit) can provide this capability.
On the opposite end of the complexity spectrum, the Proengin AP2C provided multi-CWA
capability, and was applicable to vapor, liquid, and surface samples.
The initial cost of the tested technologies varied substantially, with most technology purchase
costs ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. The Proengin AP2C was most
expensive at a discounted cost of nearly $16,000. However, when considering long-term use of
the technologies in the AHRF, the per-sample CWA screening costs were similar across many
different technologies, i.e., typically ranging from $4 to $20 per sample. The simple test papers
were the least expensive, with screening costs estimated at less than $0.50 per sample.
35
-------
7.0 References
1. Draft Interim All Hazards Receipt Facility Protocol, Standard Operating Procedures,
(Guidance) - Working Draft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Homeland
Security Research Center, September 5, 2006
2. Draft Interim All Hazards Receipt Facility (AHRF) Protocol, Quick Reference Guide -
Working Draft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Homeland Security
Research Center, August 31, 2006
3. Testing of Screening Technologies for Detection of Toxic Industrial Chemicals in All
Hazards Receipt Facilities, final report for All Hazards Receipt Facility Monitoring and
Detection Technology Testing and Evaluation, Contract GS23F0011L-3, Task Order 1119,
Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, March 2007.
4. Test/QA Plan for Evaluation of Sample Screening Technologies for the All Hazards Receipt
Facility, Version 1, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, May 26, 2006.
5. Quality Management Plan for the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program, Version 2,
Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, January 2006.
6. Acute Exposure Guideline Levels published by the National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciences, and available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/sitemap.htm.
7. Information on the chemistry of CWAs compiled by Noblis Inc., and available at
http://www.noblis.org/ChemistrvOfLethalChemicalWarfareCWAgents.htm.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF TESTING WITH VAPOR PHASE CHEMICAL
WARFARE AGENTS
-------
CWA Vapor Challenge Results Summary
Technology
Anachemia
Anachemia
Anachemia
' Chemical
C2 Color Ticket
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
C2 Color Tubes
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
CM256A1
GB
GB
HD
HD
Temp
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
RH
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Interferent
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Type of test
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Result
blue
white
blue
white
very light
yellow tinge
white
blue
white
negative
blue
negative
negative
blue
blue
blue
blue
negative
negative
negative
negative
Positive? Count ofR
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
esuli
6
6
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page lofS
A-l
-------
Technology Chemical
Temp
RH
Interferent
Type of test
Result
Positive? Count of R
esuli
Draeger Civil Defense Kit
MSA CWA Sampler Kit
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
GB
GB
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
none
none
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
negative
red
light pink
dark red
negative
red
negative
red
negative
orange
negative
orange
negative
orange
negative
orange
negative
yellow
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 2 of 5
A-2
-------
Chemical
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
HD
HD
eKit
GB
GB
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
Temp
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
RH
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Interferent
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
Type of test
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Blank
Challenge
Result
faint yellow
yellow
negative
yellow
negative
yellow
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
orange
negative
orange
negative
orange
negative
orange
negative
positive
negative
CH
2 bar GB
Positive? Count of R
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
esuli
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
1
2
3
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 3 of 5
A-3
-------
Technology
Chemical
GB
GB
GB
GB
HD
HD
Temp
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
RH
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Interferent
none
none
none
none
none
none
Type of test
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Result
negative
1 bar GB
no bars
1 bar G,V
negative
negative
Positive? Count of R
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
esuli
3
3
3
3
3
3
RAE systems MultiRAE Plus
GB
GB
HD
HD
Safety Solutions HazMat Smart
Smiths APD2000
GB
GB
HD
HD
GB
GB
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Strip
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Blank
Challenge
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
blister
blister
negative
negative
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
1
2
3
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 4 of 5
A-4
-------
Technology
TruetechM18A3
Chemical
HD
HD
HD
HD
Color Ticket
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
Temp
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
RH
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Interferent
none
none
none
none
none
none
Gas exhaust
Gas exhaust
none
none
none
none
Type of test
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Result
negative
blister
negative
blister
blue
white
blue
white
blue
white
negative
positive
Positive? Count of R
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
esuli
3
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 5 of 5
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF TESTING WITH CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS IN
LIQUID SAMPLES
-------
CWA Liquid Challenge Results Summary
Technology
Solvent used
Interferent
Type of Test
Response
Anachemia C2 3-way paper
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
Anachemia CM256A1 3-way paper
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
Nextteq CD kit 3-way paper
IPA
IPA
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
hive?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Count of
Response
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 1 of 5
B-l
-------
Technology
Nextteq CD kit M8 paper
Nextteq CD kit M9 paper
'ent used
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
IPA
IPA
Interferent
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
none
none
Type of Test
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
HD
VX
Blank
HD
VX
VX
Blank
GB
Response
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
red dots
light yellow
none
none
light yellow
none
red
red
Positive?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Count of
Response
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 2 of 5
B-2
-------
Technology
Proengin AP2C
'ent used
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
Interferent
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Type of Test
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
Blank
Blank
GB
HD
VX
VX
Blank
GB
GB
GB
HD
HD
VX
Response
red
red
none
none
none
none
red P/HNO/As/S
red P/HNO/As/S; 3 bar HD/HL
none
3 bars G/V
4 bars HD/HL
CH
none
none
3 bar G/V
4 bar G/V; 1 bar HD/HL
5 bar G/V; 3 bar HD/HL
1 bar HD/HL
none
none
Positive?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Count of
Response
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
Safety Solutions HazMat Smart M8
IPA
Blank
No
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 3 of 5
B-3
-------
Technology Solvent used
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
Safety Solutions Hazmat Smart Strip
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
Severn Trent Eclox Kit
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
Interferent
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Type of Test
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
VX
Blank
GB
VX
Blank
Blank
GB
VX
VX
Blank
GB
VX
Response
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
pink&white
white&white
pink&white
pink&white
white&white
blue
white
white
Positive?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Count of
Response
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 4 of 5
B-4
-------
Technology
Tmetech Ml 8A 3 M8 paper
TruetechM272 Water Kit
'ent used
water
water
water
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
IPA
IPA
IPA
water
water
water
water
water
water
Interferent
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel
Type of Test
Blank
GB
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
HD
VX
Blank
GB
VX
Blank
GB
VX
Blank
GB
VX
Response
blue
white
white
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
pinkish&white
pinkish&white
pinkish&white
blue
white
white
blue
white
white
Positive?
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Count of
Response
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 5 of 5
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF TESTING WITH CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS ON
SURFACE SAMPLES
-------
CWA Surface Challenge Results Summary
Technology Chemical
Temp
RH
Interferent Type of Test Result
Positive?
Count of
Result
Agentase CAD Kit
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Anachemia C2 3-way paper
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Anachemia CM256A1 3-way
vx
vx
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
paper
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
none
none
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
none
pink/It, purple
yellow
Pink
yellow
pink
yellow
redish/purple
none
green
none
pink
green
none
green
none
green
none
green
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 1 of 4
C-l
-------
Technology Chemical
Nextteq 3-way paper
Nextteq M8 paper
Nextteq M9 paper
'.mical
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Temp
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
RH
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Interferent
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
Type of Test
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Result
red
green and red
none
green
none
green
none
green
pink
green and pink
none
green
none
green
none
green
pink
green and pink
none
green
none
green
none
red
Positive?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Count of
Result
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 2 of 4
C-2
-------
Technology Chemical
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Proengin AP2C
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Temp
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
RH
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Interferent
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Type of Test
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Challenge
Challenge
Blank
Blank
Blank
Challenge
Challenge
Result
none
red
none
red
none
red
none
4 bars G,V
3 bars G,V
CH
3 bars G,V
4 bars G,V
none
3 bars G,V
4 bars G,V
5 bars G,V
flashed CH
1 bar G,V
3barsHD,HL
5 red bars G,V
1 red bar G,V
Positive?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Count of
Result
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Safety Solutions Hazmat Smart M8
vx
vx
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
none
none
Blank
Challenge
none
green
No
Yes
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 3 of 4
C-3
-------
Technology Chemical
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Truetech Ml 8A 3 M8 paper
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
vx
Temp
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
RH
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Interferent
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
none
none
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
none
none
none
none
Type of Test
Blank
Challenge
Challenge
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Blank
Challenge
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Blank
Challenge
Result
slight pink
dark green
green
green and pink
none
green
none
green
none
green
none
very slight pink
green
green and pink
none
green
none
green
Positive?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Count of
Result
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
Monday, April 02, 2007
Page 4 of 4
C-4
-------
EPA/600/R-07/104 I September 2007 I www.epa.gov/ord
$EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |