4.5 Article

Gunshot residue preservation in seawater

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 253, 期 -, 页码 103-111

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.05.021

关键词

Marine decomposition; Gunshot residue; Gunshot wound; SEM-EDX; ICP-MS

资金

  1. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  2. University of Otago

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about the persistence of gunshot residue (GSR) in soft tissue and bones during decomposition in marine environments. For a better understanding, qualitative and quantitative data were obtained on GSR retention on soft tissue and bony gunshot wounds (GSWs). A quantity of 36 fleshed and 36 defleshed bovine ribs were shot at contact range with 0.22 calibre hollow point ammunition using a Stirling 0.22 calibre long rifle. Bone specimens in triplicate were placed in three environments: submerged, intertidal and in supralittoral zone. Sets of triplicates were recovered on day 3, 10, 24 and 38, and analysed with scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDX), and inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The SEM-EDX recorded GSR-indicative particles surrounding the bullet entrance on all bone types (fleshed and defleshed) in all environments throughout the study. GSR-unique particles were only detected on the supralittoral bones. The ICP-MS analysis showed faster GSR loss on submerged than intertidal and supralittoral defleshed specimens. Fleshed specimens showed a faster GSR loss on intertidal than submerged and supralittoral specimens. In conclusion, the GSR disappeared faster from submerged and intertidal than non-submerged specimens. The difference of detection of GSR between analysed specimens (defleshed versus fleshed) disappeared upon defleshing. This study highlights the potential of finding evidence of GSR in a submerged body and the potential of microscopic and analytical methods for examining suspected GSW in highly decomposed bodies in marine habitats. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据