We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
CBRN incidents require specialized hazmat decontamination protocols to prevent secondary contamination and systemic toxicity. While wet decontamination is standard, it can present challenges in cold weather or when resources are limited. Dry decontamination offers an alternative and supportive approach, though its effectiveness across different contaminants remains unclear. This scoping review evaluates the effectiveness, advantages, and limitations of dry decontamination in hazmat incidents.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and other databases. Following the PRISMA-ScR approach, 9 studies were selected from 234 identified articles. The review assessed decontamination techniques, materials, and effectiveness across different contaminants.
Results
Dry decontamination is rapid, resource-efficient, and suitable for immediate use in pre-hospital and hospital settings, especially during mass casualty incidents (MCIs). Dry decontamination is highly effective for liquid contaminants, with blue roll and sterile trauma dressings removing over 80% of contaminants within minutes. However, dry decontamination is less effective for hair and particulate contaminants. Blotting and rubbing techniques significantly enhance decontamination efficiency.
Conclusions
Dry decontamination can be an effective alternative for wet decontamination, particularly for liquid contaminants, as a first-line approach for scenarios where wet decontamination is not a practical solution for logistical and environmental reasons. However, dry decontamination is less effective than wet decontamination for hair and particulate contaminants. Combining dry and wet decontamination is shown to be more effective. Identifying the need for including dry decontamination as an integral part of the CBRN response plan improves the efficacy of decontamination.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.