I, too, was puzzled (and somewhat amused, since the situation was not life-thr eatening) at this hazmat response.

·         The ability of the hazmat team to function on scene depends upon what instrumentation t hey have.  They might have had a “four gas/ PID” instrumen t that measures O2, combustibles organics, and then two more (of C O, H2S, SO2, NO, NO2, Cl2, HCN, NH3, PH3 ).   The device can meas ure concentration of a long of list of combustible organics IF you know wha t the compound is.  These devices do not identify substances, but can measure concentrations of known substances.   Sometimes emergency responders have good information about “what is leaking” based on reliable local information and/or DOT placards and such.

< /p>

Another common device would b e portable IR detection units that can samples gases, liquids, or solids.    While these devices can identify compounds (from spectral match with libraries) I don’t’ think that they can handle mixtu res. 

(Sm all fire departments without a “hazmat team” would not have eit her of the devices described above.  At best, they will have a simple four-gas meter; probably:  O2, combustible gases, CO, and H2S.)

Since the “fume s” from chilis would be a complicated gas mixture neither of the devi ces above would be able to identify the “gas.”    The term “organic” in this news report would have been better replaced by “mixture”, and chemists know that these are hardly interchangeable terms.  I do not know of any portable hazmat instrume nts that could handle mixtures; I assume that a portable GC-MS would be the preferred tool here and I don’t know if that is part of a hazmat con stellation of detection devices. 

In the episode described in the new report, the experienced human nose (preferably with culinary training!) would be t he preferred detection device although hazmat folks and other emergency res ponders are trained NOT to use the nose for good reason:   the (u nknown) substance might be quite toxic or dangerous.    We a re trained to “stay upwind” and at a safe distance until the si tuation is better understood.  Of course, sometimes responders donR 17;t know what the situation is until they are on scene;  the informat ion we get in advance is only as good as the information from whomever call ed 911 and there is no way to assess what quality of that information in ad vance.  “There’s a funny odor in our neighborhood!”  So, sometimes “the nose” inadvertently becomes a detectio n device. 

Dave

Re: fumes caused by heating chilies.  

 “The Hazmat unit was unable to dete ct the cause of the fumes because it was organic…..”

HUH? 

< o:p> 

   I’m a bit at a loss.  I would crack a joke about the chilies being raised without th e use of pesticides, but the statement shows such a lack of understanding t hat it’s almost scary.  I hope it was the reporter that was clue less and not the people entrusted to make knowledgeable decisions about pot entially hazardous situations.

Kay Calhoun