Experts' Opinion on Decontamination and Antidote Strategies: Complementing Contemporary Expert Consensus and Evidence to Optimize Preparedness and Response to CBRN Threats in the Middle East and North Africa

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) incidents present escalating challenges, particularly in geopolitically unstable regions such as the Middle East and North Africa. Despite advances, gaps exist regarding optimal decontamination protocols and agent-specific antidote selection algorithms, exacerbated by variable operational contexts, fragmented services and inconsistent training initiatives. This paper synthesizes recent evidence, building on an artificial intelligence-enhanced Delphi study with 40 international experts, to assess current CBRN response strategies. Findings support immediate dry decontamination within 5–15 min, removing over 80% of contaminants and avoiding ‘wash-in’ effects. Triple-phase protocols achieve > 97% reduction. Medical oversight during decontamination is critical. Antidote readiness must expand beyond organophosphates to include cyanide, biological agents, radiological decorporation, and synthetic opioids. Special populations, such as paediatric, older, and pregnant individuals, as well as those with disabilities, require tailored approaches. Effective CBRN readiness demands integrated, evidence-based strategies that emphasize rapid response, medical integration, and population-specific adaptations within global collaboration frameworks to address evolving threats.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Farhat, H., Tin, D., Shin, H., Al-Ali, S. F., Morchrie, D., Morris, B., & Ciottone, G. (2026). Experts’ Opinion on Decontamination and Antidote Strategies: Complementing Contemporary Expert Consensus and Evidence to Optimize Preparedness and Response to CBRN Threats in the Middle East and North Africa. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.70128

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free