The PRISM incident response protocols are fit for purpose for ambulatory casualties. However, a more effective communication strategy is required for first responders (particularly when guiding dry decontamination). There is a clear need to develop more appropriate decontamination procedures for at-risk casualties.

Previous studies have demonstrated that rapid evacuation, disrobing and emergency decontamination can enhance the ability of emergency services and acute hospitals to effectively manage chemically-contaminated casualties. The purpose of this human volunteer study was to further optimise such an “Initial Operational Response” by (1) identifying an appropriate method for performing improvised skin decontamination and (2) providing guidance for use by first responders and casualties. The study was performed using two readily available, absorbent materials (paper towels and incontinence pads). The decontamination effectiveness of the test materials was measured by quantifying the amount of a chemical warfare agent simulant (methyl salicylate) removed from each volunteer’s forearm skin. Results from the first study demonstrated that simulant recovery was lower in all of the dry decontamination conditions when compared to matched controls, suggesting that dry decontamination serves to reduce chemical exposure. Blotting in combination with rubbing was the most effective form of decontamination. There was no difference in effectiveness between the two absorbent materials. In the following study, volunteers performed improvised dry decontamination, either with or without draft guidelines. Volunteers who received the guidance were able to carry out improvised dry decontamination more effectively, using more of the absorbent product (blue roll) to ensure that all areas of the body were decontaminated and avoiding cross-contamination of other body areas by working systematically from the head downwards. Collectively, these two studies suggest that absorbent products that are available on ambulances and in acute healthcare settings may have generic applicability for improvised dry decontamination. Wherever possible, emergency responders and healthcare workers should guide casualties through decontamination steps; in the absence of explicit guidance and instructions, improvised dry decontamination may not be performed correctly or safely.

A well-established provision for mass-casualty decontamination that incorporates the use of mobile showering units has been developed in the UK. The effectiveness of such decontamination procedures will be critical in minimizing or preventing the contamination of emergency responders and hospital infrastructure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate three empirical strategies designed to optimize existing decontamination procedures: (1) instructions in the form of a pictorial aid prior to decontamination; (2) provision of a washcloth within the showering facility; and (3) an extended showering period. The study was a three-factor, between-participants (or “independent”) design with 90 volunteers. The three factors each had two levels: use of washcloths (washcloth/no washcloth), washing instructions (instructions/no instructions), and shower cycle duration (three minutes/six minutes). The effectiveness of these strategies was quantified by whole-body fluorescence imaging following application of a red fluorophore to multiple, discrete areas of the skin. All five showering procedures were relatively effective in removing the fluorophore “contaminant”, but the use of a cloth (in the absence of instructions) led to a significant (∼20%) improvement in the effectiveness of decontamination over the standard protocol (p <0.05). Current mass-casualty decontamination effectiveness, especially in children, can be optimized by the provision of a washcloth. This simple but effective approach indicates the value of performing controlled volunteer trials for optimizing existing decontamination procedures.

The UK’s Initial Operational Response (IOR) is a revised process for the medical management of mass casualties potentially contaminated with hazardous materials. A critical element of the IOR is the introduction of immediate, on-scene disrobing and decontamination of casualties to limit the adverse health effects of exposure. Ad hoc cleansing of the skin with dry absorbent materials has previously been identified as a potential means of facilitating emergency decontamination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro oil and water absorbency of a range of materials commonly found in the domestic and clinical environments and to determine the effectiveness of a small, but representative selection of such materials in skin decontamination, using an established ex vivo model. Five contaminants were used in the study: methyl salicylate, parathion, diethyl malonate, phorate and potassium cyanide. In vitro measurements of water and oil absorbency did not correlate with ex vivo measurements of skin decontamination. When measured ex vivo, dry decontamination was consistently more effective than a standard wet decontamination method (“rinse-wipe-rinse”) for removing liquid contaminants. However, dry decontamination was ineffective against particulate contamination. Collectively, these data confirm that absorbent materials such as wound dressings and tissue paper provide an effective, generic capability for emergency removal of liquid contaminants from the skin surface, but that wet decontamination should be used for non-liquid contaminants.

Prompt disrobing and minimization of time to casualty decontamination are key to the effective treatment of individuals exposed to toxic chemicals. Established procedures for mass casualty decontamination that involve the deployment of equipment for showering with water (such as the ladder pipe system [LPS] and technical decontamination) necessarily introduce a short, but critical delay. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of dry and wet decontamination approaches (individually and in combination) for removing a chemical warfare agent simulant from the hair and skin of human volunteers. A secondary aim was to quantify potential hazards arising from the decontamination processes. Volunteers were exposed to the simulant (mixture of methyl salicylate, fluorophore [curcumin] and mineral oil) as an aerosol within a custom-built dosing chamber. Three decontamination protocols (dry, LPS and technical decontamination) were applied in various sequences. The efficacy of the protocols was evaluated by whole-body fluorescent imaging and measurement of residual simulant recovered from the hair, skin, decontamination materials and air samples using liquid chromatography and thermal desorption gas chromatography. Dry decontamination before LPS or technical decontamination produced significant reductions in methyl salicylate skin contamination. The greatest reductions were seen with the Triple Protocol (dry, then LPS, then technical decontamination). Secondary sources of contamination (e.g. off-gassing of vapor and residue on wash cloths/towels) decreased following dry decontamination. The introduction of dry decontamination prior to wet forms of decontamination offers a simple strategy to initiate treatment at a much earlier opportunity, with a corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes. Our results confirm the value of a "Triple Protocol" response strategy based on the integration of dry and wet decontamination procedures. 3 Importantly, we highlight how these combined protocols may reduce toxicological risks downstream in the operational process.