Page 60 - JSOM Spring 2020

kit can react with carbamate-based pesticides. However, there TABLE 1 Compounds Evaluated in This Study
is an increasing need for emergency treatments of a broader Time to
range of chemical agents that go beyond those of CWAs or Decontamination
related compounds, such as toxic industrial chemicals (TICs). Compound Formula/Composition (min)
For instance, it can be envisaged that the RSDL kit may prove Sulfuric acid H SO 4 2
2
useful in circumstances where soap and water are not readily Hydrofluoric acid 48% HF in water 2
accessible, such as forward deployed Operations (e.g., Special Ammonia 25% NH OH in water 2
4
Forces in remote field conditions) who carry the product with Methylamine Me-NH 0.5
them. Further, emergency responders have an urgent need for Hydrazine H N-NH 2 0.5
decontamination methods counteracting TICs posing a dermal 2 2
hazard, which are seen with more frequency than CWAs. For Phenylhydrazine 0.5
example, street gangs are increasingly using acid to target peo-
ple, as exemplified by the record number of 465 acid attacks in 1,2-Dibromoethane 2
London in 2017 and 395 in the previous year. Another class
19
of compounds that is of increasing concern is pharmaceutically Fentanyl 2
based compounds (PBAs), such as fentanyl and its analogs (i.e.,
carfentanyl and sufentanyl). Those compounds pose a potential
hazard to first responders who could unknowingly come into Capsaicin 0.5
contact with these drugs. The US DEA has provided alerts to

first responders to wear personal protective equipment while
handling and processing chemicals that may contain fentanyl. 20
the NATO AEP-58 guidelines for CWA contaminations. For
2
We here report the results of work that was aimed towards fentanyl we used 0.1g/m for safety reasons. The chemical com-
probing whether the RSDL kit could be used to counteract pounds were applied as ≈25 droplets of 1 to 3µL that were
surface contaminations for several dermal hazardous com- evenly divided over the panel in a matrix of ~5 ✕ 5 droplets.
pounds as a necessary investigation to further follow on stud- The chemicals were used neat or as a solution with a target
ies on skin. We selected the toxic chemicals used in this study amount of 25mg compound. After 2 minutes, the CARC
with consideration to their dermal health hazard (contact panels were either extracted with 25mL of solvent (positive
risk) as recommended from multiple inputs including emer- control) or treated with the RSDL kit. Decontamination was
gency responder queries, high volume production, and other executed as follows: a new RSDL kit was torn open and the
percutaneous concern reference lists. The selected compounds panel was treated with the RSDL-impregnated sponge by mak-
included a wide variety of common TICs, and fentanyl as an ing circular rubbing motions for 10 seconds. After 2 minutes,
example of a PBA. We used metal panels coated with chemical a dry sponge was used to remove as much of the RSDL lotion
agent–resistant coating (CARC) as the contaminated substrate as possible from the surface. Immediately thereafter, the panels
as these are commonly used in standardized North Atlantic were extracted with 25mL of solvent. Due to the high volatility
Treaty Organization (NATO) guidelines for military equip- of some compounds the time between application and either
ment decontamination studies. extraction (positive control) or decontamination (test sample)
was reduced to 30 seconds (see Table 1). In each case, three
replicate test samples, three positive controls, and one nega-
Methods
tive control (decontamination without contamination) were
Chemicals and Materials prepared. We quantified the amounts of agent extracted from
The CARC-painted panels (5 ✕ 5 ✕ 0.3 cm) were purchased the panels using the analytical methods we developed for this
from van Geffen BV, Tilburg, the Netherlands. The metal purpose (see later). The decontamination effectiveness was cal-
panels were painted according to the Dutch military standard culated by comparing the residual amount of agent with both
procedure (KN 00031) using the standard paint (RAL 6031- the amount in the positive control and the amount of agent ap-
zm), on all sides. Prior to the decontamination experiments, plied. The percentage decontamination was calculated by mul-
the CARC-covered stainless steel panels were preconditioned tiplication by 100 of the number obtained by subtraction of the
at 23°C and 60% relative humidity. The RSDL pouches were residual amount of agent from the starting amount (from both
provided by Emergent BioSolutions. The chemical compounds the positive control or the applied amount) and division of the
used in the decontamination experiments were purchased result by the positive control or applied amount, respectively.
from Sigma-Aldrich or Fluka. Fentanyl citrate was obtained
from Eur. Farmacopea, Spruyt Hillen, the Netherlands. All Analytical Method Development
chemicals were used as received for all parts of the experiment.
For sulfate, fluoride and ammonia, analyzed by ion chroma- We developed the requisite analytical methods with the aim to
tography, TraceCert standards were used for the calibration be able to measure a decontamination effectiveness of 99.99%
curves and quality control (QC) samples. In the analysis of from an applied amount of 25mg on a 25cm (10g/m ) test
2
2
fentanyl, chlorpromazine hydrochloride was used as an inter- panel and extraction with 25mL of solvent. This corresponds
nal standard. with a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 100ng/mL. Fentanyl
was an exception; 0.25mg was applied to the CARC panels
and hence an LOQ of 1ng/mL was required for fentanyl.
Contamination and Decontamination Procedure
The CARC-painted panels were contaminated with the se- For all compounds, we prepared calibration standards at five
lected chemicals (Table 1). In the absence of a reference con- or more concentrations, including 0ng/mL, in the extraction
tamination level for the TICs, we used 10g/m agent, following solvents used after the decontamination step. The calibration
2

56 | JSOM Volume 20, Edition 1 / Spring 2020