Language
Country/Area
No result found
From bees to machines: Who is the best at explosives detection?
Explosive detection technology plays an increasingly important role in today's security environment, whether at airports, ports or border control. The purpose of these detection technologies is to determine whether a container contains explosives. Various detection tools and methods have been developed, but are bees, dogs or machines better suited for this task? This article will explore the pros and cons of various explosive detection tools and analyze the situations in which they are suitable.
Diversification of detection tools
Chromatography
Color reaction is a simple and commonly used method for explosive detection. Chemical reagents are applied to unknown substances or samples to observe the color reaction to determine whether explosives are present.
The main advantage of color methods is their ease of use, but they are not effective for detecting some explosives that do not contain nitrogen, such as peroxyacids. This makes chromatography techniques limited in certain situations.
Dog detection
Specially trained dogs have an extremely sensitive sense of smell and can detect trace amounts of explosives. Although dogs can be effective at detecting explosives once trained, their energy may decrease over time.
The origins of explosive detection dogs can be traced back to the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in 1970, and they remain an important detection force today.
Application of bees
Compared to traditional detection methods, some recent studies have combined bee training with high technology to develop detection systems that use bees' sense of smell. Research by biotech company Inscentinel shows bees appear to have better detection capabilities than dogs, but the technology is not yet commercially available.
Mechanical detection technology
Mechanized detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) and gas chromatography (GC) are gradually replacing traditional methods. These technologies use electric fields and vacuum conditions to identify the chemical signatures of explosives and are relatively fast to operate, but they also present logistical challenges.
Ion mobility spectrometry has become the most commonly used explosives detection method at U.S. airports, but its need for gas and the extremely fast speed of the instrument present challenges.
Other detection techniques
Technologies such as X-ray detection and fast neutron activation analysis are also gradually gaining attention. These methods identify potential explosives through imaging or chemical reactions, and then analyze the data to identify the material composition.
The role of markers
In order to further improve detection efficiency, many explosives are added with markers during manufacturing. These markers can be easily identified by specialist equipment and are already mandatory under law around the world.
Risks of Fake Testing Equipment
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice has discovered that many so-called explosive detection devices have appeared on the market. In fact, these are often fraudulent products, such as Quadro Tracker and SNIFFEX, and fail to achieve the expected detection effect.
ConclusionThese fake detection devices have caused a lot of economic losses and even posed a major threat to personnel safety.
With the advancement of science and technology, various explosive detection technologies are constantly being innovated. However, whether it is bees, dogs, machines or other detection methods, their respective characteristics and limitations make the issue more complicated. What kind of technology will future explosive detection ultimately rely on to keep us safe?
