Effects of Cyanoacrylate Fuming, Time After Recovery, and Location of Biological Material on the Recovery and Analysis of DNA from Post‐Blast Pipe Bomb Fragments *

Abstract:  This study investigated the effects of time, cyanoacrylate fuming, and location of the biological material on DNA analysis of post‐blast pipe bomb fragments. Multiple aliquots of a cell suspension (prepared by soaking buccal swabs in water) were deposited on components of the devices prior to assembly. The pipe bombs were then deflagrated and the fragments recovered. Fragments from half of the devices were cyanoacrylate fumed. The cell spots on the fragments were swabbed and polymerase chain reaction/short tandem repeat analysis was performed 1 week and 3 months after deflagration. A significant decrease in the amount of DNA recovered was observed between samples collected and analyzed within 1 week compared with the samples collected and analyzed 3 months after deflagration. Cyanoacrylate fuming did not have a measurable effect on the success of the DNA analysis at either time point. Greater quantities of DNA were recovered from the pipe nipples than the end caps. Undeflagrated controls showed that the majority (>95%) of the DNA deposited on the devices was not recovered at a week or 3 months.

[1]  W. Parson,et al.  Systematic study on STR profiling on blood and saliva traces after visualization of fingerprint marks. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[2]  Y. Tsai,et al.  Detection of Escherichia coli in sewage and sludge by polymerase chain reaction , 1993, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[3]  Basil T. Fedoroff,et al.  Encyclopedia of explosives and related items , 1960 .

[4]  Shawn E Stallworth,et al.  Using STR analysis to detect human DNA from exploded pipe bomb devices. , 2004, Journal of forensic sciences.

[5]  D. Sweet,et al.  An improved method to recover saliva from human skin: the double swab technique. , 1997, Journal of forensic sciences.

[6]  C Henssge,et al.  DNA typing of fingerprint reagent treated biological stains. , 1996, Journal of forensic sciences.

[7]  Joachim Burger,et al.  Fingerprints from fingerprints , 2003 .

[8]  A. Urquhart,et al.  DNA fingerprinting from single cells , 1997, Nature.

[9]  M. Buoncristiani,et al.  Optimization of DNA Extraction from Low‐Yield and Degraded Samples Using the BioRobot® EZ1 and BioRobot® M48 , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[10]  Gillian Tully,et al.  The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[11]  W. Vahjen,et al.  Interference of humic acids and DNA extracted directly from soil in detection and transformation of recombinant DNA from bacteria and a yeast , 1993, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[12]  L. A. Lewis,et al.  Understanding the Chemistry of the Development of Latent Fingerprints by Superglue Fuming , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[13]  R. V. Oorschot,et al.  DNA fingerprints from fingerprints , 1997, Nature.