Literature DB >> 16645959

A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques.

Joanne L Webb1, Jonathan I Creamer, Terence I Quickenden.   

Abstract

Presumptive blood detection tests are used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood or to investigate suspicious stains. Through the years, a number of articles have been published on the popular techniques of the day. However, there is no single paper that critiques and compares the five most common presumptive blood detection tests currently in use: luminol, phenolphthalein (Kastle-Meyer), leucomalachite green, Hemastix and the forensic light source. The present authors aimed to compare the above techniques with regard to their sensitivity, ease of use and safety. The luminol test was determined to be the most sensitive of the techniques, while Hemastix is a suitable alternative when the luminol test is not appropriate. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16645959     DOI: 10.1002/bio.908

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Luminescence        ISSN: 1522-7235            Impact factor:   2.464


  3 in total

Review 1.  Luminol-based chemiluminescent signals: clinical and non-clinical application and future uses.

Authors:  Parvez Khan; Danish Idrees; Michael A Moxley; John A Corbett; Faizan Ahmad; Guido von Figura; William S Sly; Abdul Waheed; Md Imtaiyaz Hassan
Journal:  Appl Biochem Biotechnol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 2.926

2.  A systematic review of contamination (aerosol, splatter and droplet generation) associated with oral surgery and its relevance to COVID-19.

Authors:  Jennifer E Gallagher; Sukriti K C; Ilona G Johnson; Waraf Al-Yaseen; Rhiannon Jones; Scott McGregor; Mark Robertson; Rebecca Harris; Nicola Innes; William G Wade
Journal:  BDJ Open       Date:  2020-11-24

3.  Mass spectrometry-based proteomics as a tool to identify biological matrices in forensic science.

Authors:  Katleen Van Steendam; Marlies De Ceuleneer; Maarten Dhaenens; David Van Hoofstat; Dieter Deforce
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 2.686

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.