Clarissa Camara , Cynthia Cheung , Katelynn A. Perrault Uptmor
{"title":"非专业人员观察一维气相色谱和综合二维气相色谱输出的色谱差异","authors":"Clarissa Camara , Cynthia Cheung , Katelynn A. Perrault Uptmor","doi":"10.1016/j.forc.2024.100620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the context of forensic investigations, chromatography is used to characterize a sample’s components, providing a chemical pattern to compare with known references which is often presented to individuals without specialized training in analytical chemistry. Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) has recently become popular in forensic research for analyzing samples such as fire debris samples, drugs, chemical threats, human remains detection, and more. New methods are developed in forensic research regularly, which challenge our view of what may be increasingly complex to convey through scientific communication. This study investigated individuals’ ability to observe differences in images for non-chromatographic photographs, one-dimensional gas chromatography (GC) chromatograms, and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) contour plots. The goal was to identify whether comparative observations between two outputs were facilitated or hindered when observing GC chromatograms compared to GC×GC contour plots, using photographs as a control. Participants indicated low difficulty in finding differences between pairs of images in all categories. They scored highly at indicating when two images were distinguishable or indistinguishable, with no significant difference between control images and each category. These results support that GC×GC output can be implemented in expert testimony without challenges over traditional one-dimensional techniques. Ongoing research should avoid statements that GC×GC may facilitate or hinder juror comprehension, as the results currently indicate no significant benefit or drawback. Additional research is needed to improve understanding of how technique explanation could aid expert witness testimony to better evaluate how this increasingly common technique will fit into future forensic casework opportunities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":324,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Chemistry","volume":"41 ","pages":"Article 100620"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observation of chromatographic differences by non-specialist viewers for one-dimensional gas chromatography and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography output\",\"authors\":\"Clarissa Camara , Cynthia Cheung , Katelynn A. Perrault Uptmor\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forc.2024.100620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the context of forensic investigations, chromatography is used to characterize a sample’s components, providing a chemical pattern to compare with known references which is often presented to individuals without specialized training in analytical chemistry. Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) has recently become popular in forensic research for analyzing samples such as fire debris samples, drugs, chemical threats, human remains detection, and more. New methods are developed in forensic research regularly, which challenge our view of what may be increasingly complex to convey through scientific communication. This study investigated individuals’ ability to observe differences in images for non-chromatographic photographs, one-dimensional gas chromatography (GC) chromatograms, and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) contour plots. The goal was to identify whether comparative observations between two outputs were facilitated or hindered when observing GC chromatograms compared to GC×GC contour plots, using photographs as a control. Participants indicated low difficulty in finding differences between pairs of images in all categories. They scored highly at indicating when two images were distinguishable or indistinguishable, with no significant difference between control images and each category. These results support that GC×GC output can be implemented in expert testimony without challenges over traditional one-dimensional techniques. Ongoing research should avoid statements that GC×GC may facilitate or hinder juror comprehension, as the results currently indicate no significant benefit or drawback. Additional research is needed to improve understanding of how technique explanation could aid expert witness testimony to better evaluate how this increasingly common technique will fit into future forensic casework opportunities.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"41 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100620\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468170924000729\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468170924000729","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Observation of chromatographic differences by non-specialist viewers for one-dimensional gas chromatography and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography output
In the context of forensic investigations, chromatography is used to characterize a sample’s components, providing a chemical pattern to compare with known references which is often presented to individuals without specialized training in analytical chemistry. Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) has recently become popular in forensic research for analyzing samples such as fire debris samples, drugs, chemical threats, human remains detection, and more. New methods are developed in forensic research regularly, which challenge our view of what may be increasingly complex to convey through scientific communication. This study investigated individuals’ ability to observe differences in images for non-chromatographic photographs, one-dimensional gas chromatography (GC) chromatograms, and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) contour plots. The goal was to identify whether comparative observations between two outputs were facilitated or hindered when observing GC chromatograms compared to GC×GC contour plots, using photographs as a control. Participants indicated low difficulty in finding differences between pairs of images in all categories. They scored highly at indicating when two images were distinguishable or indistinguishable, with no significant difference between control images and each category. These results support that GC×GC output can be implemented in expert testimony without challenges over traditional one-dimensional techniques. Ongoing research should avoid statements that GC×GC may facilitate or hinder juror comprehension, as the results currently indicate no significant benefit or drawback. Additional research is needed to improve understanding of how technique explanation could aid expert witness testimony to better evaluate how this increasingly common technique will fit into future forensic casework opportunities.
期刊介绍:
Forensic Chemistry publishes high quality manuscripts focusing on the theory, research and application of any chemical science to forensic analysis. The scope of the journal includes fundamental advancements that result in a better understanding of the evidentiary significance derived from the physical and chemical analysis of materials. The scope of Forensic Chemistry will also include the application and or development of any molecular and atomic spectrochemical technique, electrochemical techniques, sensors, surface characterization techniques, mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance, chemometrics and statistics, and separation sciences (e.g. chromatography) that provide insight into the forensic analysis of materials. Evidential topics of interest to the journal include, but are not limited to, fingerprint analysis, drug analysis, ignitable liquid residue analysis, explosives detection and analysis, the characterization and comparison of trace evidence (glass, fibers, paints and polymers, tapes, soils and other materials), ink and paper analysis, gunshot residue analysis, synthetic pathways for drugs, toxicology and the analysis and chemistry associated with the components of fingermarks. The journal is particularly interested in receiving manuscripts that report advances in the forensic interpretation of chemical evidence. Technology Readiness Level: When submitting an article to Forensic Chemistry, all authors will be asked to self-assign a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to their article. The purpose of the TRL system is to help readers understand the level of maturity of an idea or method, to help track the evolution of readiness of a given technique or method, and to help filter published articles by the expected ease of implementation in an operation setting within a crime lab.