Skip navigation

Zastosuj identyfikator do podlinkowania lub zacytowania tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12128/8038
Pełny rekord metadanych
DC poleWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorAbel, Robin J.-
dc.contributor.authorZadora, Grzegorz-
dc.contributor.authorSandercock, P. Mark L.-
dc.contributor.authorHarynuk, James J.-
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-30T12:45:00Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-30T12:45:00Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationSeparations, Vol. 5 (2018), Art. No. 58pl_PL
dc.identifier.issn2297-8739-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12128/8038-
dc.description.abstractForensic fire debris analysis is an important part of fire investigation, and gas chromatography– mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is the accepted standard for detection of ignitable liquids in fire debris. While GC-MS is the dominant technique, comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC GC-MS) is gaining popularity. Despite the broad use of these techniques, their sensitivities are poorly characterized for petroleum-based ignitable liquids. Accordingly, we explored the limit of identification (LOI) using the protocols currently applied in accredited forensic labs for two 75% evaporated gasolines and a 25% evaporated diesel as both neat samples and in the presence of interfering pyrolysate typical of fire debris. GC-MSD (mass selective detector (MS)), GC-TOF (time-of-flight (MS)), and GC GC-TOF were evaluated under matched conditions to determine the volume of ignitable liquid required on-column for correct identification by three experienced forensic examiners performing chromatographic interpretation in accordance with ASTM E1618-14. GC-MSD provided LOIs of ~0.6 pL on-column for both neat gasolines, and ~12.5 pL on-column for neat diesel. In the presence of pyrolysate, the gasoline LOIs increased to ~6.2 pL on-column, while diesel could not be correctly identified at the concentrations tested. For the neat dilutions, GC-TOF generally provided 2 better sensitivity over GC-MSD, while GC GC-TOF generally resulted in 10 better sensitivity over GC-MSD. In the presence of pyrolysate, GC-TOF was generally equivalent to GC-MSD, while GC GC-TOF continued to show 10 greater sensitivity relative to GC-MSD. Our findings demonstrate the superior sensitivity of GC GC-TOF and provide an important approach for interlaboratory benchmarking of modern instrumental performance in fire debris analysis.pl_PL
dc.language.isoenpl_PL
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa 3.0 Polska*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/*
dc.subjectforensicspl_PL
dc.subjectsensitivitypl_PL
dc.subjectfire debrispl_PL
dc.subjecttrace evidencepl_PL
dc.subjectignitable liquidpl_PL
dc.subjectlimit of identificationpl_PL
dc.titleModern Instrumental Limits of Identification of Ignitable Liquids in Forensic Fire Debris Analysispl_PL
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlepl_PL
dc.relation.journalSeparationspl_PL
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/separations5040058-
Pojawia się w kolekcji:Artykuły (WNŚiT)

Pliki tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
Abel_Modern_instrumental_limits_of_identification.pdf3,18 MBAdobe PDFPrzejrzyj / Otwórz
Pokaż prosty rekord


Uznanie Autorstwa 3.0 Polska Creative Commons Creative Commons