Despite the feeling that we live in a predominantly technological society, and that consequently technology drives society (and of course decision making within societies) many crucial decisions that lead to the adoption of certain technologies, and to our adaptation to certain technologies, are not based purely on technology, but much more on internal politics, social and psychological variables. This is very much the case with respect to interoperable communications, a seemingly technological exercise, that actually tries to bring together sometimes wildly differing organizational, even national cultures. An examination of the global interoperability landscape shows that many decisions leading to the evolution of this area have little to do with pure technology and economy, but much to do with local, social, political and in many cases psychological processes.

It turns out that communications interoperability is primarily a cultural phenomenon, and only secondarily a technological one. The lack of “intuitive” interoperability If that is the case, it stands to reason that in the quest for good communications interoperability we will pay attention to cultural, psychological, sociological and political aspects no less, and maybe even more than the attention given to the specific technologies that offer themselves as “solutions”.

Not surprisingly, it is possible to show that psychology and economic considerations, drive many choices of technological solutions, without allowing proportional reflection on specific technologies’ functional and/or economic superiority. Rather, these decisions reflect balance-of-power realities at the time the choices were made (e.g., a dominant professional group within a region dictates a pattern of technological adoption that reflects its own perception and experience, rather than an overall consideration of the needs of the greater whole; or a large corporation developing a technology, and leveraging it into the marketplace in a way that does not necessarily reflects its functional, cultural and/or economic superiority).

In fact, communications interoperability has much to do with traditional negotiations and dispute resolution, as it has to do with technology. The success or failures in this area, worldwide, reflect the ability of various groups to negotiate cross-functional, cross-organizational, and even cross-cultural cooperation and collaboration agreements in a way that highlights the common (and in most cases, compromised) interest, as opposed to the individual (or in this case, the uni-organizational) perspective.

What can be done to increase the chances that evolving interoperable communications reflect more the needs of the whole and less the power of the few?

1) Involve non-partisan expertise in the evolution and determination of standards.

2) Bring negotiations and dispute resolution “mediators” into the discussions between functional organizations (e.g., different first responders), in an attempt to help better identify common needs, interests and threads).

3) Integrate organizational culture experts into the earliest stages of an interoperability experiment, in an attempt to identify and if possible deal with potentially show-stopping organizational differences.

4) Try to analyze, recognize and integrate an understanding of the limits and limitations of technologies, to avoid attempts to “force” a technological solution on a human infrastructure that is unable or unwilling to adopt it and/or adapt to it.

Since we are talking about investments of billions of dollars, years of efforts and ultimately the ability to bring all this to bear in the service of saving lives, it makes sense to pay attention to the non-technological aspects of communications interoperability. Doing so may increase the chance of our getting it right the first time, and that is something that I am sure we can all agree on.

Homeland security missions spread across many technologies, and the companies targeting the fast growing HLS market understand the urgent need to develop and follow Homeland Security standards at the earliest stages of product development. The issues of standards are complex, and the consequences of choices made are significant. Navigating through a maze of standards in a relatively young Homeland Security Industry can be a daunting task that may affect a product’s success or failure.

To help dissaminate and clarify Homeland Security-related standards HSRC has published Homeland Security Equipment & Software Standards Review.

The Homeland Security Equipment & Software Standards Review assigns standards according to Homeland Security’s mission areas and provides fast and easy access to over 1,400 standards reviews.

With a 140% communications interoperability proposed budget increase, Louisiana is spearheading the implementation of sweeping interoperability communications reforms forecasted to spread across the U.S. From this new budget of $34 million, 61% will be spent on connectivity in north Louisiana, 11% on portable radios for local and state responders, 25% on system maintenance and the rest for new interoperability staff positions. The tragic consequences of Hurricane Katrina made all too evident the drastic need for communications interoperability reform.

The tragic consequences of Hurricane Katrina made all too evident the drastic need for communications interoperability reform. Louisiana, the most battered from Katrina is now one of the first to take the problem head-on and spend the necessary funding. With many states expected to follow Louisiana ’s lead over the next decade, multiple business opportunities will emerge in this fast growing market segment.

$72.3B is the overall 2008-2012 cumulative Homeland Security interoperable communications market in the U.S. and Europe, including systems, maintenance and upgrades, National Guard and cellular user fees (in the U.S.) With a combined U.S. and Europe CAGR of 18.6% from 2008-2012, this market promises to quickly become one of the fastest growing sectors in homeland security. This unprecedented growth stems from a combination of simultaneously maturing technologies, a growing understanding of needs and advantages, a growing sense of urgency and a willingness by governments and private industry to allocate the necessary funding.

According to Homeland Security Research Corporation’s latest research report U.S. & Europe HLS Communications Interoperability Markets & Technologies Forecast - 2008 – 2012 with a combined U.S. and Europe CAGR of 18.6% from 2008-2012, this market promises to quickly become one of the fastest growing sectors in homeland security. This unprecedented growth stems from a combination of simultaneously maturing technologies, a growing understanding of needs and advantages, a growing sense of urgency and a willingness by governments and private industry to allocate the necessary funding.

With an estimated CAGR of more than 20%, Eastern Europe contains the continent’s most potentially vibrant and fastest growing communications interoperability market. According to a recent research report by Homeland Security Research Corp. (HSRC) , U.S. & Europe HLS Communications Interoperability Markets & Technologies Forecast - 2008 - 2012 , Eastern Europe is only just starting to work seriously at this problem; strategies are not yet firm, and budgets are just making their way through administrations and professional committees. This environment provides for a large and wide open market. In particular, four countries in the region present the highest potential for a multi-billion dollar investment in “advanced” interoperability technologies.

European Interoperable Communications - Service & Upgrade Market Forecast by [$B] - 2008-2012

There is little doubt that if the FCC gets its way and a National Broadband Network is created in the U.S. at a cost of $10 to $30B, a massive market for HLS Interoperability Communications equipment and services will emerge. However, according to (HSRC)’s latest research U.S. & Europe HLS Communications Interoperability Markets & Technologies Forecast - 2008 – 2012, even if such a network is not created, a large and fast growing HLS Communications Interoperability market will still develop quickly (U.S. CAGR 22%) as a result of the acceleration of upgrades of state and local public safety agencies and organizations.

The Complex HLS Communications Interoperability Market

Publication: 12/2007, Pages: 165 Figures: 35, Tables: 39, Price: $4,950.00

If you want to make a purchase by email or fax, click here to download our purchase form. Reports are delivered in PDF format within 24 hours.

This report analyzes the evolution of interoperable communications markets and technologies in the Homeland Security and Public Safety sectors.

$73B is the overall 2008-2012 cumulative interoperable communications market in the U.S. and EU, including systems, maintenance and upgrades, National Guard and cellular user fees (in the U.S.) With a combined U.S. and EU CAGR of 18.6% from 2008-2012, this market promises to become one of the fastest growing sectors in homeland security.

This growth reflects a combination of simultaneously maturing technologies, growing understanding of needs and advantages, a growing sense of urgency and a willingness by governments and private industry to allocate the funding.

Among other subjects, the new research report covers the following:

1. 2008-2012 EU & US Services and Upgrades Market forecasts - (2008-2012 aggregate market exceeding $28B)
2. 2008-2012 EU & US Systems Market Forecasts – (2008-2012 aggregate market exceeding $43B)
3. Business Opportunities - The report outlines 15 distinct business opportunities, attractive to new as well as established players.
4. Analysis and Forecast of Current and Evolving Technologies – With several new technologies maturing simultaneously, the report provides a roadmap to the transition from existing to upcoming solutions - what will drive them and how, and what might inhibit the transition.

Table of Content

1. Administration
1.1. Scope of This Report
1.2. Methodology
1.3. Basic Scenario Assumptions

2. Executive Summary
2.1. The Interoperability Challenge
2.2. Advantages of Interoperable Communications
2.3. Main Conclusions
2.4. Additional Findings
2.5. Additional Conclusions
2.6. U.S. and Europe – Consolidated 2007 Market
2.7. U.S. and Europe – Consolidated Market Forecast – 2008–2012
2.8. U.S. and Europe – System Sales Market Forecast – 2008–2012
2.9. U.S. and Europe – Service and Upgrade Market Forecast – 2008–2012

3. U.S. – 2007 Systems Market

4. Europe – 2007 Systems Market

5. U.S. Systems Market Forecast – 2008–2012

6. European Systems Market Forecast – 2008–2012

7. Service and Upgrade Market Forecast – 2008–2012
7.1. U.S. Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast – 2008–2012
7.2. European Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast – 2008–2012

8. Drivers
9. Inhibitors
10. Business Opportunities
10.1.
10.2.
…
15 unique business opportunities that will shape the HLS
Communications Interoperability industry over next 5 years
…
10.15.

11. The Future of HLS / First Responders Interoperable Communications
11.1. Cellular Interoperable First Responder Networks
11.2. Fourth Generation (4G) Interoperable Wireless Networks
11.3. IP-Based Solutions for First Responders’ Interoperable Networks
11.4. Mobile Mesh Networks
11.5. Ultra Wide Band (UWB)
11.6. Satellite for Emergency Communications

12. U.S. – Interoperability Sector – Funding, Public & Private Industry Programs and Pending Legislation
12.1. The Numbers
12.2. Funding
12.2.1. U.S. Interoperability Grants and Funding Resources
12.3. U.S. Federal Funding
12.3.1.
12.3.2.
12.3.3.
12.3.4.
12.3.5.
12.4. State-Based Interoperability Funding In The U.S.
12.4.1. How much does it cost? Examples of Interoperability Projects
12.5. Private Industry Initiatives
12.5.1. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
12.5.2. Cyren Call – The Public Safety Broadband Trust
12.5.3. The First Response Coalition (FRC)
12.5.4. Frontline Wireless
12.6. Relevant Legislation – Existing and Pending
12.6.1.
12.6.2.
…
…
…
12.6.15.
12.7. State-Federal Interoperability Problems
12.8. Consideration of a U.S.–Wide Interoperable Communications System

13. Europe – Interoperability Industry – Programs, Technology & Market Evolution
13.1. Europe – General Layout
13.2. The European Interoperable Communications Landscape
13.3. Differences Between Wireless Broadband Applications for Public Safety and
Public Works in Europe and the U.S.
13.4. Barriers to Municipal Wireless Broadband Deployments in Europe
13.5. Funding
13.6. Challenges for European Interoperability
13.7. Technology Choice in Europe
13.8. Broadband Challenges in Europe
13.8.1. The Basic Premise
13.8.2. Current Global Status
13.8.3. Challenges for Europe
13.9. Frequency and Standards in Europe
13.9.1. The Narrowband to Broadband Trend
13.10. Availability of Wideband PMR Spectrum
13.11. IP-Based Public Safety Communication
13.12. Pan- European Satellite Telecom Adaptor
13.13. TETRA
13.13.1. TETRA International Presence
13.13.2. The Story of Airwave Contract
13.13.3. Alleged Airwave Problems
13.13.4. TETRA 2 – The Future of TETRA
13.14. TETRAPOL
13.14.1. TETRAPOL International Presence
13.15. TETRA vs. TETRAPOL
13.16. The NARTUS Project (EU Harmonization in Public Safety Communication
and Information Systems)
13.17. Future European Potential Activity/Markets
13.18. Project MESA – Broadband Mobility for Emergency and Safety Applications
13.19. U-2010 – European Cooperation Initiative

14. Vendors/Products
14.1. Project 25 – Vendors
14.2. TETRA System – Vendors
14.3. SDR (Software Defined Radio) System Vendors
14.4. Mesh Networks System Vendors
14.5. IP and SW Vendors for Public Radio Interoperability
14.6. Additional Vendors

15. Making Interoperability Cost-Effective
15.1. Handset Market (U.S. and Europe)

16. Standards
16.1. U.S. Project 25
16.1.1. P25 – History
16.1.2. P25 – Vision and Practice
16.1.3. P25 – Standards Status
16.2. Relevant Standards
16.3. Europe – ETSI

17. Interoperability – Catalysts, Problems and Solutions
17.1. The Impetus for Interoperable Communications
17.2. Who is Guiding Interoperable Communications?
17.3. Types of Interoperability
17.4. Interoperability Levels
17.4.1. Level One – Swap Radios
17.4.2. Level Two – Talkaround or “Directed Net”
17.4.3. Level Three – Mutual Aid
17.4.4. Level Four – Gateway (Console Patch)
17.4.5. Level Five – System-Specific-Roaming (Trunked & Conventional)
17.4.6. Level Six – Standards Based Shared Systems (Trunked &
Conventional)
17.5. Why is Interoperability Important?
17.6. Interoperability Problems
17.6.1. 800 MHz Misconceptions
17.6.2. Limitations of 800 MHz Systems at Large Scenes
17.7. Trunked vs. Untrunked Networks
17.8. The Difference Between Mobile Cellular and Professional Mobile Radio
(PMR)
17.9. Potential Interoperability Solutions
17.10. Interoperability – Available Spectrum
17.10.1. Status in U.S./Asia
17.10.2. Status in Europe
17.11. U.S. Public Safety Spectrum Band

18. Glossary

List of Figures

2. Executive Summary

Figure 1 - Topology of Interoperable Communications Network
Figure 2 - Consolidated U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications – 2007 Market
Share by [%]
Figure 3 - U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications Consolidated Market Forecast
by [$B] – 2008–2012
Figure 4 - U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications System Sales Market Forecast
by Market Segment by [$B] – 2008–2012
Figure 5 - U.S. and Europe - Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Forecast
by [$M] – 2008–2012
Figure 6 - U.S. and Europe – Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade
Forecast – 2008, 2010 & 2012

3. U.S. – 2007 Systems Market
Figure 7 - U.S. Interoperable Communications – Market Share by Segments by [%] – 2007

4. Europe – 2007 Systems Market
Figure 8 - Europe Interoperable Communications – Market Share by Segments by [%] –
2007
Figure 9 - TETRA and TETRAPOL – European Public Safety Network Deployment – 2007
5. U.S. Systems Market Forecast – 2008–2012
Figure 10 - U.S. Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment [$B] – 2008–2012
Figure 11 - U.S. Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment [%] – 2008, 2010 & 2012
6. European Systems Market Forecast – 2008–2012
Figure 12 - European Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment [$B] – 2008–2012
Figure 13 - European Systems Market Forecast by Market Segment [$B] – 2008, 2010 &
2012

7. Service and Upgrade Market Forecast – 2008–2012
Figure 14 - U.S. Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast by
[$B] – 2008–2012
Figure 15 - U.S. Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast
Share – 2008, 2010 & 2012
Figure 16 - European Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market
Forecast by [$B] – 2008–2012
Figure 17 - European Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market
Forecast Share – 2008, 2010 & 2012

9. Inhibitors
Figure 18 - Obstacles to Interoperable Communications

11. The Future of HLS / First Responders Interoperable Communications
Figure 19 - IP-Based Concentric Network Architecture Model
Figure 20 - Comparison of narrowband (NB), spread spectrum (SS), and ultra-wideband
(UWB) signal concepts

12. U.S. – Interoperability Sector – Funding, Public & Private Industry Programs
and Pending Legislation
Figure 21 - SAFECOM Structure
Figure 22 - Interoperability Continuum
Figure 23 - SAFECOM – Interoperability Baseline Project Phases

13. Europe – Interoperability Industry – Programs, Technology & Market
Evolution
Figure 24 - European Union – 2007
Figure 25 - TETRA Worldwide Contracts – 2007
Figure 26 - TETRA Worldwide Deployment Chart
Figure 27 - Public Safety Part of TETRA’s Worldwide Deployment
Figure 28 - TETRA’s European Public Safety Network – 2007

16. Standards
Figure 29 - Project 25 Interfaces

17. Interoperability – Catalysts, Problems and Solutions
Figure 30 - Interoperability Model – Interactions Between Technical and Organizational
Components
Figure 31 - Interfaces Needed to Access Emergency Services
Figure 32 - Gateway/Console Patch Interoperable Network
Figure 33 - System – Specific Roaming
Figure 34 - Standard Based Shared Systems
Figure 35 - U.S. Public Safety Spectrum Bands

List of Tables
2. Executive Summary

Table 1 - Communication Systems in a Typical Metropolitan City
Table 2 - Consolidated U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications – 2007 Market by
[$M]
Table 3 - U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications Consolidated Market Forecast
by [$B] – 2008–2012
Table 4 - U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications Consolidated Market Forecast
Share by [%] – 2008–2012
Table 5 - U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications System Sales Market Forecast
by Market Segment by [$B] – 2008–2012
Table 6 - U.S. and Europe Interoperable Communications System Sales Market Forecast
Share by Market Segment by [%] – 2008–2012
Table 7 - U.S. and Europe - Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market
Forecast by [$B] – 2008–2012
Table 8 - U.S. and Europe - Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market
Forecast Share by [%] – 2008–2012

3. U.S. – 2007 Systems Market
Table 9 - U.S. Interoperable Communications – System Sales Market Share by Segments
by [$M] – 2007

4. Europe – 2007 Systems Market
Table 10 - Europe Interoperable Communications – Market Share by Segments by [$M] –
2007

5. U.S. Systems Market Forecast – 2008–2012
Table 11 - U.S. Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment [$B] – 2008–2012
Table 12 - U.S. Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment by [%] – 2008–2012

6. European Systems Market Forecast – 2008–2012
Table 13 - European Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment by [$B] – 2008–2012
Table 14 - European Interoperable Communications Systems Market Forecast by Market
Segment by [%] – 2008–2012

7. Service and Upgrade Market Forecast – 2008–2012
Table 15 - U.S. Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast by
[$B] – 2008–2012
Table 16 - U.S. Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast by
[%] – 2008–2012
Table 17 - European Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast
by [$B] – 2008–2012
Table 18 - European Interoperable Communications – Service & Upgrade Market Forecast
by [%] – 2008–2012
Table 19 - Challenges with Available/Incoming Radio Spectrum

11. The Future of HLS / First Responders Interoperable Communications
Table 20 - “Traditional” Safety Network Comparison to Cellular Networks - Network and
Handset Features

12. U.S. – Interoperability Sector – Funding, Public & Private Industry Programs
and Pending Legislation
Table 21 - First Responders Figures in the U.S.
Table 22 - U.S. Non-First Responders Communications Interoperability Users
Table 23 - PSIC State/Territory Allocation

13. Europe – Interoperability Industry – Programs, Technology & Market
Evolution
Table 24 - First Responders Figures in Europe
Table 25 - TETRAPOL Public Safety and Emergency Services Networks Worldwide
Table 26 - Project 25 System Vendors & Products
Table 27 - TETRA System – Vendors & Products
Table 28 - SDR (Software Defined Radio) System Vendors & Products

14. Vendors/Products
Table 29 - Mesh Networks System Vendors & Products
Table 30 - IP and SW Vendors & Products for Public Radio Interoperability

16. Standards
Table 31 - Status of Project 25 Interfaces

17. Interoperability – Catalysts, Problems and Solutions
Table 32 - Interoperability Levels, Level One – Swap Radios. Advantages &
Disadvantages
Table 33 - Interoperability Levels, Level Two – Talkaround or “Directed Net”. Advantages
& Disadvantages
Table 34 - Interoperability Levels, Level Three – Mutual Aid. Advantages & Disadvantages
Table 35 - Interoperability Levels, Level Four – Gateway (Console Patch). Advantages &
Disadvantages
Table 36 - Interoperability Levels, Level Five – System-Specific-Roaming (Trunked &
Conventional). Advantages & Disadvantages
Table 37 - Interoperability Levels, Level Six – Standards Based Shared Systems (Trunked
& Conventional). Advantages & Disadvantages
Table 38 - U.S. Interoperability Communications – Bandwidths, Spectrums and
Technologies
Table 39 - Europe - Interoperability Communications – Bandwidths, Spectrums and
Technologies

Sphere: Related Content

]]> http://www.homelandsecurityresearch.net/2007/12/15/us-eu-hls-communications-interoperability-markets-technology-forecast-2008-2012/feed/ http://www.homelandsecurityresearch.net/2006/07/15/cbrn-decontamination-industry-outlook-2007-2012/ http://www.homelandsecurityresearch.net/2006/07/15/cbrn-decontamination-industry-outlook-2007-2012/#comments Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:03:22 +0000 admin http://www.homelandsecurityresearch.net/2006/07/15/cbrn-decontamination-industry-outlook-2007-2012/

Publication: 07/2006, Pages: 140 , Figures: 47, Tables: 9 Price: $3,950.00

If you want to make a purchase by email or fax, click here to download our purchase form. Reports are delivered in PDF format within 24 hours.

Contact: Doron Pely Tel: 1-877-778-6413 Fax: (413) 604-2527 Email: dpely@hsrc.biz

This report describes existing and upcoming technologies, markets, business and funding opportunities related to producing, using, and/or stockpiling Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and Radiological (CBRN) decontamination equipment and material for the purpose of decontaminating people, as well as indoor and outdoor environments.

CBRN Decontamination - Industry Outlook - 2007-2012 Publication: 07/2006, Pages: 140 , Figures: 47, Tables: 9 Price: $3,950.00

The research answers, among others, the following questions:

• What are the main drivers and inhibitors relevant to existing decontamination technologies and markets?
• What are the business opportunities that arise from the distance between existing technologies and products and the technologies and products required to provide needed protection?
• Who, in government, is involved with decontamination R&D, and what is the funding opportunities horizon through the end of the decade and the start of the next decade?

The systems reviewed in this report include the following modalities:

• Personnel decontamination systems
• Equipment decontamination systems
• Infrastructure and Building decontamination systems
• Environmental decontamination systems

Table of Contents

1. Scope
1.1. Definition of Decontamination
1.2. Scope of this Report
1.3. Basic Assumptions
1.3.1. General
1.3.2. Why is Stockpiling Decontamination Solutions Needed?
1.3.3. Possible Scenario Analysis
1.4. Methodology
1.4.1. Research Methods
1.4.2. Report Structure
1.5. Who is this Report for?

2. Executive Summary
2.1. Main Conclusions
2.2. The Threat of CBRN Terrorism
2.3. How Real is the Threat?
2.4. Decontaminating After a CBRN Event
2.5. Decontamination – the Industry
2.6. Decontamination Market Forecast – 2007–2012
2.7. Challenges for Next Generation Decontamination Technologies

3. Decontamination – Industry Drivers

4. Decontamination – Industry Inhibitors

5. The Threat of CBRN Warfare
5.1. The Threat of Biological Terror
5.1.1. Use of Bio-Weapons – Historical Perspective
5.1.2. Biological Terror – Bacterial Agents
5.1.3. Biological Terror – Viral Agents
5.1.4. Biological Terror – Rickettsiae Agents
5.1.5. Biological Terror – Toxins
5.2. The Threat of Nuclear Radiological Terror
5.2.1. How Real is the Nuclear Threat?
5.2.2. Nuclear Terror
5.2.3. A Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD)
5.3. The Threat of Chemical Terror
5.3.1. Nerve Agents
5.3.2. Blister Agents

6. Decontamination – Technological and System Requirements
6.1. Defining the Problem
6.2. Stages of a Decontamination Process
6.2.1. Contaminant Identification
6.2.2. Sample Characterization
6.2.3. Isolation of Contaminated Area
6.2.4. Design of Decontamination Strategy
6.2.5. Decontamination
6.2.6. Clearance Sampling
6.3. Performance Limitations
6.3.1. Limit 1 – Time
6.3.2. Limit 2 – How Clean is Clean
6.3.3. Limit 3 – Lack of Accurate Contamination Simulations
Scenarios
6.3.4. Limit 4 – Cost
6.3.5. Limit 5 – Environmentally Unfriendly Materials
6.3.6. Limit 6 – Transport and Storage Limitations
6.3.7. Limit 7 – Inability to Handle Radioactive Contamination
6.4. Decontamination Core Technologies Overview
6.5. Physics-Based Decontamination Core Technologies
6.5.1. Sorbents
6.5.2. Solvent-Wash
6.5.3. High-Pressure Methods
6.5.4. Thermal Methods
6.6. Chemistry-based Decontamination Core Technologies
6.6.1. Oxidizing Agents
6.6.2. Strong Bases
6.6.3. Surfactants
6.6.4. Microemulsions
6.7. Biology-Based Core Technologies
6.7.1. Bacterial Decontamination Agents
6.7.2. Enzymatic Systems
6.8. Decontamination System Configurations
6.8.1. Application 1 – People Decontamination Systems
6.8.2. Application 2 – Equipment Decontamination Systems
6.8.3. Application 3 – Building and Infrastructure Decontamination
Systems
6.9. New Technologies Drivers
6.10. New Technologies Inhibitors

7. Business Opportunities – 2007–2012
7.1. Historical Perspective: A Market Waiting for Transition
7.1.1. The Current and Future HLS Decontamination Strategy
7.1.2. Factors Affecting Decontamination Systems Business
Opportunities and Technologies – 2007–2012
7.2. Business Opportunities for Decontamination Systems
7.2.1. Business Opportunity 1 – New Technologies to Counter
Radiological Contamination
7.2.2. Business Opportunity 2 – Non-Toxic/Environmentally
Friendly Biological-Agents Decontamination Technology
7.2.3. Business Opportunity 3 – Improving Contamination
Simulation Capability
7.2.4. Business Opportunity 4 – Improving Biological Sampling
Accuracy
7.2.5. Business Opportunity 5 – Decontamination Standards
7.2.6. Business Opportunity 6 – Reducing Decontamination Time
7.2.7. Business Opportunity 7 – Reducing Cost of Reagents /
Decontamination Material
7.3. Radiological Decontamination Technologies
7.3.1. Business Opportunity 8 – Concrete-Eating Bacteria
7.3.2. Business Opportunity 9 – Decontamination Foams
7.3.3. Business Opportunity 10 – Nano-Particle Super-Absorbent
Gels
7.3.4. Business Opportunity 11 – Strippable coatings
7.3.5. Business Opportunity 12 – Electro-Kinetic Concrete
Cleaning
7.4. Chemical-Biological Decontamination Technologies and Business
Opportunities
7.4.1. Business Opportunity 13 – Forced Hot Air Systems
7.4.2. Business Opportunity 14 – Modified Vaporous Hydrogen
Peroxide
7.4.3. Business Opportunity 15 – Decon Green
7.4.4. Business Opportunity 16 – Resistant/Reactive Coatings
7.4.5. Business Opportunity 17 – Enzyme Decontamination
7.4.6. Business Opportunity 18 – Ionic-Liquid-based
Decontamination
7.4.7. Business Opportunity 19 – Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
Decontamination
7.4.8. Business Opportunity 20 – Electrostatic Decontamination
System
7.4.9. Business Opportunity 21 – Atmospheric Plasma
Decontamination
7.5. Contamination Simulation Algorithms
7.5.1. Business Opportunity 22 – Vulnerability of Building to
CBRN Attack Algorithms

8. Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Programs
and Funding Opportunities Forecast – 2007–2012
8.1. Summary & Outlook
8.2. Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding Opportunities
by Major Departments Forecast – 2007–2012
8.2.1. EPA – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast –
2007–2012
8.2.2. DOD – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast –
2007–2012
8.2.3. DHS – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast –
2007–2012
8.2.4. DOE – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast –
2007–2012
8.2.5. TSWG – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast –
2007–2012
8.3. Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding Opportunities
Forecast – 2007–2012
8.4. Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS Pharmaceuticals R&D
Funding Opportunities Drivers – 2007–2012
8.5. Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding Opportunities
Inhibitors – 2007–2012
8.6. DHS – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.6.1. Response and Recovery
8.6.2. Decontamination of Porous Surfaces After a Radiological
Attack
8.6.3. Expedient Mitigation of a Radiological Release
8.7. DARPA (DOD) – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.7.1. Immune Buildings
8.7.2. External Protection
8.8. CBDP (DOD) – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.8.1. Project CB1 – Decontamination
8.8.2. Project CB2 – Decontamination
8.8.3. Project CB3 Biological Defense (ATD) – Decontamination
8.8.4. Project DE4 Decontamination Systems (ACD&P)
8.8.5. Project DE5 Decontamination Systems (SDD)
8.9. ARMY (DOD) – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.9.1. Environmental Quality Technology
8.10. DOE – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.10.1. Environmental Remediation Science Research
8.11. EPA – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.11.1. Water Infrastructure Decontamination
8.11.2. Threat and Consequence Assessment
8.11.3. Nonstandard Methods
8.11.4. Decontamination for Buildings, Large Structures, and
Outdoor Areas
8.11.5. Toxicity, Infectivity, and Mechanism of Action
8.12. TSWG – Decontamination HLS R&D Programs
8.12.1. Statistical Design Tool for Sampling Contaminated
Buildings
8.12.2. Decontamination

9. Vendors
9.1. Vendors and Products

10. Patent Review
10.1. Scope
10.2. Decontamination Technology Patents

11. Decontamination – Legal Issues
11.1. International / European Legislation/Agreements
11.1.1. The Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) – 1970
11.1.2. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
(BTWC) – 1972
11.1.3. Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material –
1987
11.1.4. Chemicals Weapons Convention – 1992
11.2. U.S. Legislation
11.2.1. U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 40 – Defense Against
Weapons of Mass Destruction
11.2.2. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) – 1996
11.2.3. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery
from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States –2001
11.2.4. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act – 2002

List of Figures

1. Scope
Figure 1 - Modalities of Decontamination Systems
Figure 2 - Closed area (e.g. building) decontamination boundaries
Figure 3 - Open area decontamination boundaries
Figure 4 - Categories of the Biothreat Divides
Figure 5 - The Spraying of Anthrax from Aum Shinrikyo’s
Headquarters June 1993
Figure 6 - Anthrax Spores and disease
Figure 7 - Cholera Bacteria
Figure 8 - Pneumonic plague – the disease
Figure 9 - Tularemia the disease
Figure 10 - Smallpox Virus and Disease
Figure 11 - Ebola virus – Electron Microscopy Image
Figure 12 - VEE – Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus in The
Olfactory Mucosa of a Mouse
Figure 13 - Q Fever
Figure 14 - Typhus Microbe – Electron Microscopy Image
Figure 15 - Castor Plant and Structure for the Ricin Toxin
Figure 16 - The Dinoflagellate Alexandrium Tamarense and
Structure of Saxitoxin
Figure 17 - Reported Interceptions of Nuclear/Radiological Materials
– 1993–2000
Figure 18 - A Simulation of the Impact of the Explosion of a 500
Curie Co60 Dirty Bomb in Downtown Manhattan
Figure 19 - Categories of the Chemical Divides
Figure 20 - Comparison in Weight of Pathogens Between BW Agents
and CW Agents [mg]
Figure 21 - Closed area (e.g. building) Decontamination Boundaries
Figure 22 - Open Area Decontamination Boundaries
Figure 23 - Decontamination Corridor
Figure 24 - Basic Decontamination Process
Figure 25 - A Detailed Decontamination Process
Figure 26 - Decontamination Core Technologies Overview
Figure 27 - Skin Decontaminate Lotion, Anachemia Canada, Inc.
Figure 28 - Decontamination Kit, Personal No. 2, Mark 1, Richmond
Packaging (U.K.) Ltd.
Figure 29 - Portaflex Decontamination Shower System, High Safety
Showers USA
Figure 30 - K4-05 High Purity, Applied Surface Technologies, USE
Figure 31 - Decocontain 3000, Karcher, Germany
Figure 32 - Factors Affecting Decontamination Business Opportunities
and Technologies – 2007–2012
Figure 33 - Schematic of the ISOTRON system
Figure 34 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding
Forecast by Major Departments [$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 35 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding
Forecast by Major Departments Share [%] – 2005, 2008 & 2012
Figure 36 - EPA – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast
[$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 37 - DOD – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast
[$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 38 - DHS – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast
[$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 39 - DOE – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast
[$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 40 - TSWG – Decontamination HLS R&D Budget Forecast
[$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 41 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding
Opportunities Forecast by Sector [$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 42 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding
Opportunities Forecast Share by Sector [%] – 2005, 2008 & 2012
Figure 43 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Private Sector
Funding Opportunities Forecast [$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 44 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Academia Sector
Funding Opportunities Forecast [$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 45 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Government
Sector Funding Opportunities Forecast [$M] – 2007–2012
Figure 46 - Project DE4 Decontamination Systems (ACD&P) –
Program Funding [$M] – 2004 – 2011
Figure 47 - Project DE5 Decontamination Systems (SDD) –
Program Funding [$M] – 2004 – 2011

List of Tables

Table 1 - Physical and Chemical Properties of Common Nerve Agents
Table 2 - Physical and Chemical Properties of Common Blister Agents
Table 3 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding Forecast
by Major Departments [$M] – 2007–2012
Table 4 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding Forecast
by Major Departments [%] – 2007–2012
Table 5 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding
Opportunities Forecast by Sector [$M] – 2007–2012
Table 6 - Decontamination – U. S. Federal HLS R&D Funding
Opportunities Forecast Share by Sector [%] – 2007–2012
Table 7 - U.S. Vendors
Table 8 - Canadian Vendors
Table 9 - EU Vendors

Sphere: Related Content

]]> http://www.homelandsecurityresearch.net/2006/07/15/cbrn-decontamination-industry-outlook-2007-2012/feed/