Printer-friendlyEmail to friend

Portable testing devices and kits for potentially harmful substances: A cheap and easy solution?

In nearly every case, being a small community means having a small budget. This means funds are tight for nearly every aspect of a utility’s operation, including daily operations and contingency plans.

So when it comes to plans and equipment for an emergency, utilities will probably try to find the lowest-cost solution available. In an emergency, first responders (those first on the scene or trained emergency personnel) often need to make quick decisions about their own safety and the safety of others. To facilitate decisions such as what protective equipment responders should use and whether or not they need to evacuate an area, a utility may be thinking about purchasing a portable device to test for harmful biological and chemical substances. This tool may make sense for a budget-conscious utility: It is a relatively small, one-time purchase, and the utility may avoid the surprise and high costs (and time lag) of contracting with a laboratory for testing services. A portable device may also appear to be easy to use, with no need for professionals or specialists to operate one.

In theory, small detection kits and devices can quickly tell first responders what potentially dangerous substances they are dealing with. But utilities that are considering purchasing or using one should know that the promises made by manufacturers and the results that are relied upon by responders are both full of limitations. Further endangering public health and safety is the fact that those relying on these kits or devices are typically unaware of their limitations.

False Hope?

In 2008, several businesses (including Chase Bank and The New York Times) received threatening letters containing a white powder. First responders used a popular field device that indicated that the powder was a harmless chemical. Although follow-up tests at regional laboratories did not find a weapon of mass destruction, they did identify the powder as a toxic chemical that could cause illness if inhaled or ingested.

Another Example of Confusion that Can Arise

A similar incident was reported in Florida to 911 at 7 a.m. First responders got a positive result for anthrax. To double-check the result, responders repeated the field analysis, but this time they got a negative result. Due to these conflicting results, the hazardous materials team performed the test a third time, resulting in another positive. A great deal of panic followed at both the state and federal level, and medical care was provided for exposed people at the scene. At least one person was taken to the hospital for blood work and other treatment. The sample was delivered to the Laboratory Response Network (formed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the Association of Public Health Laboratories in 1999) laboratory at 6 p.m., more than 11 hours after the incident was reported to 911. A little more than two hours later, the Jacksonville Laboratory Response Network reported that the sample did not contain anthrax.

The Potential Consequences
Both of these examples show that the public’s trust in first responders and the authorities can easily be lost. If the first determination from a field device or kit is incorrect, unnecessary panic can arise and a costly response can occur. Or else first responders or people on the scene may have been exposed to something dangerous but do not know it, which puts them at risk of illness or death.

There are currently no standards for these devices or kits, either in how they operate and detect substances or for what field testing results warrant action. There is also no independent, third-party validation of devices. Currently, the users of these devices do not need to be trained or certified in any way, which means the devices could be used improperly.

Recommendations

First responders need to understand that all credible threats, even if they test negative, need to be sent to a laboratory for confirmation to avoid false negatives. Also, see if there is some training on using a device for your community’s first responders, which will help them understand the limitations and use of field devices or kits and will help them avoid misuse and misinterpretation of tests. Public health laboratories in Iowa and Nebraska have implemented proficiency-training programs for first responders, which is a means of evaluating performance of a device through the analysis of unknown samples.

Until there is widespread and mandatory certification to ensure that all first responders receive appropriate training and standards put in place for devices and kits, it is best to consider their limitations before purchasing or using one and relying on one too heavily. And until a rigorous evaluation and validation program exists, it is impossible to determine which tools are good and which are bad. Tests have shown that even the good ones are useful only under specific conditions. Your ultimate goal should be the protection of the first responders as well as anyone else coming into contact with suspicious substances.

Additional resources

Association of Public Health Laboratories, 2007. Standardized Validation of Screening Kits and Devices for Use in the Field to Identify Hazardous Biological and Chemical Agents.
http://www.aphl.org/policy/Documents/Field_Devices.pdf

US Government Accountability Office, 2008. First Responders’ Ability to Detect and Model Hazardous Releases in Urban Areas Is Significantly Limited.
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08180high.pdf