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

dc.citationKarote, 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.citation.doi10.1155/2013/641620en_US
dc.citation.issue641620en_US
dc.citation.jtitleJournal of Chemistryen_US
dc.citation.volume2013en_US
dc.contributor.authorKarote, Dennis
dc.contributor.authorWalker, Brandon
dc.contributor.authorDai, Huaien
dc.contributor.authorKrishnamoorthi, Ramaswamy
dc.contributor.authorVoo, Janis
dc.contributor.authorRajagopalan, Shyamala
dc.contributor.authoreidkrishen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-28T17:18:37Z
dc.date.available2013-02-28T17:18:37Z
dc.date.issued2012-12-05
dc.date.published2013en_US
dc.descriptionCitation: 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.abstractThe 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.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2097/15331
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.urihttp://doi.org/10.1155/2013/641620en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
dc.subjectChemical warfareen_US
dc.subjectGamble’s fluiden_US
dc.subject2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfideen_US
dc.subjectdi-i-propyl fluoro phosphateen_US
dc.subjectExceptional Hazard Attenuation Materialsen_US
dc.titleChemical 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.typeArticle (publisher version)en_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
KrishnamoorthiJChem2013.pdf
Size:
2.74 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.62 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: