4.5 Article

Development of a HS-SPME/GC-MS method for the analysis of volatile organic compounds from fabrics for forensic reconstruction applications

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 290, 期 -, 页码 207-218

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.015

关键词

Perfume analysis; Volatile organic compound; Trace evidence; HS-SPME; GC-MS; Validation

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK through the Security Science Doctoral Research Training Centre (UCL SECReT) based at University College London [EP/G037264/1]
  2. Department of Chemistry at University College London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An analytical method for the determination of trace amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) relevant to the cosmetics industry was optimised, validated and employed for the analysis of commercial perfumes. The method used a combination of headspace solid phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). In addition to fibre type, three different HS-SPME extraction conditions were investigated simultaneously, namely incubation time, extraction time and extraction temperature, using a central composite design in order to determine the optimal conditions for the extraction of VOCs of interest. The main figures of merit of the proposed method (calibration range, limits of detection and quantification, trueness and precision) were evaluated for six different VOCs in both natural and synthetic fibres in order to validate it and verify its capability for the proposed application. The validated method was applied for the analysis of traces of commercial perfumes from fabrics, and the VOCs of interest were successfully quantified. This simple, highly sensitive, and robust method has the potential to represent a powerful approach for forensic reconstructions where perfumes have transferred between individuals, such as during assaults and sexual assaults. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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