Method development for the evaluation of emergency decontamination protocol effectiveness using an ultraviolet fluorescent aerosol




emergency decontamination, wet decontamination, disrobing, fluorescent imaging, image analysis


After hazardous material incidents, it is important to perform emergency decontamination procedures to remove contamination from the body. As these emergency decontamination procedures are developed, it is important to understand the efficacy of a given protocol. This study discusses a method that was developed to evaluate the efficacy of decontamination procedures by using an ultraviolet fluorescent aerosol and an image analysis protocol. This method involves imaging a mannequin while both unclothed and clothed prior to exposure to the fluorescent aerosol. After exposure, it was imaged again, disrobed, and decontaminated following an unconscious patient wet decontamination method. This work describes in detail the materials and methods used to develop the final methodology. Two clothing types (black cotton and Tyvek) were used to simulate civilian and first responder casualties. Image analysis was used to measure the extent of contamination on the mannequin at each stage of the procedure. These measurements were then compared to determine decontamination efficacy for each step (disrobing, wet decontamination, and total removal). The exposure protocol was shown to provide repeatable deposition of aerosol onto the mannequin. Decontamination was also shown to be repeatable, with no trends toward efficacy changing over time.

Author Biographies

Emily M. Spatz

Department of Systems Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Centauri Contractor, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

Jeremy M. Slagley, PhD

Department of Systems Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

Casey Cooper, PhD

Department of Systems Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

Robert Eninger, PhD

HQ Air Force Materiel Command, Office of the Command Surgeon, Wright-Patterson, AFB, Ohio

Trevor Sleight, PhD

Department of Systems Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio


Leary AD, Schwartz MD, Kirk MA, et al.: Evidence-based patient decontamination: An integral component of mass exposure chemical incident planning and response. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014; 8(3): 260-266. DOI: 10.1017/DMP.2014.41.

Osmanlliu E, Bank I, Khalil E, et al.: Decontamination effectiveness and the necessity of innovation in a large-scale disaster simulation. Am J Disaster Med. 2021; 16(1): 67-73. DOI: 10.5055/AJDM.2021.0388.

Amlôt R, Larner J, Matar H, et al.: Comparative analysis of showering protocols for mass-casualty decontamination. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010; 25(5): 435-439. DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X00008529.

Feldman O, Meir M, Shavit D, et al.: Exposure to a surrogate measure of contamination from simulated patients by emergency department personnel wearing personal protective equipment. JAMA. 2020; 323(20): 2091-2093. DOI: 10.1001/JAMA.2020.6633.

Tomas ME, Kundrapu S, Thota P, et al.: Contamination of health care personnel during removal of personal protective equipment. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(12): 1904-1910. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4535.

Cox RD: Decontamination and management of hazardous materials exposure victims in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1994; 23(4): 761-770. DOI: 10.1016/S0196-0644(94)70312-4.

Josse D, Wartelle J, Cruz C: Showering effectiveness for human hair decontamination of the nerve agent VX. Chem Biol Interact. 2015; 232: 94-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2015.03.010.

Chilcott RP, 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 Med. 2019; 73(6): 671-684. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.06.042.

Chilcott RP, Mitchell H, Matar H: Optimization of nonambulant mass casualty decontamination protocols as part of an initial or specialist operational response to chemical incidents. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2019; 23(1): 32-43. DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2018.1469705.

Amlôt 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: E0179309. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179309.

Thors L, Koch M, Wigenstam E, et al.: Comparison of skin decontamination efficacy of commercial decontamination products following exposure to VX on human skin. Chem Biol Interact. 2017; 273: 82-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2017.06.002.

Cibulsky SM, Kirk MA, Ignacio JS, et al.: Patient Decontamination in a Mass Chemical Exposure Incident: National Planning Guidance for Communities. Washington, DC, 2014. Available at Accessed December 6, 2018.

Koenig KL, Boatright CJ, Hancock JA, et al.: Health care facility-based decontamination of victims exposed to chemical, biological, and radiological materials. Am J Emerg Med. 2008; 26(1): 71-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.07.004.

Wolbarst AB, Wiley AL, Nemhauser JB, et al.: Medical response to a major radiologic emergency: A primer for medical and public health practitioners. Radiology. 2010; 254(3): 660-677. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090330/-/DC1.

Matar H, Larner J, Kansagra S, et al.: Design and characterization of a novel in vitro skin diffusion cell system for assessing mass casualty decontamination systems. Toxicol Vitr. 2014; 28(4): 492-501. DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2014.01.001.

Chilcott RP: Managing mass casualties and decontamination. Environ Int. 2014; 72: 37-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.02.006.

Collins S, Williams N, Southworth F, et al.: Evaluating the impact of decontamination interventions performed in sequence for mass casualty chemical incidents. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 14995. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94644-0.

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(3): 355-368. DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1636912.

Poller B, Hall S, Bailey C, et al.: “VIOLET”: A fluorescence-based simulation exercise for training healthcare workers in the use of personal protective equipment. J Hosp Infect. 2018; 99: 229-235. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.01.021.

Beam EL, Gibbs SG, Boulter KC, et al.: A method for evaluating health care workers’ personal protective equipment technique. Am J Infect Control. 2011; 39: 415-420. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.07.009.

Fenske RA, Wong SM, Leffingwell JT, et al.: A video imaging technique for assessing dermal exposure II. Fluorescent tracer testing. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1986; 47(12): 771-775. DOI: 10.1080/15298668691390638.

Fenske RA, Leffingwell JT, Spear RC: A video imaging technique for assessing dermal exposure I. Instrument design and testing. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1986; 47(12): 764-770. DOI: 10.1080/15298668691390629.

Archibald BA, Solomon KR, Stephenson GR: Estimation of pesticide exposure to greenhouse application using video imaging and other assessment techniques. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1995; 56(3): 226-235. DOI: 10.1080/15428119591017051.

Cherrie JW, Brouwer DH, Roff M, et al.: Use of qualitative and quantitative fluorescence techniques to assess dermal exposure. Ann Occup Hyg. 2000; 44(7): 519-522.

Brouwer DH, Lansink CM, Cherrie JW, et al.: Assessment of dermal exposure during airless spray painting using a quantitative visualisation technique. Ann Occup Hyg. 2000; 44(7): 543-549. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4878(00)00049-1.

Chilcott RP, Larner J, Matar H: Primary Response Incident Scene Management (PRISM): Guidance for the Operational Response to Chemical Incidents, Volume 1: Strategic Guidance for Mass Casualty Disrobe and Decontamination. Hertfordshire, UK, 2018. Available at Accessed March 5, 2019.

USAF: Home Station Medical Response to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Incidents. USAF, 2013.

Moody RP, Maibach HI: Skin decontamination: Importance of the wash-in effect. Food Chem Toxicol. 2006; 44: 1783-1788. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.05.020.

Fenske RA, Birnbaum SG: Second generation video imaging technique for assessing dermal exposure (VITAE system). Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1997; 58(9): 636-645. DOI: 10.1080/15428119791012423.

Alexander BM, Merk G: Development of a dry decontamination method for mass casualty events—The NIOSH DryCon system. Eng Res Rep. 2019; (383): 1-48.

IFWB-C0 Clear Blue Tracer [Online]: Santa Ana, CA: Risk Reactor Inc., 2019. Available at Accessed August 29, 2022.

Fatah AA, Arcilesi RD, Judd AK, et al.: Guide for the Selection of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Decontamination Equipment for Emergency First Responders. Washington, DC, 2007. Available at Accessed October 28, 2018.

USMC, USN, USAF: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and Compounds. USMC, 2005.

CH Technologies, USA: Collison nebulizer-instructions: Instruction manual. 2017. Westwood, NJ. Available at Accessed August 29, 2022.

Ibrahim E, Harnish D, Kinney K, et al.: An experimental investigation of the performance of a Collison nebulizer generating H1N1 influenza aerosols. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2015; 29(6): 1142-1148. DOI: 10.1080/13102818.2015.1059736.

Grinshpun SA, Weber AM, Yermakov M, et al.: Evaluation of personal inhalable aerosol samplers with different filters for use during anthrax responses. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017; 14(8): 583-593. DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1304645.

Glarum J, Birou D, Cetaruk, E: Hospital Emergency Response Teams. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2010: 157-189. DOI: 10.1016/B978-1-85617-701-6.00006-1.

Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, et al.: Fiji—An open source platform for biological image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012; 9(7): 676-615. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2019.