HOW do we improve the testing of female ballistic body armour? - a comparison of roma plastilina no.1, 10% ballistic gelatine and sebs gel.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Chris Malbon, Clare Knock, Debra J Carr
{"title":"HOW do we improve the testing of female ballistic body armour? - a comparison of roma plastilina no.1, 10% ballistic gelatine and sebs gel.","authors":"Chris Malbon, Clare Knock, Debra J Carr","doi":"10.1007/s00414-025-03578-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Body armour designed for use by police officers in England and Wales is currently tested using Roma Plastilina No1 (RP1) as the witness material for the measurement of back face signature (BFS). However, this material has limitations when testing body armour designed for females, as it is not possible to measure the BFS in the breast region due to the way the breast shapes are formed. Therefore, to enable measurement of BFS for females over the breast, an alternative backing material is required to form surrogate breasts and torso which would enable BFS to be measured. A comparison was conducted between RP1, 10% ballistic gelatine and a 30/70% styrene-etylene / butylene-styrene (SEBS) gel, using standardised ballistic test packs and two projectiles: DM11A1B2 9 mm FMJ at velocities 365 ± 10 ms<sup>-1</sup>; Remington R357M3 0.357\" JSP at velocities 390 ± 10 ms<sup>-1</sup>. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference identified in measured BFS among the three backing materials with both projectile types. RP1 had the overall smallest variance in measured BFS for both projectile types, however the limitation in being able to mould to create a breast shape is a major limiting factor. With 10% ballistic gelatine, when testing with the 0.357\" projectile, a greater variance in measured BFS was shown compared to the other materials. The SEBS gel was consistent for the 0.357\" projectile, but with the 9 mm projectile there was greater variance in results. Both 10% ballistic gelatine and SEBS gel would enable a moulded female test form to be created, however SEBS gel has a much longer shelf life and showed resistance to damage, although neither of these materials could be considered as a biofidelic substitute for breast tissue.</p>","PeriodicalId":14071,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Legal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-025-03578-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Body armour designed for use by police officers in England and Wales is currently tested using Roma Plastilina No1 (RP1) as the witness material for the measurement of back face signature (BFS). However, this material has limitations when testing body armour designed for females, as it is not possible to measure the BFS in the breast region due to the way the breast shapes are formed. Therefore, to enable measurement of BFS for females over the breast, an alternative backing material is required to form surrogate breasts and torso which would enable BFS to be measured. A comparison was conducted between RP1, 10% ballistic gelatine and a 30/70% styrene-etylene / butylene-styrene (SEBS) gel, using standardised ballistic test packs and two projectiles: DM11A1B2 9 mm FMJ at velocities 365 ± 10 ms-1; Remington R357M3 0.357" JSP at velocities 390 ± 10 ms-1. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference identified in measured BFS among the three backing materials with both projectile types. RP1 had the overall smallest variance in measured BFS for both projectile types, however the limitation in being able to mould to create a breast shape is a major limiting factor. With 10% ballistic gelatine, when testing with the 0.357" projectile, a greater variance in measured BFS was shown compared to the other materials. The SEBS gel was consistent for the 0.357" projectile, but with the 9 mm projectile there was greater variance in results. Both 10% ballistic gelatine and SEBS gel would enable a moulded female test form to be created, however SEBS gel has a much longer shelf life and showed resistance to damage, although neither of these materials could be considered as a biofidelic substitute for breast tissue.

我们如何改进女性弹道防弹衣的测试?——罗马塑料的比较。1、10%弹道明胶和sebs凝胶。
为英格兰和威尔士警察设计的防弹衣目前正在使用Roma Plastilina no . 1 (RP1)作为测量背脸特征(BFS)的见证材料进行测试。然而,当测试为女性设计的防弹衣时,这种材料有局限性,因为由于乳房形状的形成方式,不可能测量乳房区域的BFS。因此,为了能够测量女性乳房上的BFS,需要一种替代的支撑材料来形成代孕乳房和躯干,从而能够测量BFS。采用标准化的弹道试验包和两种弹丸(DM11A1B2 9 mm FMJ,速度为365±10 ms-1)对RP1、10%弹道明胶和30/70%苯乙烯-乙炔/丁烯-苯乙烯(SEBS)凝胶进行了比较;雷明顿R357M3 0.357“JSP在速度390±10毫秒-1。结果表明,两种弹丸类型的三种背衬材料的BFS测量值差异有统计学意义。RP1在两种弹丸类型的测量BFS的总体方差最小,然而,能够塑造出乳房形状的限制是一个主要的限制因素。使用10%的弹道明胶,当测试0.357英寸的弹丸时,与其他材料相比,测量的BFS差异更大。SEBS凝胶对于0.357"的弹丸是一致的,但是对于9毫米的弹丸,结果有更大的差异。10%的弹道明胶和SEBS凝胶都可以创建一个女性模型,但是SEBS凝胶具有更长的保质期,并且具有抗损伤性,尽管这两种材料都不能被认为是乳房组织的生物替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
165
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Legal Medicine aims to improve the scientific resources used in the elucidation of crime and related forensic applications at a high level of evidential proof. The journal offers review articles tracing development in specific areas, with up-to-date analysis; original articles discussing significant recent research results; case reports describing interesting and exceptional examples; population data; letters to the editors; and technical notes, which appear in a section originally created for rapid publication of data in the dynamic field of DNA analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信