DC pole | Wartość | Język |
dc.contributor.author | Abel, Robin J. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Zadora, Grzegorz | - |
dc.contributor.author | Sandercock, P. Mark L. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Harynuk, James J. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-01-30T12:45:00Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-01-30T12:45:00Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Separations, Vol. 5 (2018), Art. No. 58 | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.issn | 2297-8739 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12128/8038 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Forensic 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.iso | en | pl_PL |
dc.rights | Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Polska | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/ | * |
dc.subject | forensics | pl_PL |
dc.subject | sensitivity | pl_PL |
dc.subject | fire debris | pl_PL |
dc.subject | trace evidence | pl_PL |
dc.subject | ignitable liquid | pl_PL |
dc.subject | limit of identification | pl_PL |
dc.title | Modern Instrumental Limits of Identification of Ignitable Liquids in Forensic Fire Debris Analysis | pl_PL |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | pl_PL |
dc.relation.journal | Separations | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/separations5040058 | - |
Pojawia się w kolekcji: | Artykuły (WNŚiT)
|