Data for Users of Handheld Ion Mobility Spectrometers

Abstract

Chemical detection technology end-user surveys conducted by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in 2005 and 2007 indicated that first responders believed manufacturers’ claims for instruments sometimes were not supported in field applications, and instruments sometimes did not meet their actual needs. Based on these findings, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked INL to conduct a similar survey for handheld ion mobility spectrometers (IMS), which are used by a broad community of first responders as well as for other applications. To better access this broad community, the INL used the Center for Technology Commercialization, Inc. (CTC), Public Safety Technology Center (PSTC) to set up an online framework to gather information from users of handheld IMS units. This framework (Survey Monkey) was then used to perform an online Internet survey, augmented by e-mail prompts, to get information from first responders and personnel from various agencies about their direct experience with handheld IMS units. Overall, 478 individuals responded to the survey. Of these, 174 respondents actually owned a handheld IMS. Performance and satisfaction data from these 174 respondents are captured in this report. The survey identified the following observations: • The most common IMS unit used by respondents was the Advanced Portable Detector (APD 2000), followed by ChemRae, Sabre 4000, Sabre 2000, Draeger Multi IMS, Chemical Agent Monitor-2, Chemical Agent Monitor, Vapor Tracer, and Vapor Tracer 2. • The primary owners were HazMat teams (20%), fire services (14%), local police (12%), and sheriffs’ departments (9%). • IMS units are seldom used as part of an integrated system for detecting and identifying chemicals but instead are used independently. • Respondents are generally confused about the capabilities of their IMS unit. This is probably a result of lack of training. • Respondents who had no training or fewer than 8 hours were not satisfied with the overall operation of the handheld IMS unit. • IMS units were used for detecting a range of analytes. The most common use was for detection of hazardous chemicals, followed by detection of explosives, illicit drugs, chemical warfare, nerve agents, and radiation. One IMS unit had dual capability as a radiation detector. • Respondents who did not own an IMS listed prohibitive cost of equipment as the main factor for not having one. • Respondents who were highly satisfied with the overall operation of the handheld IMS obtained the IMS through a direct purchase. In comparison, the respondents who were not satisfied had obtained the handheld IMS through a DHS grant.