Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:02:38.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mobile Decontamination Units—Room for Improvement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2012

Pascale Ribordy ,
David Rocksén ,
Uno Dellgar ,
Sven-Åke Persson ,
Kristina Arnoldsson ,
Hans Ekåsen ,
Sune Häggbom ,
Ola Nerf ,
Åsa Ljungqvist  and
Dan Gryth
...Show all authors
Pascale Ribordy*
Affiliation:
Section of Emergency Medicine, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
David Rocksén
Affiliation:
Experimental Traumatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Uno Dellgar
Affiliation:
UD Consulting AB, Järfälla, Sweden
Sven-Åke Persson
Affiliation:
FOI CBRN-Defense and Security, Umeå, Sweden
Kristina Arnoldsson
Affiliation:
FOI CBRN-Defense and Security, Umeå, Sweden
Hans Ekåsen
Affiliation:
Swedish Rescue Services Agency, Karlstad, Sweden
Sune Häggbom
Affiliation:
AB Sunda Hus, Täby, Sweden
Ola Nerf
Affiliation:
Section of Emergency Medicine, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Åsa Ljungqvist
Affiliation:
National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden
Dan Gryth
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Science and Education, Section of Emergency Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Ola Claesson
Affiliation:
FOI CBRN-Defense and Security, Umeå, Sweden
*
Correspondence: Pascale Ribordy, MSc Stockholm's Prehospital Center Södersjukhuset / South Stockholm Hospital S-118 83 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail pascale.ribordy@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Mobile decontamination units are intended to be used at the accident site to decontaminate persons contaminated by toxic substances. A test program was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of mobile decontamination units.

Objective

The tests included functionality, methodology, inside environment, effects of wind direction, and decontamination efficacy.

Methods

Three different types of units were tested during summer and winter conditions. Up to 15 test-persons per trial were contaminated with the imitation substances Purasolve ethyl lactate (PEL) and methyl salicylate (MES). Decontamination was carried out according to standardized procedures. During the decontamination trials, the concentrations of the substances inside the units were measured. After decontamination, substances evaporating from test-persons and blankets as well as remaining amounts in the units were measured.

Results

The air concentrations of PEL and MES inside the units during decontamination in some cases exceeded short-term exposure limits for most toxic industrial chemicals. This was a problem, especially during harmful wind conditions, i.e., wind blowing in the same direction as persons moving through the decontamination units. Although decontamination removed a greater part of the substances from the skin, the concentrations evaporating from some test-persons occasionally were high and potentially harmful if the substances had been toxic. The study also showed that blankets placed in the units absorbed chemicals and that the units still were contaminated five hours after the end of operations.

Conclusions

After decontamination, the imitation substances still were present and evaporating from the contaminated persons, blankets, and units. These results indicate a need for improvements in technical solutions, procedures, and training.

RibordyP , RocksénD , DellgarU , PerssonS , ArnoldssonK , EkåsenH , HäggbomS , NerfO , LjungqvistA , GrythD , ClaessonO . Mobile Decontamination Units—Room for Improvement?. Prehosp Disaster Med.2012;27(4):1–7.

Keywords

concentrationcontaminationdecontaminationdecontamination unitsefficiencyfunctionalityimitation substancetest-personwater
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 425 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Okumura, T, Takasu, N, Ishimatsu, S, et al. Report on 640 victims of the Tokyo subway sarin attack. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28(2):129-135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Okumura, T, Hisaoka, T, Yamada, A, et al. The Tokyo subway sarin attack—lessons learned. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;207(2 Suppl):471-476. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Houston, M, Hendrickson, RG. Decontamination. Crit Care Clin. 2005;21(4):653-672, v.Google Scholar
4. Nakajima, T, Sato, S, Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N. Sarin poisoning of a rescue team in the Matsumoto sarin incident in Japan. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54(10):697-701.Google Scholar
5. Burgess, JL. Hospital evacuations due to hazardous materials incidents. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17(1):50-52.Google Scholar
6. Horton, DK, Berkowitz, Z, Kaye, WE. Secondary contamination of ED personnel from hazardous materials events, 1995-2001. Am J Emerg Med. 2003;21(3):199-204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Edkins, A, Murray, V. Management of chemically contaminated bodies. J R Soc Med. 2005;98(4):141-145.Google Scholar
8. Nozaki, H, Hori, S, Shinozawa, Y, et al. Secondary exposure of medical staff to sarin vapor in the emergency room. Intensiv Care Med. 1995;21(12):1032-1035.Google Scholar
9. Cox, RD. Decontamination and management of hazardous materials exposure victims in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23(4):761-770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Okumura, S, Okumura, T, Ishimatsu, S, et al. Clinical review: Tokyo - protecting the health worker during a chemical mass casualty event: an important issue of continuing relevance. Crit Care. 2005;9(4):397-400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Macintyre, AG, Christopher, GW, Eitzen, E Jr, et al. Weapons of mass destruction events with contaminated casualties: effective planning for health care facilities. JAMA. 2000;283(2):242-249.Google Scholar
12. Wester, RC, Maibach, HI. In vivo percutaneous absorption and decontamination of pesticides in humans. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1985;16(1):25-37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Taysse, L, Daulon, S, Delamanche, S, et al. Skin decontamination of mustards and organophosphates: comparative efficiency of RSDL and Fuller's earth in domestic swine. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2007;26(2):135-141.Google Scholar
14. FritzGerald, DJ, Sztajnkrycer, MD, Crocco, TJ. Chemical weapon functional exercise—Cincinnati: observations and lessons learned from a “typical medium-sized” city's response to simulated terrorism utilizing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Public Health Rep. 2003;118(3):205-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Okumura, T, Suzuki, K, Fukuda, A, et al. The Tokyo subway sarin attack: disaster management, Part 1: Community emergency response. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5(6):613-617.Google Scholar
16. Dellgar U, Persson SÅ, Claesson O, et al. Socialstyrelsen. NBC-saneringsanläggningar vid sjukhus—validering av rutiner och funktion [Test of decontamination stations in Sweden]. Translated from: Article number 2003-123-14. http://www.udr.se/CBW_Symposium_June_2004_Manuscript.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2012.Google Scholar
17. Törngren, S, Persson, SÅ, Ljungquist, Å, et al. Personal decontamination after exposure to simulated liquid phase contaminants: functional assessment of a new unit. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1998;36(6):567-573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Raber, E, Jin, A, Noonan, K, et al. Decontamination issues for chemical and biological warfare agents: how clean is clean enough? Int J Environ Health Res. 2001;11(2):128-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Louvet, A, Sinault, L, Mosset, F. Putting the Gold Standard into showers. CBRNeWORLD. Autumn 2010:52-56.Google Scholar