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

Volume 1, Number 9 November 2004 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. 

HAZMATCAD Plus Is Second 

Technology To Be Verified 

The technology submitted by 

Microsensor Systems, Inc.—the 

HAZMATCAD Plus hybrid 

electrochemical (EC)/surface 

acoustic wave (SAW) detector— 

has completed verification testing 

with toxic industrial compounds 

(TICs) and chemical warfare 

agents (CWAs). The objective of 

the test was to characterize the 

performance of the detector on 

selected TICs and CW agents, 

under conditions representing use 

of the detector by first/emergency 

responders. 

The HAZMATCAD Plus uses a 

network of three SAW sensors 

that can detect blister and nerve 

agents, and EC sensors for 

detecting choking agents and 

hydride and halogen gases. 

Hydrogen cyanide (AC), phosgene 

(CG), arsine (SA), and chlorine 

(Cl2 ) were the TICs used for the 

test because they are relatively 

common and may be accessible to 

terrorists. Sarin (GB) and sulfur 

mustard (HD) were the CWAs 

used. 

The performance characteristics 

tested included response time, 

response threshold, accuracy, 

recovery time, temperature and 

interference effects, and battery 

life. Also evaluated were 

operational factors such as 

cold/hot start behavior, cost, ease 

of use, and data display 

capabilities. 

Testing included common 

(See HAZMATCAD on Page 2) 

Two HAZMATCAD Plus hand-held instruments are shown in the test chamber, 

where they were tested for detection of toxic industrial chemicals and chemical 

warfare agents. Inset is an enlarged photo of the instrument. 
HAZMATCAD Plus Response 

Thresholds for TICs and 

TIC/CWA Response Threshold 

Hydrogen cyanide (AC) 0.6 - 1.25 ppm (0.6 – 1.25 mg/m3) 

Phosgene (CG) 0.2 - 0.4 ppm (0.8 – 1.6 mg/m3) 

Arsine (SA) 0.3 - 0.6 ppm (1.0 – 2.0 mg/m3) 

Chlorine (Cl2) 0.5 - 1 ppm (1.4 – 2.9 mg/m3) 

CWAs Used in Testing Sarin (GB) 0.1 - 0.2 ppm (0.6 – 1.1 mg/m3

) 

Sulfur mustard (HD) 0.1 - 0.6 ppm (0.7 – 4.0 mg/m3) 

ppm - parts per million mg/m3 - milligrams per cubic meter 

HAZMATCAD (from Page 1) 

materials that could interfere with 

the technology’s ability to detect 

TICs or CWAs, including latex 

paint fumes, air freshener and 

ammonia cleaner vapors, exhaust 

hydrocarbons, and diethyl amino 

ethanol (DEAE), which is used in 

a building’s boiler water to prevent 

corrosion. The test procedure 

generally consisted of establishing 

a challenge, measuring the 

detector’s response, allowing the 

system to recover (i.e., return to 

the base-line)—then repeating the 

cycle five times. The test 

emphasized the detection of 

chemicals in the vapor phase 

because that application is likely to 

be of the most relevance to first 

responders. 

The EC sensors responded within 

a few seconds and the SAW 

sensors in about 40 seconds. 

Alarm responses were consistent 

with the manufacturer’s specifications. The recovery times were 

generally 0-2 minutes for CG, SA, 

Cl2, HD, and GB and greater than 

one minute for AC. The response 

test was repeated at different 

temperatures and relative 

humidity. The largest effect was 

for Cl2 –the high humidity and 

temperature caused a decrease in 

response. 

The table above shows the TIC 

and CWA used in testing and the 

HAZMATCAD Plus response 

thresholds determined. 

The false positive tests showed no 

response for latex paint, air 

freshener, ammonia cleaner, 

DEAE, or exhaust hydrocarbons. 

However, interferent tests showed 

increases in Cl2 and GB responses 

from ammonia cleaner and a 

masked GB alarm from air 

freshener. Cold start behavior was 

tested at three storage temperatures (normal, cold, and hot), and 

there was no change in response 

or response time. 

Battery life was also tested and 

found to be 9 to 10 hours, with no 

change in response, response time, 

or recovery time until the batteries 

were fully depleted. 

The verification statement and 

report for the HAZMATCAD 

Plus will soon be available on the 

U.S. EPA’s Environmental 

Technology Verification (ETV) 

Program’s Web site at 

(http://www.epa.gov/etv). The 

verification statement and report 

for the Bruker Daltonics RAID-M 

IMS have also been posted on that 

site. It was the first technology 

tested under the U.S. EPA’s Safe 

Buildings Monitoring and Detection Technology Verification 

Program. In the left-hand column 

of the opening page of the web 

site, click on the Verified Technologies 

button, then on the Safe Buildings 

Monitoring and Detection 

Technology Verification Program, 

and scroll down to the reports. 

Testing is currently underway on a 

technology submitted by 

Environics USA, the M90 ion 

mobility spectrometer (IMS). 

Stakeholders Suggest Future Technology Tests 

During an August teleconference, 

stakeholders revisited the 

technologies suggested earlier for 

testing—SAW detectors (see main 

article), flame spectroscopy 

detectors, photoionization 

detectors (PIDs), and portable 

infrared technologies. They 

recommended several other technologies that may be considered 

for testing: 

3⁄4 Bio devices or test kits (used 

by the U.S. Department of 

Defense [DOD]), especially those 

that can detect anthrax spores. 

3⁄4 Lateral flow assays. 

3⁄4 End analytical components 

for bio-detection. 

3⁄4 In general, test important 

devices/systems that consumers 

are buying. Stakeholders 

recommended that Battelle select 

for testing the devices being 

purchased regularly, test what is 

being used most frequently in the 

field, and base the test on how it 

is currently being used. 

2