Recovery of Trace DNA on Clothing: A Comparison of Mini‐tape Lifting and Three Other Forensic Evidence Collection Techniques

Heß, Sabine; Haas, Cordula

doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13246

Cited by 43 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, backrests were sampled in their entirety by both laboratories and higher quantities of DNA were generated by Lab B than Lab A. It is possible that the mini tape used by Lab B was better suited for DNA pick up from surfaces than two swabs [18,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

Goray

Kokshoorn

Steensma

et al. 2020

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

Goray

Kokshoorn

Steensma

et al. 2020

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The main methodologies applied are swabbing, tape lifting or direct extraction via excision [7,211]. There are however many types of swabs and tape-lifts, and means of their application, with significant differences in retrieval rates [7,[212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221]. Some other methods are available such as a wet-vacuum system [222] or sampling of individual skin flakes [167], but these are less commonly utilised.…”

Section: Impact Of Different Recovery Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA transfer in forensic science: A review

Oorschot

Szkuta

Meakin³

et al. 2019

Forensic Science International: Genetics

227

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the variables impacting DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA-TPPR) has become increasingly relevant in investigations of criminal activities to provide opinion on how the DNA of a person of interest became present within the sample collected. This review considers our current knowledge regarding DNA-TPPR to assist casework investigations of criminal activities. There is a growing amount of information available on DNA-TPPR to inform the relative probabilities of the evidence given alternative scenarios relating to the presence or absence of DNA from a specific person in a collected sample of interest. This information should be used where relevant. However, far more research is still required to better understand the variables impacting DNA-TPPR and to generate more accurate probability estimates of generating particular types of profiles in more casework relevant situations. This review explores means of achieving this. It also notes the need for all those interacting with an item of interest to have an awareness of DNA transfer possibilities post criminal activity, to limit the risk of contamination or loss of DNA. Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA-related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. We advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise to be distinct from expertise associated with the identification of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing. The possibilities for experts to report on activity-related issues will increase as our knowledge increases through further research, access to relevant data is enhanced, and tools to assist interpretations are better exploited. Improvement opportunities will be achieved sooner, if more laboratories and agencies accept the need to invest in these aspects as well as the training of practitioners.

show abstract

“…Various collection methods exist [1], such as: cutting [2], FTA paper scraping [3], scraping of the surface of interest with wooden applicator stick [4] or sterile scalpel blade [5,6], taping [3,5,[7][8][9] or vacuum sampling [2,10] and wet or dry, single or double swabbing [3,5,7]. Swabbing is the most versatile method and one of the most frequently used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Touch DNA collection – Performance of four different swabs

Comte

Baechler

Gervaix

et al. 2019

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A collaborative study conducted by three police forensic units, a DNA laboratory, and a forensic academic institute was undertaken in order to compare the performance of four different swabs in controlled and quasioperational conditions. For this purpose, a reference swab (Prionics cardboard evidence collection kit) currently used within the police forensic units and 3 challenger swabs (COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ (Genetics variety), Puritan FAB-MINI-AP and Sarstedt Forensic Swab) were used for collecting DNA traces from previously used items (referred as "touch DNA" in this article) including on 60 collars, 60 screwdrivers and 60 steering wheels obtained from volunteers. For each comparison, the surface considered was divided into two equal components; one was sampled with the reference swab and the other with one of the three challenger swabs. This lead to a total of 360 samples. Conclusions were consistent within the four operational partners. From a practical point of view, the COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ (Genetics variety) was judged the most convenient to use. Furthermore, it allowed the recovery of significantly more DNA from collars (0.65 vs 0.13 ng/μL) and steering wheels (2.82 vs 1.77 ng/μL), and a similar amount of DNA from screwdrivers (0.032 vs 0.026 ng/μL) compared with the Prionics reference swab. The two other challenger swabs provided results that were not significantly different from the reference swab, except for the Puritan swab, whose performance was significantly lower for steering wheels (0.37 vs 0.58 ng/μL). As part of a conservation study, 50 μL of a blood dilution (1/4 with PBS) was deposited on a total of 105 COPAN (Genetics and Crime Scene varieties), Prionics and Sarstedt swabs. They were stored within a cupboard at room temperature. The integrity of the recovered DNA was evaluated with NGM SElect™ DNA profiles after different time-spans ranging from 1 day to 12 months by comparing the height difference of the peaks occurring at the shortest and longest loci, respectively. DNA seemed to remain stable, except when using the COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ treated with an antimicrobial agent (Crime scene variety), which resulted in significant DNA degradation. Following these tests, the COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ (Genetics variety), a model with a desiccant, was selected for further testing in fully operational conditions.

show abstract

Recovery of Trace DNA on Clothing: A Comparison of Mini‐tape Lifting and Three Other Forensic Evidence Collection Techniques

Cited by 43 publications

References 14 publications

DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

DNA transfer in forensic science: A review

Touch DNA collection – Performance of four different swabs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About