Loading…

Determining the effects of routine fingermark detection techniques on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues on various substrates

Abstract An offender who has recently handled bulk explosives would be expected to deposit latent fingermarks that are contaminated with explosive residues. However, fingermark detection techniques need to be applied in order for these fingermarks to be detected and recorded. Little information is a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forensic science international 2013-12, Vol.233 (1), p.257-264
Main Authors: King, Sam, Benson, Sarah, Kelly, Tamsin, Lennard, Chris
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13
container_end_page 264
container_issue 1
container_start_page 257
container_title Forensic science international
container_volume 233
creator King, Sam
Benson, Sarah
Kelly, Tamsin
Lennard, Chris
description Abstract An offender who has recently handled bulk explosives would be expected to deposit latent fingermarks that are contaminated with explosive residues. However, fingermark detection techniques need to be applied in order for these fingermarks to be detected and recorded. Little information is available in terms of how routine fingermark detection methods impact on the subsequent recovery and analysis of any explosive residues that may be present. If an identifiable fingermark is obtained and that fingermark is found to be contaminated with a particular explosive then that may be crucial evidence in a criminal investigation (including acts of terrorism involving improvised explosive devices). The principal aims of this project were to investigate: (i) the typical quantities of explosive material deposited in fingermarks by someone who has recently handled bulk explosives; and (ii) the effects of routine fingermark detection methods on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues in such fingermarks. Four common substrates were studied: paper, glass, plastic (polyethylene plastic bags), and metal (aluminium foil). The target explosive compounds were 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), as well as chlorate and nitrate ions. Recommendations are provided in terms of the application of fingermark detection methods on surfaces that may contain explosive residues.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.09.018
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1530991433</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0379073813004362</els_id><sourcerecordid>1530991433</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk1vEzEQhlcIREPhL8BKXLgk-Hu9F6SqfEqVOABna9eepU43drC9Efkj_F5mk1CkHqAHayT7mXc8M29VvaBkRQlVr9erIaZsvQ9lxQjlK9KuCNUPqgXVDVsqpvnDakF40y5Jw_VZ9STnNSFESqYeV2dMcCokaxbVr7dQIG188OF7Xa6hhmEAW3IdhzrFqfgA9YBvyHTppnZI2-JjqDFeB_9jAkTDITNPfQa8CKVOYOMO0r7ugsPTjfvsD5LwczvG7HeASPbulL3rko9TPiiU1BXIT6tHQzdmeHaK59W39---Xn5cXn3-8Ony4mpppdBlOXCiLWjSaqK0Y6rph9YyyUXrBMNJ9IQDaCdc53rZaMVVQ3umQGumuOwpP69eHXW3Kc69FLPx2cI4dgHwR4ZKTtqWCs7vgRKF8xaK_R8VClEuZIvoyzvoOk4JJzYLSimwekP_SQklCZ8LI9UcKZtizgkGs00e17Y3lJjZNmZtbm1jZtsY0hq0DWY-P-lP_Qbcbd4fnyBwcQQAl7HzkAyqQLDgPO66GBf9PYq8uaNhR_Sd7cYb2EP-25HJzBDzZXbvbF7KCREcx_ob3w7t9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1465033794</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Determining the effects of routine fingermark detection techniques on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues on various substrates</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>King, Sam ; Benson, Sarah ; Kelly, Tamsin ; Lennard, Chris</creator><creatorcontrib>King, Sam ; Benson, Sarah ; Kelly, Tamsin ; Lennard, Chris</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract An offender who has recently handled bulk explosives would be expected to deposit latent fingermarks that are contaminated with explosive residues. However, fingermark detection techniques need to be applied in order for these fingermarks to be detected and recorded. Little information is available in terms of how routine fingermark detection methods impact on the subsequent recovery and analysis of any explosive residues that may be present. If an identifiable fingermark is obtained and that fingermark is found to be contaminated with a particular explosive then that may be crucial evidence in a criminal investigation (including acts of terrorism involving improvised explosive devices). The principal aims of this project were to investigate: (i) the typical quantities of explosive material deposited in fingermarks by someone who has recently handled bulk explosives; and (ii) the effects of routine fingermark detection methods on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues in such fingermarks. Four common substrates were studied: paper, glass, plastic (polyethylene plastic bags), and metal (aluminium foil). The target explosive compounds were 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), as well as chlorate and nitrate ions. Recommendations are provided in terms of the application of fingermark detection methods on surfaces that may contain explosive residues.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0379-0738</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6283</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.09.018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24314527</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Aluminum ; Bags ; Bombings ; Bombs ; Chlorate ; Chlorates ; Contamination ; Cyanoacrylates ; Dermatoglyphics ; Experiments ; Explosions ; Explosive Agents ; Explosive devices ; Explosive residues ; Explosives ; Fingermark detection ; Fingerprints ; Fluorescent Dyes ; Food Packaging ; Forensic science ; Forensic sciences ; Fourier transforms ; Glass ; Humans ; Impact analysis ; Indans ; Mass spectrometry ; Methods ; Multivariate analysis ; Ninhydrin ; Nitrate ; Nitrates ; Organic explosives ; Pathology ; Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate ; Plastics ; Potassium ; Powders ; Recovery ; Residues ; Rhodamines ; Routines ; Triazines ; Trinitrotoluene ; Volatilization</subject><ispartof>Forensic science international, 2013-12, Vol.233 (1), p.257-264</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Dec 10, 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24314527$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>King, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benson, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Tamsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lennard, Chris</creatorcontrib><title>Determining the effects of routine fingermark detection techniques on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues on various substrates</title><title>Forensic science international</title><addtitle>Forensic Sci Int</addtitle><description>Abstract An offender who has recently handled bulk explosives would be expected to deposit latent fingermarks that are contaminated with explosive residues. However, fingermark detection techniques need to be applied in order for these fingermarks to be detected and recorded. Little information is available in terms of how routine fingermark detection methods impact on the subsequent recovery and analysis of any explosive residues that may be present. If an identifiable fingermark is obtained and that fingermark is found to be contaminated with a particular explosive then that may be crucial evidence in a criminal investigation (including acts of terrorism involving improvised explosive devices). The principal aims of this project were to investigate: (i) the typical quantities of explosive material deposited in fingermarks by someone who has recently handled bulk explosives; and (ii) the effects of routine fingermark detection methods on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues in such fingermarks. Four common substrates were studied: paper, glass, plastic (polyethylene plastic bags), and metal (aluminium foil). The target explosive compounds were 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), as well as chlorate and nitrate ions. Recommendations are provided in terms of the application of fingermark detection methods on surfaces that may contain explosive residues.</description><subject>Aluminum</subject><subject>Bags</subject><subject>Bombings</subject><subject>Bombs</subject><subject>Chlorate</subject><subject>Chlorates</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Cyanoacrylates</subject><subject>Dermatoglyphics</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Explosions</subject><subject>Explosive Agents</subject><subject>Explosive devices</subject><subject>Explosive residues</subject><subject>Explosives</subject><subject>Fingermark detection</subject><subject>Fingerprints</subject><subject>Fluorescent Dyes</subject><subject>Food Packaging</subject><subject>Forensic science</subject><subject>Forensic sciences</subject><subject>Fourier transforms</subject><subject>Glass</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Impact analysis</subject><subject>Indans</subject><subject>Mass spectrometry</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Multivariate analysis</subject><subject>Ninhydrin</subject><subject>Nitrate</subject><subject>Nitrates</subject><subject>Organic explosives</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate</subject><subject>Plastics</subject><subject>Potassium</subject><subject>Powders</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Residues</subject><subject>Rhodamines</subject><subject>Routines</subject><subject>Triazines</subject><subject>Trinitrotoluene</subject><subject>Volatilization</subject><issn>0379-0738</issn><issn>1872-6283</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkk1vEzEQhlcIREPhL8BKXLgk-Hu9F6SqfEqVOABna9eepU43drC9Efkj_F5mk1CkHqAHayT7mXc8M29VvaBkRQlVr9erIaZsvQ9lxQjlK9KuCNUPqgXVDVsqpvnDakF40y5Jw_VZ9STnNSFESqYeV2dMcCokaxbVr7dQIG188OF7Xa6hhmEAW3IdhzrFqfgA9YBvyHTppnZI2-JjqDFeB_9jAkTDITNPfQa8CKVOYOMO0r7ugsPTjfvsD5LwczvG7HeASPbulL3rko9TPiiU1BXIT6tHQzdmeHaK59W39---Xn5cXn3-8Ony4mpppdBlOXCiLWjSaqK0Y6rph9YyyUXrBMNJ9IQDaCdc53rZaMVVQ3umQGumuOwpP69eHXW3Kc69FLPx2cI4dgHwR4ZKTtqWCs7vgRKF8xaK_R8VClEuZIvoyzvoOk4JJzYLSimwekP_SQklCZ8LI9UcKZtizgkGs00e17Y3lJjZNmZtbm1jZtsY0hq0DWY-P-lP_Qbcbd4fnyBwcQQAl7HzkAyqQLDgPO66GBf9PYq8uaNhR_Sd7cYb2EP-25HJzBDzZXbvbF7KCREcx_ob3w7t9g</recordid><startdate>20131210</startdate><enddate>20131210</enddate><creator>King, Sam</creator><creator>Benson, Sarah</creator><creator>Kelly, Tamsin</creator><creator>Lennard, Chris</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131210</creationdate><title>Determining the effects of routine fingermark detection techniques on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues on various substrates</title><author>King, Sam ; Benson, Sarah ; Kelly, Tamsin ; Lennard, Chris</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aluminum</topic><topic>Bags</topic><topic>Bombings</topic><topic>Bombs</topic><topic>Chlorate</topic><topic>Chlorates</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Cyanoacrylates</topic><topic>Dermatoglyphics</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Explosions</topic><topic>Explosive Agents</topic><topic>Explosive devices</topic><topic>Explosive residues</topic><topic>Explosives</topic><topic>Fingermark detection</topic><topic>Fingerprints</topic><topic>Fluorescent Dyes</topic><topic>Food Packaging</topic><topic>Forensic science</topic><topic>Forensic sciences</topic><topic>Fourier transforms</topic><topic>Glass</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Impact analysis</topic><topic>Indans</topic><topic>Mass spectrometry</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Multivariate analysis</topic><topic>Ninhydrin</topic><topic>Nitrate</topic><topic>Nitrates</topic><topic>Organic explosives</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate</topic><topic>Plastics</topic><topic>Potassium</topic><topic>Powders</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Residues</topic><topic>Rhodamines</topic><topic>Routines</topic><topic>Triazines</topic><topic>Trinitrotoluene</topic><topic>Volatilization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>King, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benson, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Tamsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lennard, Chris</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Forensic science international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>King, Sam</au><au>Benson, Sarah</au><au>Kelly, Tamsin</au><au>Lennard, Chris</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Determining the effects of routine fingermark detection techniques on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues on various substrates</atitle><jtitle>Forensic science international</jtitle><addtitle>Forensic Sci Int</addtitle><date>2013-12-10</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>233</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>257</spage><epage>264</epage><pages>257-264</pages><issn>0379-0738</issn><eissn>1872-6283</eissn><abstract>Abstract An offender who has recently handled bulk explosives would be expected to deposit latent fingermarks that are contaminated with explosive residues. However, fingermark detection techniques need to be applied in order for these fingermarks to be detected and recorded. Little information is available in terms of how routine fingermark detection methods impact on the subsequent recovery and analysis of any explosive residues that may be present. If an identifiable fingermark is obtained and that fingermark is found to be contaminated with a particular explosive then that may be crucial evidence in a criminal investigation (including acts of terrorism involving improvised explosive devices). The principal aims of this project were to investigate: (i) the typical quantities of explosive material deposited in fingermarks by someone who has recently handled bulk explosives; and (ii) the effects of routine fingermark detection methods on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues in such fingermarks. Four common substrates were studied: paper, glass, plastic (polyethylene plastic bags), and metal (aluminium foil). The target explosive compounds were 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), as well as chlorate and nitrate ions. Recommendations are provided in terms of the application of fingermark detection methods on surfaces that may contain explosive residues.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>24314527</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.09.018</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0379-0738
ispartof Forensic science international, 2013-12, Vol.233 (1), p.257-264
issn 0379-0738
1872-6283
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1530991433
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Aluminum
Bags
Bombings
Bombs
Chlorate
Chlorates
Contamination
Cyanoacrylates
Dermatoglyphics
Experiments
Explosions
Explosive Agents
Explosive devices
Explosive residues
Explosives
Fingermark detection
Fingerprints
Fluorescent Dyes
Food Packaging
Forensic science
Forensic sciences
Fourier transforms
Glass
Humans
Impact analysis
Indans
Mass spectrometry
Methods
Multivariate analysis
Ninhydrin
Nitrate
Nitrates
Organic explosives
Pathology
Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate
Plastics
Potassium
Powders
Recovery
Residues
Rhodamines
Routines
Triazines
Trinitrotoluene
Volatilization
title Determining the effects of routine fingermark detection techniques on the subsequent recovery and analysis of explosive residues on various substrates
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T08%3A01%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Determining%20the%20effects%20of%20routine%20fingermark%20detection%20techniques%20on%20the%20subsequent%20recovery%20and%20analysis%20of%20explosive%20residues%20on%20various%20substrates&rft.jtitle=Forensic%20science%20international&rft.au=King,%20Sam&rft.date=2013-12-10&rft.volume=233&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=257&rft.epage=264&rft.pages=257-264&rft.issn=0379-0738&rft.eissn=1872-6283&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.09.018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1530991433%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-f308ce8098068d267bf9c25349d42187b03ee8d4dadb57863671b26e882635b13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1465033794&rft_id=info:pmid/24314527&rfr_iscdi=true