ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Field Explosives Detectors-Current Status and Development Prospects.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bis-Pyrene-Appended Polyvinyl Chloride: Mechanosynthesis and Nitro-Explosive Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Direct Mass Spectrometric Detection of VX, RVX, and Novichok A-Series Nerve Agents for Screening Contaminated Sites Using Atmospheric Pressure Corona Discharge Ionization.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Lightweight, Compact, and High-Sensitivity Passive Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy-Based Gas Detection System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Label-Free Detection of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Using a Laser-Induced Graphene Based Chemiresistive Sensor.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Acoustic Signatures in Laser-Induced Plasmas for Detection of Explosives in Traces.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This review critically evaluates the performance of approximately 80 commercially available mobile detectors for explosive identification. The majority of devices utilize Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), or Raman Spectroscopy (RS). IMS-based instruments, such as the M-ION (Inward Detection), typically achieve sensitivities at the ppt level, while other IMS implementations demonstrate detection ranges from low ppb to ppm. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) systems, represented by the Griffin™ G510 (Teledyne FLIR Detection), provide detection limits in the ppb range. Transportable Mass Spectrometers (Bay Spec) operate at ppb to ppt levels, whereas Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) devices, such as the Fido X4 (Teledyne FLIR Detection), achieve detection at the nanogram level. Quartz Crystal Microbalance (QCM) sensors, exemplified by the EXPLOSCAN (MS Technologies Inc. 8609 Westwood Center Drive Suite 110, Tysons Corner, VA, USA), typically reach the ppb range. Only four devices employ two orthogonal analytical techniques, enhancing detection reliability and reducing false alarms. Traditional colorimetric tests based on reagent-analyte reactions remain in use, demonstrating the continued relevance of simple yet effective methods. By analyzing the capabilities, limitations, and technological trends of current detection systems, this study underscores the importance of multi-technique approaches to improve accuracy, efficiency, and operational effectiveness in real-world applications. The findings provide guidance for the development and selection of mobile detection technologies for security, defense, and emergency response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.