ASTM E2520-21
(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 This 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; 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.
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).
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 The functionality of multi-mode instruments (those that may be switched between detection of trace explosives, drugs of interest, chemical warfare agents, and other target compounds) may also be tested. A multi-mode instrument under test shall be set to the mode that optimizes operational conditions for the detection of trace explosives. 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, and an example of such a test is presented in Appendix X1 (Example 2).
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...
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E2520 − 21
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.Anumber 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
1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable,
traces of explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors
(ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical but standard explosive formulations are not widely available,
nor are methods for depositing these quantitatively and realis-
detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry
(IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS). tically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds
that are available from commercial suppliers. This does not
1.2 This practice considers instrumental (post-sampling)
imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection.
trace detection performance, involving specific chemical ana-
MostETDsareabletodetectmanyothercompounds,butthese
lytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the
are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones
presence of a standard background challenge material. This
considered, or are unavailable from commercial suppliers for
practice adapts Test Method E2677 for the evaluation of limit
reasons of stability and safety. Under typical laboratory
ofdetection,acombinedmetricofmeasurementsensitivityand
practices, the sixteen compounds considered are safe to handle
repeatability, which requires ETDs to have numerical re-
in the quantities used.
sponses.
1.8 This practice is not intended to replace any current
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection through-
standard procedure employed by agencies to test performance
put of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated
of ETDs for specific applications. Those procedures may be
swab area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a
more rigorous, use different compounds or actual explosive
typical eight hour shift.
formulations, employ different or more realistic background
challenges, and consider environmental sampling procedures
1.4 Thispracticedoesnotrequire,butplacesextravalueon,
and other operational variables.
thespecificidentificationoftargetedcompoundsandexplosive
formulations.
1.9 This practice recommends one method for preparation
of test swabs, pipetting, because this method is simple,
1.5 The functionality of multi-mode instruments (those that
reproducible,quantitative,documented,andapplicabletomost
may be switched between detection of trace explosives, drugs
current detection technologies. Other methods, such as inkjet
of interest, chemical warfare agents, and other target com-
printing and dry transfer, may generate more realistic analyte
pounds) may also be tested. A multi-mode instrument under
distributions and particle sizes, but these methods are not
test shall be set to the mode that optimizes operational
widely available and less familiar. They may be used if the
conditions for the detection of trace explosives. This practice
procedures are validated and documented properly.
requires the use of a single set of ETD operational settings for
calculatingasystemtestscorebasedonthefactorsdescribedin
1.10 With any deposition method, some compounds are
1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.Aminimum acceptable score is derived from
difficult to present to the ETD inlet quantitatively due to
criteria established in Practice E2520–07, and an example of
volatility and loss during the swab preparation process. Prob-
such a test is presented in Appendix X1 (Example 2).
lematic issues pertinent to this practice are identified along
with recommended instructions.
1.11 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded
1
This practice is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E54 on Homeland
asstandard.Nootherunitsofmeasurementareincludedinthis
Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E54.01 on
standard.
CBRNE Sensors and Detectors.
Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2021. Published March 2021. Originally
1.12 This standard does not purport to address all of the
approved in 2007. Last previous edition approved in 2
...
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 − 15 E2520 − 21
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
1.1 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 The functionality of multi-mode instruments (those that may be switched between detection of trace explosives, drugs of
interest, chemical warfare agents, and other target compounds) may also be tested. A multi-mode instrument under test shall be
set to the mode that optimizes operational conditions for the detection of trace explosives. 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.E2520 – 07, and an example of such a test is presented
in Appendix X1 (Example 2).
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
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 and Detectors.
Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2015Feb. 1, 2021. Published February 2015March 2021. Originally approved in 2007. Last previous edition approved in 20072015 as
E2520 – 07.E2520 – 15. DOI: 10.1520/E2520-15.10.1520/E2520-21.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
1
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E2520 − 21
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 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 printing and dry
transfer, may generate more realistic anal
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.