Have independent labs published chemical analyses of smoke canisters collected from Portland or Minneapolis protests?
Executive summary
Independent, non-governmental teams collected smoke and munition remnants after the 2020 Portland protests and reported laboratory analyses tying those canisters to hexachloroethane (HC) smoke and its combustion product zinc chloride; those findings were published in news reports and activist reports rather than in peer‑reviewed scientific journals [1] [2] [3]. By contrast, available reporting does not document independent laboratory publications analyzing smoke canisters from recent Minneapolis incidents; local journalists and volunteers reported finding canisters, but the sources do not show laboratory reports made public for Minneapolis [4] [5].
1. What independent actors did in Portland and what they reported
Volunteer collectors organized by the Chemical Weapons Research Consortium (CWRC) retrieved dozens of spent canisters from the Portland protest zone, and at least some items still bore manufacturer labels linking them to Defense Technology HC (“Maximum HC Smoke”) munitions, which CWRC volunteers took to a Clackamas County lab for testing, according to multiple local news accounts [1] [2]. Those test efforts — described to reporters and summarized on activist sites and in local media — identified combustion products consistent with hexachloroethane smoke, notably gaseous zinc chloride, and the results were publicized by the researcher leading the effort, Juniper Simonis [3] [6].
2. What the test results claimed and how they were disseminated
Reporting based on CWRC fieldwork and lab testing described traces of hexachloroethane (HC) components in collected canisters and environmental samples, and flagged zinc chloride among detected combustion products; those findings were presented to city officials and published in news outlets and activist reports rather than as standalone scientific papers in peer‑reviewed journals [3] [7]. Independent human‑rights and forensic groups such as Forensic Architecture also investigated the events — modeling dispersal and compiling manufacturer and procurement records — but their published work focused on video, invoices and simulation rather than new chemical‑laboratory publications analyzing recovered canisters [8] [9].
3. The distinction between “published” and “reported” analyses
The available sources show independent laboratory testing was performed and reported publicly through journalism and activist channels, yet they do not document traditional academic or peer‑review publications presenting full methods, raw data, and peer scrutiny for those chemical analyses [2] [3]. City environmental testing for storm drains did quantify chloride and zinc at protest sites, information city officials shared with reporters, but again that work was reported in the press rather than appearing as a peer‑reviewed chemistry paper indexed in the coverage provided [10].
4. Minneapolis: evidence of canisters but no documented independent lab publications in the cited reporting
Recent Minneapolis coverage describes multiple canisters found or recovered after confrontations and lists models and manufacturer descriptions [5], and reporting on federal deployments mentions residents finding canisters labeled with active ingredients like capsaicin [4]. However, the supplied reporting does not show independent laboratories publishing chemical analyses of Minneapolis canisters the way CWRC’s Portland work was reported; no peer‑reviewed chemical‑analysis reports for Minneapolis are present in these sources [4] [5].
5. Why the publication form matters and whose agendas shape the record
The difference between activist or media‑reported lab results and peer‑reviewed publications matters for reproducibility, methods transparency and official policy responses; activist groups sought to fill an information vacuum amid limited government disclosure, which created a record driven by volunteers, local labs and journalists rather than by formal academic collaborations or regulatory releases [11] [8]. Government agencies largely declined to publicly catalog every munition or to publish their own exhaustive chemical analyses in the cited coverage, leaving independent researchers and journalists to document and interpret findings — an arrangement that invites debate over methods, potential environmental impacts and the proper forum for publishing results [11] [9].
Exact, peer‑reviewed journal publications of independent lab chemical analyses of protest‑recovered canisters are not evident in the provided reporting: Portland shows independently conducted lab testing reported in media and activist outputs pointing to HC and zinc chloride [1] [2] [3], while Minneapolis reporting documents recovered canisters but does not show published independent lab analyses in these sources [4] [5].