Biometric Division, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, Macleod, Australia.
Division Biological Traces, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020 Jan;44:102203. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102203. Epub 2019 Nov 11.
There is a need to improve our awareness of the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR) from items/surfaces, and within different spaces and circumstances, to assist sample targeting during collection and activity level assessments. Here we investigate DNA-TPPR within office spaces. Specifically, to what extent DNA, left by a temporary user of an office space that has been occupied by a regular user for an extended period, is detectable when the duration of their temporary occupancy and their general activities are known. Also, how readily the DNA of the regular user is still detectable after a known period of occupancy by another person, and to what extent DNA of others is present. Samples were collected from 18 core items/surfaces within eight single use office spaces that had been used temporarily by another occupant for 2.5-7 h. Four of these offices were within one forensic laboratory and four within another. Each lab collected and processed the samples to generate DNA profiles using their own set of methodologies. The owner/regular user of an office space was found to be the major/majority contributor to profiles from most items within the space, even after temporary use by another person. The detectability of the temporary occupier of an office space varied among offices and items. The temporary occupier was not observed on all items touched. In most instances, when detected, the temporary occupier was known to have touched the surface at some stage. Therefore, where one is seeking to collect samples that may detect a temporary user of a space, it is advisable to target several potentially touched sites. A difference in methodologies applied from collection through to profiling appears to impact DNA yields and profile types. Ascertaining the impact of using different methodologies on the profiles generated from collected samples, requires further research. More research is also needed to generate data to help determine frequency estimates for different types of profiles given different user histories of an item or space.
需要提高我们对 DNA(DNA-TPPR)从物品/表面转移、持续存在、普遍存在和恢复的认识,并在不同的空间和环境中提高认识,以协助在采集样本时确定目标,并评估活动水平。在这里,我们研究了办公空间内的 DNA-TPPR。具体来说,当已知临时占用者的临时占用时间和一般活动时,在长期被固定使用者占用的办公空间中,临时使用者留下的 DNA 能够在多大程度上被检测到。同样,在已知另一个人占用一段时间后,固定使用者的 DNA 还能在多大程度上被检测到,以及其他人的 DNA 存在的程度。从 18 个核心物品/表面采集了 18 个样本,这些物品/表面在被另一名临时使用者占用了 2.5-7 小时后,在 8 个单一用途的办公室中被使用。其中 4 个办公室在一个法医学实验室中,4 个在另一个实验室中。每个实验室都收集和处理了样本,使用自己的一套方法学生成 DNA 图谱。即使在另一个人临时使用之后,办公室空间的所有者/固定使用者仍是空间内大多数物品 DNA 图谱的主要/多数贡献者。办公室空间临时使用者的可检测性因办公室和物品而异。并非所有触摸过的物品上都能观察到临时使用者。在大多数情况下,当检测到临时使用者时,已知其在某个阶段触摸过该表面。因此,如果有人试图收集可能检测到空间临时使用者的样本,最好针对几个可能接触的部位进行采样。从采集到分析的方法学的差异似乎会影响 DNA 的产量和图谱类型。要确定使用不同的方法学对从采集样本中生成的图谱的影响,需要进一步的研究。还需要更多的研究来生成数据,以帮助确定给定物品或空间的不同使用者历史记录下不同类型图谱的频率估计值。