定价： 1515元 / 折扣价： 1288 元 加购物车

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元 加购物车

定价： 605元 / 折扣价： 515 元

定价： 689元 / 折扣价： 586 元 加购物车

定价： 1177元 / 折扣价： 1001 元 加购物车

定价： 605元 / 折扣价： 515 元 加购物车

定价： 975元 / 折扣价： 829 元 加购物车

3.1 These terms have particular application to explosives analysis. In addition, several sources of definitions were used in the development of this terminology: Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Sixteenth Edition (1);3 Practical Bomb Scene Investigation, Third Edition (2); Forensic Investigation of Explosions (3); Chemistry of Pyrotechnics, Third Edition (4); Explosives, Seventh Completely Revised and Updated Edition (5); Dictionary of Explosions & Explosives (6); PICATINNY Encyclopedia of Explosives and Related Items (7, 8); Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (9); and DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (10). A suitable definition was developed after all of the sources were found wanting. 1.1 This is a compilation of terms and corresponding definitions related to the analysis of explosives. Legal or scientific terms that are generally understood or defined adequately in other readily available sources may not be included. 1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard. 1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Commercial trace detectors are used by first responders, security screeners, the military, and law enforcement to detect and identify explosive threats and drugs of interest quickly. These trace detectors typically operate by detecting chemical agents in residues and particles sampled from surfaces and can have detection limits for some compounds extending below 1 ng. A trace detector is set to alarm when its response to any target analyte exceeds a programmed threshold level for that analyte. Factory settings of such levels typically balance sensitivity and selectivity assuming standard operating and deployment conditions.5.2 The LOD for a substance is commonly accepted as the smallest amount of that substance that can be reliably detected in a given type of medium by a specific measurement process (2). The analytical signal from this amount shall be high enough above ambient background variation to give statistical confidence that the signal is real. Methods for determining nominal LOD values are well known but pitfalls exist in specific applications. Vendors of trace detectors often report detection limits for only a single compound without defining the meaning of terms or reference to the method of determination.NOTE 2: There are several different “detection limits” that can be determined for analytical procedures. These include the minimum detectable value, the instrument detection limit, the method detection limit, the limit of recognition, the limit of quantitation, and the minimum consistently detectable amount. Even when the same terminology is used, there can be differences in the LOD according to nuances in the definition used, the assumed response model, and the type of noise contributing to the measurement.5.3 When deployed, the individual performance of a trace detector (for example, realistic LODs) is influenced by: (1) manufacturing differences, history, and maintenance; (2) operating configurations (for example, thermal desorption temperature, analyzer temperature, and type of swab); and (3) environmental conditions (for example, ambient humidity and temperature and chemical background). As a result, realistic LOD values for a trace detector may be poorly estimated by the factory specifications. These fundamental measures of performance are critically important for assessing the ability of an instrument to detect trace levels of particular compounds in a particular setting, so a reliable and accessible method is needed to estimate realistic LOD values, especially in the field.5.4 Technical Challenges and Pitfalls to the Estimation of LOD Values in Trace Detectors and the Setting of Optimal Alarm Thresholds: 5.4.1 —The U.S. Department of Justice lists over 230 explosive materials and over 270 controlled drugs having a high potential for abuse.4 There are many technologies used for trace detection, and instrument manufacturers design their systems and balance operating conditions to provide detection capabilities across as many analytes as possible. However, a very limited subset of analytes is normally used to test and verify detector performance. Therefore, default operating conditions and alarm thresholds may not be optimally set to detect reliably certain compounds deemed important in particular scenarios.5.4.2 Environment—Ambient conditions and chemical background vary with the deployment location, which would influence response sensitivities and LOD values.5.4.3 Risk Tolerance and Balance—Values of alpha risk (false positive probability of process blanks) and beta risk (false nondetection probability of analytes at the detection limit) should be balanced and set according to security priorities (for example, alert level, probable threat compounds, throughput requirements, human factors, and risk tolerance). The default risk balance in a trace detector may not be adequate for the deployment situation.5.4.4 Signal Variability (Heteroskedasticity)—The variance in instrument response may not be consistent across analyte mass levels introduced into the trace detector. In ion mobility spectrometry (IMS)-based technologies, the physicochemical mechanisms underlying atmospheric pressure ionization (with a finite number of available reactant ions) and ion mobility separation may be non-uniform across the response regions. Typical methods of LOD estimation usually assume constant variance.5.4.5 Proprietary Signal Processing—Typical LOD determinations assume Gaussian distributions and use background variation as an important parameter. Unfortunately, alarm decisions in trace detectors are rarely based on raw measurement signals; rather, proprietary algorithms are used to process the raw measurements. This processing may attempt to minimize alpha risk by truncating or dampening background signals, so background signals may be absent or the true distribution in these processed signals may be non-Gaussian, confounding the calculation of an accurate LOD.5.4.6 Multivariate Considerations—To improve selectivity and decrease alpha risk, alarm decisions in trace detectors may be based on multiple-peak responses rather than a single-peak amplitude measurement. Efforts to recognize and quantify unique ion fragmentation patterns across both the thermal desorption and drift-time domains are being developed for next-generation detectors.5.4.7 Diversity of Technologies—The wide variety of trace detectors and technologies on the market and those under development challenge general response models for accurate estimation of LOD.5.4.8 Security—LOD values for explosives in trace detectors may not be openly published because of security and classification issues.1.1 In harmony with the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) and detection concepts of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) (1, 2)2, this test method uses a series of replicated measurements of an analyte at dosage levels giving instrumental responses that bracket the critical value, a truncated normal distribution model, and confidence bounds to establish a standard for estimating practical and statistically robust limits of detection.NOTE 1: Other standards are available that evaluate the general performance of detection technologies for various analytes in complex matrices (for example, Practice E2520).1.2 Here, the limit of detection (LOD90) for a compound is defined to be the lowest mass of that compound deposited on a sampling swab for which there is 90 % confidence that a single measurement in a particular trace detector will have a true detection probability of at least 90 % and a true nondetection probability of at least 90 % when measuring a process blank sample.1.3 This particular test method was chosen on the basis of reliability, practicability, and comprehensiveness across tested trace detectors, analytes, and deployment conditions. The calculations involved in this test method are published elsewhere (3), and are performed through an interactive web-based calculator available on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) site: https://www-s.nist.gov/loda.1.4 Intended Users—Trace detector developers and manufacturers, vendors, testing laboratories, and agencies responsible for public safety and enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.1.5 While this test method may be applied to any detection technology that produces numerical output, the method is especially applicable to measurement systems influenced by heterogeneous error sources that lead to non-linear and heteroskedastic dose/response relationships and truncated or censored response distributions at low analyte levels. The procedures have been tested using explosive and drug compounds in trace detectors based on ion mobility spectrometry, gas chromatography, and mass spectrometry (4). Compounds are deposited as liquid solutions on swabs and dried before use. Background interferences introduced to the test samples were representative of a variety of conditions expected during deployment, but these conditions were not intended as comprehensive in representing all possible scenarios. The user should be aware of the possibility that untested scenarios may lead to failure in the estimation of a reliable LOD90 value.1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Some specific hazards statements are given in Section 8 on Hazards.1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Uses—This classification is intended for use by federal landholding agencies and DoD components in order to direct ECOP efforts. It is also intended for use by preparers and reviewers of environmental condition of property maps, explosives safety condition maps, and ECOP reports used to support CERFA uncontaminated parcel identifications and parcels suitable for transfer by lease or by deed. This classification should be used to facilitate standardized determinations of the environmental condition and explosives safety conditions of a federal landholding agency, FUDS, and DoD installation's real property. Such environmental condition of property and explosives safety condition determinations are necessary to assess the progress of ongoing environmental restoration, identify areas where further response may be required, identify areas where further evaluation is necessary, and to support FOSTs and FOSLs. An environmental condition of property map, and explosives safety condition map, if applicable, based upon the ECOP report prepared in accordance with Practice D6008, is prepared using this classification. The ECOP report may be used to determine the MILCON category (see Section 8 and Table X1.1 in Appendix X1).1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this classification is to define eight standard environmental condition of property area types for federally-owned real property with respect to the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 Section 120(h), as amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992, and Section 331 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. As such, this classification is intended to permit a federal landholding agency to classify property into eight area types, in order to facilitate and support findings of suitability to transfer (FOSTs), findings of suitability to lease (FOSLs), and uncontaminated parcel determinations pursuant to the requirements of CERFA. Users of this classification should note that it does not address (except where noted explicitly) requirements for appropriate and timely regulatory consultation or concurrence, or both, during the identification and use of these environmental condition of property area types.1.1.1 Eight Recognized Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Types—The goal of this classification is to permit federal landholding agencies to classify properties in order to support determinations of which properties are suitable and unsuitable for transfer by lease or by deed. The term “standard environmental condition of property area type” refers to one of the eight area types defined in this classification. An identification of an area type on an environmental condition of property map means that a federal landholding agency federally-owned has conducted sufficient studies to make a determination of the recognized environmental conditions of installation real property or has complied with the identification requirements of uncontaminated property under CERFA, or both, and has categorized the property into one of the following eight area types:1.1.1.1 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 1—An area or parcel of real property where no release, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products or their derivatives has occurred (including no migration of these substances from adjoining properties).1.1.1.2 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 2—An area or parcel of real property where only the release or disposal of petroleum products or their derivatives has occurred.1.1.1.3 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 3—An area or parcel of real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action.1.1.1.4 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 4—An area or parcel of real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken.1.1.1.5 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 5—An area or parcel of real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred and removal or remedial actions, or both, are under way, but all required actions have not yet been taken.1.1.1.6 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 6—An area or parcel of real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, but required response actions have not yet been initiated.1.1.1.7 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 7—An area or parcel of real property that is unevaluated or requires additional evaluation.1.1.1.8 Standard Environmental Condition of Property Area Type 8—An area or parcel of real property where the release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof of hazardous substances or emerging contaminants of environmental concern has likely occurred, but response actions either (1) have not yet been determined, or (2) are being managed under the auspices of an ARAR, such as a federal or state health advisory, or other federal regulatory program such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).1.1.2 CERCLA Section 120(h) Requirements—This classification of environmental condition of property area types is consistent with CERCLA § 120(h) requirements relating to the transfer of contaminated federal real property (42 USC 9601 et seq.). Areas classified as Area Types 1 through 4, as defined in this classification, are suitable, with respect to CERCLA § 120(h) requirements, for deed transfer to a non-federal recipient.1.1.3 CERFA Requirements—This classification of environmental condition of property area types can be used in conjunction with the reporting requirements of CERFA, which amended CERCLA (Public Law 102-426, 106 Statute 2174). As defined in this classification, areas classified as Type 1 areas are eligible for reporting as “uncontaminated property” under the provisions of CERFA. At federal installations listed on the national priorities list, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concurrence must be obtained for a parcel to be considered uncontaminated and therefore transferable under CERCLA § 120(h)(4). EPA has stated as a matter of policy that there may be instances in which it would be appropriate to concur with the military service that certain parcels can be identified as uncontaminated under CERCLA § 120(h)(4), although some limited quantity of hazardous substances or petroleum products have been stored, released, or disposed of on the parcel. If the information available indicates that the storage, release, or disposal was associated with activities that would not be expected to pose a threat to human health or the environment (for example, housing areas, petroleum-stained pavement areas, and areas having undergone routine application of pesticides), such parcels should be eligible for expeditious reuse.1.1.4 Petroleum Products—Petroleum products and their derivatives are included within the scope of this classification. Under existing agency-specific and US EPA policy, areas on which petroleum products and their derivatives have been released or disposed of may not be suitable for deed transfer until a response action has been completed.1.2 Objectives—The objectives guiding the development of this classification are as follows: (1) to synthesize and put in writing a standard classification of environmental condition of property area types; (2) to facilitate the development of high-quality, standardized environmental condition of property maps that can be used to support FOSTs and FOSLs; (3) to facilitate the development of a standard practice for conducting environmental baseline surveys; and (4) to facilitate the development of a standard guide for preparing environmental baseline survey reports.1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

This practice establishes a method for characterizing explosives vapor detectors in the laboratory. The practice does not set performance requirements.This practice is intended for use by the manufacturers of explosives vapor detection equipment and any organization that has the facilities and expertise to perform vapor calibrations. This practice relies upon the use of an explosives vapor generator unit to determine the applicable performance levels of the explosives vapor detectors.This practice provides a method for evaluation of the following parameters:3.3.1 Interferent free minimum alarm level,3.3.2 Probability of detection,3.3.3 False positive ratio,3.3.4 False negative ratio,3.3.5 Interference equivalent,3.3.6 Temperature and humidity effects,3.3.7 Sample time,3.3.8 Response time,3.3.9 Total analysis time,3.3.10 Sample throughput, and3.3.11 Overload level.Each user or evaluator may choose to evaluate a detector only for those parameters of interest to them.1.1 This practice is for the laboratory evaluation and selection of explosives vapor detectors.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

定价： 3731元 / 折扣价： 3172 元

5.1 This practice is designed to assist the forensic explosives examiner in selecting and organizing an analytical scheme for identifying intact explosives. The amount and condition of the sample, as well as the availability of applicable instrumental techniques, will determine the selected analytical scheme.5.2 The forensic explosives examiner considers relevant issues about the case investigation and submitted items, such as sample size, complexity and condition, environmental effects, and collection methods used. Considerations include test methods, sample preparation schemes, test sequences, and acceptable degrees of sample alteration and consumption that will be different for each case submission.5.3 This practice provides the minimum criteria for identifying explosive material. The examiner determines an analytical scheme that uses techniques to correctly identify the material, which could include oxidizers, fuels, binders, and detection agents.5.4 This practice is used in conjunction with the referenced documents.5.5 This practice does not attempt to address all the issues regarding sample analyses. There could be additional tests or analyses performed to provide further discrimination and characterization of samples.1.1 This practice covers the evaluation, selection, and application of techniques to establish examination schemes for use by forensic explosives examiners to identify intact (unexploded) low and high explosives. A foundation for a consistent approach to the analysis of intact explosives is provided. Methods for the development of identifying information that follows an efficient order of testing are described.1.2 This practice establishes requirements for the use of visual, physical, analytical, and instrumental techniques that provide structural and chemical information for an identification of a high or low explosive material.1.3 Techniques used in the examination of explosives include visual and microscopical inspection, physical characterization, ignition susceptibility testing, chemical and spot testing, and instrumental methods.1.4 The minimum requirements for identification of commonly encountered explosives and explosive materials are listed.1.5 This standard is intended for use by competent forensic science practitioners with the requisite formal education, discipline-specific training (see Practice E2917), and demonstrated proficiency to perform forensic casework (refer to the T/SWGFEX Suggested Guide for Explosives Analysis Training).1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车