Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Legal Medicine
Published in: International Journal of Legal Medicine 4/2013

01-07-2013 | Original Article

An evaluation of luminol formulations and their effect on DNA profiling

Authors: Gnyaneshwari Patel, Andy Hopwood

Published in: International Journal of Legal Medicine | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Luminol is a presumptive test reagent used for the location of latent bloodstains. Various formulations are used by different forensic practitioners and commercial products are also widely available. There is little concurrence between authors with regards to the sensitivity limits of luminol which can vary significantly depending upon the substrate. We evaluated the sensitivity and stability of five different luminol formulations on a range of blood dilutions. All formulations showed an overall decrease in performance over 24 h though the effect was more gradual on a non-porous surface compared to porous. We found that BlueStar® Magnum showed the greatest sensitivity compared to other formulations and detected 50 μl of 1/100,000 blood dilutions on both porous and non-porous surfaces. Two formulations of luminol were selected based on the result of the sensitivity and stability study and were assessed for their impact on the DNA profiling process. There was a statistically significant improvement in DNA profile peak area from luminol-treated samples when compared to control samples of neat blood stains. However, at the weaker blood dilution of 1/1,000, the difference between control and luminol-treated samples was dependent on the substrate type with porous (fabric) samples showing a significant difference and non-porous (tile) swabbed samples requiring further work to conclusively ascertain the effect.
Literature
1.
Siegel JA, Saukko PJ, Knupfer GC (2000) Encyclopedia of forensic sciences, vol 3. Academic Press, Waltham, pp 1323–1325
2.
Larkin T, Gannicliffe C (2008) Illuminating the health and safety of luminol. Sci Justice 48(2):71–75PubMedCrossRef
3.
Barni F et al (2007) Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection. Talanta 72(3):896–913PubMedCrossRef
4.
Quinones I, Sheppard D, Harbison S, Elliot D (2007) Comparative analysis of luminol formulations. J Can Soc Forensic Sci 40(2):53–63
5.
Fregeau CJ, Germain O, Fourney RM (2000) Fingerprint enhancement revisited and the effects of blood enhancement chemicals on subsequent profiler plus fluorescent short tandem repeat DNA analysis of fresh and aged bloody fingerprints. J For Sci 45(2):354–380
6.
Garofano L et al (2006) A comparative study of the sensitivity and specificity of luminol and fluorescein on diluted and aged bloodstains and subsequent STRs typing. Int Congr Ser 1288:657–659CrossRef
7.
Lytle LT, Hedgecock DG (1978) Chemiluminescence in the visualization of forensic bloodstains. J For Sci 23(3):550–562
8.
Tobe SS, Watson N, Daeid NN (2007) Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA. J For Sci 52(1):102–109
9.
Quickenden TI, Creamer JI (2001) A study of common interferences with the forensic luminol test for blood. Luminescence 16:295–298PubMedCrossRef
10.
Eversdijk M, Gelderman R (2000) Shedding fresh light at the scene of the crime. Inf Bull Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 6(1):11–17
11.
Budowle B et al (2000) The presumptive reagent fluorescein for detection of dilute bloodstains and subsequent STR typing of recovered DNA. J For Sci 45(5):1090–1092
12.
Barbaro A, Cormaci P, Teatino A (2008) Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, Prog Forensic Genet 1(1):11–12
13.
14.
Della Manna A, Montpetit S (2000) A novel approach to obtaining reliable PCR results from luminol treated bloodstains. J For Sci 45(4):886–890
15.
Blum LJ, Esperanca P, Rocquefelte S (2006) A new high-performance reagent and procedure for latent bloodstain detection based on luminol chemiluminescence. J Can Soc Forensic Sci 39(3):81–100
Metadata
Title
An evaluation of luminol formulations and their effect on DNA profiling
Authors
Gnyaneshwari Patel
Andy Hopwood
Publication date
01-07-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-9827
Electronic ISSN: 1437-1596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-012-0800-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

International Journal of Legal Medicine 4/2013 Go to the issue

Original Article

Anthropometrical differences between suicide and other non-natural death circumstances: an autopsy study

Original Article

Accuracy of targeted post-mortem computed tomography coronary angiography compared to assessment of serial histological sections

Original Article

Age dependence of epiphyseal ossification of the distal radius in ultrasound diagnostics

Original Article

Determination of latent fingerprint degradation patterns—a real fieldwork study

Short Communication

The new guidelines for paternity analysis in Germany—how many STR loci are necessary when investigating duo cases?

Letter to the Editor

Radiographic assessment of age from epiphyseal fusion at knee joint