Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:13:16.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decontamination of Mass Casualties — Re-evaluating Existing Dogma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Howard W. Levitin ,
Henry J. Siegelson ,
Stanley Dickinson ,
Pinchas Halpern ,
Yoshikura Haraguchi ,
Anthony Nocera  and
David Turineck
Howard W. Levitin*
Affiliation:
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Emergency Physician, St. Francis Hospital and Health Centers, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Henry J. Siegelson
Affiliation:
Clinical Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine, Emory University, Emergency Physician, Apollo MD, We llStar Hospital System, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Stanley Dickinson
Affiliation:
Hazardous Materials Specialist, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Pinchas Halpern
Affiliation:
Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
Yoshikura Haraguchi
Affiliation:
Head of Division of Pathophysiology Clinical Research Institute, National Hospital, Tokyo Disaster Medical Center, To kyo, Japan
Anthony Nocera
Affiliation:
Emergency Physician, Mt. Louisa, Australia
David Turineck
Affiliation:
Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Greater Niagara General Hospital, Niagara Health System, Ontario, Canada
*
5732 West 71st Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278 USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The events of 11 September 2001 became the catalyst for many to shift their disaster preparedness efforts towards mass-casualty incidents. Emergency responders, healthcare workers, emergency managers, and public health officials worldwide are being tasked to improve their readiness by acquiring equipment, providing training and implementing policy, especially in the area of mass-casualty decontamination. Accomplishing each of these tasks requires good information, which is lacking. Management of the incident scene and the approach to victim care varies throughout the world and is based more on dogma than scientific data. In order to plan effectively for and to manage a chemical, mass-casualty event, we must critically assess the criteria upon which we base our response.

This paper reviews current standards surrounding the response to a release of hazardous materials that results in massive numbers of exposed human survivors. In addition, a significant effort is made to prepare an international perspective on this response.

Preparations for the 24-hour threat of exposure of a community to hazardous material are a community responsibility for first-responders and the hospital. Preparations for a mass-casualty event related to a terrorist attack are a governmental responsibility. Reshaping response protocols and decontamination needs on the differences between vapor and liquid chemical threats can enable local responders to effectively manage a chemical attack resulting in mass casualties. Ensuring that hospitals have adequate resources and training to mount an effective decontamination response in a rapid manner is essential.

Keywords

decontaminationdecontamination methodsexposurehazardous materialsmass-casualty decontaminationmass-casualty incidentsvapor exposure
Type
Special Reports
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 18 , Issue 3: Terrorism-II: Special Reports , September 2003 , pp. 200 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2003

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

1.Levitin, H, Siegelson, H: Hazardous materials emergencies. Disaster Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, 2002; pp 258–273.Google Scholar
2.Levitin, HW, Siegelson, HJ: Hazardous materials. Disaster medical planning and response. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1996; 14(2): 327–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Kirk, MA, Cisek, J, Rose, SR: Emergency department response to hazardous materials incidents. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1994; 12(2): 461–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cox, RD: Decontamination and management of hazardous materials exposure victims in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 23(4): 761–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N, Nakajima, T, et al: Sarin poisoning in Matsumoto, Japan. Lancet 1995; 346(8970): 290–293.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Hughart, J: Industrial Chemicals and Terrorism: Human Health Threat Analysis, Mitigation and Prevention. Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry. 1999.Google Scholar
7.Hurst, G: Decontamination. Textbook of Military Medicine, Part I, Wa r fare, We aponry, and the Casualty. Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare. USA: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, 1997. pp 351–359.Google Scholar
8.Lake, W: Chemical Weapons Improved Response Program, Guidelines for Mass Casualty Decontamination During a Terrorist Chemical Agent Incident. Domestic. Preparedness Program, US Soldier Biological and Chemical Command 2000.Google Scholar
9.US Department of Labor: Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations: US Government Printing Office. 29CFR 1910. 120.Google Scholar
10.Gruber, R, Laub, D, Vistnes, L: The effect of hydrotherapy on the clinical course and pH of experimental cutaneous chemical burns. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 55(2): 200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Leonard, L, Scheulen, J, Munster, A: Chemical burns: Effect of prompt first aid. J Trauma 1982; 22(5): 420–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Moran, K, O'Reilly, T, Munster, A: Chemical burns. A ten-year experience. Am Surg 1987; 53(11): 652–653.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Fredriksson, T: Percutaneous absorption of parathion and paraoxon. Arch Environn Health 1961; 3: 67–70.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Brown, V, Box, V, Simpson, BJ: Decontamination procedures for skin exposed to phenolic substances. Arch Environ Health 1975; 30: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Curreri, P, Morris, M, Pruitt, B: The treatment of chemical burns: Specialized diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic considerations. J Trauma 1970; 10: 634–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Institute of Medicine. National Research Council. Chemical and Biological Terrorism. Research and Development to Improve Civilian Medical Response. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. pp 97–109.Google Scholar
17.Wester, R, Malbach, H: In-vivo percutaneous absorption and decontamination of pesticides in humans. J Toxicol Envir of Health 1985; 16: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Weber, L, Zesch, A, Rozman, K: Decontamination of human skin exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) in vitro. Arch of Env Health 1992: 47(4): 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Nocera, A, Levitin, H, Hilton, M: Dangerous bodies: A case of fatal aluminum phosphide poisoning. Med J of Australia 2000: 173(3): 133–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Okumura, T, Takasu, N, Ishimatsu, S, et al: Report on 640 Victims of the To kyo subway sarin attack. Ann Emerg Med 1996: 29(2): 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM): Guidelines for Cold Weather Mass Decontamination During A Terrorist Chemical Agent Incident. Final Report. January 2002.Google Scholar
22.Matsui, Y, Ohbu, S, Yamashina, A: Hospital deployment in mass sarin poisoning incident of the Tokyo subway system—An experience at St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo. Japan Hosp 1996; 15: 67–71.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Hughart, J: Chemical hazards during the recent war in Croatia. Agency for To xic Substances Disease Registry. 1999.Google Scholar
24.Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry: Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance. Annual Report. 1997.Google Scholar
25.Sorenson, J: Evacuations due to off-site releases from chemical accidents: Experience from 1980 to 1984. J Hazardous Materials 1987; 14: 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Gibson, C, Fowler, R, Foltas, W: 11 November 1979—A day to remember: The Mississauga Disaster. Can J Hosp Pharm 1980; 32: 178–180.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Siegelson, H: Preparing for terrorism and hazardous materials exposures: It's a matter of worker safety. Health Forum Journal American Hospital Association. January 2000.Google Scholar
28.Rosenstock, L: Textbook of Clinical Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Philadelphia, PA, WB Saunders Co, 1994.Google Scholar
29.Okumura, T, Suzuki, K, Fukuda, A, et.al: The Tokyo subway sarin attack: Disaster management, Part 2: Hospital response. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5(6): 618–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Kon, M, Suzuki, T, Ishikawa, M: A case of fatal sarin poisoning: Management problems. Japan J Disast Med 1996: 1: 12–14.Google Scholar
31. Georgia Code. Georgia General Assembly. Vol. 38–3–51;2001.Google Scholar
32. Georgia Senate Bill 385. 2002.Google Scholar
33.Murakami, H: Underground. Vintage Books, 2001: New York, NY.Google Scholar
34. Anonymous. Anhydrous ammonia can become deadly. Bismark Tribune Bismark, ND. 2002;6a.Google Scholar