Ad hoc network for CBRN sensors for soldiers, first responders

Published 26 August 2009

Following an incident like an attack, explosion, or fire, soldiers and first responders would collect air-quality data, sample it, and transmit threat-level information to keep others out of harm’s way; analysis of the data at a center would give commanders actionable information useful in developing an effective response

Using sensors to create ad hoc battlefield networks is an established, if evolving, way of extending situational awareness. One company applying the concept to the detection of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) materials for soldiers and emergency responders is Smiths Detection of Watford, Hertfordshire, England. Aviation Week’s Pat Toensmeier writes that Smiths is developing wearable sensors for CBRN that transmit data to soldiers or emergency personnel, distributed ground sensors and vehicles, and a command center. Although Smiths supplies handheld sensors for chemical detection that can be worn by warfighters and emergency responders — examples are the LCD 3.2e and 3.3 — and a handheld radiation-detection device, combining full CBRN sensing capabilities in a miniature device is a goal company officials believe may be at least a decade away.

The benefits of such a device would be considerable. Following an incident like an attack, explosion, or fire, soldiers and first responders would collect air-quality data, sample it, and transmit threat-level information to keep others out of harm’s way. Analysis of the data at a center would give commanders actionable information useful in developing an effective response.

A wearable detection device would be designed with communication protocols and power standards in mind. It would connect with communication equipment worn by soldiers and first responders, and run on commercial batteries or other readily available power sources.

The main reason for the long development cycle is that a device will need multiple sensing technologies to discern different threats, Mal Maginnis, president of the Global Military and Emergency Response Division, told Toensmeier in an interview at Smiths’ headquarters. A device would need to incorporate such capabilities as gas chromatography, ion mobility and mass spectroscopy, along with algorithms tuned to an end-user’s needs. Wearable detectors for chemical gases and vapors and for radiation use similar technology, but devices that also pick up biological threats await development because they require different detection processes.

The customer wants a Star Trek tricorder,” Maginnis says, referring to the handheld device featured in the TV show that analyzed, interpreted and displayed data about space environments. The problem is that no such device exists — at least not now.

Another issue deals with the amount of detection data that would be needed by the military and first responders. “The military has a defined range of chemical threats,” Maginnis says, “but first responders at a situation like a [chemical] fire have no idea what the threat might be.” Being able to supply the military and first responders with one detection device will hold down costs. A possible route might be to expand the range of chemical threats a detector analyzes, by adding common toxic elements like ammonias, acids and cyanides to its data base.

Selective detection is often a key to the effectiveness of a device. “There is a reasonable handful of higher-threat chemicals and environmental agents that are being targeted [by military devices],” Maginnis notes. “The challenge since 9/11 is determining the complexity of the threat,” and especially, which materials are necessary to detect.

Another aspect affecting development is the age and experience of soldiers and first responders. The average age range of both is 18-25, Maginnis says. Data should therefore be displayed on their detection devices as simply as possible without jeopardizing situational awareness. Maginnis believes this will mean a tiny screen that flashes simple commands (go/no-go) or colors indicating hazard levels (red, yellow, green).

Rod Wilson, division marketing director, states in a follow-up e-mail that the “ability to have a sensor worn on the operator and integrated into the wider future infantry systems [that militaries are devising] is the goal” of development efforts.

The detection sensors will be based on a flexible technology that meets mission requirements and can be upgraded with new software and sensors. The sensitivity of detection levels for chemical threats, radioactive materials and bioweapons “will be determined by field operation requirements,” as will the range of a network.

Wilson declines to comment on what types of amplification or transmission devices might be necessary to enhance an ad hoc network, stating that such information is “proprietary and sensitive.” The network, though, could be set up with unattended sensors, “one of their primary areas of deployment.”

The sensors would also have to be “relatively inexpensive” to achieve broad use. “Much of the cost would be driven by the wider uptake of this technology in the market, providing better cost-per-unit pricing,” he writes.

However the design develops, Ma­ginnis is confident Smiths will have a CBRN sensor with networking capabilities. “What is exciting is watching traditional laboratory technology move to the battlefield,” he says. “Soldiers, police and hazmat people are doing what used to be done in labs.”