Interesting read - Biological Warfare Agents: Detection and Decontamination - Close Protection Forum and Surveillance Forum

Daisy · 06:22 PM

Dr.Andre Richardt/Dr. Heiko Russmann
Biological Warfare Agents: Detection and Decontamination
Strategies against Anthrax, Smallpox and Co
Still during the past century, millions of people died of infectious diseases. Today the outbreak of natural diseases and the abuse of the agents of these diseases as a biological weapon could lead to devastating effects. The assault with weapons usable anthrax-spores in the United States in 2001 with impacts worldwide and the outbreak of bird-flu in the last couple of years gave the public an impression about possible consequences. However, advanced and modern detection and decontamination technologies can be used by civilian first responders and military personnel to counteract more and more efficiently in the case of such events.

Treaties for the Ban of Biological Weapons
The use of poisons and biological agents for Assassination purposes ever since the dawn of civilization can be shown by numerous examples (table 1). These substances were often used without knowing even the basics of their devastating effects. However, the groundwork of microbiology by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of intensive investigation of microorganisms was also the beginning of new efforts in the research of biological weapons [Frischknecht]. Also, since the first use of biological weapons in ancient times the use of poison in warfare was frowned upon and found its expression in the Latin phrase “Armis bella, non venis geri” (warfare should be done by weapons, not by poison). Most of the early attempts to control the use of biological and chemical weapons were bilateral agreements. The intention of an international-law control of biological weapons in modern warfare began as early as 1899 with The Hague Land Warfare Convention. As the most important international convention today, the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction” – the BTWC - was signed at London, Moscow and Washington on 10 April 1972, and finally entered into force on 26 March 1975. In the meantime 146 nations ratified the agreement and further 15 countries signed the contract.

Asymmetric Scenarios
With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the focus of military planning has shifted from the possibility of a major war against a peer adversary to that of regional wars, ranging from major wars against non-peers to smaller scale contingencies and caused rising concern about the usability of weapons of mass destruction in asymmetric conflicts. The notion that biological weapons might be used by non-peer adversaries to attack or otherwise shape the dynamics of a regional war presented new and alarming possibilities. The future battlefield could be characterized by an asymmetric warfare, with unconventional weapons and terrorist/ guerrilla type tactics. Biological weapons, frequently called “the poor man’s nuclear bomb”, – although internationally banned - seem to pose an even higher threat in an asymmetric scenario [Roberts]. However, military, terrorist groups, and criminal individuals may have different motivations to use biological agents
The threat could even be enhanced by rapid developments in biotechnology and genetics, like:
- Genetically engineered pathogens that evade diagnosis and treatment
– Pathogens with exceptional lethality
- Pathogens intended to disable permanently
– Pathogens with enhanced contagiousness
– Pathogens with enhanced environmental stability and
– New toxic compounds with new biological mechanisms.

Biological Weapons and Response to Biological Weapons
Although many bacteria, viruses and toxins can cause diseases or severe intoxication of human beings, today only a few would be effective if employed as part of a biological weapon and are known as the “dirty dozen”. To counteract possible biological events and to protect individuals against biological weapons different technologies and strategies are available [WHO]. It is important to know the different technologies and to include them in an overarching concept. A concept is only as strong as the weakest point in the whole concept. Responding to a biological threat is a complex task and therefore it is necessary to take actions to eliminate, reduce and control the risks posed by biological weapons. The ability to counteract to biological incidents depends on – preparedness: before an incident takes place and – response: action after a warning or a release [WHO]. Especially the balance between the different detection and decontamination technologies is necessary for a strategy to timely respond to a hazard. The rapid development in life science and biotechnology will also lead to new and advanced technologies in decontamination and detection technologies.

Detection
Biological warfare agents cover a broad group from living organisms to highly poisonous substances. This reveals why the identification of biological agents will need more time and effort than e.g. the detection of chemical agents. Another problem for detection is the high efficacy of biological agents. The main hazard of biological agents is the exposure to inhaled aerosol particles. Even very low aerosol concentrations will pose a deadly hazard if exposed, which makes a very sensitive detection necessary. Especially difficult is the discrimination of naturally
occurring events and an attack. Biological aerosol particles are ubiquitous with varying concentrations. Biological warfare agents behave very similar to these natural background aerosols. To minimize false alarms particles clouds have to be analysed very thoroughly. Most concepts for biological agent detection consist of several systems, covering a broad range from deployed real-time systems generating preliminary information to fielded laboratories for identification on the highest level. To increase the reliability of systems typically different technologies are combined. Three basic technologies are available for that purpose:
– Immunological methods
– Molecular genetic methods
– Physical or chemical methods
- Immunological methods, like biosensors, use the highly specific interaction of antibodies. Antibodies were developed, which recognise and bind to surface structures of known agents. The bonding can be monitored by chemical or physical reactions.
Molecular genetic methods, like PCR (polymerase chain reaction), are based on genetic information. In PCR gene fragments, specific for a known agent, are amplified. An occurred amplification indicates the presence of the agent. For rapid identification real-time PCR is used that can display the amplification progress during the measurement.
Physical or chemical methods look for characteristic molecular pattern, called biomarker. The presence of biomarker will indicate the presence of the biological agent.
Each method has advantages and limits, so that reliable results can only be achieved by combining different techniques and instruments. Time-critical steps in biological identification are sampling, sample preparation, analysis and data interpretation. Here the methods differ significantly. Molecular genetic methods need thorough sample preparation, which will considerably extend the overall time for identification.
Contact-free measurement, like stand-off detection, will need no sample preparation at all, but the obtainable information is very limited. Continuously working detection instruments are currently only able to detect changes in aerosol particle spectra. Identification of biological agents in real-time is not possible with available technologies. But monitoring systems can be uses to trigger subsequent identification instruments. After 2001 the civilian market for rapid identification devices has increased and several new technologies have emerged that could be used.
Requirements for military operation limit the use of commercial systems, developed for medical diagnostics or chemical analysis:
– The environment has to be monitored continuously.
– A reliable result has to be generated in a timely manner, that it will support operational decisions
– The limit of detection must be low enough to exclude a risk for exposed personnel
– The naturally occurring events must be reliable and distinguishable to minimize false alarms
– The handling and operation has to be simple
– The instrument has to be robust
Detection must support first responders and support teams with all necessary information to implement protective measures and apply procedures for decontamination or disinfection. Since January 2002 the German Navy has a system for the detection and identification of biological agents in operation, based on robust and commercially available instruments. Test kit and methods were developed or adapted for this purpose.

Decontamination
In the case of a biological incident and the need for the best decontamination procedure the decontamination strategy can be chosen from three approaches a) surface decontamination, b) area (space) decontamination and c) the potential resistance of the agent against the chosen decontaminant [Hawley]. Then, based on detection results the best decontamination technology can be determined. From this point of view, it is not only necessary to have mature decontamination technology, which can be used for decontamination, but also a comprehensive understanding of the biological agent itself and the different points of attack for the decontaminant is necessary, especially for endospores as the most resistant biological agents [Hawley]. For other biological agents milder decontaminants can be used. However, the decision for the right decontaminant can be only done after a safe and fast identification by verified detection methods. It is also important to know if personnel and their protective clothing had been decontaminated or if buildings or infrastructure should be disinfected. Here, one of the key questions is “How clean in clean enough?” [Raber] and is it possible to determine what level of decontamination is necessary to meet regulatory needs in the case of a biological incident in a civilian building or is it sufficient enough to give an estimation. However, to determine the needed decontamination level or cleanup it is essential to address a) public perception of risk to health, b) political support, c) public acceptance of recommendations based on scientific results and criteria and d) economic concerns [62]. Infectious dose and fatality rate for biological warfare agents differ [Ingelsby]. Therefore, from the scientific point of view also different threshold limit values for biological warfare agents should also exist. However, the public and politicians normally insist on zero living organisms after decontamination of an incident with biological warfare agents, especially in public buildings. After the events of September and October, 2001 with anthrax letters the decontamination of spore infested buildings and to get these public buildings into service was mainly a political task. It was the first possibility to test different technologies for the decontamination of public buildings and their efficiency against spores [Spotts-Whitney]. Today gaseous decontaminants methods are the best chosen decontamination method for the decontamination of spore infested buildings.

Summary
Although international contracts for the ban of biological weapons exit, the possible abuse of biological agents by asymmetric warfare cannot be denied. However, new and advanced technologies for detection and decontamination purposes can help military and civilian decision makers to counteract biological events more effectively then in the past.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Biological Incidents/ Threats/ Anthrax Hoaxes etc : United States	Global Security News	Global Security News	0	25-04-2008 07:30 PM
Biological Incidents/ Threats/ Anthrax Hoaxes etc : United States	Global Security News	Global Security News	0	25-04-2008 05:22 AM
SURVEILLANCE detection	covert munkey	Surveillance courses	6	22-04-2008 07:54 PM
Offers, please read before posting	mally	Exclusive Close Protection World Discounts	0	05-04-2008 08:26 PM

Useful Links

About Closeprotectionworld.co.uk

Feedback

Members currently using Flashchat: 0
	The most chatters online in one day was 12, 22-09-2008. No one is currently using the chat.