Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[ Music ]
>> Well good morning, and welcome back to day 2
of this technology transition workshop here at NFSTC.
And the first item on the agenda this morning is a summary
of the results from the demonstrations
and the sample analysis trials that we had yesterday.
And one of the things I asked each of you to do was to kind
of summarize your experience and the results
that were obtained yesterday afternoon.
So I'd like to go around the room and have a representative
from each of the groups make a very brief presentation.
And what I'd like for you to do is just give us your feedback
on -- on -- on the analysis you had.
So I know that we had a couple of issues
with some instrumentation, we'll go through that.
And that will help us to --
to improve the exercises in the future.
So why don't we start with Tom Sharkey as a first team --
Bryan Cooke and Tom, you want to summarize your results?
>> Sure. We started out basically by doing a EC,
which was abbreviated for -- I can't remember the name.
>> Ethyl centralite?
>> Yes sir, thank you.
We started to do that on a static testing.
We used a mobile trace.
The EC was a 100 parts per million.
We let it permeate for 15 minutes in the can before we --
before we tried testing it.
Again, after the 15 minutes were up,
we went to use the mobile trace, and the --
the actual machine was actually recalibrating, or --
or at the time, so we actually had to stand for an extra minute
with the sample out in mid-air in hand.
And by the time we got the sample in the mobile trace,
we didn't really get a reading.
So we think the EC pretty much evaporated while we were waiting
for that.
So we decided then after that to do the TNT sample.
Again, we did that static.
The TNT was 240 parts per million,
15 minutes permeate in the can.
Used the -- we used the itemizer on --
on that, which worked very well.
Let's see.
The time was 6.070 with a reading of -- peak of 2010.
And after that we did the -- we did the blank on a mobile --
with the mobile trace and a dynamic mode inside a can.
And again, that worked well.
We had no reading, as expected on that.
Then we used the red dot black powder --
we did that on a static.
The red dot was 100 milligrams -- is it milligrams, mg?
>> Milligram.
>> Thank you.
We used the mobile trace on that, where the time was 3.829,
and we peaked that at 6231 on that --
that was pretty good reading on that.
>> Now you were inside the can.
I noticed when you were doing your sample,
you actually put the --
>> Yes, I was.
>> -- the -- the head of the thing.
So it's not really necessary to do that.
In fact, one of the things we might want to do
in some future trial just to try it out, bring it away
from the -- from the mouth of the can.
>> So we -- so we don't overload it, basically?
>> Yeah, I mean it -- what -- what --
that's what you did when you -- when you put it inside the can.
You will overload the -- the instrument.
So -- so bring it out.
If you're at zero centimeters, I mean right at the mouth,
you're gonna -- you're gonna get a huge signal.
So we're -- we've done it as far away as three to five feet
from the mouth of the can, inside of a big container,
like an LD3, and we still get a reading.
So putting it inside the can actually will overload
the instrument.
>> Now is there -- is the black powder pretty volatile?
I mean is it --
>> Well some of the components are -- 24DNT.
So -- so one of the things that we talked
about yesterday was the volatile components of black powder --
black powder itself is -- is not volatile, it's an inorganic,
you know, potassium nitrate and other inorganics.
But there's 24DNT which is extremely volatile.
So you'll get -- that's the most prevalent hit that I think each
of you got with this particular black powder --
or smokeless powder.
There's ethyl centralite,
which is also volatile, and diphenylamine.
So all of those three are programmed in the instruments.
And Patty Diaz is actually going
to address the ethyl centralite issue.
So we're actually gonna wait until all the other --
because I think maybe your team was not the only one
with ethyl centralite issue.
So we'll -- we'll talk about that later.
Okay, so the -- so the blanks came out well,
the solid 100 milligrams, which is a tenth of a gram
of black powder, you had a --
overloaded the instrument with a lot of signal.
And then the TNT, 240 parts per million,
which is also very small amount also gave you a good signal.
Any other observations?
>> No. We did do one more,
we did the H322, is that what it was?
I can't read.
>> Yeah, that's another --
>> Yes.
>> Smokeless powder.
>> We did that dynamic, did that also in the itemizer also.
Results were time was 5.603 with a peak of 1683, worked well,
and that was at 100 milligrams.
>> And that was --
>> That was dynamic, and that was outside, yeah.
>> And that was a DNT?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So with the exception of ethyl centralite,
everything else was as expected.
>> Correct.
>> Okay, great.
Thank you.
Who would like to go next?
Adam?
>> Okay. Well we began by blanking each
of our sample cards just to make sure they were cleaned out
and clear before we started anything else.
Then we established a -- I'm sorry.
>> Then we established a control blank by putting it
into the empty can for 15 minutes, and, you know,
allowed that one to start cooking.
And then we added 10 microliters of the liquid sample.
Unfortunately we failed to capture the name
of the liquid sample, but I do remember it was two parts,
and one part of it had AC -- help me out with that.
>> Acetonitrile ?
>> Yes.
>> Acetonitrile solvent is the solvent, and the majority was --
was -- was either TNT --
>> It was TNT, yeah.
We -- that's the one.
>> Yeah.
>> I apologize for that.
I missed that.
In any case, we -- we allowed the --
we put that in the can with the preparation for 15 minutes
to let it start cooking.
And once they were underway,
we supervised the other team do some calibration and validation
on the mobile trace so that we knew
that it was prepared for work.
And then we knew we were not going to have to repeat that.
And we ran our liquid spike sample through a --
in static form through the itemizer,
and we detected nitro 3.838 seconds with a height of 4021.
Then we ran the blank card that was in the blank can, and --
on the mobile trace, and there was no material detected,
which was expected.
And we ran our dynamic 30-second sample
on the red dot using the mobile trace, and we found nitro
at 3.829 seconds and a height of 4595.
And then finally we ran the 322 static sample in the itemizer,
showing DNT at 5.603 milliseconds
at a height of 5537.
Interestingly though, we did try to run that through twice
on the mobile trace, but both times it showed
that it was clear.
So we actually ran it through there twice, and then we took it
over to the itemizer, and it did come up with the reading.
So some of that material did volatize off, but --
and we found later that that mobile trace instrument needed a
little service.
So --
>> Mm-hmm.
>> -- yeah.
>> Okay. We'll also cover that in a --
in a couple minutes with -- with Doctor Diaz's comments.
Any other observations, or -- no?
Is this the first time you've ever run a --
one of these IMS instruments?
>> No. I -- we -- we use some Saber 4000 --
>> Saber 4000, okay.
>> -- familiar with it.
These particular machines, no I have not seen.
>> Okay, how many people have never -- before yesterday --
operated a -- an IMS instrument?
Raise your hand.
Everybody else has had some experience with them.
Okay, great.
Alright, Robert, do you want to go next?
>> Okay. Like I said, I've never used that --
used that equipment before.
But it -- caught on pretty quick, it's pretty easy to use.
We ran the red dots dynamic on that through the itemizer.
It picked up nitro and DNT.
On our static we did the liquid DNT at 100 parts per million
through the itemizer again, and again, picked up on DNT.
We did the 320 -- H322 in the static,
ran that through the mobile trace.
We got a hit on a compound of DNT.
And we did dynamic on the blank and came back nothing on that.
We didn't have any trouble
at all running -- running our samples.
The only thing we did see as clearing the P --
PSPME a little bit, took a long time.
Sometimes I don't know if we got too much sample on there,
and it just took a while to clear it.
But that was the only trouble we had,
just trying to get those things clear to reuse them.
>> Great. Great.
Wonderful.
We'll have Doctor Diaz come up and --
and say a few words now about both the EC
and the mobile trace issues we had yesterday.
But what I want to say is one of the aims for the exercise was
to get you to not be afraid of --
of using the instruments, get you acclimated.
Because today we're gonna be using, you know,
using them much more in the -- in the -- later this morning,
and in the afternoon for both particle sampling
and also some volatile sampling when --
when we get to the warehouse on the vehicles --
we got a couple vehicles out there.
And I think that's when we're gonna have some fun.
So Patty, you want to say a few words?
[ Silence ]
>> Mr. Sharkey, as far as the ethyl centralite,
what we were depositing within the can was a very small amount
of the compounds, which is very volatile.
And the mass equates to about 1 microgram,
so it's a very tiny amount that we're trying
to sample from to begin with.
So we sampled that for 15 minutes,
so we would have absorbed the ethyl centralite compound
on our PSPME device.
But because there was an issue with the timing of the -- a --
another team doing a calibration or a verification,
there was a window of like about a minute
where because we were already absorbing such a small amount
to begin with from the source, then that time lapse in between,
probably the ethyl centralite volatilized off
of the PSPME device.
Now if we had had a larger amount to begin with --
and in the normal pipe bomb setting you would have a couple
pounds of the smokeless powder anyway,
you would have had more available EC to sample from.
So we're kind of -- we were pushing the limits.
We wanted to show you the sensitivity or the capability
of the PSPME device, but unfortunately
with the timing we weren't able to get it
into the instrument in time.
But it -- it does work, the ethyl centralite being detected
in this form by PSPME IMS.
Now as far as the instrument issues that we had
with the mobile trace, there was --
it did need service at that time, so afterwards
that you noticed the two times that you ran it
and you didn't see anything, we did do some maintenance
to the instrument, and afterwards we were able
to calibrate it and verify that everything was okay.
But it goes to show that the PSPME device absorbs so much
of your TNT that it was desorbed twice, and then you went
and took it to the itemizer
and you did still see an appreciable signal.
So in a small amount of time of 15 minutes
of extracting a small amount which was 240 ppm, which equated
to 2.4 micrograms, you were able to absorb
with the PSPME device a sufficient amount.
So those are the comments that I had
on the two issues that you experienced.
But I'm glad that it seemed
like overall you had a good experience
with these experiments, and now you'll be able
to apply what you learned yesterday
into today's particle sampling exercise,
and the vehicle sampling exercise,
which should be both fun and interesting
for you guys to try out.
Do you have any other question?
>> Just for the benefit of knowing, you know, when we --
if the responder reported well in the sample with a PSPME,
and we're bringing them back, you know, maybe in a container
out of a hot zone into an area where we would sample,
what would you -- do you think that the PSPME will hold it
for let's say, you know, the time it would take us
to get back through maybe even a decon, maybe 20 minutes?
>> We've done experiments, and we do find that it does for --
for certain compounds it does hold it enough --
15 to 20 minutes, and that is without a cover on it.
But the final configuration
of this PSPME device will have itself a holder
to make it more flexible to use the device
without having to use tweezers.
And then it will have a cap.
So once you come out of the hot zone, it --
the analytes will be contained within the PSPME device.
You would remove that cap once it's time to desorb it,
so you should not have that issue.
And on top of that, I also refer
to in a real case scenario you would have much larger amounts
of the threat agent available to absorb the --
your volatile compounds from.
And again, this was just a -- we wanted to push the limits
and show you how sensitive it was.
That's why it didn't work out.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Thank you very much.