Recovery of oxygenated ignitable liquids by zeolites, Part I: Novel extraction methodology in fire debris analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 240 ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryne A. St. Pierre ◽  
Vincent J. Desiderio ◽  
Adam B. Hall
Separations ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Abel ◽  
Grzegorz Zadora ◽  
P. Sandercock ◽  
James Harynuk

Forensic fire debris analysis is an important part of fire investigation, and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is the accepted standard for detection of ignitable liquids in fire debris. While GC-MS is the dominant technique, comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC×GC-MS) is gaining popularity. Despite the broad use of these techniques, their sensitivities are poorly characterized for petroleum-based ignitable liquids. Accordingly, we explored the limit of identification (LOI) using the protocols currently applied in accredited forensic labs for two 75% evaporated gasolines and a 25% evaporated diesel as both neat samples and in the presence of interfering pyrolysate typical of fire debris. GC-MSD (mass selective detector (MS)), GC-TOF (time-of-flight (MS)), and GC×GC-TOF were evaluated under matched conditions to determine the volume of ignitable liquid required on-column for correct identification by three experienced forensic examiners performing chromatographic interpretation in accordance with ASTM E1618-14. GC-MSD provided LOIs of ~0.6 pL on-column for both neat gasolines, and ~12.5 pL on-column for neat diesel. In the presence of pyrolysate, the gasoline LOIs increased to ~6.2 pL on-column, while diesel could not be correctly identified at the concentrations tested. For the neat dilutions, GC-TOF generally provided 2× better sensitivity over GC-MSD, while GC×GC-TOF generally resulted in 10× better sensitivity over GC-MSD. In the presence of pyrolysate, GC-TOF was generally equivalent to GC-MSD, while GC×GC-TOF continued to show 10× greater sensitivity relative to GC-MSD. Our findings demonstrate the superior sensitivity of GC×GC-TOF and provide an important approach for interlaboratory benchmarking of modern instrumental performance in fire debris analysis.


Talanta ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 199 ◽  
pp. 189-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
María José Aliaño-González ◽  
Marta Ferreiro-González ◽  
Gerardo F. Barbero ◽  
Miguel Palma

2015 ◽  
Vol 252 ◽  
pp. 177-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lopatka ◽  
Michael E. Sigman ◽  
Marjan J. Sjerps ◽  
Mary R. Williams ◽  
Gabriel Vivó-Truyols

2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary R. Williams ◽  
Denise Fernandes ◽  
Candice Bridge ◽  
Derek Dorrien ◽  
Stefanie Elliott ◽  
...  

Separations ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sigman ◽  
Mary Williams

The practice of forensic fire debris analysis and data interpretation in operational (i [...]


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Sigman ◽  
Mary R. Williams

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document