4.5 Article

Screening and prioritizing the precursors of improvised explosive devices from commodity chemicals being controlled under Korean regulations

Journal

JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 1679-1684

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.10.017

Keywords

Improvised explosive device; Screening precursors; Prioritizing precursors

Funding

  1. National Institute of Environmental Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have become an alternative method for terrorists or criminals who face difficulties in obtaining traditional explosives as threatening tools. The ease of obtaining precursor materials from commodity chemicals in the free market and the ease of generating bombs through the hands of novices have created problems. Controlling the potential precursors to defeat illegal acquisition is not trivial due to their widespread use as common merchandise among chemical industries and consumers. However, efforts to identify the potential precursors may be the first step for devising appropriate control measures. In this study, we proposed a systematic screening method for identifying potential IED precursors (IEDPs) from commodity chemicals, which are regulated by Korean controls. We identified 25 potential IEDPs from 3980 candidate chemicals that can be diverted into IEDs or homemade bombs but are not likely to be solely used as an IED. We also developed a methodology of prioritizing the potential precursor chemicals to assess the urgency of controls using a scoring system with four criteria: previous listing as an official precursor; past record of being encountered in criminal use; volume of commercial circulation, which denotes the probability of exposure to individuals; and the degree of regulatory counter-measures against illegal acquisitions that are currently effective in Korea. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available