JFK Scare: Analytical Chemistry at the Airport

Please see below for updates as I receive further information...

As reported by multiple news outlets (CNN, Daily Mail, The Atlantic), a 'suspicious package' leaked an unknown substance* onto two customs inspectors at JFK International Airport Sunday afternoon. When the workers fell ill, the FBI quarantined two facilities - one customs, one mail sorting - and tested the material.

Initial assays indicated potential organophosphate chemical weapons. Later tests, however, confirmed that the substance was actually phosphoric acid, leaking from a faulty cosmetics package. The two inspectors, after receiving on-scene treatment, declined further medical attention.

A few points about this story (emphasis mine):

• Most news agencies reported hesitantly, but not the Daily Mail, which declared: "The package from China tentatively tested positive for VX nerve gas, which can be used as a weapon of mass destruction..." (They even included a strangely-rotated space-filling model of VX in the article!)

I'd be quite interested to know how the FBI field tests for organophosphate nerve agents (Sorry, Daily Mail, but VX, due to its high boiling point and viscosity, is actually not a gas but a thick liquid much like phosphoric acid). I'm aware of certain colorimetric pesticide test strips, and certainly blood chemistry assays for exposed individuals would tell the tale.

But could phosphoric acid give a false positive here? Its chemical properties aren't overall very similar to nerve agent. Unlike VX, phosphoric acid has acidic protons, rendering a much different reactivity and solubility profile. VX soaks deep into skin due to its carbon appendages - hence, organophosphate - which wouldn't really occur with the acid. Perhaps JFK sent a sample out for 31P NMR? This analytical technique would show a resonance close to that of VX, which might incite a high-threat response. Perhaps an LC-MS might also ring warning bells: both compounds should show a fragment around 94 m/z.

• The Atlantic cheerfully summarized: "It turns out what made the two men sick was actually organophosphate, an ingredient in soda pop."

If I ever find organophosphate in my Coke can, I'm suing. That is, if I survive the encounter...

Organophosphates, to which VX, sarin, soman, and several potent insecticides belong, have alkylated (carbon-functionalized) bonds on their oxygen atoms. Once ingested or absorbed, they tend to interfere with acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme involved in neural signaling. The reporter perhaps meant to say "phosphorus compound" or even "acid," but unfortunately chose the wrong word.

One more thing: I completely understand the highly cautious nature of the law enforcement response. Organophosphates can sicken or kill at remarkably low doses, thus their unfortunate appeal as terror weapons. If any of my readers have experience with airport chemical detection, please write in to set me straight on your detection methods of choice.

Update, 8/12/13 - Changed "parent peak" to "fragment"

*Update 2, 8/12/13 - Chemjobber points out, via Twitter, that the NY Post reported ordinary nail polish remover (usually acetone, or ethyl acetate / iPA) as the culprit. Now I'm even more confused as to how this triggered a nerve agent analytical read!

Update 3, 8/12/13 - Commenters on Reddit and JLC (thanks!) remark that airports have at their disposal DART-based benchtop MS, or perhaps Barringer IONTRAP ion mobility spectrometers. Another commenter suggests M8-M9 detection paper. Vibrational spectroscopy (Raman, IR, etc) has been bandied about as well.

Speaking of Surfactants

Looks like Australia got quite the bubble bath!

Tropical Cyclone Oswald, which passed by the eastern coast earlier this week, left in its wake a mass of fluffy, off-white sea foam, which the Atlantic Cities blog commented "[smelled] like the underside of a flatulent elephant seal." The foam, piles of which measured several feet tall, stalled commutes and rendered certain city streets nearly impassable:

Beach scene
YouTube - "Foam Day"

From AP / USA Today

So, what's causing this frothy mess? Two possibilities: either lignans and lipids from offshore algae, or decaying organic matter washed out to sea from land. The surfactant activity of the biomaterials, combined with rapid water agitation by the storm, have whipped up some stinky suds.

A "Novel" Concept

A provocative story by Megan Garber in The Atlantic indicated that, as a society, we expend significant effort on a specific written pursuit - email - that few of us ever get to see in its entirety: "...an audience of one" (you!).

"Eureka! I shall compile all my email
and sell it for $19.95 + tax!"
Source: NBC / Free Library of Philadelphia

One conservative estimate from a personal help app averages annual 'Sent' words at 41,638 - which, assuming 250 words / page, equates roughly to several short novels such as The Old Man and the Sea. Well, I thought, how might that apply to a bench chemist / blogger?

First, I counted up emails sent from all accounts: one work account, one personal, and one pseudonymous. Total messages sent in 2012? 1,904.

Next, I concocted a reasonable estimate of words per email - yes, I counted words in about 20 different emails, and arrived at a figure of ~100 words / personal email*, and ~64 / work email. Total words sent in 2012? 148,784. But wait, there's more! I also wrote several grant proposals last year (~20,000 words), and 230 blog posts (~200 words apiece, or 46,000, not counting drafts or notes here). For the coup de grace, I thought I'd include my scientific notebooks, which (OK, not typed) still take up quite a bit of mental energy. In 2012, ~160 words x 402 pages = 64,320!

Sum the bold numbers, and you get 279,104 words. That's 1,116 pages of my potential "Great American novel," pushed annually into unseen folders.

Now you may say that sounds utterly ridiculous or far-fetched. But does it? Remember, I've only mentioned a few different avenues for the written word - I haven't included text messages, tweets (4,000 last year), paper drafts, handwritten notes taken during seminars and meetings, or simple notes scrawled on Post-Its around the office. Yes, it's likely that Derek, Paul, Adam, CJ, Ash, BRSM, David, Mitch, Carmen, or Vinylogous each writes an equivalent of Lord of the Rings - the whole trilogy - each year in aggregate.

*For the critics: I did take into account that some sent emails read simply "Make it so" or "Be there Friday." Contrast that with multi-paragraph emails I write to Editors, local gov't reps, and family members, and you probably strike a balance. Still doubtful? Just remember that 90% of all statistics are made up 'on the spot' : p

No Superstars? The 'Blog Nerd' Community and 'Science Pride'

Like many in the science blogging community, I try to pay homage to the chemists who've gone before me, especially those who've found their niche and momentum. These include Derek, Ash, CJ, and recently Paul over at ChemBark, who attracts a pretty diverse, passionate, and gregarious comment base.

I took issue recently with the stance of one ChemBark commenter, eugene, who stated: 

"...I sincerely hope [the "superstar mentality"] doesn’t go to any young professors’ heads in the future. Not only will you be vastly overestimating your ‘coolness factor’ with society at large, but you should focus on the science and your job please..."

Familiar scene for the "blog nerds"
Source:  U Chicago blog Science Life

A few lines before this, eugene refers to the "hype...created by the chemistry blog nerd community." (referring, no doubt, to Chemjobber's satirical piece about Dan Nocera's move to Harvard). Let's mull on that epithet: blog nerd community. I think that, by and large, we chem-bloggers enjoy this gig, which is critical because we don't really make our living here - we're all scientists by day, and writers after hours. Our online community encourages, supports, and challenges us. And sure, we're nerds . . .didn't you hear that that's cool nowadays?

But I digress. Back to eugene's comments: "...focus on the science and your job, please." I must know, what's so wrong with wanting recognition for hard work? 

Hey, it's my grad school advisor!

You've all heard the oft-repeated stigma, chemists as introverts, passing up individual glory, monastically devoted to our work until we die at our benches, pipette in hand. There's an ingrained mentality at work here, stating that the discipline is bigger than any one scientist. Chemists write all of their procedures in passive voice, deferring credit, as if the flasks and reagents had jumped up and performed the reactions themselves. I feel like eugene's comments boil down to: "Sit down, shut up, work hard, and hope it all works out."

Derek Lowe recently wrote a telling editorial, in which he explored reasons why most students shy away from work in STEM fields. Quoth the Pipeline:

"...if money and social standing are your motivating factors, you've probably ruled out the sciences for those reasons alone...I definitely did not go into science to become rich.  

There's another factor that doesn't get as much attention as it should: It takes a certain personality type to really get into this stuff. "Yes, it does," I can hear people saying, "and it's the one that we call nerdy." That can help, true, although not all of us in the labs live the stereotype"

Happiest scientist I could find!
(Although her PPE is not quite right...)
Source: 123RF

Yes. Myself, for one: I'm firmly on the ENTJ side of the Myers-Briggs, but the thought of discovering new reactions still gets me to work in the morning. So, I ask you: why can't chemists be proud of their success? Become champions for our cause, rally around research, take credit for our role in society? If judges judge, and singers sing, why can't chemists react?


Chemists: When you go to work today, before you slip on your lab coat and gloves, pause a second to think about all the time and effort you expended to be standing in front of your hood. Enjoy it - you're a superstar.