236
can be the first choice for non-specialised responders and professionals. However,
although undemanding and cheap, some of these systems show a limited specificity
towards a desired analyte and may give rise to several false positive cases. Moreover,
when completely unknown contaminants have to be detected and identified, the
responder needs to use a very large number of test kits (which are often designed to
give a feedback for one analyte compound only) before having a clear view of the
situation.
For these reasons, electronic devices and/or automatic portable detectors based
on advanced physico-chemical techniques, i.e. mass spectrometry, Fouriertransform infrared or Raman spectrophotometry, photoionization detection, flame
photometry or high-performance (micro)-gas-chromatography, find now a wellestablished preferential use by first responders and specialist haz-mat teams who
operate in potentially contaminated and hazardous environments. This kind of
detection instruments is versatile and can cover a quite broad range of hazardous
species, spanning from CWAs, to toxic industrial materials as well as environmental
pollutants, with a good level of reliability and selectivity against false positive
responses. As main drawbacks, their use is relatively complex, they are expensive
and typically require an adequate know-how and training level by the operators, in
order to obtain reliable and clear results.
However, it is worth highlighting the main differences in the approach to detection for a haz-mat first responder operating at an incident site or for an analytical
chemist working in a conventional laboratory. First of all, the time scale and the
level of expected and accepted accuracy are different [4]. A rescuer needs to understand if life-threatening amounts of toxic chemicals are present or not, in a very
short time and, even, with a relatively low accuracy on quantification (i.e., often a
rapid identification and a semi-quantitative evaluation of the threat level is enough:
low, moderate, high, according to acute exposure guideline levels, AEGLs [5]). On
the contrary, a classical analytical laboratory, fulfilling all of the widely-accepted
quality and reliability standards imposed by the international scientific community,
is the optimal place devoted to a deeper evaluation on the nature and the amount/
concentration of contaminant with well-established procedures, often requiring
complex pre-treatment operations, costly and bulky desktop instruments and skilled
specialised personnel (Table 20.1). Indeed, confirmative and/or forensic analyses
about the contaminant is generally carried out in conventional reach-back laboratory facilities only [6].
In addition, a further series of differences has to be evidenced by comparing how
civilian and military first responders face a CWA-related event. Civilian responders’
absolute priority is to save lives, with a strict zero-risk approach. Conversely, armed
forces’ approach is mission-oriented and risks, such as entering a contaminated
area, performing a task with scarcely adequate protective equipment or, even, under
life-threatening conditions, might be possible and considered acceptable, under
extreme conditions.
Other aspects, however, make the approach of civilian and military haz-mat
teams different and, in some sense, complementary: military operators seldom have
the necessity and the capability to carry out a thorough forensic investigation
M. Guidotti et al.
can be the first choice for non-specialised responders and professionals. However,
although undemanding and cheap, some of these systems show a limited specificity
towards a desired analyte and may give rise to several false positive cases. Moreover,
when completely unknown contaminants have to be detected and identified, the
responder needs to use a very large number of test kits (which are often designed to
give a feedback for one analyte compound only) before having a clear view of the
situation.
For these reasons, electronic devices and/or automatic portable detectors based
on advanced physico-chemical techniques, i.e. mass spectrometry, Fouriertransform infrared or Raman spectrophotometry, photoionization detection, flame
photometry or high-performance (micro)-gas-chromatography, find now a wellestablished preferential use by first responders and specialist haz-mat teams who
operate in potentially contaminated and hazardous environments. This kind of
detection instruments is versatile and can cover a quite broad range of hazardous
species, spanning from CWAs, to toxic industrial materials as well as environmental
pollutants, with a good level of reliability and selectivity against false positive
responses. As main drawbacks, their use is relatively complex, they are expensive
and typically require an adequate know-how and training level by the operators, in
order to obtain reliable and clear results.
However, it is worth highlighting the main differences in the approach to detection for a haz-mat first responder operating at an incident site or for an analytical
chemist working in a conventional laboratory. First of all, the time scale and the
level of expected and accepted accuracy are different [4]. A rescuer needs to understand if life-threatening amounts of toxic chemicals are present or not, in a very
short time and, even, with a relatively low accuracy on quantification (i.e., often a
rapid identification and a semi-quantitative evaluation of the threat level is enough:
low, moderate, high, according to acute exposure guideline levels, AEGLs [5]). On
the contrary, a classical analytical laboratory, fulfilling all of the widely-accepted
quality and reliability standards imposed by the international scientific community,
is the optimal place devoted to a deeper evaluation on the nature and the amount/
concentration of contaminant with well-established procedures, often requiring
complex pre-treatment operations, costly and bulky desktop instruments and skilled
specialised personnel (Table 20.1). Indeed, confirmative and/or forensic analyses
about the contaminant is generally carried out in conventional reach-back laboratory facilities only [6].
In addition, a further series of differences has to be evidenced by comparing how
civilian and military first responders face a CWA-related event. Civilian responders’
absolute priority is to save lives, with a strict zero-risk approach. Conversely, armed
forces’ approach is mission-oriented and risks, such as entering a contaminated
area, performing a task with scarcely adequate protective equipment or, even, under
life-threatening conditions, might be possible and considered acceptable, under
extreme conditions.
Other aspects, however, make the approach of civilian and military haz-mat
teams different and, in some sense, complementary: military operators seldom have
the necessity and the capability to carry out a thorough forensic investigation
M. Guidotti et al.