NIST Technical Note 1776

Best Practices for Sample 

Collection and Transport During 

an Initial Response to Potential 

Biothreat Materials

Autumn S. Downey

Lisa J. Delaney 

Jayne B. Morrow 
NIST Technical Note 1776

Best Practices for Sample 

Collection and Transport During 

an Initial Response to Potential 

Biothreat Materials

Autumn S. Downey 

Jayne B. Morrow 

Biosystems and Biomateirals Division

Material Measurement Laboratory 

Lisa J. Delaney

Emergency Preparedness and Response Office 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

November 2012 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1776 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1776, 21 pages (November 2012)

 CODEN: NTNOEF
1 

Acknowledgements 

This document was developed based on feedback and contributions of members of an interagency 

working group established to support development of a Framework for a Biothreat Field Response 

Mission Capability[1]. The following individual’s contributed extensively to development of this report 

and we are grateful for their efforts and continued support:

Matthew Arduino, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention; 

Lance Brooks, Department of Homeland Security; 

Michele Burgess, Environmental Protection Agency; 

Kenneth Martinez, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention; 

Marissa Mullins, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency Management;

Laura Rose, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
2 

Abstract 

In the event of a suspected or confirmed biological threat, public safety, law enforcement and public

and environmental health authorities may collect samples to support their initial response operational 

objectives. Responding representatives may include local hazardous materials response teams, law 

enforcement, and public health authorities, and may also include assistance from the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Laboratory Response Network (LRN), the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Communication and 

coordination among members of the different responding agencies on current best practices for the

collection and transport of samples for laboratory analysis are critical to the success of these public 

health and public safety responses. The goals of this document are to provide guidance based on 

current state of biological surface sample collection, transport and processing science and current best 

practices to respond when the situation does not conform to available standardized approaches. 
3 

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 1

Abstract............................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 4

2. SCENARIOS FOR WHICH VALIDATED SAMPLING METHODS ARE AVAILABLE................. 6

2.1 Visible powders suspected of being biothreat agents on nonporous surfaces (ASTM E2458)

......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Nonvisible Bacillus anthracis contaminants on smooth, nonporous surfaces (CDC methods)

......................................................................................................................................... 6

3. ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS FOR WHICH NO VALIDATED SAMPLING METHODS ARE AVAILABLE 7

3.1 Liquid contaminants on nonporous surfaces ........................................................... 7

3.2 Unknown nonvisible contaminants on nonporous surfaces.................................... 7

3.3 Contaminants on hard porous surfaces (e.g. concrete, brick, wood) ...................... 8

3.4 Contaminants on absorbent surfaces (carpet, upholstery and ventilation filters).. 8

4. Decision Tool for Selection of Sampling Method ........................................................... 9

5. Sample Collection kits..................................................................................................... 2

6. Coordination of Sample Transport and Storage............................................................. 2

6.1 Documentation needs for sample coordination....................................................... 2

7. References ...................................................................................................................... 4

Appendix A. Existing Standards, Regulations and Guidance Resources............................ 6

NFPA Standards: ............................................................................................................. 6

IATA Standards:............................................................................................................... 6

Federal Government Regulations:.................................................................................. 6

Federal Guidance:........................................................................................................... 7

International Standards and Guidance:.......................................................................... 7

ANSI Standards:............................................................................................................... 7

ASTM Standards:............................................................................................................. 8
4 

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Since the fall of 2001, there have been over 30,000 responses to incidents involving suspicious 

powders and other materials that were considered potential biological threats requiring federal law 

enforcement and public health expertise [1]. Suspicious powder calls still pervade the public safety 

mission of our society, diverting resources by requiring law enforcement, public health and safety 

personnel to respond. These incidents cause fear and anxiety in the communities that are impacted by 

them. Targets are often high profile community members and locations of high visibility within the 

community, including court houses and elementary schools. 

An essential element of any operational response to a suspected biothreat is active communication 

and coordination between public safety, public health and law enforcement response personnel. In 

order to effectively and rapidly address these calls, jurisdictions have developed best practices and 

protocols. Recently, ASTM International published two standards, E2458-10 – “Standard Practice for 

Bulk Sample Collection and Swab Sample Collection of Visible Powders Suspected of being Biological 

Agents from Nonporous Surfaces” and E2770–10 “Standard Guide for Operational Guidelines for Initial 

Response to a Suspected Biothreat Agent.” The standards were developed to assist jurisdictions in 

providing an initial response capability and to communicate the resources available to them to date. 

E2770 is based on current best practices developed by jurisdictions since 2001 and is designed to 

communicate the essential elements of a response regardless of jurisdiction capability (rural to highly 

populated urban areas) [2]. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) guidelines for 

responding to suspicious packages provide additional guidance on response considerations and facility 

operation procedures for the initial response personnel [3]. 

Sample collection to support initial response to suspected biothreats can be accomplished using a 

number of different techniques and methods available. When the materials to be collected are 

powders on a nonporous surface, existing standardized procedures should be used [2, 4-6]. However, 

responders encounter a variety of suspicious materials (liquids, packages, etc.) on an even broader 

array of surfaces types (carpet, concrete, upholstery, wallboard etc.). Since the nature of most initial 

response calls are for suspicious powders, ASTM E2458 is designed to address the collection of 

unknown particulate suspected of being a biothreat from a nonporous surface and submission of that 

sample to the receiving LRN reference laboratory. The LRN reference laboratories are prepared to 

analyze unknown, potential biothreat materials with a range of assays to identify and confirm the 

presence of the organisms. 

In many cases bulk powder may not be present or contamination may be present on porous surfaces 

and sampling may be necessary. Responders will have to rely on sampling procedures other than those 

described above in order to assess whether contamination is present. The Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) has developed surface sampling procedures for the collection of Bacillus 

anthracis, the organism causing anthrax, from nonporous surfaces using sponge sticks and/or swabs. 
5 

Sample collection procedures for other agents are limited; therefore general collection procedures are 

also described to assist local responders. 

Biological surface sample collection should fit into a logical approach for collection and should be 

directed toward the action that the sample will support. Part of the collection process is documenting 

the approach that will be taken for sample collection in a sampling and analysis plan (SAP). When 

appropriate through standard evidence collection procedures, SAP development should be 

coordinated through the incident command structure [7] and shall reference any current federal 

guidance on sample plan generation. Any evidence collection should be coordinated and overseen by 

law enforcement. 

Due to past real world experiences, current research and available methods are heavily focused on the 

collection of Bacillus anthracis. Validated methods for collection of B. anthracis from porous and 

carpeted surfaces as well as agents other than B. anthracis are limited. Therefore, available knowledge

on collection method performance and application gathered from a comprehensive literature review is 

presented in this summary report. This guidance document was designed as a resource for use by 

member laboratories of the Laboratory Response Network when coordinating with field responders 

including HazMat teams to determine how best to respond to and collect suspected of biological threat 

agents. During initial response to a potential biothreat event, first responders should coordinate 

collection of suspicious materials with their receiving LRN laboratory. This document summarizes 

applications for existing, standardized methods, innovative approaches and recent scientific reports on 

surface sample collection methods and emerging operational best practices. Additionally, this 

document can serve as a guide to collection procedures when sample collection standards and/or 

validated methods are unavailable. 
6 

2. Scenarios For Which Validated Sampling Methods Are Available 

2.1 Visible powders suspected of being biothreat agents on nonporous surfaces (ASTM E2458)

When visible powder materials suspected of being biothreat agents are found deposited on nonporous 

surfaces, sample collections should be conducted in accordance with ASTM E2458 [4]. The method

uses a dry swab and laminated card, followed by a swab sampling method using a sterile moistened 

swab. Bulk powder samples are collected and packaged in a manner that permits the maximum 

amount of the sample to be safely transported to an approved LRN reference laboratory for 

confirmatory identification and safe storage. If the source of the powder is a letter or small package, 

the source is packaged separately from the powder in a manner that permits it to be safely transported 

to the laboratory. Once the bulk powder has been collected and preserved, swab samples of remaining 

powder can be collected using a sterile moistened swab (according to Method B of ASTM E2458-10) for 

on-site biological assessment; or the swab samples can be sent directly to the receiving LRN reference 

laboratory. This summary can by no means replace the review and application of the standard and all 

users are encouraged to access the standard directly and free of charge by becoming a registered user 

of the Responder Knowledge Base (www.RKB.us) and searching the standards section [8]. 

 

Figure 1- Demonstration of ASTM E2458-10 Method A for sampling visible powders from nonporous 

surfaces using a sterile non-cotton swab and laminated card

2.2 Nonvisible Bacillus anthracis contaminants on smooth, nonporous surfaces (CDC 

methods)

Sampling methods made available by CDC NIOSH were prepared by the CDC to provide standardized 

procedures for industrial hygienists, or other trained samplers under the direction of sampling experts, 

to use when sampling for B. anthracis spores. The CDC methods should only be utilized during initial 

response scenarios when properly coordinated with the receiving LRN reference laboratory and the 

local FBI WMD Coordinator. These and all sampling methods must be coordinated with the LRN 

reference laboratory to ensure that the laboratory can accept and process the number and type of

samples being referred. The CDC methods are meant to be used for collection of samples from

smooth, nonporous surfaces and can be used in both indoor and outdoor environments. Examples of 

nonporous surfaces encompassed by these methods are stainless steel, painted wall board, floor tile, 

or wood laminate. Each sampling method has its specific uses and advantages and those applications 

are discussed in the procedure [5]. Covered in the CDC collection methods are the use of macrofoam 

swabs and cellulose sponge-sticks. Swabs are appropriate for sampling small surfaces or hard to reach 
7 

locations of less than 4 inches square, like crevices, corners, supply air diffusers, and air return grills. 

Sponge-sticks are appropriate for sampling larger surfaces, no greater than 100 in2

, including walls, 

desks, and floors. Both swab and sponge-stick methods are described in the detailed method 

publication at www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emres/surface-sampling-bacillus-anthracis.html. 

3. Alternative Scenarios for Which No Validated Sampling Methods Are Available 

The standardized procedures currently available to the response community [4, 5] are well vetted. 

However, current standards are only applicable for collection of suspicious powders and powder 

residues from nonporous surfaces and in the case of the CDC collection procedures, only validated for 

B. anthracis sampling. Responders are often called to collect samples from large areas and diverse 

surfaces. When materials suspected to be biothreat agents are found on porous surfaces, or when the 

suspicious materials are in liquid form, the following summary of current findings based on the peer 

reviewed literature may serve to guide the optimal collection approach based on the on-scene 

circumstances encountered. The collection and submission of any sample with non-validated methods 

will require coordination and communication with local public health, including the receiving LRN 

reference laboratory, as well as the FBI. Additionally, coordination of the submission of any field blanks 

of collection materials including buffer solutions utilized in sampling of suspected biothreats is highly 

recommended. Any field blanks must be clearly labeled and indicated in submission documentation.

3.1 Liquid contaminants on nonporous surfaces

There is a paucity of scientific data to support recommendations for collection of suspicious liquids on 

nonporous surfaces; however, use of dry sampling materials may be preferable to those that have 

been pre-wetted in order to maximize absorption of the liquid. Additionally, the absorptive capacity of 

wipes and sponges is far greater than that of swabs so except in cases where very small amounts of 

liquid are present, wipes and sponge sticks should be used to maximize the recovery of the liquid from 

the surface. 

3.2 Unknown nonvisible contaminants on nonporous surfaces

Early in a response, the question of whether a biothreat is present on a surface has not yet been 

definitively answered. Although validated only for collection of Bacillus anthracis, the CDC collection 

procedures (swabs for sampling areas less than 4 inches square and sponge sticks for larger areas) 

could be considered for use when the identity of a suspected biothreat contaminant is unknown. For a 

small surface area, ASTM method B may also be applied. However, sampling results would have to be 

interpreted cautiously because the performance characteristics of this method applied to other 

organisms would not be known.

When unknown suspect biothreat contaminants are present on nonporous surfaces the use of foam 

swab or cellulose sponge stick collection materials are preferable due to consistently higher recovery 
8 

efficiencies reported for foam swabs compared to other swab types [9-11], and better variability data 

available for the sponge-wipe analysis method. 

3.3 Contaminants on hard porous surfaces (e.g. concrete, brick, wood)

The differing absorptive natures of various porous surfaces that may be encountered by first 

responders during a potential biothreat field response pose challenges for standardization of collection 

methods. 

Swabs can be useful when high contaminant concentrations are expected in relatively small surface 

areas (less than 4 inches square ) [12] or when locations (e.g., crevices or supply air diffusers) that are 

difficult to access by wipe or vacuum must be sampled [13]. When low contaminant concentrations 

are expected (e.g. no powder is visible), if contamination is widespread or if the exact site of potential 

contaminant deposition is unknown, wipes allow sampling of larger surface areas as compared to 

swabs, and should be used preferentially in order to improve sensitivity of detection [14]. 

Pre-moistening swabs and wipes prior to sampling has been shown to maximize contaminant recovery 

from surfaces [10, 13, 15, 16]. Currently, neutralizing buffer and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) 

solution with 0.1 % Tween-20 are recommended wetting agents in the standardized methods [4, 5]. 

Any other buffer solution provided by the manufacturer of an on-site biological assessment kit may be 

appropriate if communicated with the receiving LRN laboratory prior to application, to ensure 

compatibility with the detection assays. 

If available, and the receiving LRN reference laboratory is able to process vacuum sample collection 

devices (e.g. 3M Trace evidence filters, Midwest Filtration dust sampling socks, and 37 mm cassettes) 

such devices may be an alternative to improve detection sensitivity for sampling large surface areas 

[13, 17, 18]. This type of sampling requires the use of HEPA filtered vacuum devices downstream of 

the collection device, to ensure spores are not further dispersed by the action of sampling. These 

devices also require additional manipulation during processing that may put laboratories at risk for 

exposure. The LRN laboratory analyzing the vacuum sampling devices should be consulted prior to 

using a vacuum method to determine if that laboratory is capable of processing and analyzing the 

sample. 

3.4 Contaminants on absorbent surfaces (carpet, upholstery and ventilation filters) 

When suspected biothreat contaminants are found on carpet or upholstery, wipes and sponges can be 

used for sample collection and may be preferable over swabs due to reports of increased recovery 

efficiency for wipes [11, 14, 17]. Performance for rayon/polyester or cellulose/polyester blends have 

been reported to be superior to cotton gauze wipes in overall recovery efficiency [11]. 

Pre-moistening swabs and wipes prior to sampling has been shown to maximize contaminant recovery 

from surfaces [10, 13, 15, 16]. Currently, neutralizing buffer and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) 

solution with 0.1 % Tween-20 are recommended wetting agents in the standardized methods [4, 5], 
9 

however, a buffer solution provided by the manufacturer of an on-site biological assessment kit may 

be appropriate if communicated with the receiving LRN reference laboratory prior to application. 

Vacuum sampling, described previously in Section 3.3, is also effective for spore collection from carpet 

or upholstery and could be used on these surfaces, particularly if high contaminant concentrations are 

expected [18], however, the LRN laboratory analyzing the vacuum sampling devices should be 

consulted prior to using a vacuum method to determine if that laboratory is capable of processing and 

analyzing the sample. 

Alternatively, a bulk sample of the surface (e.g., sections of ventilation filters, carpet, or upholstery) 

can be removed and transported to the LRN reference laboratory for processing and testing [19, 20]. 

However, prior to collecting a bulk sample, sampling teams must ensure receipt of bulk samples has 

been communicated and agreed to by the recipient LRN reference laboratory and a risk assessment 

has been performed to determine suitability of the bulk sample for testing. Additional considerations 

that must be addressed prior to sample collection include meeting safe packaging and shipping 

regulations and the size constraints of the biosafety cabinet of the receiving laboratory.

4. Decision Tool for Selection of Sampling Method

To further summarize efforts to support biological surface sample collection methods selection, the 

following decision tool is provided. Please note that the decision tool is to direct laboratory support 

personnel and trained field users to sections in this document that summarize available method 

performance data. 
2 

Nonporous Surface

(e.g. stainless steel, tile, 

laminate)

Hard Porous 

Surface

(e.g. concrete, 

brick, wood)

Absorbent 

Surface

(e.g. carpet, 

upholstery)

Visible Powder

Nonvisible 

Contaminant

B. anthracis 

expected?

Contaminated 

area less than 

4 in

2 

?

ASTM E2458 

(Section 2.1)

Liquid See section 3.1

YES

NO

YES

NO

CDC Macrofoam Swab Method

(Section 2.2)

CDC Sponge Wipe Method

(Section 2.2)

See section 3.2

Nonvisible 

Contaminant

Liquid

Visible Powder

Nonvisible 

Contaminant

Liquid

Visible Powder

See section 3.3

See section 3.4
2 

5. Sample Collection Kits 

Sample collection kits should be flexible to accommodate the different types of sample 

collection scenarios that may be encountered during a response. When designing a kit 

for sample collection of unknown materials, kit contents should align with receiving LRN 

laboratory methods for sample collection and processing procedures. Responders may

wish to submit samples collected using materials provided by the manufacturer of onsite biological assessment tools. When proper coordination and communication 

procedures have been followed, those samples can be submitted to the LRN reference 

laboratory and should be packaged and shipped as described in ASTM E2458 or the CDC 

method depending on which one was followed. Additionally, a number of sample 

collection kit manufacturers provide well characterized and quality controlled 

(sterilization verification, lot numbers and expiration dates) materials that have been 

assembled into kits to meet various scenarios and applications. Kit manufacturers are 

listed on the Responder Knowledge Base (www.rkb.us). 

6. Coordination of Sample Transport and Storage

After sample collection in the field, samples are packaged and transported to the 

receiving LRN reference laboratory for processing and analysis. For the CDC B. anthracis 

method, all samples should be sent to the laboratory on wet ice or on cold packs. These 

samples may be stored at 2°C–8°C prior to processing and should be processed within 

48 hours of collection. CDC has developed a protocol for safe packaging of the vacuum 

socks for shipping. This protocol is described at 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/anthrax/pdfs/socksguidance.pdf [6]. Packaging materials 

should be consistent with the DOT requirements for shipping/transporting hazardous 

materials as described in both ASTM E2458 and E2770 [2, 4]. Storage of suspected 

biothreat samples at the receiving LRN reference laboratory must be coordinated by the 

FBI to meet forensic and evidence storage condition recommendations. 

6.1 Documentation needs for sample coordination

In order to maintain a record of the incident and to insure proper communication of 

information on the sample collected and any field screening done to assess the hazard, 

documentation should be submitted to the receiving LRN reference laboratory. Specific 

documentation is recommended and first responders should contact their local LRN 

reference laboratory prior to an event to find out which forms are required and the 

protocol for submission in their jurisdiction. As an example of information that may be 

required, Section 14 of E2770 has a comprehensive list of items to be disclosed in the 

laboratory submission documentation [2]. Example documents are contained in the 

appendix of ASTM E2458 and E2770 that include, but are not limited to, the chain of 

custody forms, field screening results, and sample submission form. Additional 
3 

information such as sample collection procedure description (noting surface type, area 

sampled and collection of field blanks), and a record of exposed individuals with contact 

information for possible follow-up public health response may all be useful. In order to 

decrease time to results reporting, responders can fax or email a copy of the chain of 

custody form in advance of the shipment to allow laboratories to pre-enter data into 

their management system and prepare supplies for processing.
4 

7. References

1. DHS, Framework for a Biothreat Field Response Mission Capability, U.S.D.o.H. 

Security, Editor. 2011: Washington, D.C.

2. E2770-10, Standard Guide for Operational Guidelines for Initial Response to a 

Suspected Biothreat Agent, in ASTM. 2010, ASTM International: West 

Conshohocken, PA, United States.

3. IAFC, Model Procedures for Responding to a Package with Suspicion of a 

Biological Threat. International Association of Fire Chiefs, www.iafc.org, 2008.

4. E2458-10, Standard Practices for Bulk Sample Collection and Swab Sample 

Collection of Visible Powders Suspected of Being Biothreat Agents from 

Nonporous Surfaces. 2010, ASTM International.

5. NIOSH. EMERGENCY RESPONSE RESOURCES: Surface sampling procedures for 

Bacillus anthracis spores from smooth, non-porous surfaces. 2010 [cited 

September 7, 2010 

6. NIOSH. Guidance on packaging and shipping vacuum socks used for the collection 

of Bacillus anthracis samples. 2012 May 14, 2012]; Available from: 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/anthrax/pdfs/socksguidance.pdf. 

7. National Academy of Sciences, N., Reopening Public Facilities After a Biological 

Attack: A Decision-Making Framework, ed. N.R.C. Committee on Standards and 

Policies for Decontaminating Public Facilities Affected by Exposure to Harmful 

Biological Agents: How Clean is Safe? 2005: National Academy of Sciences. 224.

8. RKB. https://www.rkb.us/. 2011.

9. Edmonds, J.M., et al., Surface sampling of spores in dry-deposition aerosols.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2009. 75: p. 39-44.

10. Rose, L., et al., Swab materials and Bacillus anthracis spore recovery from 

nonporous surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis, 2004. 10(6): p. 1023-9.

11. Valentine, N.B., et al., Evaluation of sampling tools for environmental sampling of 

bacterial endospores from porous and nonporous surfaces. J Appl Microbiol, 

2008. 105(4): p. 1107-1113.

12. Brown, G.S., et al., Evaluation of rayon swab surface sample collection method 

for Bacillus spores from nonporous surfaces. J Appl Microbiol, 2007. 103(4): p. 

1074-80.

13. Sanderson, W.T., et al., Surface Sampling Methods for Bacillus anthracis Spore 

Contamination. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2002. 8(10): p. 1145-1151.

14. Estill, C. and B.J. Baron PA, Hein MJ, Larsen LD, Rose L, Schaefer FW 3rd, NobleWang J, Hodges L, Lindquist HD, Deye GJ, Arduino MJ., Recovery efficiency and 

limit of detection of aerosolized Bacillus anthracis Sterne from environmental 

surface samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2009. May 8. 

15. Frawley, D.A., et al., Recovery Efficiencies of Anthrax Spores and Ricin from 

Nonporous or Nonabsorbent and Porous or Absorbent Surfaces by a Variety of 

Sampling Methods*. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2008. 53(5): p. 1102-1107.
5 

16. Hodges, L.R., et al., Evaluation of a macrofoam swab protocol for the recovery of 

Bacillus anthracis spores from a steel surface. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2006. 

72(6): p. 4429-30.

17. Buttner, M.P., et al., Evaluation of Two Surface Sampling Methods for Detection 

of Erwinia herbicola on a Variety of Materials by Culture and Quantitative PCR.

Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2007. 73(11): p. 3505-3510.

18. Brown, G.S., et al., Evaluation of vacuum filter sock surface sample collection 

method for Bacillus spores from porous and non-porous surfaces. Journal of 

Environmental Monitoring, 2007. 9(7): p. 666 - 671.

19. Anderson RL, M.D., Stoler BS, Mallison GF, Carpeting in hospitals: an 

epidemiological evaluation. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 1982. 15(3): p. 408-

415.

20. Buttner, M.P., P. Cruz-Perez, and L.D. Stetzenbach, Enhanced detection of 

surface-associated bacteria in indoor environments by quantitative PCR. Appl 

Environ Microbiol, 2001. 67(6): p. 2564-70.
6 

Appendix A. Existing Standards, Regulations and Guidance Resources

NFPA Standards:1

 

NFPA 471 Recommended Practice for Responding to Hazardous Materials Incidents, 

1997 Edition

NFPA 472 Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous 

Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents, 2008 Edition 

NFPA 1994 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Chemical/Biological Terrorism 

Incidents

NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity 

Programs, 2007 Edition

IATA Standards:

2

 

IATA PI 602 Infectious Diseases (Infectious Substances) 

IATA PI 650 Shipping of Diagnostic Samples 

IATA DGR 46th Edition, 2005 

IATA DGR Addendum I, January 2005 

IATA DGR Addendum II, March 2005 

IATA DGR Addendum III, July 2005 

Federal Government Regulations:3

DOT - 49 CFR, Parts 171-180, Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOT - 49 CFR 172 Subpart H, Transportation Training

DOT - 49 CFR 173, General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings

DOT - 49 CFR 178, Specifications for Packagings

EPA - 40 CFR 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP)

EPA - 40 CFR 311, Worker Protection 

NRC - 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection against Radiation

NIOSH - 42 CFR 84, Respiratory Protective Devices

OSHA - 29 CFR 1910 Subpart Z and 29 CFR 1926 Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances

OSHA - 29 1910.1096 and 29 CFR 1926.53, Ionizing Radiation

OSHA - 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 

(HAZWOPER) standard

OSHA - 29 CFR 1910 Subpart I (Sections 132 to 139), Personal Protective Equipment 

OSHA - 29 CFR 1910.1200, Hazard Communication 

 

1 Available from the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269—9101 2 Available from the International Air Transport Association, 800 Place Victoria, PO Box 113, Montreal-H4Z 1M1, Quebec, Canada. 3 Available from U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, 732 N. Capitol St., NW, Mail Stop: SDE, Washington, 

DC 20401, and also available online from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (www.osha.gov).
7 

Federal Guidance:

FBI-DHS-HHS/CDC Coordinated Document, Guidance on Initial Response to a 

Suspicious Letter/Container with a Potential Biological threat, November 2, 

2004.

NIMS 2008 National Incident Management System4

Planning Guidance for Recovery Following Biological Incidents, Biological 

Decontamination Standards Working Group, Subcommittee on Decontamination 

Standards and Technology Committee on Homeland and National Security, 

National Science and Technology Council, May 2009

NRF 2008 National Response Framework5

OSHA - CPL 02-02-073, Inspection Procedures for 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65, 

Paragraph (q): Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases

EPA - Safety, Health, and Environmental Management (SHEM) Guide No. 44, 

Personal Protective Equipment, October 2004

EPA - Safety, Health, and Environmental Management (SHEM) Guideline No. 46, 

Respiratory Protection, dated October 2004

EPA - Order 1460.1, Occupational Medical Surveillance Program, June 18, 1996

NIOSH Publication No. 2009-132: Recommendations for the Selection and Use of 

Respirators and Protective Clothing for Protection Against Biological Agents

CDC Surface Sampling Procedures for Bacillus anthracis spores from smooth, 

nonporous surfaces, May 2012

FBI Laboratory Publication: Handbook of Forensic Services 2003

DOT, current version, Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG)6

International Standards and Guidance:

International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) Guidance, Model Procedures for 

Responding to a Package with Suspicion of a Biological Threat, October 2008

ISO/IEC Guide 43-1:1997 Proficiency Testing by Interlaboratory Comparison, Part1: 

Development and Operation of Proficiency Testing Schemes

ANSI Standards: 

ANSI Z41-1999: American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective 

Footwear 

ANSI Z87.1-2003: American National Standard for Occupational and Educational 

Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices

ANSI Z88.2-1992: American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection

ANSI Z88.10-2001: American National Standard for Personal Protection - Respirator 

Fit Testing Methods

 

4 For access to document, go to www.fema.gov.

5 For access to document, go to www.fema.gov.

6 Available from http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/erg/gydebook.htm.
8 

ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2003: American National Standard for Personal Protection - 

Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers Requirements

ANSI/Compressed Gas Association, CGA G-7.1-1997, Commodity Specification for Air

ASTM Standards:

ASTM E 2601-08: Standard Practice for Radiological Emergency Response

ASTM F 2412-05: Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection

ASTM F 2413-05: Specification for Performance Requirements for Foot Protection

ASTM E 2458-10: Practices for Bulk Sample Collection and Swab Sample Collection of 

Visible Powders Suspected of Being Biological Agents from Nonporous Surfaces

ASTM E 2770-10: Guide for Operational Guidelines for Initial Response to a 

Suspected Biothreat Agent