Domestic Preparedness Program: Testing of M90-D1-C Chemical Warfare Agent Detector Against Chemical Warfare Agents, Summary Report

• NCJ Number: 190863
• Author(s): Terri L. Longworth; Kwok Y. Ong; Jacob L. Barnhouse
• Date Published: 2000
• Length: 20 pages
• Corporate Author: US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM)
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services; US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM)
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Measurement/Evaluation Device
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded October 16, 2001

Annotation

This report provides emergency responders concerned with chemical warfare agent detection an overview of detection capability of commercially available detectors.

Abstract

Emergency responders to a nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) terrorist incident may survey the area for the presence of toxic or explosive vapors. Detectors commonly used now are not designed to detect and identify chemical warfare (CW) agents. Little data are available concerning the capability of the commonly used, commercially available detection devices. Under the Domestic Preparedness (DP) Expert Assistance Program, the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM) established a program to address this need. The Design Evaluation Laboratory (DEL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, performed the detector testing. The agents used in the test were tabun, sarin, and mustard, which were believed to pose the most likely threats. The detectors needed to determine the minimum concentration levels where repeatable detection readings were achieved. Environic Oy of Finland manufactures M90-D1-C units. They are portable, weigh 15.7 pounds, and have a rechargeable battery pack. They detect CW agents based on ion mobility spectrometry. They can store up to 60 gas-class-teaching slots. They are programmed to detect different classes (blister, blood, and nerve) of CW agents simultaneously. Units were tested outdoors in the presence of common potential interferents, such as vapors from gasoline. A confidence check was performed each day. Table 1 shows the minimum detectable level for two M90 detectors. Table 2 lists responses of M90 detectors at ambient temperatures and different relative humidity conditions. Table 3 indicates the number of false alarms. Table 4 shows results of laboratory interference tests with agents. Table 5 shows the laboratory interference tests without agents. In conclusion, the M90 detectors were better than the current military requirements for a point sampling system. Although the number of false alarms was greater than desired, these detectors did offer fast and sensitive warnings for CW agents tested.