Q50: Quantifying Chemical Biological Threats
Q50: Quantifying Chemical Biological Threats
Q50: Quantifying Chemical Biological Threats
Chemical--
Biological Threats
By Mr. Reid Kirby
Winter 2007 41
models lacked the complexity to make. With a scarcity Posological Theorem
of computers in the 1950s, Calder produced a series of
CB warfare is, in essence, the delivery of a quantity
tables used to estimate biological weapon coverage. The
of agent to a target, subjecting those within the target to
biological warfare community continued to use these
a dosage that results in a casualty-causing dose. There
tables into the 1990s (Gulf War).
is a mathematically transitive relationship among dose,
In the 1990s, William Patrick and Richard Spertzel dosage, and quantity; so doubling the dose corresponds
developed a graph which plotted the toxicity of an agent to doubling the dosage and the quantity. Further, a dose
against the quantity of that agent required to produce an may have multiple dosages, and these dosages may have
effective exposure. This graph (Figure 1), which was multiple quantities, owing to the refinements of added
based on Calder’s tables in BWL Technical Study #3 and conditions.
widely distributed in Defense Against Toxin Weapons,
The relationship between the dose and the percent
illustrates that by knowing the lethal dose, 50 percent
of resultant casualties can be described using a probit
(LD50)—the dose required to kill half the members of a
analysis or an independent-action model. An expected
tested population—of a potential CB agent, it is possible to
casualty rate can be inferred from the dose received or
theoretically determine the quantity of the agent necessary
the dosage of exposure. It is the relationship between
(Q50), under ideal meteorological conditions, to achieve
the dosage and the quantity that requires a method of
a 50 percent casualty rate for an open-air exposure in a
calculation.
100-square-kilometer (km2) area. The following equation
can be derived from the graph: To calculate quantity, the issue of CB weapon
coverage can be simplified by considering a square target
Q50 (kilograms [kg]/km2) = 32,000 · LD50 (milligrams
area oriented squarely to the release of the CB agent along
[mg]/kg)
the upwind side (Figure 2). As a rule, when half the target
At first glance, this appears to be a useful means area is covered with a median dosage, the integrated
of identifying the logistics associated with various CB casualty rate for the entire target area is about equal to
weapons; however, in practice, there are limitations to the casualty rate associated with that particular dosage.
this methodology that prevent its usefulness beyond Therefore, the quantity of agent required to achieve a 50
the illustrative purposes for which it was originally percent casualty rate depends on the amount of agent that
intended.2 must be released on the upwind side to attain a median
dosage halfway through the target.
This method is mathematically derived from the
2,500.0000 reduction of atmospheric diffusion models. The Gaussian
Moderately toxic
model for a point source expands to that for a finite line
250.0000
source, which reduces to that of an infinite line source by
25.0000
extending the source length toward infinity. Assuming
that the source height and sampling height are both at the
2.5000 surface (z = 0), then it follows that—
(μg/kg)
Highly toxic
LD50
0.2500 Du 2
=
0.0250 Λq πδz
Most
toxic Where—
0.0025
D = dosage (mg.min/m3)
u = wind speed (m/min)
8 80 800 80 800 8,000 Λ = conditional adjustment factor
Kilograms 8 Tons
Q50(per 100 km2)
q = quantity released on a line (in mg/meter
[m])
Figure 1. Toxicity (LD50) versus quantity of toxin δ z = atmospheric diffusion parameter
required (Q50) to provide a theorectically effective
open-air exposure under ideal meteorological With some algebra, some adjustments to convert
conditions (after Franz, 1997) quantity per meter of line source to total quantity, and
Winter 2007 43
agent that must be successfully disseminated to achieve
Condition Factor a casualty effect; therefore, it can also be used to judge
the potential threat from a developing CB arsenal. This
None 1.0 approach is internally and externally consistent, and its
application conforms to the added conditions of extending
Wooded 0.8
dose, through dosage, to quantity.
Hilly 0.5 Endnotes:
1
This work was the result of a special study on the military
Indoor 0.5 potential of prions.
2
Patrick and Spertzel were not attempting to create a method for
Rainy 0.4 analysts to calculate Q50; their purpose was merely illustrative.
3
Comparisons with other quantity figures verified the reasonable
Jungle 0.2 accuracy of these methods. However, similar attempts with infective
agents and agents with aerobiological decay rates proved to yield
Figure 4. Effects adjustment factors, Λ4 grossly inaccurate results.
4
These adjustments factors were from University of Pennsylvania,
Project SUMMIT, for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
neutralizing 32 km2 (open) and 10 km2 (urban), though
(1962).
expanding the target size to that which is reasonable 5
For puff diffusion, it is customary to take the next highest stability
for the rate and duration of action indicates that the BZ classes’ plume diffusion deviation as an approximation.
arsenal was actually capable of neutralizing an open area References:
up to 40 km2. K.L. Calder, “Mathematical Models for Dosage and Casualty
Coverage Resulting from Single Point and Line Source Release of
The usefulness of this approach is that it indicates the
Aerosol Near Ground Level,” Biological Warfare Laboratories (BWL)
quantities of CB agents needed under different doctrinal Technical Study #3, Fort Detrick, Maryland, 1957.
assumptions. It applies when determining the amount of David R. Franz, “Defense Against Toxin Weapons,” U.S. Army
Medical Research Institute, Fort Detrick, Maryland, 1997.
FM 3-10, Employment of Chemical Agents, 31 March
Terrain Complex 1966. (FM 3-10 was superseded by FM 3-10-1 in April 1988;
Open Urban FM 3-10-1 was rescinded in July 1993.)
FM 3-10B, Employment of Chemical Agents, Change 1,
2.82
A 1.35(x/20) 0.24(1+0.001x)0.5 30 November 1966. (FM 3-10B was superseded by FM 3-10-2
Pasquill-Gifford Class
Figure 5. Atmospheric diffusion parameters, δz, for open Mr. Kirby is a project manager for Bradford and Galt.
and urban terrain. Pasquill-Gifford stability classes He holds a bachelor’s degree in valuation science from
usually used in analysis are B (lapse), D (neutral), and F Lindenwood College, with a minor in biology and special
(inversion). Here x = 0.5X. (After Milly, 1957, and Hanna, studies in behavioral toxicology and biotechnology.
et. al., 1982.)5