Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Ultrasensitive Toxic Chemical Detector
EPA Contract Number: EPD04024Title: Ultrasensitive Toxic Chemical Detector
Investigators: Bunker, Stephen N.
Small Business: Implant Sciences Corporation
EPA Contact: Richards, April
Phase: I
Project Period: March 1, 2004 through August 31, 2004
Project Amount: $70,000
RFA: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) - Phase I (2004) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Hazardous Waste/Remediation , SBIR - Homeland Security , Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Description:
The ability to detect and identify trace quantities of hazardous materials has become a significant requirement for protecting the population during the war on terrorism. Presently, the ability to detect trace concentrations of a wide range of chemicals and to analyze the composition of a complex chemical sample in the field using a man-portable instrument is severely limited. The ability to quickly and reliably identify trace chemicals such as chemical warfare agents or toxic industrial chemicals, in the presence of typical building interferents such as smoke, organic fumes, and combustion products using a field-portable instrument, would substantially increase the probability of avoiding injury or death during a chemical attack or an accidental chemical release from a compromised facility. Although many laboratory-grade instruments exist with the necessary sensitivity and specificity, the development of field-portable technology has been far more limited.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Implant Sciences Corporation previously constructed a super-sensitive, field-portable ion mobility spectrometer for use in applications requiring the measurement of compounds at extremely low concentrations. This device, called the Quantum Sniffer™, previously had only been used for trace explosives detection, and no development had been performed on the far more difficult problem of detecting other hazardous materials. Several new innovations were made to adapt the basic laser ion mobility spectrometer detection unit to a broader range of target chemicals in real-world situations. The two primary improvements were an inexpensive particle/vapor collector with very large surface area, and a unique flash extraction technology for creating a concentrated vapor puff from ordinary surfaces. These improvements greatly enhanced the sensitivity of the device.
Conclusions:
The improvements were successfully demonstrated. It was, however, the conclusion of the Foresight Science and Technology, Inc., market research study that the product cost of such a high-performance unit is incompatible with the expectations of potential customers in the chemical warfare industry and in environmental communities, and there would be no market for the device. Specifically, Foresight’s study determined that customers are satisfied with the performance of existing commercial detection units, so cost is the major determining factor for product acceptance. At the present time, it does not appear that the added performance can be provided at the same or less cost than existing sensing devices.
Supplemental Keywords:
small Business, SBIR, EPA, toxic chemical detector, Quantum Sniffer, safe buildings, hazardous materials, bioterrorism, chemical warfare agents, industrial chemicals, flash extraction technology, laser ion mobility spectrometer,, RFA, Scientific Discipline, Air, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Environmental Chemistry, Monitoring/Modeling, Engineering, Chemistry, & Physics, Environmental Engineering, homeland security, atmospheric measurement, environmental monitoring, biological warfare agents, field portable systems, laser based emissions monitoring, chemical characteristics, field portable monitoring, industrial emissions, air sampling, chemical detection techniques, field monitoring, field deployable, toxicity, cyclone gas samoling, field detection, air quality field measurements, chemical warfare agents, chemical attackThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.