Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:25:24.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The U. S. Army Reactive Topical Skin Protectant (rTSP): Challenges and Successes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Stephen T. Hobson ,
Erich K. Lehnert  and
Ernest H. Braue Jr
Stephen T. Hobson*
Affiliation:
Drug Assessment Division, U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010–5400, USA
Erich K. Lehnert
Affiliation:
Drug Assessment Division, U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010–5400, USA
Ernest H. Braue Jr
Affiliation:
Drug Assessment Division, U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010–5400, USA
*
* Correspondence to: CPT Stephen T. Hobson, Ph.D., Advanced Assessment Branch, US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010–5405, USA.
Get access

Abstract

In 1994, the U. S. Army initiated a research effort towards an effective material that acts both as a protective barrier and as an active destructive matrix against chemical warfare agents (CWA). We report results on our preparation and evaluation of Reactive Topical Skin Protectants (rTSP's). These creams are composite materials consisting of a base material (TSP) and a reactive moiety. Using an established base of perfluorinated-polyether and perfluoropolyethylene solids we incorporated over 60 reactive components. Classes tested include organic polymers, organic/inorganic hybrid materials, polyoxometallates (POM's), enzymes, inorganic oxides, metal alloys and small molecules. We characterized these materials by light microscopy and FTIR. We determined the efficacy of these materials against both sulfur mustard (HD) and a representative nerve agent, soman (GD), using a penetration cell model coupled to a continuous air monitor and also by in vivo testing. Composite materials with optimum reactive compounds exhibit a 94% reduction of GD vapor break-through after 20 hours (from 9458 ng to 581 ng) and a 3.6 fold increase (from 162 min to 588 min) in the time 1000 ng of GD liquid penetrates through the material. Similar composite materials show a 99% reduction in HD vapor break-through after 20 hours (from 4040 ng to 16 ng), a 2.3 fold increase (from 524 min to >1200 min) in the time 1000 ng of HD vapor penetrates through the material, and an elimination of erythema versus control in an HD vapor challenge. These results indicate that an rTSP that protects against sulfur mustard and nerve agents is within reach.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 628: Symposium CC – Hybrid Organic/Inorganic Materials , 2000 , CC10.8
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bartley, R. L. and Kucewicz, W. P.,, Foreign Affairs, 61, 805–826 (1993).Google Scholar
2. UN Security Council, Report of the Specialists Appointed by the Secretary-General to Investigate Allegations by the Islamic Republic of Iran Concerning the Use of Chemical Weapons, S/16433. (26 March 1984), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
3. Over 10,000 casualties were reported. See Spiers, Edward M., Chemical and Biological Weapons: A Study in Proliferation (St. Martin's Press: New York, NY, 1994), p 18;Google Scholar
Kirkham, N. ‘Cyanide Bombers Lay Waste a Town’, The Daily Telegraph, 22 March 1988, p. 1.Google Scholar
4. Heller, C. E., Leavenworth Papers. Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience (Combat Studies Institute, Ft. Leavenworth, KS, 1984) pp 91–92.Google Scholar
5. Woodall, J., Lancet,, 350, 296 (1997).Google Scholar
6. Takafuji, E. T. and Kok, A. B., in Textbook of Military Medicine, Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, edited by Sidell, F. R., Takafuji, E. T., and Franz, D. R. (Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications, Washington, D. C. 1997) pp 118–119.Google Scholar
7. O'Hern, M. R., Dashiell, T. R., and Tracey, M. F. in Textbook of Military Medicine, Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, edited by Sidell, F. R., Takafuji, E. T., and Franz, D. R. (Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications, Washington, D. C. 1997) pp 1371–1372.Google Scholar
8. Braue, E. H. Jr, Journal of Applied Toxicology, 19(S), S47-S53 (1999).Google Scholar
9. McCreery, M. J., US Patent No. 5 607 979 (4 March 1997).Google Scholar
10. Silverstein, R. M., Bassler, G. C., Morrill, T. C., Spectrometric Identification of Organic Compounds, 5th ed. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1991), pp 160–163.Google Scholar
11. CMS Field Products Group, Birmingham, AL.Google Scholar
12. Minimal amount of HD for vesication = 1000 ng. See Sidell, F. R., Urbanetti, J. S., Smith, W. J., and Hurst, C. G. in Textbook of Military Medicine, Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, edited by Sidell, F. R., Takafuji, E. T., and Franz, D. R. (Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications, Washington, D. C. 1997) pp 201 Google Scholar
13. LD50 for soman (GD) = 350 mg/70 kg man. See Sidell, F. R. in Textbook of Military Medicine, Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, edited by Sidell, F. R., Takafuji, E. T., and Franz, D. R. (Office of the Surgeon General at TMM Publications, Washington, D. C. 1997) p 141.Google Scholar
14. Speck, J. C., US Patent No. 2 885 3058 (5 May 1959).Google Scholar
15. Shih, M. L., Korte, W. D., Smith, J. R., and Szafraniec L., L. L. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 19(S), S83–S88 (1999)Google Scholar