OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AIRPORT PASSENGER SCREENING WITH MASS SPECTROMETRY
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. DTFA03-99-C-00006 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
A limited number of copies of this report are available from the National Materials Advisory Board, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Keck WS932, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-3505 or (202) 334-3718; Internet, http://www.nas.edu/nmab
International Standard Book Number 0-309-53257-4 (PDF)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09227-2 (Book)
Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR TRANSPORTATION
THOMAS S. HARTWICK, Chair, Consultant,
Snohomish, Washington
SANDRA L. HYLAND, Vice Chair,
Tokyo Electrons Massachusetts
CHERYL A. BITNER,
AAI Corporation, Phoenix, Maryland
DONALD E. BROWN,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
COLIN G. DRURY,
State University of New York, Buffalo
PATRICK GRIFFIN,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
JIRI JANATA,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
LEN LIMMER, Consultant,
Oak Point, Texas
HARRY E. MARTZ, JR.,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
RICHARD McGEE,
Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
JAMES F. O’BRYON,
The O’Bryon Group, Belair, Maryland
RICHARD L. ROWE,
Safeview, Saratoga, California
ERIC R. SCHWARTZ,
The Boeing Company, Huntington, California
ELIZABETH H. SLATE,
Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
MICHAEL STORY, Consultant,
Los Gatos, California
National Materials Board Liaison
SHEILA F. KIA,
General Motors, Warren, Michigan
NRC Staff
JAMES KILLIAN, Study Director
TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Research Associate
NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD
JULIA M. PHILLIPS, Chair,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
JOHN ALLISON,
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan
PAUL BECHER,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
BARBARA BOYAN,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ROBERT J. CAVA,
Princeton Materials Institute, Princeton, New Jersey
FIONA DOYLE,
University of California, Berkeley
GARY FISCHMAN, Consultant,
Palatine, Illinois
HAMISH L. FRASER,
Ohio State University, Columbus
JOHN J. GASSNER,
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center, Natick, Massachusetts
THOMAS S. HARTWICK, Consultant,
Redmond, Washington
ARTHUR H. HEUER,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
FRANK E. KARASZ,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
SHEILA F. KIA,
General Motors, Warren, Michigan
ENRIQUE J. LAVERNIA,
University of California, Davis
TERRY LOWE,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
ALAN G. MILLER,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington
ROBERT C. PFAHL, JR.,
National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative, Herndon, Virginia
HENRY J. RACK,
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
LINDA SCHADLER,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
JAMES C. SEFERIS,
University of Washington, Seattle
T.S. SUDARSHAN,
Materials Modification, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia
JULIA WEERTMAN,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
NRC Staff
TONI MARECHAUX, Director
Preface
The government agency charged with implementing technology for countering terrorist attacks is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before it, has invested extensively in the development and deployment of technological and procedural systems to protect the traveling public. In support of its mission, TSA tasked the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB) of the National Research Council (NRC) with convening a committee that would assess a variety of technological opportunities for protecting the U.S. transportation system. Accordingly, NMAB convened the Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation.
STATEMENT OF TASK
TSA prepared for the committee the following statement of task:
This study will explore opportunities for technology to address national needs for transportation security. While the primary role of the committee is to respond to the government’s request for assessments in particular applications, the committee may offer advice on specific matters as required. The committee will: (1) identify potential applications for technology in transportation security with a focus on likely threats; (2) evaluate technology approaches to threat detection, effect mitigation, and consequence management; and (3) assess the need for research, development, and deployment to enable implementation of new security technologies. These tasks will be done in the context of current, near-term, and long-term requirements. The committee will perform the following specific tasks:
-
Identify potential applications for technology in transportation security with a focus on likely threats derived from threat analyses that drive security system requirements. Review security system developments structured to meet the changing threat environment. Assess government and commercial industry plans designed to address these threats.
-
Evaluate technology approaches to threat detection, effect mitigation, and consequence management. Delineate the benefits of the insertion of new technologies into existing security systems. Evaluate the trade-offs between effectiveness and cost, including the cost of changing the security system architectures.
-
Assess the need for research, development, and deployment to enable implementation of new security technologies. Review and assess the potential benefit of existing and advanced detection technologies, including scanning technologies, sensing technologies, and the use of computer modeling and databases. Review and assess emerging approaches to effect mitigation and consequence management.
COMMITTEE APPROACH
An overarching goal of the committee is to provide timely reports that meet TSA’s priorities for defeating terrorist threats. The committee judged that this could best be done by issuing a series of short reports on chosen technology applications. In consultation with TSA, the committee selected six topics for review, the first of which is the subject of this report:
-
Mass spectrometry for enhanced trace detection
-
Chem/bio sensors and mitigation of threats
-
Viability of aviation countermeasures against shoulder-launched missiles
-
Millimeter wave imaging for explosives detection
-
Machine false alarm reduction
-
Data fusion and integration for airport terminals
This list may be amended during the course of study if significant new threats arise.
As is apparent from the above list, the committee is focusing on aviation security. Many of the technologies considered will also have application in protecting other transportation modes, and deployment in the aviation security arena is viewed as a valuable testbed for gaining experience that might be applied to other transportation situations. Accordingly, although most of the discussion in this report is directed toward aviation security, the committee believes that it could be adapted for bus terminals, train stations, cruise ships, and so on with relatively minor modifications.
These reports are studies of technological capabilities rather than analyses of specific security system instruments deployed to counter threats. The intent is to discuss, describe, and assess the viability of each technology for threat detection, location, and mitigation in the most fundamental sense. Each report will assess the significance of a technology, and if the technology is found to be significant, the report will suggest a phased R&D and implementation scenario that is likely to result in successful deployment.
The February 2004 discovery of the biological poison ricin in a Senate office building in Washington, D.C., highlights the fact that the terrorist’s arsenal now includes not only all-too-familiar weapons such as small arms and explosives, but also chemical and biological agents. This expanding arsenal demands that policy makers and transportation authorities consider the deployment of new defensive technologies to respond to the new threats. Because the committee believes that mass spectrometry has the potential to extend the capabilities of current trace detection technologies used at airports to address these new threats, it has chosen to make mass spectrometry the subject of its first report.
This study was conducted under the auspices of the NRC’s National Materials Advisory Board. The committee acknowledges the support of the director, Toni Maréchaux, and the board staff. The chair is particularly grateful to key members of the committee, Michael Story and Elizabeth Slate, who, along with the study director, support staff, and publication staff, worked diligently on a demanding schedule to produce this report.
Thomas S. Hartwick, Chair
Sandra L. Hyland, Vice Chair
Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Arnold Barnett, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Raymond H. Bittel, The Boeing Company
Gary W. Carriveau, Science Applications International Corporation
Matthias Frank, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Gary L. Glish, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
R. Kenneth Marcus, Clemson University
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Figures, Table, and Box
FIGURES
2-1 |
The as-deployed Scentinel mass spectrometer trace explosives analyzer, |
|||
2-2 |
Miniaturized mass spectrometer for bio-chem defense, |
|||
2-3 |
Miniaturized mass spectrometer with inlet configuration enabling a single sample to be analyzed by several different MS techniques, |
|||
A-1 |
The resolution of two peaks in an IMS spectrum depends on the separation of their drift times and the width of the peaks at half intensity, |
TABLE
2-1 |
Comparison of the Informing Power of IMS and MS Analytical Techniques, |
BOX
2-1 |
Deployed Mass-Spectrometry-Based Trace Explosives Detector, |
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APL
Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University
ASMS
American Society for Mass Spectrometry
CBMS
chemical and biological mass spectrometer
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DERA
Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (U.K.)
DMNB
dimethylnitrobenzene
DNA
deoxyribonucleic acid
DNT
dinitrotoluene
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
EDS
explosive detection system
EGDN
ethylene glycol dinitrate
ESI
electrospray ionization
ETD
explosive trace detector
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
GC
gas chromatography
HMTD
hexamethylene triperoxide diamine
HMX
cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine
IMS
ion mobility spectrometer
LC
liquid chromatography
MALDI
matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization
MS
mass spectrometry
MS/MS
multiple stages of mass spectrometry
NG
nitroglycerine
NRC
National Research Council
NT
nitrotoluene
PCR
polymerase chain reaction
PD
probability of detection
PETN
pentaerythritol tetranitrate
Pfa
probability of false alarms
QMS
quadrupole mass spectrometer
RDX
cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine
SASP
small acid-soluble protein
TATP
triacetone triperoxide
TFA
trifluoroacetic acid
TNT
trinitrotoluene
TOF
time of flight
TSA
Transportation Security Administration