Bomb swab: Can trace explosive particle sampling and detection be improved?

The marked increase in international terror in recent years requires the development of highly efficient methods to detect trace amounts of explosives at airports, border crossings and check points. The preferred analytical method worldwide is the ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) that is capable of d...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Talanta (Oxford) 2017-11, Vol.174, p.92-99
Hauptverfasser: Fisher, Danny, Zach, Raya, Matana, Yossef, Elia, Paz, Shustack, Shiran, Sharon, Yarden, Zeiri, Yehuda
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 99
container_issue
container_start_page 92
container_title Talanta (Oxford)
container_volume 174
creator Fisher, Danny
Zach, Raya
Matana, Yossef
Elia, Paz
Shustack, Shiran
Sharon, Yarden
Zeiri, Yehuda
description The marked increase in international terror in recent years requires the development of highly efficient methods to detect trace amounts of explosives at airports, border crossings and check points. The preferred analytical method worldwide is the ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) that is capable of detecting most explosives at the nano-gram level. Sample collection for the IMS analysis is based on swabbing of a passenger's belongings to collect possible explosive residues. The present study examines a wide range of issues related to swab-based particle collection and analysis, in the hope of gaining deeper understanding into this technique that will serve to improve the detection process. The adhesion of explosive particles to three typical materials, plastic, metal and glass, were measured using atomic force microscopy (AFM). We found that a strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces renders these substrates more promising materials upon which to find and collect explosive residues. The adhesion of explosives to different swipe materials was also examined. Here we found that Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane surfaces are the most promising materials for use as swipes. Subsequently, the efficiency of multiple swipe use – for collecting explosive residues from a glass surface using Muslin, Nomex® and Teflon™ swipes – was examined. The study suggests that swipes used in about 5–10 “sampling and analysis cycles” have higher efficiency as compared to new unused swipes. The reason for this behavior was found to be related to the increased roughness of the swipe surface following a few swab measurements. Lastly, GC-MS analysis was employed to examine the nature of contaminants collected by the three types of swipe. The relative amounts of different contaminants are reported. The existence and interference of these contaminants have to be considered in relation to the detection efficiency of the various explosives by the IMS. [Display omitted] •Adhesion of explosives to three substrate: plastic, metal, glass and six swipe materials.•A strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces.•Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane determined as the best materials for use as swipes.•Multiple use of swipes from glass surface suggest that 5–10 swipes improves collection by increase of surface roughness.•GC-MS determines contaminants collected by swipe during sampling that may interfere with IMS operation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.05.085
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1923116647</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0039914017306203</els_id><sourcerecordid>1923116647</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-372351fd387ad9fc7d863db09eb8761e79b4a00be97b76890efc291e38b711513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtO6zAURS10EZTHJ4A8ZJJwHDdxzARxK14CiQmMLT9OkKu8sNNy-XtctTC9ozNZ-2ztRcgZg5wBqy6X-aRb3U86L4CJHMoc6nKPzFgteMZLwf-QGQCXmWRzOCRHMS4BoODAD8hhkaC6quYz8vR36AyNn9pc0YXu6RS0RYr_xnaIfo101GHytkUadTe2vn-nunfU4YR28kNPDVLfjWFYo7s-IfuNbiOe7u4xebu7fV08ZM8v94-Lm-fM8qqcMi4KXrLG8VpoJxsrXF1xZ0CiqUXFUEgz1wAGpTCiqiVgYwvJkNdGMFYyfkwutn9T78cK46Q6Hy22SQcOq6iYLDhjaZ5IaLlFbRhiDNioMfhOhy_FQG08qqXaeVQbjwpKlTym3PmuYmU6dL-pH3EJuN4CmIauPQYVrcfeovMhqVFu8P-p-AYzrIX4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1923116647</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bomb swab: Can trace explosive particle sampling and detection be improved?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Fisher, Danny ; Zach, Raya ; Matana, Yossef ; Elia, Paz ; Shustack, Shiran ; Sharon, Yarden ; Zeiri, Yehuda</creator><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Danny ; Zach, Raya ; Matana, Yossef ; Elia, Paz ; Shustack, Shiran ; Sharon, Yarden ; Zeiri, Yehuda</creatorcontrib><description>The marked increase in international terror in recent years requires the development of highly efficient methods to detect trace amounts of explosives at airports, border crossings and check points. The preferred analytical method worldwide is the ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) that is capable of detecting most explosives at the nano-gram level. Sample collection for the IMS analysis is based on swabbing of a passenger's belongings to collect possible explosive residues. The present study examines a wide range of issues related to swab-based particle collection and analysis, in the hope of gaining deeper understanding into this technique that will serve to improve the detection process. The adhesion of explosive particles to three typical materials, plastic, metal and glass, were measured using atomic force microscopy (AFM). We found that a strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces renders these substrates more promising materials upon which to find and collect explosive residues. The adhesion of explosives to different swipe materials was also examined. Here we found that Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane surfaces are the most promising materials for use as swipes. Subsequently, the efficiency of multiple swipe use – for collecting explosive residues from a glass surface using Muslin, Nomex® and Teflon™ swipes – was examined. The study suggests that swipes used in about 5–10 “sampling and analysis cycles” have higher efficiency as compared to new unused swipes. The reason for this behavior was found to be related to the increased roughness of the swipe surface following a few swab measurements. Lastly, GC-MS analysis was employed to examine the nature of contaminants collected by the three types of swipe. The relative amounts of different contaminants are reported. The existence and interference of these contaminants have to be considered in relation to the detection efficiency of the various explosives by the IMS. [Display omitted] •Adhesion of explosives to three substrate: plastic, metal, glass and six swipe materials.•A strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces.•Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane determined as the best materials for use as swipes.•Multiple use of swipes from glass surface suggest that 5–10 swipes improves collection by increase of surface roughness.•GC-MS determines contaminants collected by swipe during sampling that may interfere with IMS operation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-9140</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-3573</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.05.085</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28738664</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adhesion force ; AFM ; IMS ; Particle sampling ; Swipe material ; Trace explosives detection</subject><ispartof>Talanta (Oxford), 2017-11, Vol.174, p.92-99</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-372351fd387ad9fc7d863db09eb8761e79b4a00be97b76890efc291e38b711513</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-372351fd387ad9fc7d863db09eb8761e79b4a00be97b76890efc291e38b711513</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039914017306203$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28738664$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zach, Raya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matana, Yossef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elia, Paz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shustack, Shiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharon, Yarden</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeiri, Yehuda</creatorcontrib><title>Bomb swab: Can trace explosive particle sampling and detection be improved?</title><title>Talanta (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Talanta</addtitle><description>The marked increase in international terror in recent years requires the development of highly efficient methods to detect trace amounts of explosives at airports, border crossings and check points. The preferred analytical method worldwide is the ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) that is capable of detecting most explosives at the nano-gram level. Sample collection for the IMS analysis is based on swabbing of a passenger's belongings to collect possible explosive residues. The present study examines a wide range of issues related to swab-based particle collection and analysis, in the hope of gaining deeper understanding into this technique that will serve to improve the detection process. The adhesion of explosive particles to three typical materials, plastic, metal and glass, were measured using atomic force microscopy (AFM). We found that a strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces renders these substrates more promising materials upon which to find and collect explosive residues. The adhesion of explosives to different swipe materials was also examined. Here we found that Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane surfaces are the most promising materials for use as swipes. Subsequently, the efficiency of multiple swipe use – for collecting explosive residues from a glass surface using Muslin, Nomex® and Teflon™ swipes – was examined. The study suggests that swipes used in about 5–10 “sampling and analysis cycles” have higher efficiency as compared to new unused swipes. The reason for this behavior was found to be related to the increased roughness of the swipe surface following a few swab measurements. Lastly, GC-MS analysis was employed to examine the nature of contaminants collected by the three types of swipe. The relative amounts of different contaminants are reported. The existence and interference of these contaminants have to be considered in relation to the detection efficiency of the various explosives by the IMS. [Display omitted] •Adhesion of explosives to three substrate: plastic, metal, glass and six swipe materials.•A strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces.•Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane determined as the best materials for use as swipes.•Multiple use of swipes from glass surface suggest that 5–10 swipes improves collection by increase of surface roughness.•GC-MS determines contaminants collected by swipe during sampling that may interfere with IMS operation.</description><subject>Adhesion force</subject><subject>AFM</subject><subject>IMS</subject><subject>Particle sampling</subject><subject>Swipe material</subject><subject>Trace explosives detection</subject><issn>0039-9140</issn><issn>1873-3573</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMtO6zAURS10EZTHJ4A8ZJJwHDdxzARxK14CiQmMLT9OkKu8sNNy-XtctTC9ozNZ-2ztRcgZg5wBqy6X-aRb3U86L4CJHMoc6nKPzFgteMZLwf-QGQCXmWRzOCRHMS4BoODAD8hhkaC6quYz8vR36AyNn9pc0YXu6RS0RYr_xnaIfo101GHytkUadTe2vn-nunfU4YR28kNPDVLfjWFYo7s-IfuNbiOe7u4xebu7fV08ZM8v94-Lm-fM8qqcMi4KXrLG8VpoJxsrXF1xZ0CiqUXFUEgz1wAGpTCiqiVgYwvJkNdGMFYyfkwutn9T78cK46Q6Hy22SQcOq6iYLDhjaZ5IaLlFbRhiDNioMfhOhy_FQG08qqXaeVQbjwpKlTym3PmuYmU6dL-pH3EJuN4CmIauPQYVrcfeovMhqVFu8P-p-AYzrIX4</recordid><startdate>20171101</startdate><enddate>20171101</enddate><creator>Fisher, Danny</creator><creator>Zach, Raya</creator><creator>Matana, Yossef</creator><creator>Elia, Paz</creator><creator>Shustack, Shiran</creator><creator>Sharon, Yarden</creator><creator>Zeiri, Yehuda</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171101</creationdate><title>Bomb swab: Can trace explosive particle sampling and detection be improved?</title><author>Fisher, Danny ; Zach, Raya ; Matana, Yossef ; Elia, Paz ; Shustack, Shiran ; Sharon, Yarden ; Zeiri, Yehuda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-372351fd387ad9fc7d863db09eb8761e79b4a00be97b76890efc291e38b711513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adhesion force</topic><topic>AFM</topic><topic>IMS</topic><topic>Particle sampling</topic><topic>Swipe material</topic><topic>Trace explosives detection</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fisher, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zach, Raya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matana, Yossef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elia, Paz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shustack, Shiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharon, Yarden</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeiri, Yehuda</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Talanta (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fisher, Danny</au><au>Zach, Raya</au><au>Matana, Yossef</au><au>Elia, Paz</au><au>Shustack, Shiran</au><au>Sharon, Yarden</au><au>Zeiri, Yehuda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bomb swab: Can trace explosive particle sampling and detection be improved?</atitle><jtitle>Talanta (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Talanta</addtitle><date>2017-11-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>174</volume><spage>92</spage><epage>99</epage><pages>92-99</pages><issn>0039-9140</issn><eissn>1873-3573</eissn><abstract>The marked increase in international terror in recent years requires the development of highly efficient methods to detect trace amounts of explosives at airports, border crossings and check points. The preferred analytical method worldwide is the ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) that is capable of detecting most explosives at the nano-gram level. Sample collection for the IMS analysis is based on swabbing of a passenger's belongings to collect possible explosive residues. The present study examines a wide range of issues related to swab-based particle collection and analysis, in the hope of gaining deeper understanding into this technique that will serve to improve the detection process. The adhesion of explosive particles to three typical materials, plastic, metal and glass, were measured using atomic force microscopy (AFM). We found that a strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces renders these substrates more promising materials upon which to find and collect explosive residues. The adhesion of explosives to different swipe materials was also examined. Here we found that Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane surfaces are the most promising materials for use as swipes. Subsequently, the efficiency of multiple swipe use – for collecting explosive residues from a glass surface using Muslin, Nomex® and Teflon™ swipes – was examined. The study suggests that swipes used in about 5–10 “sampling and analysis cycles” have higher efficiency as compared to new unused swipes. The reason for this behavior was found to be related to the increased roughness of the swipe surface following a few swab measurements. Lastly, GC-MS analysis was employed to examine the nature of contaminants collected by the three types of swipe. The relative amounts of different contaminants are reported. The existence and interference of these contaminants have to be considered in relation to the detection efficiency of the various explosives by the IMS. [Display omitted] •Adhesion of explosives to three substrate: plastic, metal, glass and six swipe materials.•A strong contribution of capillary forces to adhesion on glass and metal surfaces.•Muslin, Nomex® and polyamide membrane determined as the best materials for use as swipes.•Multiple use of swipes from glass surface suggest that 5–10 swipes improves collection by increase of surface roughness.•GC-MS determines contaminants collected by swipe during sampling that may interfere with IMS operation.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>28738664</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.talanta.2017.05.085</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0039-9140
ispartof Talanta (Oxford), 2017-11, Vol.174, p.92-99
issn 0039-9140
1873-3573
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1923116647
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adhesion force
AFM
IMS
Particle sampling
Swipe material
Trace explosives detection
title Bomb swab: Can trace explosive particle sampling and detection be improved?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T13%3A35%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bomb%20swab:%20Can%20trace%20explosive%20particle%20sampling%20and%20detection%20be%20improved?&rft.jtitle=Talanta%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Fisher,%20Danny&rft.date=2017-11-01&rft.volume=174&rft.spage=92&rft.epage=99&rft.pages=92-99&rft.issn=0039-9140&rft.eissn=1873-3573&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.talanta.2017.05.085&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1923116647%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1923116647&rft_id=info:pmid/28738664&rft_els_id=S0039914017306203&rfr_iscdi=true