2001
DOI: 10.1002/1099-1263(200012)20:1+<::aid-jat674>3.0.co;2-l
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection and measurement of sulfur mustard offgassing from the weanling pig following exposure to saturated sulfur mustard vapor†**

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…WP and minipigs have also been used extensively for SM-induced skin injury (Lindsay and Rice, 1995;Brown and Rice, 1997;Graham et al, 1999;Chilcott et al, 2000;Graham et al, 2000a,b;Logan et al, 2000) (Figure 39.5) due to established similarities between human and pig skin (Graham et al, 2005). Erythema was found to peak at 24 h after a 15 min vapor exposure, with maximal edema occurring at 48 h after exposure (Smith et al, 1996(Smith et al, , 1997aGraham et al, 1999).…”
Section: Model Systems For Screening Smmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…WP and minipigs have also been used extensively for SM-induced skin injury (Lindsay and Rice, 1995;Brown and Rice, 1997;Graham et al, 1999;Chilcott et al, 2000;Graham et al, 2000a,b;Logan et al, 2000) (Figure 39.5) due to established similarities between human and pig skin (Graham et al, 2005). Erythema was found to peak at 24 h after a 15 min vapor exposure, with maximal edema occurring at 48 h after exposure (Smith et al, 1996(Smith et al, , 1997aGraham et al, 1999).…”
Section: Model Systems For Screening Smmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quantitative determination of the sulfur-containing compounds in gases and liquid samples is vitally important for environmental monitoring, , food quality and safety control, , quality inspection of petro , and natural gas, and chemical warfare agent inspection. , Sulfur selective detectors employed in a gas chromatograph (GC) include flame photometric detector (FPD) with a limit of detection (LOD) of 1–10 pg S s –1 , pulsed flame photometric detector (PFPD) , with LOD of 0.1–1 pg S s –1 , sulfur chemiluminescence detector (SCD) , with LOD of ∼0.1 pg S s –1 , atomic emission detector (AED) with LOD of ∼1 pg S s –1 , and electron capture detector (ECD) , for the detection of hydrogen sulfide. Among these sulfur detectors, FPD is the most popular one because of its reasonable sensitivity, easy operation, robustness, and low cost…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[15][16][17] While these devices provide good analytical performance, the relative cost and maintenance associated with them is also often a concern. 18,19 One of the most widely used sensors in this regard is the flame photometric detector (FPD) [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] due in part to its high sensitivity and selectivity for sulfur 31,32 along with its rugged design and simple operation. 33 Additionally, the FPD is a relatively inexpensive detector that can also respond selectively to other heteroatoms, such as phosphorus, tin, and several metals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%