CodeBe in the Field: What Operational Performance Data Shows About Real Time Beryllium Screening

Identifying beryllium contamination is challenging, time consuming and expensive.

It also requires people to make risk based decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions. Is an area safe to enter? Has decontamination worked? Can equipment return to service (this is a particularly big one. Far too often expensive CapEx items are disposed of due to the cost of decontamination)? Is laboratory testing required? Has contamination migrated onto tools, PPE, work surfaces or adjacent operational areas?

In many organizations, these questions are answered through a combination of professional judgement, established industrial hygiene procedures and laboratory analysis. Those systems remain essential, but they do not always provide information at the point when an operational decision needs to be made.

CodeBe was developed to help fill that gap.

Our real time beryllium detection wipes have now been in the field for over a year and have helped people and organizations tackle these issues across nuclear, research, remediation, manufacturing and other contamination sensitive environments.

During that time, customers and independent organizations have evaluated CodeBe alongside established sampling and laboratory methods, including fluorescence, ICP and ICP-MS analysis. We have collated a representative selection of those observations into a performance report.

The report does not claim that CodeBe replaces quantitative laboratory analysis. It shows what CodeBe can add to an existing workflow: immediate, visible information about the potential presence of beryllium while work is still taking place.

Why Beryllium Identification Creates an Operational Problem

Beryllium contamination is often invisible. A surface can look clean while still carrying beryllium containing particulate. The reverse is also possible whereby an area may be treated as contaminated because the organization does not yet have enough information to confidently determine otherwise.

That uncertainty has consequences which are almost always quantified in money or time.

People can be exposed while waiting for a delayed result. Work stops unnecessarily. Equipment remains isolated. Decontamination teams clean more than is required. Laboratory resources are used to confirm that an area was never sufficiently clean to begin the formal testing cycle. This is the impact of an information gap.

The difficulty is not that laboratory analysis lacks value. It is the backbone of formal identification, quantification and verification. The difficulty is that laboratory analysis and operational screening answer different questions at different points in the workflow.

A laboratory can tell an organization how much beryllium was present in a submitted sample. CodeBe is designed to help answer the earlier and more immediate question “is there a visible indication that beryllium may be present here now?”

That distinction matters when decisions need to be made to keep people safe and keep projects moving forward.

Think about the math. You have a USD $50m building remediation project running over 2 years, which is circa $500,000 per week or $100,000 per weekday. If you need to stop work for several days waiting for lab results, that has real financial and scheduling impact.

CodeBe is the only technology available to bridge the time gap. Nothing else can provide instant answers.

What the CodeBe Performance Report Covers

The performance report brings together representative operational observations from independent organizations that used CodeBe alongside established sampling approaches, together with indicative performance observations from internal company testing.

The independent examples include:

• Side by side observations from a nuclear fuel company using CodeBe and filter paper sampling, with adjacent samples subsequently analysed by fluorescence or ICP.
• Comparative work from a FLiBe research company in which CodeBe wipes and conventional filter wipes were analysed following side by side sampling.
• A UK beryllium remediation study comparing visible CodeBe results with standard smears collected from adjacent 100 cm² areas and analysed by ICP-MS.
• Representative customer field use showing how the visible blue response can appear under real operational conditions.

These examples were collected in working environments, not produced as one standardized laboratory validation programme. The report therefore does not present them as a statistically complete validation dataset.

That limitation is important, but it does not make the observations less useful. It explains what the data can reasonably demonstrate: how CodeBe has performed when organizations have placed it alongside methods they already understand and use.

What Did the Results Show?

Across nuclear applciations, FLiBe research and beryllium remediation environments, CodeBe provided visible indications of beryllium across a broad range of contamination levels.

In one study, CodeBe was used on a 100 cm² area while filter paper was used on a separate area immediately next to it. The filter samples were then analysed by fluorescence or ICP. The laboratory results associated with the photographed CodeBe observations ranged from below 0.04 µg through to 4.33 µg. What the comparison provides is a practical visual record of CodeBe being used in areas where established analytical methods found different levels of beryllium nearby.

The FLiBe research company took a different approach. Both the CodeBe wipe and the conventional filter wipe were analysed after side by side sampling. Across ten comparisons, the amount recovered from CodeBe ranged from 0.16 µg to 8.88 µg. The corresponding filter wipe results ranged from 0.22 µg to over 5.0 µg.

The results were not identical, nor should they be expected to be. Separate wipes collect material from separate areas and differences in surface distribution, pickup and local contamination can affect the amount recovered. In some comparisons the CodeBe result was higher; in others the conventional filter result was higher. Importantly, both methods collected beryllium across the same broad operational range.

The UK remediation study compared CodeBe with standard smears following the NIOSH sampling method. The samples were again taken from adjacent, rather than identical, 100 cm² areas before the standard smears were analysed by ICP-MS.

CodeBe produced visible blue indications alongside laboratory results ranging from 0.043 µg through to 100 µg. At 0.043 µg, the recorded response was between one and five small blue spots. At higher levels the descriptions included patches of blue, blue spots, very blue and saturated blue.

The relationship was not perfect. Some adjacent laboratory samples contained measurable beryllium where no CodeBe colour change was recorded. Those outliers are included in the report.

Why We Included the Outliers

There is no value in pretending operational data is cleaner than it is.

Surface contamination is rarely distributed evenly. Two areas next to each other can contain different amounts of material. Wipe pressure, surface texture, particle distribution, contamination chemistry, solubility, sample collection and the way a colour response is interpreted can all affect an observation.

CodeBe is a qualitative tool. It is designed to indicate the potential presence of beryllium through a visible colour change. It is not designed to provide a quantitative laboratory measurement or to generate a perfectly linear colour scale for every form of beryllium on every surface.

Including the outliers helps organizations assess the capability properly. It allows technical, procurement and industrial hygiene teams to understand both what CodeBe can add and why it should sit within a layered workflow rather than being treated as a replacement for established analytical methods.

That is also why the performance report is available with an accompanying shelf life report containing the complete dataset for organizations that require supporting procurement verification information.

Where CodeBe Fits Within Existing Workflows

Our logic is simple: if you are not CodeBe clean, there is little operational logic in beginning expensive laboratory testing cycles.

An organization can use CodeBe to screen an area, identify a visible indication, clean or investigate further and then screen again before committing to formal analysis. If no indication is observed, the organization can proceed in accordance with its own procedures, risk assessment and laboratory requirements.

Within an established contamination management programme, this can support:

• Earlier identification of potential contamination on surfaces, equipment, tools, PPE and operational areas.
• More focused decontamination by helping teams see where further cleaning may be required.
• Fewer failed laboratory cycles caused by submitting areas that were not adequately clean at the point of sampling.
• Faster operational decisions during maintenance, remediation, manufacturing, decommissioning and contamination investigations.
• Better prioritization of specialist and laboratory resources toward the samples, areas and events most likely to require them.
• Improved workflow management and uptime by reducing the period in which people, equipment or areas remain unnecessarily uncertain.

The appropriate implementation will vary between organizations. A nuclear facility, aerospace manufacturer, remediation contractor, research organization and precision engineering business will not all use CodeBe in exactly the same way.

The common benefit is earlier information.

CodeBe Complements the Analytical Laboratory

CodeBe does not replace analytical laboratory testing. It complements it.

Laboratories provide the sensitivity, quantification, documentation and analytical certainty required for many formal decisions. CodeBe provides immediate operational information before, during and between those formal testing cycles.

Used together, the two capabilities can create a more efficient workflow. CodeBe helps organizations identify where a problem may exist, assess whether decontamination appears to be working and decide where analytical resources should be focused. The laboratory remains available to quantify, confirm and support the decisions that require formal analysis.

This is not about choosing between rapid screening and laboratory testing. It is about using each tool for the job it is best suited to perform.

A Qualitative Tool Designed for Real Operational Decisions

CodeBe is a qualitative screening tool for the presence of beryllium. It is designed to detect beryllium metal, oxide and/or hydroxide, nitrate, sulphate, copper alloy and fluoride, with a stated limit of detection of approximately 0.04 µg per 100 cm² under the relevant test conditions.

The core technology was developed at Y-12, an NNSA facility in the United States.

Today, CodeBe supports operational decision making across defense, nuclear, aerospace, emergency response, occupational hygiene, manufacturing, customs and critical infrastructure environments.

The value is straightforward. People can obtain useful information immediately, while work is taking place, rather than making every early decision without evidence or waiting for every answer to come back from a laboratory.

That can help protect people, reduce unnecessary laboratory cycles, improve decontamination efficiency and save considerable time and money. Most importantly, it helps organizations make better informed risk based decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does CodeBe replace laboratory analysis?

No. CodeBe is a qualitative screening tool designed to complement analytical laboratory testing. Laboratories remain essential where formal confirmation, quantification or regulatory analysis is required.

What does a blue colour change mean?

A visible blue response indicates the potential presence of beryllium. The form, amount and distribution of the contamination, along with the surface and sampling conditions, can affect the speed and appearance of the response.

Does a darker blue response provide an exact beryllium measurement?

No. A stronger response may be associated with more available or more soluble beryllium, but CodeBe is not a quantitative instrument. A laboratory is required when an exact measurement is needed.

Why were CodeBe and laboratory samples taken from adjacent areas?

The comparisons were designed to assess CodeBe alongside established operational sampling methods. A surface cannot be wiped twice in precisely the same place without the first wipe changing what remains for the second. Adjacent area sampling reduces that problem, but it also introduces normal variation because surface contamination is not always evenly distributed.

Why does the report include negative results and outliers?

Because organizations need an honest understanding of performance before deciding how a capability should fit within their procedures. The report is intended to support informed implementation, not to present a perfect or statistically complete dataset.

Request the CodeBe Performance Report

The full CodeBe performance report and accompanying shelf life report are available to organizations evaluating the capability for operational, technical or procurement purposes.

If you would like a copy, please contact Color Tech Holdings.

External Further Reading

OSHA: 29 CFR 1910.1024 – Beryllium
The United States general industry standard for occupational exposure to beryllium, including exposure assessment, regulated areas, written control plans, housekeeping and contamination migration requirements.

NIOSH Method 9110: Beryllium in Surface Wipes by Field-Portable Fluorometry
The NIOSH analytical method for determining beryllium collected on surface wipes using field-portable fluorometry.

U.S. Department of Energy: 10 CFR Part 850 – Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program
The federal requirements governing chronic beryllium disease prevention programmes for covered United States Department of Energy activities.

European Union: Directive (EU) 2019/983
The official EU directive establishing occupational exposure requirements for beryllium and other carcinogens, including the beryllium limit and transitional arrangements.

NIOSH Pocket Guide: Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds
NIOSH reference information covering occupational exposure limits, health effects, symptoms, protective measures and emergency response considerations for beryllium.

Internal Further Reading

CodeBe Technical Data
Technical specifications covering the forms of beryllium CodeBe is designed to detect, its stated limit of detection and how the wet and dry wipes are used.

Comparison of Beryllium Testing Methods
An explanation of the different roles played by rapid contamination screening, laboratory analysis, surface monitoring and airborne exposure assessment.

If You Are Not CodeBe Clean, Why Start Expensive Laboratory Testing?
How rapid screening can be used before formal analytical testing to reduce failed laboratory cycles and focus laboratory resources more effectively.

Improving Contamination Workflows
How earlier contamination visibility can support investigations, decontamination, operational continuity and better informed decisions.

Occupational Hygiene and Beryllium Monitoring
An overview of beryllium exposure pathways and how surface monitoring can complement air monitoring, engineering controls, housekeeping and PPE controls.