&lt;title&gt;Development of particle standards for testing detection systems: mass of RDX and particle size distribution of composition 4 residues&lt;/title&gt;

Gresham, Garold L.; Davies, John P.; Goodrich, L.D.; Blackwood, Larry G.; Liu, Benjamin Y.H.; Thimsen, D.; Yoo, Seung Jick; Hallowell, Susan F.

doi:10.1117/12.189198

Cited by 34 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fingerprint was the first fingerprint for each substrate (i.e., the block of explosive was touched prior to touching the surface of the substrate). Gresham et al [6] states that the RDX contamination for the first few prints in a series of successive prints is in milligrams while those print levels drop to nanograms for the 40th-50th prints. The fingerprint oils will cause a variation in the Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The explosive fingerprint was described by Gresham et al [6], Carmack and Hembree [7] and later by Hallowell [8] as containing less than microgram levels of explosives. Carmack and Hembree [7] describe a standard solution of dissolved explosive as being composed mainly of binder materials that result in significant particle nucleation and growth upon drying of the standard solution on a surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explosive Contamination from Substrate Surfaces: Differences and Similarities in Contamination Techniques Using RDX and C-4

Miller

Yoder

2010

Sens Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explosive trace detection equipment has been deployed to airports for more than a decade. During this time, the need for standardized procedures and calibrated trace amounts for ensuring that the systems are operating properly and detecting the correct explosive has been apparent but a standard representative of a fingerprint has been elusive. Standards are also necessary to evaluate instrumentation in the laboratories during development and prior to deployment to determine sample throughput, probability of detection, false positive/negative rates, ease of use by operator, mechanical and/or software problems that may be encountered, and other pertinent parameters that would result in the equipment being unusable during field operations. Since many laboratories do not have access to nor are allowed to handle explosives, the equipment is tested using techniques aimed at simulating the actual explosives fingerprint. This laboratory study focused on examining the similarities and differences in three different surface contamination techniques that are used to performance test explosive trace detection equipment in an attempt to determine how effective the techniques are at replicating actual field samples and to offer scenarios where each contamination technique is applicable. The three techniques used were dry transfer deposition of standard solutions using the Transportation Security Laboratory's (TSL) patented dry transfer techniques (US patent 6470730), direct deposition of explosive standards onto substrates, and fingerprinting of actual explosives onto substrates. RDX was deposited on the surface of one of five substrates using one of the three different deposition techniques. The process was repeated for each substrate type using each contamination technique. The substrate types used were: 50% cotton/50% polyester as found in T-shirts, C. J. Miller (100% cotton with a smooth surface such as that found in a cotton dress shirt, 100% cotton on a rough surface such as that found on canvas or denim, suede leather such as might be found on jackets, purses, or shoes, and painted metal obtained from a car hood at a junk yard. The samples were not pre-cleaned prior to testing and contained sizing agents, and in the case of the metal, oil and dirt. The substrates were photographed using a Zeiss Discover V12 stereoscope with Axiocam ICc1 3 megapixel digital camera to determine the difference in the crystalline structure and surface contamination in an attempt to determine differences and similarities associated with current contamination deposition techniques. Some samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and some were extracted and analyzed with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or gas chromatography with an electron capture detector (GC-ECD) to quantify the data.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Explosive Contamination from Substrate Surfaces: Differences and Similarities in Contamination Techniques Using RDX and C-4

Miller

Yoder

2010

Sens Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One should expect the range of coverage of these devices (operating on line) to be several tens of meters at a low probability of positive false alarm (PFA [8]) [51]. When estimating the detection range, we proceeded from detection of explosive amounts at a level of ~10 mg cm -2 , which corresponds approximately to the explosive amount in a fingerprint on an object surface [7]. One of the drawbacks of this method is the need for powerful software to process large datasets on line.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6]. In particular, the amount of explosives in a fingerprint on object surfaces is 10 mg [7]. In this context, of particular importance is the development of the so-called standoff methods for detecting explosive traces on surfaces of objects when the individuals and the corresponding equipment are located at a safe distance (10 - 100 m) from the object examined [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active spectral imaging for standoff detection of explosives

Skvortsov¹

2011

Quantum Electron.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laser methods of standoff detection of explosive traces on surfaces of objects are considered. These methods are based on active formation of multi-and hyperspectral images of an object examined. The possibilities of these methods and the prospects of their development are discussed. Emphasis is laid on the justification of the most preferred field of application of the technique under consideration.

show abstract

“…The detection of skin oil on a silicon wafer has been demonstrated with LIBS (85). Because trace amounts of explosive residue can be transferred from fingertips to surfaces by an individual that has previously handled explosives (86), in theory LIBS could be used to simultaneously detect the explosive residue (e.g., on a door handle) and map the structural detail of the fingerprint, enabling identification of the individual who had been handling explosive materials.…”

Section: Compositional Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy: Capabilities and Applications

Gottfried¹,

Lucia²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

show abstract

<title>Development of particle standards for testing detection systems: mass of RDX and particle size distribution of composition 4 residues</title>

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Explosive Contamination from Substrate Surfaces: Differences and Similarities in Contamination Techniques Using RDX and C-4

Explosive Contamination from Substrate Surfaces: Differences and Similarities in Contamination Techniques Using RDX and C-4

Active spectral imaging for standoff detection of explosives

Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy: Capabilities and Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About