DNA decontamination of fingerprint brushes.
Forensic Science International, 2017
Authors
Journal
Forensic Science International
Study Design
Addressed Question
Possibility of DNA transfer by fingerprint brushes and possible prevention by cleaning methods
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
3
Replicates per Individual and Condition
3-6
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
new brush or brush used in crime scene situation
Contact Scenario
primary deposit of DNA on both surfaces - usage of brush on first surface - (cleaning scenario of brush) - usage on second surface - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
glass plates or glass jars
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
1 ml of saliva, one handprint or multiple handprints (one/day)
Delay
N/A
Secondary Substrate
Secondary Substrate Type
fingerprint brush
Secondary Substrate Material
Secondary Substrate Contact
brushing primary surface 20x
Further Transfer
(cleaning with sodium hypochlorite or Virkon) - brushing secondary surface in the same manner
Sampling
Background DNA on Sampled Surface
Sampling Time
direct
Persistence
N/A
Sampling Method
direct extraction from brush hairs/swabbing of brushed surfaces
Sampling Area
brush bristles, glass substrates: 14x22 cm^2
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
DNA IQ (Promega), final volume: 50-60 µl
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler Trio
Input for Profiling
0.5 ng or 15 µl DNA template
Profiling
PowerPlex 21, 3500xL Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper ID-X software v1.4, threshold: 175/2000 rfu
Reference Samples
taken from donors of biological samples
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
comparison to reference profiles where available, determination of average profile contribution of individual donors
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
N/A
Profile Quality
mostly full profiles from saliva donors
Parameter Used for Comparison
donor profiles completeness
Summary of Results
full profiles from saliva donors were detected from brush bristles (in 5% of cases, additional unknown alleles present); DNA was transferred via brushes from saliva stains to handprints (avg. Contribution 46%); Virkon (5%) and sodium hypochlorite treatment significantly reduces, but does not completely eliminate salivary DNA transfer to 1-3% with no significant difference between cleaning solutions; Minimal transfer of DNA was observed from brushes used on touchDNA (avg. below 1%); After the transfer scenario, brush bristles retained transferred DNA, which could be removed by cleaning method; Dusting primary surfaces with previously used brushes of unknown history resulted in the transfer of considerable amounts of DNA from unknown sources; DNA transfer via previously used brushes was higher from squirrel hair brushes than from fiber glass brushes; Brushes survive Virkon treatment for longer time with less damage; Conclusion: DNA transfer via fingerprint brushes is possible and dependent on the biological material, brushes used and the applied cleaning method
Raised Questions
N/A
Cautionary Remarks
proportion of brush bristles sampled n.s.; Many different factors varied, variation would not always have been necessary (i.e. testing of multiple, single hand and touch deposits not necessary for the informative value of the study) but rather reduces comprehensibility of study