Influence of evidence, time, source and interferents in the observation of biological fluids with forensic lights
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16925/cf.v3i1.1215Keywords:
forensic sciences, biological fluids, forensic lights, evidenceAbstract
Introduction: The laboratory receives different evidence for analysis, which may
contain fluids such as blood, semen, saliva or urine. A support tool in identifying nonvisible biological stains is observation with forensic lights. At present, there have been research advances in reference to wavelength and combination of different filters for the observation of biological fluids. Methodology: For this research, the alternate lights equipment Polilight® Flare with blue light was used, along with a filter and orange glasses, for observing stains of biological fluids deposited on different types of textiles and other surfaces that are frequently received by the laboratory. Results: The main result of this study was to determine the reliability of this equipment in terms of reproducibility and
repeatability of results, as well as the influence of variables such as substrate, age of the stain, source of fluid, and possible interferents in the observation of biological fluid fluorescence. Conclusions: It was found that biological stains emitting the strongest fluorescence were semen followed by urine and saliva stains. Bloodstains did not emit fluorescence and were referred to as non-fluorescent. Permeability of substrates made fluorescence halo greater, especially on light colors. Moreover, no statistically significant differences were observed in the fluorescence emission of azoospermic semen with respect to normspermic semen.
References
Vezard N, Setola G. Forensic light source application review. Horiba Technical Reports. 2003;(7):118-23.
Virkler K, Lednev IK. Analysis of body fluids for forensic purposes: from laboratory testing to non-destructive rapid confirmatory identification at a crime scene. Forensic Sci Int. 2009;188(1-3):1-17.
Lee W-C, Khoo, B-E. Forensic light sources for detection of biological evidences in crime scene investigation: a review. Malaysian J Forensic Sci. 2010;1:17-28.
Fieldler A, Rehdorf J, Hilbers F, Johrdan L, Stribl, C, Benecke, M. Detection of semen (human and boar) and saliva on fabrics by a very high powered UV-/VIS-Light source. The Open Forensic Sci J. 2008;1:12-5
Camilleri E, Silenieks E, Henry J. Locating saliva using the Polilight® and SALIIgAE Spray®. Forensic Science South Australia. 2006;3.
Zagala C. La detección de evidencias fìsicas en escenas de delitos por medio de fuentes de luz alternativa; 2006.
Vandenberg N, Van Oorschot RA. The use of Polilight in the detection of seminal fluid, saliva, and bloodstains and comparison with conventional chemical-based screening tests. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51(2):361-70.
Miranda GE, Prado FB, Delwing F, Daruge E. Analysis of the fluorescence of body fluids on different surfaces and times. Sci Justice. 2014;54(6):427-31.
Jackson D, Hadi S. The use of Polilight in the detection of seminal fluid, saliva, and bloodstains and comparison with conventional chemical-based screening tests. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51(2):361-70.
Rofin Australia Pty Ltd. Manual de instrucción Polilight® Flare. Melbourne: Rofin Australia; 2011.
Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses. Datos oficiales sobre la violencia en Colombia 1998-2014. [internet] s. f. Disponible en: http://www.medicinalegal.gov.co/forensis1
