Advertisement

A Fresh Approach: Review of the Production Development of the CBRN/HAZMAT Equipment

  • Boban CekovicEmail author
  • Dieter Rothbacher
Chapter
Part of the Terrorism, Security, and Computation book series (TESECO)

Abstract

Paper is describing basic postulates of product development of CBRN/HAZMAT equipment, current status in development protocols of the different equipment with recognized reviews, with emphasis on how much feedback of end-user appears to have been used in finalization of the product for serial/commercial production. As well, special emphasis is placed on views based on comparison of the trials in the laboratory conditions to a full scope investigation in as much realistic conditions as possible, and by using real live agents-contaminants, performed by experienced end-users. Experiences and results of this paper are presented comparatively for several types of current products used by experienced CBRN operators, both in real operations and in live agent field trials and trainings/exercises. Proposals and recommendations are given for more complex systematic integration and cooperation of product developers with end-users of CBRN equipment in implementing feedback from early trials in as near as possible live agent conditions (and not from just more controlled laboratory environment).

Keywords

CBRN Equipment development Live agent Field validation 

References

  1. 1.
    Basumatry, J.: CBRN Terrorism: Threat Assessment. Centre for Land Warfare Studies, 76, http://www.claws.in (2016)
  2. 2.
    Shatter, A.: Opening Address – CBRNe World Convergence – All Hazards Response, http://www.defence.ie/ (2013)
  3. 3.
    The Centre for Excellence in Emergency Preparedness. CBRN Intro Sheet, http://www.ceep.ca/education/CBRNintrosheet.pdf
  4. 4.
    Operations in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Environments. Joint Publication 3–1, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_11.pdf (2013)
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Sutulović, L.J., Karić, S.,Nikolić, V., Milovanović, D., MarčetaKaninski, M., Ceković, B., Rothbacher, D.: Research of Methodology Improvements of Live Agent (Chemical and Radiological) Exploitational Validation of the Decontamination Equipment in the Field Conditions, P19, 3rd Int. CBRNe Workshop, University of Rome Tor Vergata, (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Standardized Equipment List (SEL), https://www.interagencyboard.org/sel
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Capability Profiles., https://www.cbrneworld.com (2014)
  10. 10.
    Analysis of Potential Emergency Response Equipment and Sustainment Costs. Report to Congress. Requesters - GAO/NSIAD-99-151, http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/227601.pdf
  11. 11.
    Brands, R.F.: 8 Step Process Perfects New Product Development. http://www.innovationcoach.com/2013/05/8stepprocessperfectsproductdevelopment/
  12. 12.
    Le Beau, C.: 5 Steps to Take Your Product from Concept to Reality. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227390
  13. 13.
    Goodman, M.: The 7 Steps of Effective Product Development. https://www.scribd.com/article/327136071/The7StepsOfEffectiveProductDevelopment
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product design and development. McGraw Hill, (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loch, C.H., Kavadias, S.: Handbook of New Product Development. Elsevier Oxford, (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gopalakrishnan, M., Libby T., Samuels, J.A., Swenson D.: The Effect of Cost Goal Specificity and New Product Development Process on Cost Reduction Performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society 42, 1–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eimecke, J., Baier, D.: Preference Measurement in Complex Product Development: A Comparison of Two-Stage SEM Approaches, Chapter Data Science, Learning by Latent Structures, and Knowledge Discovery, Part of the series Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 239–250 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klein, A., Spiegel, G.: Social Media in the Product Development Process of the Automotive Industry: A New Approach, Human-Computer Interaction. Users and Contexts of Use, Volume 8006 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 396–401 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rashid, M.: Compliance of Customer’s Needs with Producer’s Capacity: A Review and Research Direction, A study report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kitami, Hokkaido (2010) https://www.scribd.com/document/56314038/A-Study-on-Product-Development
  21. 21.
    Guzman, R., Navarro, R., Ferre, J., Moreno, M.: RESCUER: Development of a Modular Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Robot for Intervention, Sampling, and Situation Awareness,J. Field Robotics, 33, 931–945 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biological Defense: DOD Has Strengthened Coordination on Medical Countermeasures but Can Improve Its Process for Threat Prioritization, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA601867
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Chemical and Biological Defense Program’s (CBDP) 2014 Annual Report to Congress, http://www.acq.osd.mil/cp/docs/home/Final%202014%20DoD%20CBDP%20ARC_signed%2021%20Mar%202014.pdf
  25. 25.
    Ackerman, G.A., Pereira, R.: Jihadists and WMD: A Re-evaluation of the Future Threat, 2015, CBRNE World, http://www.cbrneworld.com (2014)
  26. 26.
    Chua P.M, Laljer, C.E.: Voluntary Consensus Standards for Chemical Detectors, https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/12_2554.pdf
  27. 27.
    Chemical Detection and Identification, https://www.tno.nl/media/7702/chemical_detectors_flyer.pdf
  28. 28.
    Instrument Standards for Detection of Hazardous Chemical Vapors, https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/instrument-standards-detection-hazardous-chemical-vapors
  29. 29.
    DHS Science and Technology Directorate Office of Standards — Chemical Detection Standards Program, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Office%20of%20 Standards%20-%20Chemical%20Detection%20Standards%20Programs-508_1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holman, C., Loerch, A.G.: Chemical and Biological Test and Evaluation—Detector Agent Simulant Relationship, TEA J., 31, 525–530 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Next Generation Chemical Detector Tested During Joint Services Training, https://cbrnecentral.com/nextgenerationchemicaldetectortestedjointservicestraining/10293
  32. 32.
    Terzic, O., et al.: Testing and Evaluation of New Chemical Detection Devices for The IDO Use During Toxic Chemical Trainings 2013–2014. IDO Internal Document, (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oudejans, L., O’Kelly, J., Evans, A.S., Wyrzykowska-Ceradini, B., Touati, A., Tabor, D., Snyder, E.G.: Decontamination of personal protective equipment and related materials contaminated with toxic industrial chemicals and chemical warfare agent surrogates. JECE, 4, 2745–2753 (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karkalić, R., Radulović, J., Blagojević, M., Popović, R.S.: Complex Approach in Testing of protective equipment for body protection from highly toxic chemicals. Kongres inženjera plastičara i gumara K-IPG, 5 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    European Standards and Markings for Protective Clothing, http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/oms/2009/03/om200903app7.pdf
  36. 36.
    Kuang, W.: Commercial Cleaning Products for Chemical Decontamination: A Scoping Study.http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD1004327
  37. 37.
    Gudgin Dickson, E.F.: Implementation of Individual System Qualification (ISQ) in a CBRN Respiratory Protection Program. Part A: Guidance, http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc199/p800779_A1b.pdf
  38. 38.
    Ceković, B.: Plan and Program of Internal Testing of Decontamination Emulsion ED-1 Prototype. Mil. Tech. Institute - Internal Document, (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cekovic, B., Mladenovic, V., Lukovic, Z., Karkalic, R., Krstic, D.: Comparative Research on Chemical, Radiological and Biological Decontamination Efficiency of Present Decontaminants and of Multipurpose Emulsion-Based Decontaminant - Scientific Technical Information.Mil. Tech. Institute, 6(2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cekovic, B., Stacey, P., Rothbacher, D.: Comparative Field Testing of Decontamination Agents – Summary Report. IDO - Internal Document, (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cekovic, B., et al.: Comparative Field Testing of Decontamination Agents Compatibility with Chemicals Commonly Used/Encountered on IDO Deployments. IDO - Internal Document, (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cekovic, B., Schmidt, O., Lebedinskaya, L., Sutulovic, L.J., Dvorak, J.: Report on the Prelımınary Valıdatıon of the Effıcıency of C/R-Decontamınatıon in Fıeld Condıtıons for Decontamination Trailer. HZS/TEST REPORT/DECONTAMINATION, 1 (2016)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bourgouin, P.: Towards an Operational Urban Modeling System for CBRN Emergency Response and Preparedness, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadata Prefix=html&identifier=AD1004011Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Early Live-agent Testing: The Competitive Edge for Manufacturers Specializing in Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment, http://www.battelle.org/lat-white-paper- download /Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HotZone TechnologiesThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CBRN Protection GmbHViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations