Comparative analysis of luminol formulations

Journal of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 53-63

  Quinones, Ignacio ^a   Sheppard, Dion ^b   Harbison, Sallyann ^b   Elliot, Douglas ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LUMINOL;

ARTICLE; BLOOD ANALYSIS; CHEMOLUMINESCENCE; CRIME; DNA DETERMINATION; HUMAN;

EID: 34548361344     PISSN: 00085030     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00085030.2007.10757151     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Butler J.M., Forensic DNA Typing:Biology, Technology and Genetics of STR Markers. Elsevier, USA, 2005; 1–13.
2. Sharman L.E., and Elliot D.A., In:Siegel J.A., Saukko P.J., and Knupper G.C., Editors, Encylopedia of Forensic Science, Academic Press, 2000; 461 and 462.
3. Easton P.M., Simmonds A.C., Rakishev A., Egorov A.M., and Candeias L.P., Quantitative model of the enhancement of peroxidase-induced luminol luminescence. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1996; 118(28):6619–6623.
4. Gaensslen R.E., Sourcebook in Forensic Serology, Immunology, and Biochemistry National Institute of Justice, 1983; 112–116.
5. Grodsky M., Wright K., and Kirk P.L., Simplified preliminary blood testing. An improved technique and comparative study of methods. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Police Science. 1951; 42:94–104.
6. Weber K., Die andwendung der chemiluminescenz des Luminols in der gerichtlichen medizin und toxicology. I. Der nachweis van blutspuren. Dtsch Z Gesamte Gerichtl Med. 1966; 57:410–423.
7. Grispino R.R.J., The effect of luminol on the serological analysis of dried human bloodstains. Crime Laboratory Digest. 1990; 17(1):13–23.
8. Laux D.L., Effects of luminol on the subsequent analysis of bloodstains. J. Forensic Sci. 1991; 36(5):1512–1520.
9. Hochmeister M.N., Budowle B., and Baechtel F.S., Effects of presumptive reagents on the ability to obtain restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) patterns from human blood and semen stains. J. Forensic Sci. 1991; 36:656–661.
10. Gross A.M., Harris K.A., and Kaldun G.L., The effect of luminol on presumptive tests and DNA analysis using the polymerase chain reaction J.Forensic Sci. 1999; 44(4):837–840.
11. Blum L.J., Esperança P., and Rocquefelte S., A new high-performance reagent and procedure for latent bloodstain detection based on luminol chemiluminescence. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 2006; 39(3):81–100.
12. Gill P., Whitaker J., Flaxman C., Brown N., and Buckleton JS. An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. Forensic Science International. 2000; 112:17–40.
13. Kent E.J.M., Elliot D.A., and Miskelly G.M.M., Inhibition of bleach induced luminol chemiluminescence. J. Forensic. Sci. 2003; 48(1):64–67.
14. Bright J-A., and Petricevic S.F., Recovery of trace DNA and its application to DNA profiling. Forensic Science International 2004; 145(1):7–12.
15. King R., and Miskelly G.M.M., The International Journal of Pure and Applied Analytical Chemistry. 2005; 67:345–353.
16. Wild C.J., and Seber G.A.F., Chance encounters:A first course in data analysis and inference NY, USA. John Wiley and Sons. 2000; 231–267.
17. Seiler J.P., The mutagenic activity of sodium perborate. Mutation Research. 1989; 224:219–227.