On the smell of Composition C-4

In efforts to locate hidden explosives, humans have had few allies as valuable as the explosives-detecting canine. The unrivaled sensitivity and selectivity of the canine nose have combined to make these animals an attractive choice for law enforcement, military, and private security applications. Although the efficacy of trained detector dogs is well-established, the question of which chemical compounds are responsible for causing a dog to recognize a particular odor and alert to it remains a subject of debate for several explosive formulations-including, perhaps most notably, Composition C-4. Previous studies have indicated that cyclohexanone, 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane, and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol are the chemicals that may cause canines to alert to C-4. This has led to the suggestion that these substances could be used as a substitute for genuine C-4 in the training, testing, and maintenance of explosives-detecting canines. In this paper, we present an alternative view. Using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry with solid phase microextraction as a pre-concentration technique, we have discovered that 2-ethyl-1-hexanol off-gasses not only from C-4, but also from benign sources, such as the common plasticizers bis(2-ethylhexyl)adipate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)sebacate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; as well as several plasticized items common to our everyday world, including PVC tile, PVC pipe, electrical tape, and credit cards. This observation may potentially discourage the use of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol for training purposes. We also present the results of our own canine field trials focused on the detection of C-4. Through the use of contingency tables and statistical testing, we demonstrate the failure of trained law enforcement dogs in our study to respond in any significant way to these potential odor compounds.