Chemical warfare agent simulants in Gamble’s fluid: Is the fluid toxic? Can it be made safer by inclusion of solid nanocrystalline metal oxides?

K-REx Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Karote, Dennis
dc.contributor.author Walker, Brandon
dc.contributor.author Dai, Huaien
dc.contributor.author Krishnamoorthi, Ramaswamy
dc.contributor.author Voo, Janis
dc.contributor.author Rajagopalan, Shyamala
dc.date.accessioned 2013-02-28T17:18:37Z
dc.date.available 2013-02-28T17:18:37Z
dc.date.issued 2012-12-05
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2097/15331
dc.description Citation: Karote, Dennis, Brandon Walker, Huaien Dai, Ramaswamy Krishnamoorthi, Janis Voo, and Shyamala Rajagopalan. “Chemical Warfare Agent Simulants in Gamble’s Fluid: Is the Fluid Toxic? Can It Be Made Safer by Inclusion of Solid Nanocrystalline Metal Oxides?” Edited by Meehir Palit. Journal of Chemistry 2013 (December 5, 2012): 641620. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/641620.
dc.description.abstract The reactions of chemical warfare agent simulants, 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (2-CEES) and di-i-propyl fluoro phosphate (DFP), in fluids have been investigated. Data analyses confirm the major degradation pathway to be hydrolysis of 2-CEES to 2-hydroxyethyl ethyl sulfide, along with minor self-condensation products. Among the three fluids examined, 2-CEES degradation was the fastest in Gamble’s fluid during a 96 h period. Upon addition of Exceptional Hazard Attenuation Materials (EHAMs) to 2-CEES containing Gamble’s fluid, degradation was generally improved during the first 24 h period. The 96 h outcome was similar for fluid samples with or without EHAM 2 and EHAM 4. EHAM 1-added fluid contained only one degradation product, 2-nitroethyl ethyl sulfide. DFP degradation was the slowest in Gamble’s fluid, but was enhanced by the addition of EHAMs. FTIR and solid state 31P NMR confirm the destructive adsorption of 2-CEES and DFP by the EHAMs. The results collectively demonstrate that 2-CEES and DFP decompose to various extents in Gamble’s fluid over a 96 h period but the fluid still contains a considerable amount of intact simulant. EHAM 1 appears to be promising for 2-CEES and DFP mitigation while EHAM 2 and EHAM 4 work well for early on concentration reduction of 2-CEES and DFP. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.relation.uri http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/641620 en_US
dc.rights Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
dc.subject Chemical warfare en_US
dc.subject Gamble’s fluid en_US
dc.subject 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide en_US
dc.subject di-i-propyl fluoro phosphate en_US
dc.subject Exceptional Hazard Attenuation Materials en_US
dc.title Chemical warfare agent simulants in Gamble’s fluid: Is the fluid toxic? Can it be made safer by inclusion of solid nanocrystalline metal oxides? en_US
dc.type Article (publisher version) en_US
dc.date.published 2013 en_US
dc.citation.doi 10.1155/2013/641620 en_US
dc.citation.issue 641620 en_US
dc.citation.jtitle Journal of Chemistry en_US
dc.citation.volume 2013 en_US
dc.citation Karote, Dennis, Brandon Walker, Huaien Dai, Ramaswamy Krishnamoorthi, Janis Voo, and Shyamala Rajagopalan. “Chemical Warfare Agent Simulants in Gamble’s Fluid: Is the Fluid Toxic? Can It Be Made Safer by Inclusion of Solid Nanocrystalline Metal Oxides?” Edited by Meehir Palit. Journal of Chemistry 2013 (December 5, 2012): 641620. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/641620.
dc.contributor.authoreid krish en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Except where otherwise noted, the use of this item is bound by the following: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Search K-REx


Browse

My Account

Statistics








Center for the

Advancement of Digital

Scholarship

cads@k-state.edu