Technological Innovations to Counter CBRNE Threat Vectors and Ecotage

Countering CBRNE Threats and Ecotage
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology book series (NAPSA)


The ubiquitous presence of sensors for enhanced situational awareness necessitates an innovative, articulate, and focused review of their design, architecture, functionality, and interoperability. A comprehensive overview of the latest and state-of-the art technological innovations in point and stand-off sensing/detection platforms with the objective of countering threats arising from chemical-biological-nuclear-high yield explosives (CBRNE) is the focus of this investigation. Ongoing research efforts and future research directions based on advanced approaches, including nanomaterials to develop materials, devices, and systems for potential use in sensing and detection of such threat vectors are articulated. The concept of advanced sciences convergences is introduced to examine the feasibility of potentially new and innovative research directions for persistent surveillance of CBRNE agents and infectious diseases. The intentional release of such agents in the environment constitutes ecological sabotage. Advanced sensing/detection platforms for CBRNE are used to detect threats to the environment. Issues associated with the use of nanomaterials regarding societal implications and dual-use concerns are addressed by studying fate and transport and the development of guidelines for a risk-assessment model. A roadmap of the future of nanomaterials, in terms of complexity, a nexus of disciplines, and its emerging potential to provide advanced, futuristic, and a paradigm-shifting platform is presented.


CBRNE sensors Ecotage Water Satellite ASC Biomimetic 


  1. 1.
    Vaseashta A, Dimova-Malinovska D, Marshall J (2005) Nanostructured and advanced materials. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vaseashta A, Mihailescu I (2007) Functionalized nanoscale materials, devices, and systems. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Magarshak Y, Sergey K, Vaseashta A (2009) Silicon versus carbon. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaseashta A (2012) The potential utility of ASC – analytic methods to depict, assess, and forecast trends in neuroscience and neurotechnologic development(s), and use(s). In Giordano J (ed.) Advances in Neurotechnology: premises, potential and problems. (Vol. 1, Advances in neurotechnology: ethical, legal and social issues series, Giordano J, Series Editor). CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erdem A (2008) Electrochemical sensor technology based on nanomaterials for biomolecular recognition. In: Vaseashta A, Mihailscu IN (eds) Functionalized nanoscale materials, devices, and systems. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pokropivny V, Pokropivny P, Vaseashta A (2005) Ideal nano-emitters and panel nano-devices based on 2D crystals of superconducting nanotubes. In: Vaseashta A et al (eds) Nanostructured and advanced materials. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 367–370Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denkbas E et al (2012) Nanoplatforms for detection, remediation, and protection against chem-bio-warfare. In: Vaseashta A, Braman E, Susman P (eds) Technological innovations in sensing and detection of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats and ecological terrorism. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vaseashta A, Stamatin I (2007) Electrospun polymers for controlled release of drugs, vaccine delivery, and system-on-fibers. J Optoelectron Adv Mater 9(6):1506–1613Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrov A (2012) Disposable membrane sensors for biohazardous substances. In: Vaseashta A et al (eds) Technological innovations in sensing and detection of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats and ecological terrorism. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erdem A (2012) Nanomaterials based sensor development towards electrochemical sensing of biointeractions. In: Vaseashta A et al (eds) Technological innovations in sensing and detection of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats and ecological terrorism. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang J (2003) Nanoparticle-based electrochemical DNA detection. Anal Chem Acta 500:247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shanzer A, Felder CE, Barda Y (2009) Natural and biomimetic hydroxamic acid based siderophores. In: Patai’s chemistry of functional groups. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guidotti M et al (2011) Nano-structured solids and heterogeneous catalysts: powerful tools for the reduction of CBRN threats. In: Vaseashta A et al (eds) Technological innovations in sensing and detection of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats and ecological terrorism. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vaseashta A, Riesfeld R, Mihailescu I (2008) Green nanotechnologies for responsible manufacturing. In: MRS 2008 Spring Proceedings, vol 1106/1106-PP03-06, Published online by Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vaseashta A et al (2011) NBIC, GRAIN, BANG, and TechFARM– ASC for Surveillance of Emerging S&T Trends, Proc. of the 4th Int’l Seville Conf. on Future Oriented Technology Analysis, May 2011Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaseashta A, Erdem A, Stamatin I (2006) Nanobiomaterials for controlled release of drugs & vaccine delivery. MRS 2006 Spring Proceedings, Vol 920, Jan 2006, pp 0920-S06-06 doi: 10.1557/PROC-0920-S06-06, Published online by Cambridge University Press 01 Feb 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pumakaranchana O, Phonekeo V, Vaseashta A (2008) Semiconducting gas sensors, remote sensing technique and internet GIS for air pollution monitoring in residential and industrial areas. In: Vaseashta A, Mihailescu I (eds) Functionalized nanoscale materials, devices and systems. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vaseashta A et al (2007) Nanostructures in environmental pollution detection, monitoring, and remediation. Sci Technol Adv Mater 8:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tripathi RD et al (2007) Arsenic hazards: strategies for tolerance and remediation by plants. Trends Biotechnol 25(4):158–165MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hagan N et al (2011) MALDI mass spectrometry for rapid detection and characterization of biological threats. ACS Symp Ser 1065:211–224. doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1065.ch012. ISBN13: 9780841226128, eISBN: 9780841226135, Publication Date (Web): June 6, 2011. Copyright © 2011 American Chemical SocietyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krebs MD, Zapata AM, Nazarov EG, Miller RA, Costa IS, Sonenshein AL, Davis CE (2005) Detection of biological and chemical agents using differential mobility spectrometry (DMS) technology. IEEE Sens J 5(4):696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khuri-Yakub BT et al (2007) The Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducer (CMUT) as a chem/bio sensor. IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, New York, pp 472–475Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swim CR (2004) Sources for standoff chem-bio detection, Unclassified Report. U.S. Army edgewood chemical biological center, Aberdeen Proving GroundGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saito Y et al (2001) Possibility of hard-target lidar detection of a biogenic volatile organic compound, ν-pinene gas, over forest areas. Appl Opt 40(21):3572–3574ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Killinger D (2003) Optics in chemical and biological weapons detection. Defense section of Optics Report, on-line Journal: 19 Aug 2003
  26. 26.
    Wild D (2005) The immunoassay handbook. Elsevier, KidlingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Erdem A, Karadeniz H, Caliskan A, Vaseashta A (2008) Electrochemical DNA sensor technology for monitoring of drug–DNA interactions. NANO: Brief Rep Rev 3(4):229–232Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barbini R, Colao F, Fantoni R, Lazic V, Palucci A, Capitelli F, van der Steen HJL (2000) Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy for semi-quantitative elemental analysis in soils and marine sediments. In: Proceedings of EARSeL-SIG-Workshop LIDAR, Dresden/FRG, 1, 16–17 June 2000Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tamer F et al (2008) Lidar backscatter signal recovery from phototransistor systematic effect by deconvolution. Appl Opt 47(29):5281–5295ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eccleston JF et al (2005) Fluorescence-based assays. Prog Med Chem 43:19–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmedake T, Cunin F, Link J, Sailor M (2002) Standoff detection of chemicals using porous silicon “Smart Dust” particles. Adv Mater 14:1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee J, Kim J, Hyeon T (2006) Recent progress in the synthesis of porous carbon materials. Adv Mater 18(16):2073–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vaseashta A (2008) In: Linkov I et al (eds) Risk, uncertainty and decision analysis for nanomaterials: environmental risks and benefits and emerging consumer products. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kikkeri R et al (2007) Toward iron sensors: bioinspired tripods based on fluorescent phenol-oxazoline coordination sites. Inorg Chem 46(7):2485–2497CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Sciences Convergence, and Int’l Clean Water InstituteNorwich University Applied Research InstitutesHerndonUSA
  2. 2.AVC/VTT, U.S. Department of StateWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations