THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
TV
T
4»EPA Bairene
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jj}], Business of Innovation
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: SURFACE ACOUSTIC WAVE/ELECTROCHEMICAL
DETECTOR
APPLICATION: DETECTION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS
AND TOXIC INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS
TECHNOLOGY NAME: HAZMATCAD Plus
COMPANY: Microsensor Systems Inc.
ADDRESS: 62 Corporate Court PHONE: 866/745-0099
Bowling Green, Ky 421030 FAX: 270/745-0095
WEB SITE: www.microsensorsystems.com
E-MAIL: gf@microsensorsystems.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance
verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection
by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal
by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies. Information and ETV
documents are available at www.epa.gov/etv.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, with stakeholder groups
(consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with individual technology developers. The
program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the
needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and pre-
paring peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance (QA)
protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
Subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, this ETV approach has been applied to verify the
performance of homeland security technologies. Monitoring and detection technologies for the protection of public
buildings and other public spaces fall within the Safe Buildings Monitoring and Detection Technology
Verification Program, which is funded by EPA and conducted by Battelle. In this program, Battelle recently
evaluated the performance of the Microsensor Systems Inc. HAZMATCAD Plus portable detector, which uses
VS-i
-------
surface acoustic wave (SAW) and electrochemical (EC) technologies for detecting chemical warfare (CW) agents
and toxic industrial chemicals (TICs), respectively. This verification statement, the full report on which it is based,
and the test/QA plan for this verification are available through a link on the ETV Web site
(www.epa.gov/etv/centers/centerl 1 .html).
VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION
The objective of this verification test of the HAZMATCAD Plus, a commercially available, portable detector, was
to evaluate its ability to detect TICs and CW agents in indoor air. This verification focused on the scenario of a
portable detector used by first responders to identify contaminants and guide emergency response activities after
chemical contamination of a building. The following performance characteristics of the HAZMATCAD Plus were
evaluated: response time, recovery time, identification accuracy, repeatability, response threshold, temperature and
humidity effects, interference effects, cold-/hot-start behavior, battery life, and operational characteristics.
Repeatability was assessed for the HAZMATCAD Plus responses, response times, and recovery times.
This verification test took place between May 4 and August 27, 2004.Two units of the HAZMATCAD Plus were
tested simultaneously in most parts of this verification; in testing with sarin (GB), the absence of response from
one HAZMATCAD Plus unit required that testing continue with just one instrument. Response time, recovery
time, accuracy, and repeatability were evaluated by challenging the HAZMATCAD Plus with known vapor
concentrations of target TICs and CW agents. The HAZMATCAD Plus performance at low target analyte
concentrations was evaluated to assess the response threshold. Similar tests conducted over a range of
temperatures and relative humidities (RHs) were used to establish the effects of these factors on detection
capabilities. The effects of potential interferences in an emergency situation were assessed by sampling selected
interferences both with and without the target TICs and CW agents present. The HAZMATCAD Plus was tested
with a single TIC after a cold start (i.e., without the usual warm-up period) from room temperature, from cold
storage conditions (5°C), and from hot storage (40°C) to evaluate the delay time before readings could be obtained
and the response speed and accuracy of the HAZMATCAD Plus once readings were obtained. Battery life was
determined as the time until the HAZMATCAD Plus performance degraded as battery power was exhausted, in
continuous operation. Operational factors such as ease of use, data output, and cost were assessed by observations
of the test personnel and through inquiries to the vendor.
Testing was limited to detecting chemicals in the vapor phase because that mode of application was judged most
relevant to use by first responders. Testing was conducted in two phases: detection of TICs (conducted in a
non-surety laboratory at Battelle) and detection of CW agents (conducted in a certified surety laboratory at
Battelle's Hazardous Materials Research Center). The TICs used in testing were cyanogen chloride (C1CN; North
Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] military designation CK), hydrogen cyanide (HCN; designated AC),
phosgene (COC12; designated CG), chlorine (C12; no military designation), and arsine (AsH3; designated SA). The
CW agents were GB and sulfur mustard (HD). The HAZMATCAD Plus was not programmed to respond to CK,
so testing with that TIC was minimal.
For relevance to use by first responders, most test procedures were conducted with challenge concentrations of the
TIC or CW agent that were at or near immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) or similar levels. The table
below summarizes the challenge concentrations used in testing. Response thresholds were tested by repeatedly
stepping down in concentration.
QA oversight of verification testing was provided by Battelle and EPA. Battelle QA staff conducted a technical
systems audit (TSA), a performance evaluation audit, and a data quality audit of all the test data. An independent
TSA was also conducted by EPA.
VS-ii
-------
Target TIC and CW Agent Challenge Concentrations
Chemical Concentrations Type of Level
AC 50 parts per million (ppm) IDLH(a)
[50 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)]
CK 20 ppm (50 mg/m3) IDLH
CG 2 ppm (8 mg/m3) IDLH
SA 3 ppm (10 mg/m3) IDLH
C12 10 ppm (30 mg/m3) IDLH
GB 0.39 ppm (2.2 mg/m3) 11 *IDLH
HD 0.6 ppm (4 mg/m3) 7*AEGL(b)
(a) IDLH value for CK estimated from value for AC.
80% RH). Over the different temperatures and humidities, response time ranges for GB and HD were
from 21 to 42 seconds and 15 to 177 seconds, respectively. Over the ranges of 5 to 35°C and <20 to >80% RH,
temperature and RH had no practically significant effect on response time for any TIC or CW agent. Response
times for AC were unaffected by operating the HAZMATCAD Plus from a cold start (i.e., with insufficient warm-
up time).
Recovery Time: HAZMATCAD Plus recovery times (i.e., the time needed for the HAZMATCAD Plus to return
to baseline after the end of exposure to a TIC or CW agent) varied widely, depending on the TIC or CW agent
sampled and also on the sampling conditions. Recovery times differed considerably from one TIC to another. For
VS-iii
-------
AC, modeled recovery times ranged from 76 to 361 seconds; for CG, from 36 to 57 seconds; for SA, from 23 to 25
seconds; and for C12, 49 to 73 seconds. The effect of temperature on recovery time was small, except for AC, for
which recovery times increased by about a factor of four as temperature decreased from 35 °C to 5°C. Temperature
had an effect on recovery time for GB and HD, with recovery times at 35°C less than half of those at 5°C or 22°C.
All TICs had recovery times less than about 90 seconds under all RH conditions, with the exception of a modeled
mean recovery time for AC of 131 seconds at medium (50%) RH. Recovery time for GB was slightly longer at
higher humidity, whereas HD showed the opposite trend, with recovery time increased by about 50% at low
(<20%) RH relative to high (>80%) RH. In operation from a cold start at normal temperature and humidity, the
recovery time for AC was lengthened to over 600 seconds.
Accuracy: The HAZMATCAD Plus was nearly 100% accurate in identifying the TIC being sampled under all
temperature and humidity conditions, with only one erroneous reading among nearly 250 data points. For HD, the
response was 100% accurate under all temperature and humidity settings. For GB, one unit of the HAZMATCAD
Plus did not alarm during testing. With the other unit, 100% accuracy was achieved for all conditions except the
high humidity tests, where unstable responses or no responses were recorded.
(The Microsensor Systems vendor attributed this instability for GB at high humidity to a possible decrease in the
collection efficiency of the concentrator in the SAW portion of the HAZMATCAD Plus as a result of exposure to
the TICs during testing.)
Repeatability: The repeatability, or consistency, of HAZMATCAD Plus response, response times, and recovery
times also was evaluated. Repeatability of response was always perfect under all levels of temperature and
humidity for AC, CG, and SA. C12 exhibited more variability in response. Repeatability of response for GB and
HD was unaffected by temperature level. At the different humidity levels, HD had a consistent response. For GB,
the response from the one HAZMATCAD Plus unit was consistent at low and medium humidities, but either no
response or an unstable response was reported for GB at the high humidity. The modeled repeatability of response
times for both TICs and CW agents showed no effect from the different levels of temperature or humidity. The
modeled repeatability of recovery times for AC, CG, SA, GB, and HD showed no effect from the different
temperature levels. The effect of temperature on the repeatability of recovery time was significant for C12, with the
recovery time most repeatable under medium temperature. The modeled repeatability of recovery times for CG,
SA, C12, GB, and HD showed no effect from the different humidity levels. The effect of humidity on the
repeatability of recovery time was significant for AC, with the greatest variability for recovery time under medium
humidity.
Response Threshold: The response thresholds of the HAZMATCAD Plus were 0.6 to 1.25 ppm for AC; 0.3 to
0.6 ppm for CG; 0.2 to 0.4 ppm for SA; 0.5 to 1 ppm for C12, 0.6 to 1.1 mg/m3 for GB; and 0.6 to 1.6 ing/m3 and
1.6 to 4 mg/m3 for HD on Units 22 and 27, respectively.
Temperature and Humidity Effects: The effects of temperature and RH on the HAZMATCAD Plus TIC
response were small, with the largest effect that, at high temperature or high humidity, C12 produced some Low
rather than Medium responses. Temperature and RH also had no effect on HD response. For GB at low
temperature, the response was consistently High, while at medium and high temperature, the response was
consistently Medium. For GB at high humidity, the response was either an unstable response or no response.
Interference Effects: No false positive responses occurred. In terms of false negatives, however, neither
HAZMATCAD Plus unit responded to GB in the presence of air freshener and latex paint fumes or to HD in the
presence of ammonia cleaner and latex paint fumes. Interferents had almost no effect on response times for the
TICs. The interferents showed an effect on the recovery time primarily for C12, with all interferents increasing the
C12 recovery time substantially.
VS-iv
-------
Cold-/Hot-Start Behavior: Operating the HAZMATCAD Plus with insufficient warm-up time showed no effect
on the instrument response or response times for AC, regardless of whether the cold start occurred after storage at
5°C, at room temperature, or at 40°C. There was a strong effect on recovery time depending on start state, with the
longest recovery time occurring at the room temperature cold-start condition. The delay time (time for the
HAZMATCAD Plus unit to be ready for a first reading after start-up) ranged from 16 to 40 seconds.
Battery Life: The useful operating lives for fully charged batteries in two HAZMATCAD Plus units in continuous
operation were found to be 9 hours and 49 minutes and 10 hours and 53 minutes, respectively. Both units showed
rapid response and consistent readings throughout this test until the last few minutes of useful battery life.
Operational Characteristics: In general, the HAZMATCAD Plus was easy to use, gave clear alarms and a
readable and informative display, and provided useful error messages. Batteries are easy to obtain and install, and
new batteries can be installed without interrupting continuous operation. The only operational limitation was the
failure of one unit to respond during GB testing.
Original signed by Gabor J. Kovacs 11/12/04 Original signed by E. Timothy Oppelt 11/22/04
Gabor J. Kovacs Date E. Timothy Oppelt Date
Vice President Director
Energy and Environment Division National Homeland Security Research Center
Battelle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: ETV verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined
criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and Battelle make no expressed or implied
warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as
verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply endorsement.
VS-v
------- |