Luedeke Makayla, Miller Emily, Sprague Jon E
Ohio Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Bowling Green, OH, United States; The Ohio Attorney General's Center for the Future of Forensic Science, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, United States.
Ohio Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Bowling Green, OH, United States.
Forensic Sci Int. 2016 May;262:156-9. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.02.052. Epub 2016 Mar 10.
There are numerous presumptive tests available in the forensic science field to help identify the presence of blood. While many articles are available on the effects of Bluestar(®) and luminol and potential interactions with subsequent DNA identification, the research field falls short in identifying the effects these two presumptive tests may have on subsequent presumptive tests used to help identify blood. To rectify this ongoing issue in the forensic science field, the chemiluminescence methods of Bluestar(®) and luminol for the detection of blood at a crime scene were tested for their effects when used in conjunction with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) or phenolphthalein (PT) at the forensic science laboratory. Six different substrates (untreated wood, pressure treated wood, ceramic tile, shag carpet, cement block, and cotton clothing) were stained with varying dilutions (range 1:1 to 1:100,000) of blood. Neither luminol nor Bluestar(®) affect the results of PT or TMB tests at blood dilutions equal to or less than 1:100. However, interactions did occur between agents and substrates with blood dilutions 1:1000 or greater. Bluestar(®) was the only presumptive test that can detect blood dilutions of 1:100,000 on some substrates and luminol was inclusive on pressure treated wood. These findings suggests that forensic science laboratory personal need to know and understand the details of how the blood was detected by the crime scene investigator and the substrate on which the blood was obtained from for their preparation of presumptive blood testing with PT or TMB.
法医学领域有许多推定测试可用于帮助识别血液的存在。虽然有许多关于蓝星(®)和鲁米诺的作用以及与后续DNA鉴定的潜在相互作用的文章,但该研究领域在确定这两种推定测试可能对用于帮助识别血液的后续推定测试产生的影响方面存在不足。为了纠正法医学领域的这一持续问题,在法医学实验室测试了蓝星(®)和鲁米诺用于在犯罪现场检测血液的化学发光方法与四甲基联苯胺(TMB)或酚酞(PT)联合使用时的效果。六种不同的底物(未处理的木材、经压力处理的木材、瓷砖、粗毛地毯、水泥块和棉质衣物)用不同稀释度(范围为1:1至1:100,000)的血液进行染色。在血液稀释度等于或小于1:100时,鲁米诺和蓝星(®)均不影响PT或TMB测试的结果。然而,在血液稀释度为1:1000或更高时,试剂与底物之间确实发生了相互作用。蓝星(®)是唯一一种能在某些底物上检测到1:100,000血液稀释度的推定测试,而鲁米诺在经压力处理的木材上也能检测到。这些发现表明,法医学实验室人员需要了解和掌握犯罪现场调查人员检测血液的方式以及获取血液的底物的详细信息,以便他们用PT或TMB进行推定血液检测的准备工作。