The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) defines a chemical warfare agent (CWA) as “any toxic chemical that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.”
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) provides a broader definition to include toxic chemicals, their precursors, munitions and devices, and “any equipment that has been specifically designed for use in connection with such weapons.”
The Convention also applies to any chemical that might normally be used for peaceful or commercial purposes but that has been used as, or applied to, the creation of chemical weapons.
Chemicals may also be classed as CWAs if they are produced or stockpiled in quantities that exceed the prohibitions of the CWC.
Recognition of the global threat of CWAs dates back many hundreds of years.
The first formal international agreement to control the use of chemical weapons was signed in Strasbourg in 1675 when France and Germany agreed to ban the use of poisoned bullets.
In 1874, the Brussels International Declaration on the Law and Customs of War prohibited the use of poison or poisoned weapons and the use of any arms, missiles or projectiles deemed to cause unnecessary suffering.
In 1899, a third agreement, ratified at an international peace conference held in the Hague, banned the use of projectiles filled with poison gas.
The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention aims to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by banning the development, production and stockpiling of CWAs.
The Convention rules that toxic chemicals are only to be developed and produced for purposes unrelated to chemical weapons. All States Parties agree to chemically disarm by destroying any stockpiles of chemical weapons and the facilities that produce them.
A unique feature of the Convention is the ability for any State Party to challenge the compliance of another through the request of a ‘challenge inspection.
>> Download now: Chemical warfare agent training using simulators eBook
What are the physical properties of CWAs
CWAs are stored as liquids but can be deployed as liquids, solids or gases.
They are highly toxic, often fast-acting, mostly imperceptible to senses, persistent and non-persistent.
Exposure to a CWA is normally one or more of three main routes - skin, eyes and/or respiratory tract, but can also be adsorbed via mucous membranes.
Liquids tend to be absorbed via the skin through direct exposure to a contaminated surface while vapours pose a greater risk for absorption via inhalation.
Vapours that are used outside can very easily be blown off course and away from their intended target. Similarly, the weather can be used to maximise their effect.
The effects of CWAs are also markedly enhanced when they’re used in a confined space.
The effects of exposure to a CWA can be immediate or delayed depending upon:
Why are CWAs popular as a weapon?
What is the risk of exposure to CWAs?
Exposure to CWAs can be accidental, in the process of casualty management, an industrial incident, military stockpiling or the discovery of leaking shells in old battlefields. Exposure has also occurred during ordinance disposal/demining when CWA markings have become unreadable or have been misinterpreted.
In recent times CWAs have also been used as a means of actual or attempted assassination, terrorist attack or act of war.
Historically detection of chemical warfare agents has tended to consist primarily of determining if a blister agent (H) or Nerve agent (G) was present.
Some detectors also had the capability of detecting a few additional agents. But, by and large, the relatively limited detection capability was dictated by the perceived threat at that time, which of course drove the market for detectors.
In many instances, users would only have one type of detector available, usually IMS (ion mobility spectrometry) or Flame Photometry.
The ability to specifically identify substance threats was generally restricted to “man portable“ or vehicle-mounted gas chromatograph / mass spectrometers (GC/MS).
The need to reduce uncertainty as to whether a false positive or actual threat exists at the initial point of detection of chemical warfare agents has resulted in many agencies employing more than one detector technology - quite often a mix of IMS and Flame Photometry - each incorporated within different instruments.
While this approach will dramatically reduce the probability of a false positive being interpreted as a threat, GC/MS are still used by many agencies to specifically confirm the identification of the substance present.
IMS technology and the associated processing software has advanced to permit agent identification, however, the ability to do so is achieved by limiting the detection capability to a relatively narrow range of substances.
Some manufacturers also offer detectors which are in fact comprised of hybrid technologies to both reduce false positives and enhance substance detection capability.
These advances in both detection requirement and detection technology require that the training experience accurately reflects the capability of the detection instruments to ensure your students understand why respective detection technology has been employed.
This can be achieved by employing a simulation detection technology that is configured to represent the specific capabilities and characteristics of the detection technology incorporated within the real instrument.
To learn more about chemical warfare agent training, including live agent, simulation, and simulant agent training, download our free ebook.
Using an electronic means to simulate chemical vapours enables instructors to create useful exercises that test their students’ abilities in the following core skills:
Substantially more can also be obtained from an exercise than a simple “reading on a detector.”
The simulation source can be readily hidden from view and can be configured to represent a number of different substances to enable both CW agent and toxic industrial chemical (TIC) scenarios to be produced within the same exercise.
The emission level can be varied by the instructor such that, at maximum strength, a simulator will detect at typically 30 metres (95 feet) from the simulation source in free space.
The simulation source can be easily hidden, and multiple devices can be deployed to represent different substances within the same scenario.
Instructors save valuable time as it takes only a couple of minutes to set the source to the desired substance and emission level before placing it.
The instructor retains complete control over the entire exercise scenario. They can set up an exercise early in the day, test the expected readings on the simulators, and guarantee that when it comes to exercise time everything will be as they left it, leaving them to concentrate on student evaluation.
When the exercise is complete it takes a matter of minutes to collect the sources and remediate the training facility.
Using simulator detectors can significantly improve the quality and realism of chemical warfare agent training, but the first step is to know how to source these detectors.
Download our free ebook, How To Source Simulator Detectors for HazMat and CBRNe Training for detailed advice about sourcing and procuring the essential equipment you need for real experience chemical warfare agent training.
No need for regular maintenance
Detectors can require ongoing preventative maintenance, and in some cases regular calibration, in order to work correctly.
A well designed simulator, on the other hand, requires no preventative maintenance, or regular calibration and uses no consumables other than disposable batteries.
In cases when a real detector has user-replaceable consumables - such as a hydrogen cylinder (Proengin AP2C, AP4C) or sieve packs (Smiths Detection LCD series detector including JCAD, and GID-M, Bruker RAID) - the simulator is able to replicate these consumables so the student can practice the replacement procedure.
They avoid damage from wrong consumable replacement
Incorrect replacement of consumables (or turning the detector on without a sieve pack fitted) can result in a very expensive repair or in some cases a ruined detector.
Clever use of technology means you can still simulate the effects of contamination without the need to use a substance. Your decontaminant can be as simple as soapy water.
The instructor can then determine if the instrument response to the simulation source should reduce partially (to demonstrate that decontamination drills were poorly executed) or reduce fully (to simulate a job well done).
There are cost advantages
But aren’t simulators more expensive to buy than real detectors?
In general, the answer to this question is yes.
But this is not always the case - and certainly not when whole-of-life costs are considered.
The true cost of using a real detector is a combination of many factors (regulatory compliance, land remediation, replacement of consumables, maintenance etc).
And when those costs are spread over the typical lifetime of a detector (say 10 years), they can be dramatically higher than the initial capital cost of a simulator divided over the same period of time.
When training with simulators, the only ongoing cost (aside from batteries) is repair. Although the administration related to repair of simulator detectors is easier and less costly as there is no chemical source and no requirement for cleanliness certification.
The technology employed within a simulator is also purely electronic, rather than scientific instrumentation which removes the need for specialist repair facilities, such as clean rooms.
As you can see, the benefits of simulator detectors are significant for not only increasing the authenticity of training exercises but also for easing cost and regulatory pressures.
For more detailed advice about sourcing and procuring the essential equipment you need for real experience chemical warfare training, download our free ebook, How To Source Simulator Detectors for CBRN and HazMat Training.
A dedicated simulation instrument for training in the correct use of the Bruker RAID M / RAID M100 in virtually any scenario and environment.
Key features:
Enables simulation of:
A high fidelity simulator for the Smiths Detection M4 JCAD.
Key features:
Simulates:
A high fidelity simulator for the Smiths Detection LCD3.3 and LCD3.3FR.
Key features:
Enables simulation of:
A chemical hazard simulation training system that allows safe and comprehensive training in the correct use of the Smiths Detection GID-3, without external simulants or other consumables.
Key features of the GID-3 SIM:
Simulates:
ACADASIM enables training in the use of Smiths Detection’s M22 ACADA detector and remote alarm.
Multiple simulators can be remotely controlled in real time using a single PDA, allowing an instructor to monitor that students are correctly following a detector’s set-up procedure, and that they are able to perform simple fault diagnosis and remedial action in response to simulated faults.
Key features of the ACADASIM:
Simulates:
The CAMSIM CAM simulator for the Smiths Detection Chemical Agent Monitor (CAM) detector.
Key features:
Different versions representing all versions of CAM are available that can simulate:
*As applicable to the version of CAM simulated including ECAM and ICAM.
A simulation training system for the Proengin AP4C.
Key features:
Enables simulation of:
A training simulator that looks and functions just like the Proengin S4PE surface sampler and confidence tester when used with AP2C and AP4C detectors.
Key features of the S4PE-SIM:
Enables simulation of:
PlumeSIM enables training of multiple personnel over areas up to 15 square kilometers.
It allows instructors to select the parameters for the activation of simulation instruments - including the type of threat, release/delivery of single and multiple sources and a full range of environmental conditions.
Instructors can also record the actions of trainees from a single location.
Features of PlumeSIM:
To learn more about the PlumeSIM, including the four important principles of wide-area training and how to research training systems, download our free ebook
PlumeSIM-SMART enables an instructor to select the threat substance, release type, timing and duration of single or multiple virtual radiation or chemical plumes.
It also allows for the configuration of meteorological conditions and for modifications in wind direction and velocity to affect plume dispersion throughout the exercise.
Powerful App based simulation instruments respond in real time according to the evolving simulated threat environment and characteristics / configuration of the simulated detector.
Students manoeuvre throughout the exercise area either by means of a virtual gamepad or GPS tracked physical movement.
Instructors can rapidly deploy scenarios involving toxic substance releases, industrial / petrochemical facilities, nuclear reactors and radiological sources / devices, which can be saved as libraries for future use and shared with other users.
PlumeSIM-SMART simulates:
PlumeSIM-SMART supports:
To learn more about using simulators during chemical warfare training exercises, including detailed example scenarios, download our free ebook:
.jpg?width=424&name=hazmat-safety-industrial-incident%20(1).jpg "hazmat-safety-industrial-incident (1).jpg")
Place a simulation source under the wheel arch of a vehicle. Set the instructor controller to partial decontamination and check a low reading (representing residual CW agent) can be obtained.
Set the instructor controller to a high response level. The student will now need to search for contamination.
When decontamination begins, the instructor observes the process. If the instructor is not happy, partial decontamination control is set. When the student returns a residual reading will be obtained, provided the student searches thoroughly enough. If they do not, the instructor can demonstrate where the residue can be found.
Scenario 5 - Survey / Reconnaissance
Place simulation sources as required in open ground to be checked. A student will obtain readings as the area is approached.
To simulate non-persistent agent use instructor control to reduce reading after the required period of time.
Scenario 6 - Search false positive
Set a simulation source to represent a false positive.
Place it in a location that would most likely cause a false positive on a real detector, such as where fuel is stored or where cleaning chemicals are located in a building.
Scenario 7 - Personal decontamination
Place an electromagnetic simulation source within a person’s clothing. Set the instructor controller to ‘partial decontamination’ and check a low reading (representing residual CW agent) can be obtained.
Set the instructor controller to a high response level. The student will now need to search for contamination.
When decontamination commences, the instructor observes the process.
If the instructor isn’t satisfied then they can set the partial decontamination control. Then, when the student returns, a residual reading will be obtained, provided they’ve searched thoroughly enough. If not, the instructor can demonstrate where residue can be located.
>> Download our free ebook to get more detailed example scenarios:
Scenario 8 - Simulated CW weapon
Hide the simulation source within a weapon housing. The student will obtain a reading as they approach.
If the weapon is “wrapped” to prevent vapour emission, the simulation source emission will be reduced and the detector reading will reduce. If the weapon is wrapped adequately the emission will reduce completely.
Plaster of Paris is an especially effective wrapping tool, as it eliminates vapour emission while the plaster is wet and, as it dries out a reduced reading will be obtained. Additional plaster can then be added - resulting in a zero reading.
Scenario 9 - Simulated Improvised Explosive Device (IED)
Place the simulation source in the required location and set the instructor control to prevent the simulator from responding to the simulation source.
At the time you wish to simulate the release of substance, select ‘full response’ for rapid release or ‘partial response’ (followed later by ‘full response’) for slower release.
Scenario 10 - Room breach training
Set the simulation source so that the CW / HAZMAT reading is obtained when the door of the room is carefully checked (at the edges where the door meets the doorframe.)
When the door is breached, the reading will rise without the students having to enter the room.
Scenario 11 - Building search training (pre entry)
Install a simulation source within the building such that an emission is just detectable through an open window when the detector sensor is placed through that window.
This scenario is an ideal way to teach external assessment of a building prior to entry.
Scenario 12 - Search training
Use a standard locker room with a bank of multiple locker cupboards. Place a simulation source within one of the lockers such that a reading is only obtained when the student is very close.
Video record the search and play it back to your class to see how methodical the search technique was. For example the student may have started methodically but later relaxed or monitored in a random fashion, which meant they missed the simulation source.
Once you develop a catalogue of your own scenario ideas, you will be amazed at how quickly you can set up your exercises.
Not only that, but you can be certain the students will experience exactly what you want them to as they carry out the exercise you have planned to ensure they have understood the classroom lectures.
Providing scenarios that can realistically replicate the situations that individuals might face in the future is crucial to real-experience training. The scenarios detailed above can serve as a meaningful starting point for simulator detector training.
To learn more about using simulators during chemical warfare training exercises, including even more detailed example scenarios, download our free ebook:
