Evaluation of cold weather decontamination methods
Keywords:decontamination, bacteria spores, wiping, vacuuming, blotting, adhesive tape, cold weather
Most chemical or biological decontamination protocols have been driven by the need for fast and efficient methods that are relatively safe and easy to implement. As such, the focus has primarily been toward “general” environments—those in which water is readily available, and the ambient conditions are amenable to such techniques. Some of these include water showers and/or sprays with chemical decontaminants, eg, soapy water or diluted bleach. However, there exist some scenarios in which water-based decontamination methods are not desirable. These include such operational environments as arid regions (water scarcity), specialized operations (decontamination method must be low volume/weight), and cold weather (freezing risk). This study focuses on the cold weather challenge: identification of common methods for readily available decontamination and evaluation of their respective efficacies. Methods evaluated include wiping (with wet and dry wipes), blotting with moistened wipes, vacuuming, and the application and removal of adhesive tape. Results demonstrate that vacuuming and blotting (without overlapping targeted regions) are generally less effective than other wiping, blotting, and adhesive tape-based measures at removing bacteria from surfaces.
US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM) Aberdeen Proving Ground MD: Guidelines for Cold Weather Mass Decontamination during a Terrorist Chemical Agent Incident, Revision 1. 2002. ADA435228.
Cao Y, Hui X, Maibach H: Effect of superabsorbent polymers (SAP) and metal organic frameworks (MOF) wiping sandwich patch on human skin decontamination and detoxification in vitro. Toxicol Lett. 2021; 337: 7-17.
Amlot R, Carter H, Riddle L, et al.: Volunteer trials of a novel improvised dry decontamination protocol for use during mass casualty incidents as part of the UK’s initial operational response (IOR). PLoS One. 2017; 12(6): e0179309.
Chan H, Zhai H, Hui X, et al.: Skin decontamination: Principles and perspectives. Toxicol Ind Health. 2013; 29(10): 955-968.
Boyne DA, Ruth JL, Piesen JC, et al.: Effect of Thickener on Measurement of Simulant Retention and Decontamination Performance for Materials. Aberdeen Proving Ground: US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Chemical Biological Center, 2019. AD1073141.
Larner J, Durrant A, Hughes P, et al.: Efficacy of different hair and skin decontamination strategies with identification of associated hazards to first responders. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2020; 24: 355-368.
Novosselov I, Coultas-McKenney C, Miroshnik L, et al.: Trace explosives sampling for security applications (TESSA) study: Evaluation of procedures and methodology for contact sampling efficiency. Talanta. 2021; 234: 122633.
Kassouf N, Syed S, Larner J, et al.: Evaluation of absorbent materials for use as ad hoc dry decontaminants during mass casualty incidents as part of the UK’s initial operational response (IOR). PLoS One. 2017; 12(2): e0170966.
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center: Guidelines for Mass Casualty Decontamination during a HAZMAT/Weapon of Mass Destruction Incident. Volumes 1 And 2. 2009. ADA498442.
Chilcott R, Larner J, Durrant A, et al.: Evaluation of US federal guidelines (primary response incident scene management [PRISM]) for mass decontamination of casualties during the initial operational response to a chemical incident. Ann Emerg Manag. 2019; 73(6): 671-684.
Power S, Symons C, Carter H, et al.: Mass casualty decontamination in the United States: An online survey of current practice. Health Secur. 2016; 14(4): 226-236.
Nechanicky G: Alaska National Guard’s exercise Arctic Eagle 2020 wraps up. March 13, 2020. Available at https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2110973/alaska-national-guards-exercisearctic-eagle-2020-wraps-up/. Accessed April 26, 2022.
How to Cite
Copyright 2007-2023, Weston Medical Publishing, LLC
All Rights Reserved