This study, conducted at the University of Tennessee's Anthropological Research Facility (ARF), describes the establishment of the Decompositional Odor Analysis (DOA) Database for the purpose of developing a man-portable, chemical sensor capable of detecting clandestine burial sites of human remains, thereby mimicking canine olfaction. This “living” database currently spans the first year and a half of burial, providing identification, chemical trends and semi-quantitation of chemicals liberated below, above and at the surface of graves 1.5 to 3.5 ft deep (0.45 to 1.0 m) for four individuals. Triple sorbent traps (TSTs) were used to collect air samples in the field and revealed eight major classes of chemicals containing 424 specific volatile compounds associated with burial decomposition. This research is the first step toward identification of an “odor signature” unique to human decomposition with projected ramifications on cadaver dog training procedures and in the development of field portable analytical instruments which can be used to locate human remains buried in shallow graves.

No abstract

Effective field screening methods could minimize the time and reduce the cost of characterizing and remediating hazardous waste sites. Rigorous evaluation of novel field screening methods is required before they can be considered as replacements for, or adjuncts to, currently used laboratory methods. Alternatives to standard laboratory analytical methods should be rapid, analyte-specific, cost-effective, accurate, and sensitive in the range at which the analyte is regulated. In this study, 2 immunoassay- based field test kits for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil were evaluated with reference to those criteria. PCBs were analyzed in both spiked and field soil samples. Based on laboratory performance, we estimate that 20 to 40 samples can be analyzed in the field per day. Sensitivity of the assay is in the 1 ppm range. Because the assay is based on the specificity of the antigen/antibody reaction, interferences are practically negligible. The method is accurate; the false-negative and false-positive results that were observed can be explained by differences in the immunoreactivities of the Aroclors present in the test samples and the Aroclors used as standards in the assay. The savings in time and expense to analyze PCBs in soil with the immunoassay-based test kits over conventional laboratory methods should be substantial.

No abstract

No abstract