ASTM E2520-15
(Practice)Standard Practice for Measuring and Scoring Performance of Trace Explosive Chemical Detectors
Standard Practice for Measuring and Scoring Performance of Trace Explosive Chemical Detectors
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The practice may be used to accomplish several ends: to establish a worldwide frame of reference for terminology, metrics, and procedures for reliably determining trace detection performance of ETDs; to give developers tangible benchmarks designed to improve detection performance of next-generation ETDs; as a demonstration by the vendor that the equipment is operating properly to a specified performance score; for a periodic verification by the user of detector performance after purchase; and as a generally-acceptable template adaptable by international agencies to specify performance requirements, analytes and dosing levels, background challenges, and operations.
5.2 It is expected that current ETD systems will exhibit wide ranges of performance across the diverse explosive types and compounds considered. As in previous versions, this practice establishes the minimum performance that is required for a detector to be considered effective in the detection of trace explosives. An explosives detector is considered to have “minimum acceptable performance” when it has attained a test score of at least 80.
5.3 It is not recommended to use scores exclusively to compare different ETD systems in order to make procurement or deployment decisions. The scores themselves signify ratings based on general detection performance, but do not necessarily reflect capabilities with specific analytes or BCMs, nor do scores consider many factors that users may also consider important: procurement and operating costs, robustness and dependability, training requirements, ease of use, security features, size and weight constraints, network capabilities and interoperability, and radioactive material management.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice may be used for measuring, scoring, and improving the overall performance of detectors that alarm on traces of explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors (ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS). Technologies that use thermodynamic or optical detection are not specifically addressed, but may be adapted into future versions of this practice.
1.2 This practice considers instrumental (post-sampling) trace detection performance, involving specific chemical analytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the presence of a standard background challenge material. This practice adapts Test Method E2677 for the evaluation of limit of detection, a combined metric of measurement sensitivity and repeatability, which requires ETDs to have numerical responses.
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection throughput of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated swab area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a typical eight hour shift.
1.4 This practice does not require, but places extra value on, the specific identification of targeted compounds and explosive formulations.
1.5 This practice requires the use of a single set of ETD operational settings for calculating a system test score based on the factors described in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. A minimum acceptable score is derived from criteria established in Practice E2520 – 07.
1.6 Intended Users—ETD developers and manufacturers, testing laboratories, and international agencies responsible for enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.
1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable, but standard explosive formulations are not widely available, nor are methods for depositing these quantitatively and realistically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds that are available from commercial suppliers. This does not imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection. Most ETDs are able to detect many other compounds, but these are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones considered, or are unavailable from commercial suppliers for re...
General Information
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2520 − 15
Standard Practice for
Measuring and Scoring Performance of Trace Explosive
1
Chemical Detectors
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2520; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 1.6 Intended Users—ETD developers and manufacturers,
testing laboratories, and international agencies responsible for
1.1 This practice may be used for measuring, scoring, and
enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.
improving the overall performance of detectors that alarm on
traces of explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors 1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable,
but standard explosive formulations are not widely available,
(ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical
detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry nor are methods for depositing these quantitatively and realis-
tically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds
(IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS). Technologies that use
thermodynamic or optical detection are not specifically that are available from commercial suppliers. This does not
imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection.
addressed, but may be adapted into future versions of this
practice. MostETDsareabletodetectmanyothercompounds,butthese
are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones
1.2 This practice considers instrumental (post-sampling)
considered, or are unavailable from commercial suppliers for
trace detection performance, involving specific chemical ana-
reasons of stability and safety. Under typical laboratory
lytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the
practices, the sixteen compounds considered are safe to handle
presence of a standard background challenge material. This
in the quantities used.
practice adapts Test Method E2677 for the evaluation of limit
1.8 This practice is not intended to replace any current
ofdetection,acombinedmetricofmeasurementsensitivityand
standard procedure employed by agencies to test performance
repeatability, which requires ETDs to have numerical re-
of ETDs for specific applications. Those procedures may be
sponses.
more rigorous, use different compounds or actual explosive
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection through-
formulations, employ different or more realistic background
put of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated
challenges, and consider environmental sampling procedures
swab area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a
and other operational variables.
typical eight hour shift.
1.9 This practice recommends one method for preparation
1.4 This practice does not require, but places extra value on,
of test swabs, pipetting, because this method is simple,
the specific identification of targeted compounds and explosive
reproducible, quantitative, documented, and applicable to most
formulations.
current detection technologies. Other methods, such as inkjet
1.5 This practice requires the use of a single set of ETD
printing and dry transfer, may generate more realistic analyte
operationalsettingsforcalculatingasystemtestscorebasedon
distributions and particle sizes, but these methods are not
the factors described in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. A minimum accept-
widely available and less familiar. They may be used if the
able score is derived from criteria established in Practice
procedures are validated and documented properly.
E2520 – 07.
1.10 With any deposition method, some compounds are
difficult to present to the ETD inlet quantitatively due to
1
volatility and loss during the swab preparation process. Prob-
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 on Homeland
Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E54.01 on
lematic issues pertinent to this practice are identified along
CBRNE Sensors and Detectors.
with recommended instructions. The user should be aware of
Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2015. Published February 2015. Originally
the possibility that untested scenarios may lead to failure in the
approved in 2007. Last previous edition approved in 2007 as E2520 – 07. DOI:
10.1520/E2520-15. determination of reliable test scores.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
1
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E2520 − 15
1.11 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded 3.1.5.1 Discussion—Manufacturers of explosives detectors
as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this often provide so-called ca
...
This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E2520 − 07 E2520 − 15
Standard Practice for
Verifying Minimum AcceptableMeasuring and Scoring
1
Performance of Trace Explosive Chemical Detectors
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2520; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This practice is primarily intended to assist first responders and security screeners in verifying the minimum acceptable may
be used for measuring, scoring, and improving the overall performance of detectors used to identifythat alarm on traces of high
explosives such as cyclotrimethylene trinitramine (RDX), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), and trinitrotoluene (TNT). These
explosive detectors explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors (ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical
detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry (IMS).(IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS). Technologies that use
thermodynamic or optical detection are not specifically addressed, but may be adapted into future versions of this practice.
1.2 This practice is used to evaluate the detector response to evaporated residues of low-concentration solutions of explosive
compounds placed on test swipes. The solutionsconsiders instrumental (post-sampling) trace detection performance, involving
specific chemical analytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the presence of a standard background challenge
material. This practice adapts Test Method E2677 used for this evaluation are prepared in a suitable organic solvent and contain
a single high explosive. for the evaluation of limit of detection, a combined metric of measurement sensitivity and repeatability,
which requires ETDs to have numerical responses.
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection throughput of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated swab
area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a typical eight hour shift.
1.4 This practice does not address or use sampling procedures common to the use of trace explosive detectors. It only tests the
response of the detector once a test swipe has been successfully introduced into the explosive detector.require, but places extra
value on, the specific identification of targeted compounds and explosive formulations.
1.5 This practice requires the use of a single set of ETD operational settings for calculating a system test score based on the
factors described in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. A minimum acceptable score is derived from criteria established in Practice E2520 – 07.
1.6 Intended Users—ETD developers and manufacturers, testing laboratories, and international agencies responsible for
enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.
1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable, but standard explosive formulations are not widely available, nor are
methods for depositing these quantitatively and realistically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds that are available
from commercial suppliers. This does not imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection. Most ETDs are able to
detect many other compounds, but these are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones considered, or are unavailable
from commercial suppliers for reasons of stability and safety. Under typical laboratory practices, the sixteen compounds considered
are safe to handle in the quantities used.
1.8 This practice is not intended to replace any current standard procedure employed by agencies to test performance of ETDs
for specific applications. Those procedures may be more rigorous, use different compounds or actual explosive formulations,
employ different or more realistic background challenges, and consider environmental sampling procedures and other operational
variables.
1.9 This practice does not evaluate the effect of contaminants or interferences that may be encountered in sampling for trace
explosives in the field.recommends one method for preparation of test swabs, pipetting, because this method is simple,
reproducible, quantitative, documented, and applicable to most current detection technologies. Other methods, such as inkjet
1
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 on Homeland Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E54.01 on CBRNE
Sensors an
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.