Detection of Hidden Explosives: New Challenges and Progress (1998–2009)
2011
Prior to the tragic events of September 2001, aviation detection technology incorporated
walk-through metal detection systems, cabinet X-ray systems, and limited use of computed tomography (CT) and trace explosive detectors (Connelly et al. 1998). Metal detectors can be set for various thresholds of alarm, but were generally set to interdict concealed
rearms. Cabinet X-rays image the contents of containers and can dierentiate between
organic and inorganic substances, but, depending on the power and energy prole of the
X-ray, cannot penetrate high-atomic-weight substances, such as lead. Cabinet X-rays are
also dependent on operation by a trained security o²cer who can discern an improvised
explosive device (IED) in a eld of clutter in the container. In the late 1990s, there was
limited piloting of automated explosive detection systems (EDSs; rst-generation CT
X-ray systems) for detection of explosive masses concealed in checked luggage as well
as explosive trace detection systems (ETDs; mainly based on detection via ion mobility
spectrometry, or IMS). EDSs have the advantage of automatically detecting explosives by
matching average density and the average atomic number of a threat to a library of explosives without manual intervention. Alarms can be resolved by a visual examination of the
potential threat article by the screener. If additional verication is warranted, the article
can be further analyzed by performing an analysis for trace residues with an ETD. Trace
explosive detection devices work by collecting residues o of surfaces and performing a
chemical analysis.
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
44
References
0
Citations
NaN
KQI