Volume 1, Number 3 January 2004 

Newsletter of U.S. EPA’s Safe Buildings Monitoring 

and Detection Technology Verification Program 

What is ETV? 

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) established the 

Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV) Program in 1995 

to verify the performance of 

innovative technical solutions to

problems that threaten human health 

or the environment. 

ETV’s mission is to accelerate the 

use of new environmental 

technologies in the domestic and 

international marketplace. 

ETV provides third-party, qualityassured performance data so buyers 

and users of environmental 

technologies can make informed

purchase and application decisions.

ETV works through public/private 

testing partnerships (called Centers)

to evaluate the performance of

environmental technologies. 

The program 

The Safe Buildings Monitoring 

and Detection Technology Verification Program is part of the U.S. 

EPA’s National Homeland 

Security Research Center 

(NHSRC). The program operates 

under the auspices of ETV to 

verify technologies that monitor 

and detect chemical and 

biological contaminants in 

buildings and public places. 

The Safe Buildings Monitoring 

and Detection Technology 

Verification Program develops 

test plans and protocols, conducts 

verification tests, and reports the 

technologies’ performance. 

For further information, contact 

Helen Latham at Battelle, 505 

King Ave., Columbus, OH 

43201-2693; phone 614-424-

4062; fax 614-424-5601; or e-mail 

lathamh@battelle.org.

Stakeholders Help To Select Next 

Technology Category for Testing 

Several types of technologies 

capable of detecting chemical and 

biological agents in buildings and 

other structures are being considered for the second verification 

test by Battelle in collaboration 

with the U.S. EPA’s Safe Buildings 

Monitoring and Detection

Technology Verification Program. 

Members of the program’s 

stakeholder committee helped 

Battelle identify and prioritize the 

technologies for testing during a 

September teleconference and 

continued that support when 

members met in December. The 

meeting’s major objectives were to 

review the lessons learned from 

conducting the first test of a 

detection technology, discuss the 

initial and ongoing survey to 

identify potential detection

technologies, and prioritize them 

for future testing. Two stakeholders presented background 

information about the challenges 

of current biological and chemical 

technologies. Battelle staff 

members described the initial 

verification test, vendor survey, 

and technology priorities. 

The first test of an ion 

mobility spectrometer (IMS), 

submitted by Bruker Daltonics, 

was completed in December. The 

draft test report will be reviewed 

by stakeholder volunteers and 

U.S. EPA representatives.

3⁄4 Dr. Cynthia Bruckner-Lea of 

the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory described different 

pathogen detection approaches. 

Examples include: selective 

(See Next Technology on Page 2) 

Various technologies to detect chemical and biological contaminants in 

buildings and other public places were identified in the initial survey. 
Next Technology (from Page 1) Meet the Stakeholders

Thomas H. 

Taylor, Jr. 

Center for 

Disease 

Control & 

Prevention

(CDC) 

Tom Taylor is a mathematical statistician in

the Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases Branch

of the National Center for Infectious 

Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta, GA. He is 

a registered professional engineer 

(industrial), holds a B.S. in applied 

mathematics from the Georgia Institute of 

Technology, and an M.S. from the Georgia

State University’s College of Business in 

decision sciences, with a statistics 

concentration. Mr. Taylor’s engineering and 

statistical experience ranges from specifying data-gathering instrumentation 

for a water treatment plant in Texas to developing a new mathematical 

approach to bio-assay interpretation currently being reviewed by the U.S. 

Patent Office. His role at the CDC is to support outbreak investigations and 

research on food-borne, mycotic, and respiratory diseases, as well as 

meningitis and selected pathogens. His primary responsibility is to anthrax 

and its causes (e.g., Bacillus anthracis). In the context of the anthrax medical 

study of serum, he has applied ground-breaking techniques to the 

mathematical and statistical interpretation of the bio-assay results. Mr. Taylor 

conducts seminars about multi-variable regression modeling for his 

division’s epidemiologists and trains statistical analysts. He co-authored 

publications on infectious diseases, has a manuscript accepted for future 

publication, and is a regular reviewer of statistical portions of manuscripts 

submitted to Emerging Infectious Diseases.

She defined pathogens as a 

complex package of chemicals and 

described the requirements of a 

biodetection system. She also gave 

examples of pathogen detectors 

currently available or in 

development and described factors 

to consider when evaluating a 

biodetection system. 

3⁄4 Dr. Don Stedman, of the 

University of Denver’s Department 

of Chemistry, described his 

skepticism about accurately 

detecting chemical or biological 

agents. He noted that there are 

lists of possible detectors but no 

tests or evaluations are posted to 

support the claims. He also 

discussed the challenges facing 

users of detectors and advised that 

the detectors should be tested in 

real-world situations with a 

multitude of realistic interferences. 

3⁄4 Kent Hofacre, Battelle’s 

verification test coordinator, 

described the status of testing of 

the first detection technology to be 

verified, the Bruker RAID-M, an 

ion mobility spectrometer. The 

purpose of the test was to 

characterize the detector’s 

performance with five selected 

toxic industrial chemicals (TICs) 

and two chemical warfare (CW) 

agents at concentrations up to 

Immediately Dangerous to Life and 

Health (IDLH) levels, under a range 

of environmental conditions. 

The parameters tested included 

identification (DNA/RNA 

[interior]; proteins/glycoproteins 

[exterior]); semi-selective broad 

spectrum detection of metabolites 

and lipids (physical properties, 

semi-selective sensors that decrease 

false positives); or function-based 

(pathogen’s effect on organisms, 

tissues, or cells). 

response time, response threshold, 

repeatability, accuracy, recovery 

time, temperature/relative 

humidity effects, interferents 

effects, cold start behavior, battery 

operation, and other operational 

factors. Data are being analyzed as 

the first step in preparing the draft 

test report, which will be submitted 

to vendor representatives,

volunteers from the committee, 

peer reviewers, and U.S. EPA 

personnel for review and 

comment. 

3⁄4 Dr. Tom Kelly, Battelle’s 

verification testing leader, 

described the technology survey 

process and the need to prioritize 

the technologies for testing. The 

initial survey identified 268 

chemical detection technologies 

that were available for possible 

testing. He said that this list of 

detection technologies was based 

in part on detector databases that 

can be obtained from federal 

Stakeholders recommended that 

Battelle also begin (1) to prepare a 

protocol for technologies that can 

detect biological warfare agents and 

(2) to test those technologies. 

They also suggested the following 

technology priorities: 

High priority—infrared detectors, 

other IMS technologies, flame 

photometric detectors, and 

biodetectors such as field polymerase 

chain reaction (PCR) technologies. 

Medium priority—surface acoustic

wave (SAW), mini-CAD, field gas 

chromatography with mass 

spectrometric detection (GC/MS). 

Low priority—colormetric tubes. 

agencies. Initially, the focus was 

on detectors that are durable and 

portable (especially for first 

responders), that can detect TICs, 

and that are small enough to fit 

within a test apparatus under a 

testing hood. 

2