English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of expedient protection strategies to reduce exposure to vapors from chemical warfare agents. This includes an examination of the physical and the psychological effectiveness of measures such as using a wet towel to seal a door jam against the infiltration of chemicals while sheltering in place or to provide expedient respiratory protection. Respiratory protection for civilians has never been considered a viable option for population protection in the CSEPP. Problems of storage, ability to effectively don respirators, and questionable fit have been primary factors in rejecting this option. Expedient respiratory protection seems to offer little benefits for population protection for chemical agent vapors. Furthermore, using wet towels as a vapor barrier at the bottom of a door should be discouraged. The wetted towel provides no vapor filtration and its effectiveness in infiltration reduction is unknown. Taping the bottom of the door will still likely provide greater infiltration reduction and is recommended as the current method for use in sheltering

Expedient Respiratory and Physical Protection: Does a Wet Towel Work to Prevent Chemical Warfare Agent Vapor Infiltration?