FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 1

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Evaluation and Quantitative Comparison of Different Extraction 

Methodologies for Ignitable Liquids

Keyword(s): Ignitable Liquid, Extraction, Adsorbent, Desorption, Headspace Extraction, Thermal 

Desorption, Activated Carbon, Tenax, Solid Phase Microextraction

Submitting subcommittee(s): Ignitable Liquids, Explosives, & 

Gunshot Residue

Date Approved: 3/02/2021

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background Information:

1. Does this research need address a gap(s) in a current or planned standard? (ex.: Field identification system 

for on scene opioid detection and confirmation)

Yes - ASTM E1386, E1388, E1412, E1413, E2154, E3189.

The choice of the Extraction/Elution method for processing Fire Debris for Ignitable Liquid Residues (ILR) 

analysis can affect the detection of ILR. There are a variety of choices for the extraction and elution process that, 

depending on the nature of the fire debris sample, can result in excellent to poor detection results, including type 

of extraction, time of extraction, elution solvent, and others.

2. Are you aware of any ongoing research that may address this research need that has not yet been published 

(e.g., research presented in conference proceedings, studies that you or a colleague have participated in but 

have yet to be published)?

Dr. Michael Sigman at NCFS.

3. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need: (ex.: Toll, L., Standifer, K. M., Massotte, D., eds. 

(2019). Current Topics in Opioid Research. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/978-2-88963-180-3)

1. Ramirez, N., Cuadras, A., Rovira, E., Borrull, G., Marce, R.M. (2010). Comparative study of solvent extraction and 

thermal desorption methods for determining a wide range of volatile organic compounds in ambient air, Talanta, 82(2), 

pp. 719-727.

2. Phelps, J., Chasteen, C., Render, M. (1994). Extraction and analysis of low molecular weight alcohols and acetone from 

fire debris using passive headspace concentration, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39(1), pp. 194-206.

3. Fettig, I., Kruger, S., Deubel, J.H., Werrel, M., Raspe, T., Peichotta, C. (2013). Evaluation of headspace solid-phase 

microextraction method for the analysis of ignitable liquids in fire debris, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(3).

4. Lloyd, J. Edmiston, P. (2003). Preferential extraction of hydrocarbons from fire debris samples by solid phase 

microextraction, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(1), pp. 1-5.

5. Mann, D., Putaansuu, N. (2006). Alternative Sampling Methods to Collect Ignitable Liquid Residues, Fire and Arson 

Investigator, 57(1), pp. 43-46.

6. Furton, K., Almirall, J., Bruna, J. A novel method for the analysis of gasoline from fire debris using headspace solid-phase 

microextraction, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41(1), pp. 12-22.

7. Cacho, J.J., Campillo, N., Aliste, M., Vinas, P., Hernandez-Cordoba, M. (2014). Headspace sorptive extraction for the 

detection of combustion accelerants in fire debris, Forensic Science International, 238, pp. 26-32.

8. Hall, S., White, G., Gautam, L. (2016). The Development of a Novel Adsorbent for Collecting Ignitable Liquid Residues 

from a Fire Scene, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 122, pp. 304-314.
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 2

9. Massey, D., Du Pasquier, D., Lennard, C. (2002). Solvent desorption of charcoal strips (DFLEX) in the analysis of fire 

debris samples: Replacement of carbon disulfide, Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 35(4), pp. 195-207.

10. Lentini, J.J., Armstrong, A.T. (1997). Comparison of the eluting efficiency of carbon disulfide and diethyl ether: The case 

for laboratory safety, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(2), pp. 307-311.

11. Newman, R., Lothridge, K. (1996). The effects of time, temperature, and concentration in the use of activated charcoal 

strips in fire debris analysis, In Current Topics in Forensic Science, Tokyo, Japan: Shunderson Communications, pp. 218-

224.

12. Fabritius, M.M., Broillet, A., Konig, S., Weinmann, W. (2018). Analysis of volatiles in fire debris by combination of 

activated charcoal strips and automated thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, Forensic Science 

International, 289, pp. 232-237.

13. Baechler, S., Comment, S., Delemont, O. (2010). Extraction and concentration of vapors from fire debris for forensic 

purposes: Evaluation of the use of Radiello Passive Air Sampler, Talanta, 82(4), pp. 1247-1253.

14. Analytical tools for the analysis of fire debris. A review: 2008–2015: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003267016305499; 

15. Advances In Fire Debris Analysis – STARS: stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4412&.

, 

4. Review the annual operational/research needs published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/forensic-science-research-and-development-technology-working-groupoperational#latest? Is your research need identified by NIJ?

No.

5. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

A comparative and quantitative evaluation of extraction techniques will enable laboratories to choose methods 

with higher extraction efficiencies while avoiding those with less than ideal extraction efficiencies for a given fire 

debris sample type.

6. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

While some qualitative research has been carried out relating to extraction methods, the extraction/desorption 

efficiencies have not been quantitatively assessed for many adsorbents and eluting solvents. Quantitative 

assessment of the ASTM methods for fire debris extraction would fill a fundamental knowledge gap in forensic 

ignitable liquids analysis by establishing a basis for justification of selecting one method over another.

7. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

If certain methods are found to have superior extraction/desorption efficiencies compared to other methods, 

these optimal methods will more commonly be chosen by laboratories, thus increasing standardization 

nationally. 
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 3

8. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): II

Major gap in 

current 

knowledge

Minor gap in 

current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research is 

being conducted I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted II IV

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.