FINAL VERSION 

FIRE AND EXPLOSION INVESTIGATIONS AND FORENSIC ANALYSES: 

NEAR- AND LONG-TERM NEEDS ASSESSMENT 

FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

A REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NIJ) 

PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE, 

CARL CHASTEEN, 

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE, 

AND 

THE TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP 

FOR FIRE AND EXPLOSIONS 

FUNDED BY NIJ AWARD 2005-MU-MU-K044, SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 

(UCF PROJECT NO. 24076017) 

REVIEWED AND EDITED BY CARL CHASTEEN 

JANUARY 6, 2008 

FINAL EDITING COMPLETED BY NCFS 

JANUARY 8, 2008 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

1 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Preface 

Among the various types of criminal investigations and the varied specialties for forensic 

analyses, crimes associated with arson and explosions are sometimes the most difficult 

to process and analyze. The inherent destructiveness of the events often compromise 

much of the evidence left behind. Ignitable liquids and many individual chemical 

compounds are found as contaminants in various matrices from a fire scene. The 

residues produced from the complete reaction of explosives are often gases. Those, 

which are not gases, are often so common that their presence is not meaningful. 

The International Association of Arson Investigators1, the National Fire Protection 

Association2, the American Society for Testing and Materials3, the International 

Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators4, and the Technical/Scientific 

Working Group for Fire and Explosions5

, have a high level of interest and desire in 

improving both the procedures at the scene and the capabilities of the laboratory. Yet, 

the status of investigations and analyses are not uniform across the nation. Among 

scene investigators, there is a desire to use more scientific and forensically sound 

methods. Among laboratory analysts, there is a desire to be able to glean the most that 

science can reveal about the evidence and to begin to approach the same levels of 

individualization as has been achieved in DNA analysis. 

Recognizing the current state of affairs and wishing to provide guidance, the National 

Institute of Justice6

 commissioned7 the National Center for Forensic Science8 to 

prepare this report on the near- and long-term needs in Arson and Explosion analyses 

and investigations. Through collaboration with numerous representatives of the 

relevant communities and a survey instrument targeted to those communities this report 

was prepared. 

1

 IAAI, http://www.firearson.com. 

2

 NFPA, http://www.nfpa.org. 

3

 ASTM, http://www.astm.org. 

4

 IABTI, http://www.iabti.org. 

5

 T/SWGFEX, http://www.ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/index.html. 

6

 NIJ, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. 

NIJ funded this project ($100,000) through Award No. 2005-MU-MU-K044, 

Supplement No. 1 (FY-2006, $1,450,000), UCF Project No. 24076022. Mr. John Paul 

Jones is the NIJ Program Manager for this award. 

8

 NCFS, http://www.ncfs.org. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

7

2 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Acknowledgements 

The individuals responsible for preparing this report (and who are listed in Appendix A) 

would like to thank the Director and Staff of the National Center for Forensic Science, 

the Chair and Co-Chair of the Technical/Scientific Working Group for Fire and 

Explosions, the various agencies who allowed their staff members to participate, as well 

as the national and regional forensic science organizations that assisted with the 

distribution of the survey instrument, including: 

 The American Academy of Forensic Science9 

 The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors10 

 The International Association of Arson Investigators11 

 The International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators12 

 The Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists13 

 The Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists14 

 The Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists15 

 The Southern Association of Forensic Scientists16 

 The Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists17 

 Technical/Scientific Working Group for Fire and Explosion18 

Numerous individuals who sent personal emails and letters to colleagues so that they 

were aware of the survey are noted, but cannot be listed. 

9

 AAFS, http://www.aafs.org. 

10 ASCLD, http://www.ascld.org. 

11 IAAI, http://www.firearson.com. 

12 IABTI, http://www.iabti.org. 

13 NEAFS, http://www.neafs.org. 

14 MAFS, http://www.mafs.net. 

15 MAAFS, http://www.maafs.org. 

16 SAFS, http://www.southernforensic.org. 

17 SWAFS, http://www.swafs.us. 

18 T/SWGFEX, http://www.ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/index.html. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

3 
FINAL VERSION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Executive Summary 5-6 

2. Background 7-8 

3. Structure of Survey Instrument 9 

4. Recommendations 10-11 

I. Develop Analytical and Investigative Products, Equipment, and Technique 

A. Technology Transfer and Development of New Instrumentation for 

Field and Laboratory Detection and Analysis of Ignitable liquids and 

Explosives 

12-14 

B. Expansion and Creation of Databases Relevant to Fire Debris and 

Explosives Analysis 

15-16 

C. Alternatives and Improvements to Fire Debris Extraction Techniques 17-18 

D. Improvements to Recognition, Sampling, and Preservation of Bombing 

Evidence 

19-20 

E. Basic Instrumentation Improvement for Under-funded Laboratories 21-22 

F. Access to Existing Federal Databases and Information on Fire and 

Explosives Issues and Materials 

23 

G. Fire and Explosion Computer Modeling 24-25 

H. Selected ILRC Reference Materials for Forensic Laboratories 26-27 

I. Internal Standards Research 28 

J. Development of Gasoline “Taggants” 29 

II. Improve Communications, Contacts, and Cooperation 30-32 

III. Enhance and Standardize Qualifications and Training 

A. Near and Long Term Education and Training of Analysts and 

Investigators 

33-41 

B. Fire Dynamics 42 

IV. Expand Access to Existing Information on Instrumentation and 

Equipment 

43-44 

V. Promote Consistency in Terminology, Methods, and Techniques 

A. Glossaries for Fire and Explosions 45 

B. Laboratory Submission Guidelines 46 

C. Resources and Best Practices in Analysis and Investigations 47-48 

D. Canine Use in Post-Blast Environments 49-50 

VI. Appendices 

A. Participants, State and Local (A.1 – A.4) 51-55 

B. Synopses of Survey Results 56-86 

C. Tables of Survey Question Relationships to Planning Sub-Committees 87-89 

D. Posted Survey and VistaTM Generated Survey Results 90> 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

4 
 

FINAL VERSION 

1. Executive Summary 

In March of 2007, the National Center of Forensic Science (NCFS) turned to six (6) 

members of the Technical/Scientific Working Group in Fire and Explosion 

(T/SWGFEX) to form a Needs Assessment Planning Panel. This group was 

charged with preparing a report on the near- and long-term needs to the fire and 

explosion investigation and forensic analysis communities. The six (6) planning 

panel members were tasked to chair of one of the following planning subcommittees: 

 Near- and long-term needs in Analytical Methods for Fire Debris Analysis 

 Near- and long-term needs in Analytical Methods for Explosives Analysis 

 Near- and long-term needs in Technology for Fire Debris Analysis and Fire 

Scene Investigation 

 Near- and long-term needs in Technology for Explosives Analysis and 

Explosive Scene Investigation 

 Near- and long-term needs in Training for Fire Debris Analysts and Forensic 

Fire Scene Investigators 

 Near- and long-term needs in Training for Explosives Analysts and Forensic 

Explosive Scene Investigators 

Each Chair selected additional members to fill each of these committees. The group 

reviewed two (2) surveys originally prepared by the Technical Working Group for 

Fire and Explosions in 1999 and 2000. These surveys were used by the 

T/SWGFEX organization to guide it in selecting projects and tasks that would be 

relevant to the fire and explosion investigative and forensic analysis communities. 

Using these as a template, one hundred (100) questions were formulated to create a 

survey instrument for 2007. 

The survey was distributed using the assistance of a variety of investigative and 

analytical organizations. The results were collected in late September of 2007. The 

Planning Panel and members of the T/SWGFEX Executive Board met in late 

September of 2007 where they discussed the results of the survey. Using the 

survey instrument as well as input from their committee members, the group drafted 

their recommendations for this report. A process of drafts and reviews were used to 

hone these into a final recommendation divided into five general themes. Some of 

the themes could only be addressed through examination of multiple issues. 

The themes and sub-divisions are: 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

5 
FINAL VERSION 

I. Develop Analytical and Investigative Products, Equipment, and Technique 

K. Technology Transfer and Development of New Instrumentation for 

Field and Laboratory Detection and Analysis of Ignitable liquids and 

Explosives 

12-14 

L. Expansion and Creation of Databases Relevant to Fire Debris and 

Explosives Analysis 

15-16 

M. Alternatives and Improvements to Fire Debris Extraction Techniques 17-18 

N. Improvements to Recognition, Sampling, and Preservation of Bombing 

Evidence 

19-20 

O. Basic Instrumentation Improvement for Under-funded Laboratories 21-22 

P. Access to Existing Federal Databases and Information on Fire and 

Explosives Issues and Materials 

23 

Q. Fire and Explosion Computer Modeling 24-25 

R. Selected ILRC Reference Materials for Forensic Laboratories 26-27 

S. Internal Standards Research 28 

T. Development of Gasoline “Taggants” 29 

II. Improve Communications, Contacts, and Cooperation 30-32 

III. Enhance and Standardize Qualifications and Training 

C. Near and Long Term Education and Training of Analysts and 

Investigators 

33-41 

D. Fire Dynamics 42 

IV. Expand Access to Existing Information on Instrumentation and 

Equipment 

43-44 

V. Promote Consistency in Terminology, Methods, and Techniques 

E. Glossaries for Fire and Explosions 45 

F. Laboratory Submission Guidelines 46 

G. Resources and Best Practices in Analysis and Investigations 47-48 

H. Canine Use in Post-Blast Environments 49-50 

Within each theme and sub-division, there are recommendations providing specific 

guidance and comment on: 

 Needs and Problems Identified 

 Suggested Solutions 

 Implementation Strategies 

It is hoped that these recommendations will provide direction on methods, 

technologies, and training identified as being most needed to meet the near and long 

term needs of those who both investigate fires and bombings as well as the 

scientists who provide forensic analyses. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

6 
 

FINAL VERSION 

2. Background 

In 1998, the National Center for Forensic Science19, a National Institute of Justice20 

program hosted by the University of Central Florida21, organized a National Needs 

Assessment22 meeting for fire and explosion investigators and analysts. Following 

this meeting, NCFS used NIJ funds to create two (2) Technical Working Groups 

(TWGs) responsible for writing two (2) guidebooks. NIJ in 2002 published the two 

(2) documents as research reports: Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide for 

Public Safety Personnel23 and A Guide for Explosion and Bombing Scene 

Investigation24 . A large contingent of the individuals attending this National Needs 

Assessment and who wrote these reports merged under the guidance of NCFS to 

form the Technical/Scientific Working Group for Fire and Explosions (T/SWGFEX). 

This Working Group is unique among the various Technical and Scientific Working 

Groups in that it is composed of both laboratory scientists in fire debris and 

explosives analysis as well as fire and explosives scene investigators. Since then, 

the mission of T/SWGFEX has been: 

“To establish and maintain nationally accepted programs for the forensic 

investigation of fire, arson, and explosion scenes and devices. Further, to 

promote and maintain dialogue among personnel in the public safety and legal 

communities.” 

To achieve this mission, its various sub-committees have written and proposed 

standards for analysis, created modules for training, initiated and maintained a 

national database and repository for ignitable liquids, and organized symposia. 

T/SWGFEX chose these projects based on the results from one of its first projects. 

In 1999 and 2000, T/SWGFEX prepared and issued surveys to both laboratory25 and 

19 NCFS, http://www.ncfs.org. 

20 NIJ, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. 

21 UCF, http://www.ucf.edu. 

22 August 7-8, 1997 (Orlando, Florida). 

23 http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181584.pdf. 

24 http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181869.pdf. 

25 Survey of Forensic Science Laboratories by the Technical Working Group for Fire and 

Explosions (TWGFEX)”, Forensic Science Communications, January 2000 (Volume 2. 

Number 1), http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2000/allen.htm. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

7 
 

FINAL VERSION 

scene26 experts in fire and explosion investigations. These surveys provided 

comprehensive overviews of the state of fire and explosives analyses and 

investigative issues. 

In 2007, NCFS was again charged by NIJ to assess the near- and long-term needs 

for arson (i.e., fire debris) analysis, explosives analysis, fire scene investigation, and 

bombing investigations. Its focus was on the analytical methods, technology, and 

training necessary to improve those fields. To achieve this task, NCFS turned to 

T/SWGFEX. 

The experts from T/SWGFEX, as well as other organizations, were selected to 

expand the base of expertise within each committee. The panel began by 

discussing its task and decided that the original T/SWGFEX surveys should be a 

logical place from where to begin. The panel and their committee members worked 

to create a comprehensive survey that would assess the needs of the analytical and 

investigative communities. This survey was posted via Internet to members of 

relevant associated groups. 

The survey was composed of one hundred (100) questions in eleven (11) 

categories. After the deadline for response to the survey, the results of the survey 

were analyzed and the various committees made their recommendations, which 

were coalesced into a comprehensive list of recommendations. This report contains 

those recommendations as well as additional information on how the 

recommendations were derived, the survey instrument and its raw results, and 

interpretation of those results. 

26 “Results of TWGFEX Scene Survey” (http://www.ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/docs/ 

Scene+Survey+Results+Report.pdf). 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

8 
 

FINAL VERSION 

3. Structure of the Survey Instrument 

The survey instrument contained one hundred (100) questions sub-divided into 

eleven (11) parts: 

 Demographics and General Questions 

 Professional Development 

 Fire Debris Analysis Casework 

 Fire Debris Analysis Analytical Methods 

 Fire Debris Analysis Data Interpretation 

 Explosives Analysis Casework 

 Explosives Analytical Methods 

 Explosives Data Interpretation 

 Fire Scene Investigation 

 Explosives Scene Investigation 

 Laboratory Research Topics 

Most questions related to more than one of the six (6) original planning panel subcommittee topics. Tables showing these relationships are included in the appendix. 

The survey was formatted by the Vista TM Survey System to an instrument, which 

could be posted, completed, and submitted via Internet. NCFS representatives and 

members of the various planning panels made contact with professional 

organizations who agreed to post a link to the survey on their websites and to alert 

their members. 

The survey was posted for most of the month of August 2007 and the first week of 

September 2007. At the end of the posting period, the Vista TM Survey System 

prepared a report, which a committee of Planning Panel members and T/SWGFEX 

reviewed. The committee felt that the report by Vista TM Survey System was helpful, 

but felt that additional information could be derived through a closer examination of 

the raw data. Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences ® (SPSS) software, 

a member of the Planning Panel was able to re-format many of the results to the 

survey questions so that committee members could better understand respondents. 

For some questions, it was obvious from the number of responses that more than 

the target community had provided input. Separating responses by the primary job 

category indicated by a respondent allowed the committee to view responses by 

specific job category rather than the more general response. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

9 
 

FINAL VERSION 

4. Recommendations for the Near- and Long-Term Needs In Fire and Explosion 

Analysis and Investigations 

The 2007 T/SWGFEX Needs Assessment Survey27 have identified five (5) general 

areas/themes which address the near- and long-term needs of Fire and Explosion 

Analysts and Investigators. A careful review reveals that many of the issues are 

intricately linked; some give greater emphasis to technology and methods while 

others emphasize education and training. Where a new technology is developed, 

the issue of training will follow closely behind. The five (5) general themes included 

(from I through V): 

I. Develop Analytical and Investigative Products, Equipment, and Technique 

A. Technology Transfer and Development of New Instrumentation for Field and 

Laboratory Detection and Analysis of Ignitable liquids and Explosives 

B. Expansion and Creation of Databases Relevant to Fire Debris and Explosives 

Analysis 

C. Alternatives and Improvements to Fire Debris Extraction Techniques 

D. Improvements to Recognition, Sampling, and Preservation of Bombing 

Evidence 

E. Basic Instrumentation Improvement for Under-funded Laboratories 

F. Access to Existing Federal Databases and Information on Fire and Explosives 

Issues and Materials 

G. Fire and Explosion Computer Modeling 

H. Selected ILRC Reference Materials for Forensic Laboratories 

I. Internal Standards Research 

J. Development of Gasoline “Taggants” 

27 NIJ funded the 2007 TWGFEX Needs Assessment via its FY-2006 2005-MU-MUK044, Supplement No. 1 award to NCFS (UCF Project No. 24076017). 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

10 
FINAL VERSION 

II. Improve Communications, Contacts, and Cooperation 

III. Enhance and Standardize Qualifications and Training 

IV. Expand Access to Existing Information on Instrumentation and Equipment 

V. Promote Consistency in Terminology, Methods, and Techniques 

A. Glossaries for Fire and Explosions 

B. Laboratory Submission Guidelines 

C. Resources and Best Practices in Analysis and Investigations 

D. Canine Use in Post-Blast Environments 

Each of these may be further subdivided into sub-topics. All have been proportioned 

between the three following considerations: 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

2. Suggested Solution(s) 

3. Implementation Strategies 

Participants in the Needs Assessment Planning Panel and T/SWGFEX (see 

Appendix A) were polled during the formulation of these recommendations in order 

to prioritize their order of presentation within the report. The primary Survey 

Questions to which each theme derived its response is noted at the beginning of 

each thematic grouping. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

11 
FINAL VERSION 

I. Develop Analytical and Investigative Products, Equipment, and Techniques 

Survey Questions 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 54, 55, 60, 62, 

66, 73, 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 

A. Technology Transfer and Development of New Instrumentation for Field and 

Laboratory Detection and Analysis of Ignitable liquids and Explosives 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Both Fire Debris and Explosives Analysis have benefited from the transfer 

of technology from other forensic or analytical applications. 

b. In some instances, the nuances of separating the analyte from the 

background interferences have not permitted technology transfer. 

c. Advances in analytical chemistry, digital imaging, robotics, and data 

recording are presenting new tools and technology every day. 

d. Forensic Laboratories are confronted with workloads and budgets that do 

not allow them to explore and validate these new technologies and thus 

the benefits of technology transfer are often delayed. 

e. Competitive grants to research and apply new technology to the analysis 

of fire debris and explosives and the processing and sampling of fire and 

post-blast scenes are needed. 

f. The specific areas of interest described in the survey instrument and 

between planning panel members are: 

1) Development and validation of instrumentation that will be capable of 

indicating the probability match of ignitable liquids recovered from a fire 

scene to ignitable liquids on the person or in the possession of a 

suspect or victim. In short, the development of “DNA” analysis for fire 

debris is desired. Examples of instrumentation currently used in other 

analytical areas that may have an application are: two-dimensional gas 

chromatography with mass spectral detection (GC x GC/MS); Stable 

Isotope Ratio Mass Spectroscopy; Gas Chromatography with tandem 

mass spectral detection (GC/MSn

) or Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron 

Resonance Mass Spectroscopy. 

2) Development and validation of “expert system” software for GC/MS 

that can rapidly compare data from case samples with a reference 

library of ignitable liquid standards to form probability match lists. 

Examples of data from the reference standards that can be crossTWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

12 
 

 

FINAL VERSION 

referenced and compared with unknowns are: target compound 

retention time, target compound mass spectra, target compound ratios, 

single ion profiles, and summed ion profiles. 

3) An expert system that could be linked between laboratories willing to 

share their libraries would be an advanced application of this project. 

4) Development and validation of additional and new technologies and 

methods that can identify both inorganic and organic explosives using, 

but not limited to: Time of Flight (TOF) GC/MS; Raman Spectroscopy; 

High Performance Liquid Chromatography-Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectroscopy (HPLC-FTIR); Capillary Electrophoresis (CE); CE with 

Mass Spectral Detection (CE/MS); High Performance Liquid 

Chromatography with Mass Spectral Detection (HPLC/MS); 

Atmospheric Ionization Mass Spectrometry; or Ion ChromatographyMass Spectrometry (IC-MS). 

5) Development and validation of derivatization procedures and methods 

for alternative methods of analysis. Not all laboratories possess the 

same pieces of equipment and technology. Some instruments can 

confirm the identification of an analyte, so long as it is the type of 

molecule that the instrument can “see.” This would seek to determine 

standard methods and techniques for converting certain analytes from 

one form to another so that alternate instrumentation may be used. 

For example: conversion of cations to organic salts for analysis by 

GC/MS or the use of ligands in CE/MS. 

6) Continue development of field portable (hand-held) instruments for 

field analysis of explosives, explosive residues and components, and 

ignitable liquids. Standardize development of new methods and 

techniques for field analysis using existing hand-held instrumentation. 

Candidates in limited use or with significant potential for this type of 

development include: Raman Spectroscopy; X-Ray Florescence; Micro 

Cantilever Sensors; Ion Mobility Spectroscopy; Differential Mobility 

Spectroscopy, Chemiluminescent Detection (EGIS); and GC/MS. 

7) Development, testing, and validation of field portable instruments or 

sensors for explosives, mounted on existing robotic platforms so that 

they, and not personnel, are sent into “hot” zones to examine and 

report on the presence of ignitable liquids, or explosives. These field 

instruments may be capable of either rendering an analysis on site or 

sending the raw data via wireless communication to a remote 

laboratory for examination. 

8) Develop, test, and validate tools for investigators at a scene such as 

an affordable hand-held x-ray unit that could allow investigators to 

“see” the interior of melted and deformed items. Another example is 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

13 
FINAL VERSION 

the development of instruments and tools for scene documentation and 

laser mapping using GPS markers with the capability of having the 

data automatically downloaded into computer modeling software (FDS 

for Fire modeling). 

9) Development, testing, and validation of scene “toolboxes” and training 

kits along the line of the Israeli or Australian models which allow their 

field agents to process the scene quickly and efficiently. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. NIJ grant solicitations for research into the development of new 

instrumentation, technology, methods, and sensors for the analysis of fire 

debris and explosives and the processing and sampling of fire and postblast scenes as described above. 

b. The implementation of technology transfer from techniques and methods 

not currently used in fire debris or explosion analysis and field 

investigations would be given preference. 

c. The final reports from any funded projects must completely describe how 

the new technology is applied to fire or explosion analysis or scene 

investigations and provide comparative data of the new technology’s 

efficiency versus the existing technology as well as the cost effectiveness 

of the new technology. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Utilize T/SWGFEX to provide a pool of subject matter experts to review 

the solicitations and grant application proposals from which they would 

provide recommendations to NIJ for final consideration. 

b. Once projects are selected, funded, and complete, ensure that the results 

are delivered to the relevant community through publication of the 

research and/or presentation at professional seminars and symposia. 

c. Provide a link to the research results/papers through the T/SWGFEX 

Website http://ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/index.html. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

14 
FINAL VERSION 

B. Expansion and Creation of Databases Relevant to Fire Debris and Explosives 

Analysis 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. The existing Ignitable Liquids Reference Collection (ILRC, 

http://ilrc.ucf.edu/search.php) created by T/SWGFEX contains over 440 

ignitable liquids. Each has been analyzed by Gas Chromatography-Mass 

Spectroscopy and this data as well as manufacturers’ and chemical 

information is available in a publicly accessible Website. Each item is also 

available as a physical sample that can be sent to a laboratory in order to 

analyze the ignitable liquid on their instrumentation. 

b. More materials such as mixtures of ignitable liquids, various levels of 

deterioration of ignitable liquids, matrix contributions of ignitable liquids, 

and pyrolysis products are needed to expand the database. 

c. T/SWGFEX is currently engaged in the construction of a similar database 

for explosives where data from various explosives analyzed by different 

instruments are also in a searchable format. Due to security issues, the 

content and method of access to this database requires additional 

consideration. 

d. Additionally, the question of the compositional consistency between preand post-blast explosives is not fully known. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Expand the ILRC by adding more samples of different ignitable liquids, 

mixtures, and various deterioration curves. 

b. Promote and encourage the use of the database by analysts. 

c. Continue the T/SWGFEX project to design, create, and post a similar 

explosives database (without a corresponding reference collection of 

materials for purchase). 

d. Submit an NIJ grant proposal to study the compositional consistency of 

pre- and post-blast explosives in various environments and add the data 

to the explosives database. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

15 
FINAL VERSION 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Increase funding to the T/SWGFEX Ignitable Liquids Reference 

Collection (ILRC) sub-committee to bring the members of the groups 

together more frequently to review and categorize data, design database 

improvements, and plan for further expansion. 

b. Increase funding to NCFS to add additional staff for preparing ignitable 

liquid mixtures, deteriorated levels of ignitable liquids, extraction of 

matrices, and preparation of pyrolysis products. 

c. Increase funding to purchase more ignitable liquids, matrices, 

instrumentation, and storage materials. 

d. Increase the funding to the T/SWGFEX Explosives Database subcommittee to bring the members of the group together to complete their 

review and categorization of the data. Then the group would design the 

final version of the database for implementation. 

e. Increase funding to purchase instrumentation, explosives, range time, 

personal protective equipment, and storage materials. 

f. Increase the funding to the solicitations in order to add additional staff for 

analysis of explosives and explosives residues and database input and 

maintenance. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

16 
FINAL VERSION 

C. Alternatives and Improvements to Fire Debris Extraction Techniques 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Many of the ASTM methods used to extract fire debris, particularly 

Passive Headspace Concentration ASTM E1412, require the use of an 

adsorbent and a solvent. The adsorbent used most often in the United 

States is activated charcoal/carbon membrane. The solvent most often 

employed in desorbing the adsorbent is carbon disulfide due to its extreme 

efficiency in desorbing the trapped ignitable liquids. 

b. Activated charcoal/carbon of the correct quality and orientation is only 

available from a limited number of sources. 

c. Carbon disulfide is a dangerous and risky solvent (e.g., flammable, 

explosive, toxic, carcinogenic, etc.). Less dangerous alternatives such as 

diethyl ether, pentane, and blends have not proven to be as efficient as 

carbon disulfide in their desorption ability and may have their own 

hazards. 

d. Active Forensic Laboratories have little time nor resources for conducting 

experimental casework to find alternatives to the adsorption matrix or the 

desorption solvent/procedure. 

e. Projects to examine, document, and assess alternate adsorption media 

and desorption solvents and procedures are needed. This would increase 

the supply and availability of adsorption media and reduce the risk of or 

eliminate the use of dangerous chemicals in the desorption process. 

2. Suggested Solution 

a. NIJ grant solicitations for projects to explore alternatives to activated 

charcoal/carbon membranes as adsorption media focusing on both the 

efficiency of adsorption and the availability of the alternate media from a 

variety of resources. 

b. NIJ grant solicitations for projects to explore alternatives to the use of 

chemical solvents currently used in desorbing adsorption media, focusing 

both on the efficiency of desorption and the reduction of hazards 

associated with the use of solvents. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

17 
FINAL VERSION 

c. NIJ grant solicitations for projects to explore alternatives to the use of 

either adsorption media or desorption solvents such as direct vapor 

headspace acquisition and injection, thermal desorption media, or 

cryogenic focusing. 

d. The final reports from any funded projects must completely describe the 

alternative technique and provide comparative data of the following: the 

new technology’s efficiency versus the existing technology; the cost 

effectiveness of the new technology; and how the new technology will 

address the need to archive any ignitable liquids extracted from the 

samples for later analyses. The implementation of technology transfer 

from techniques and methods not currently used in fire debris analysis 

would be encouraged. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Utilize T/SWGFEX to provide a pool of subject matter experts to review 

the solicitations and grant application proposals from which they would 

provide recommendations to NIJ for final consideration. 

b. Once projects are selected, funded, and complete, ensure that the results 

are delivered to the relevant community through publication of the 

research and/or presentation at professional seminars and symposia. 

c. Provide a link to the research results and papers through T/SWGFEX 

http://ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/mission.html. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

18 
FINAL VERSION 

D. Improvements to Recognition, Sampling, and Preservation of Bombing Evidence 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. A bombing scene contains the remains and residues of the explosive 

device. Unlike most other crime scenes the evidence has been forcefully 

dispersed over a wide area. Determination of the optimum areas for 

collection of samples is often difficult. 

b. The selection of evidence must also consider the container in which the 

explosive residues will be preserved until they are to be tested. The 

various available containers are not the same. Some are porous and will 

permit the loss of volatile components. Some are so non-porous that 

volatile components will off-gas and build pressure in the container. Some 

are caustic and can corrode and breach metal or paper containers. In 

addition, some residues may dissolve plastic. The decision of which 

container to use to preserve the evidence is one of the first that can 

greatly affect the eventual ability of the laboratory to test the evidence and 

must be made with great care. 

c. New explosives present new challenges. Triacetonetriperoxide (TATP) is 

becoming the explosive of choice with terrorists and anarchists due to the 

simplicity of preparing it. Its volatility, shock sensitivity, and tendency to 

succumb to rapid entropy are issues that affect finding and preserving it. 

d. Research and training into the optimum areas within a bombing scene for 

selection of a sample and into the optimum containers for the preservation 

of various explosives is needed. 

e. Research and training into the proper methods for preservation of TATP 

and other volatile explosives residues is needed. 

f. A concise guide for the use and limitations of field instruments and 

presumptive identification kits would assist investigators in the selection of 

samples for more intensive laboratory testing. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

19 
FINAL VERSION 

2. Suggested Solution 

a. NIJ grant solicitations for research into probability sampling in a bombing 

scene seeking to determine the positive hit return rate depending on 

distance from the crater and the value of various witness surfaces. 

b. NIJ grant solicitations into determining the optimum containers for 

preservation of various explosive residues measuring the retention of the 

residue within the container without deterioration of the residue or 

container. 

c. NIJ grant solicitations into the hazards and potential for preservation of 

peroxide based and highly volatile, unstable, or reactive explosives. Can 

it be done? How? In addition, for how long? 

d. Development and distribution of a guide to the proper use and limitations 

of field instruments and presumptive testing kits. 

e. The final reports from any funded projects must completely describe how 

the new technology is applied to fire or explosion analysis or scene 

investigations and provide comparative data of: the new technology’s 

efficiency versus the existing technology as well as the cost effectiveness 

of the new technology. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Utilize T/SWGFEX to provide a pool of subject matter experts to review 

the solicitations and grant application proposals from which they would 

provide recommendations to NIJ for final consideration. 

b. Utilize T/SWGFEX to research and create a guide to the proper use and 

limitations of field instruments and presumptive testing kits. This may 

require sufficient funds for obtaining the kits (purchase, rental, or lease) as 

well as travel and lodging for the researchers to meet. 

c. Once projects are selected, funded, and complete, ensure that the results 

are delivered to the relevant community through publication of the 

research and/or presentation at professional seminars and symposia. 

d. Provide a link to the research results/papers through T/SWGFEX at 

http://ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/mission.html. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

20 
 

 

FINAL VERSION 

E. Basic Instrumentation Improvement for Under-Funded Laboratories 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. A few laboratories are using gas chromatography with flame ionization 

detection (GC/FID) for analysis of fire debris. While this is certainly an 

adequate technology, it is not the technology of preference as seen in this 

survey or the results from the various proficiency testing organizations. 

Currently, fire debris analysis primarily utilizes gas chromatography with 

mass spectral detectors (GC/MS) in the analysis of extracts from fire 

debris. The nature of ignitable liquids and the interference chemicals coextracted from the background matrices can often only be determined by 

the use of GC/MS. 

b. Smaller, under funded laboratories often cannot afford the approximately 

$100,000 to purchase a GC/MS and train personnel. They must rely on 

the less expensive technology available with GC/FID. GC/FID, while valid 

for many samples, cannot provide the level of efficiency and accuracy of 

analysis as provided by GC/MS on those samples that are “borderline.” 

Additionally, the identification of some ignitable liquid mixtures as well as 

single components requires mass spectral data. 

c. Current Coverdell grants28 are often targeted to different forensic 

disciplines or are not sufficient to cover the required costs. 

d. In order to provide the highest level of analysis currently available, 

laboratories performing fire debris analysis should be using GC/MS. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Establish a funding source whereby a maximum of twenty (20) 

laboratories per year for three years can receive $85,000 toward the 

purchase of a GC/MS and $5,000 to cover the training (registration, 

lodging, and travel) of two personnel with the stipulation that 100% of its 

fire debris samples must be analyzed on the instrument. 

28 Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, http://www.ojp.usdoj. 

gov/nij/topics/forensics/nfsia. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

21 
FINAL VERSION 

b. Secure an additional $10,000 to be provided to each grantee to purchase 

extended preventive maintenance and repair service agreements with the 

instrument manufacturers. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Utilize T/SWGFEX to assist NIJ with the creation of the grant application 

and with screening and recommendations of grantees. 

b. Utilize the existing GC/MS of Fire Debris as the primary training venue for 

the grant recipients to send at least two persons from each laboratory for 

training. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

22 
FINAL VERSION 

F. Access to Existing Federal Databases and Information on Fire and Explosives 

Issues and Materials 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Federal agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI, 

http://www.fbi.gov), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (BATFE, http://www.atf.treas.gov), and the United States Fire 

Administration (USFA, http://www.usfa.dhs.gov), have and maintain 

various databases and reference material collections on fires and 

explosions. 

b. Local and state agencies desire access to these databases in order to be 

able to cross-reference the items they find in casework with the larger 

reference collection of the federal agencies. They can take the data they 

develop on the composition of various materials and compare their results 

to the federal reference materials. The issue is that more often than not, 

these databases and materials are not accessible to the local and State 

agencies. In some instances the databases and materials are available, 

but not through a single resource. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Use the resources of NIJ to encourage a meeting between the federal 

agencies and NCFS with representatives of T/SWGFEX to discuss the 

mechanism of how certain individuals may be permitted access to the 

various databases and materials. 

b. Use the resources of NIJ to arrange a meeting between the United States 

Fire Administration and the BATFE to discuss placing links to the National 

Fire Incident Reporting System’s reports on fire in the United States and 

the Bomb Data Center. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Convene a meeting between the Director of NCFS, NCFS Technical 

Managers and staff, Chair of T/SWGFEX, Chairs of appropriate 

T/SWGFEX sub-committees, and representatives of the FBI, BATFE, and 

USFA to determine and agree on the databases and materials to be 

accessed. 

b. Determine/define the limitations and modes of access, which would 

maintain the appropriate levels of security. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

23 
FINAL VERSION 

G. Fire and Explosion Computer Modeling 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Computer fire modeling has improved significantly since its inception. Its 

key limitation has always been the ability of the program to factor in all the 

various parameters and the accuracy of the parameters. Many of the 

references needed (e.g., heat flux, specific gravity, thermal inertia, heat 

transfer rate, etc.) may exist in various resources. They need to be 

accumulated into a single source. For many materials, this data does not 

exist. 

b. Obtaining this data is beyond the budget and capabilities of most state or 

local agencies. Federal agencies such as the BATFE Fire Research 

Laboratory and the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST, 

http://www.nist.gov) may have the equipment and laboratory space, but 

may need additional personnel and access to the materials themselves. 

Essentially what is needed is a facility with a cone calorimeter to burn 

items such as different brands and types of chairs, sofas, clothing, 

mattresses, tables, furnishings, etc.). Once the data is collected, it would 

be entered into a searchable database. This would allow investigators 

performing computer fire modeling to have access to more data to 

estimate the fuel load and model the fire. 

c. Once the data from reference materials are available, the parameters 

specific to a scene must be input. Scene mapping tools, which could 

automatically input the data at the scene, may permit on-scene modeling, 

which would allow investigators to assess the validity of their observations 

and information from interrogations. If this was possible while on-scene, it 

would allow the investigator to acquire more precise and accurate 

information from which a scientifically based conclusion may be drawn. 

d. Similar modeling programs and research has not been completed for the 

dynamics of an explosion. Basic research and modification of some fire 

modeling software may be possible. If it can be developed this would 

prove to be an advance for the timeliness and accuracy of post-blast 

investigations. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

24 
FINAL VERSION 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Establish a partnership between NCFS, T/SWGFEX, BATFE, and NIST so 

determine the feasibility of conducting the necessary testing at the BATFE 

or NIST facilities and to determine if T/SWGFEX members could be 

utilized to perform any assistance during the actual testing. 

b. Use the resources of T/SWGFEX to create and input data into a single 

source database as described. 

c. NIJ grant solicitations for development or adaptation of scene 

documentation cameras and instruments so that collected data can be 

directly loaded into computer modeling software. 

d. NIJ grant solicitations for the development or adaptation for fire modeling 

programs to Explosion Modeling Programs. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Utilize T/SWGFEX to provide a pool of subject matter experts to review 

the solicitations and grant application proposals from which they would 

provide recommendations to NIJ for final consideration. 

b. NIJ would provide funds for the purchase of materials (e.g., furnishings, 

floor coverings, clothing, other objects, etc.) to be burned in order to 

collect data. It may also include travel and lodging for the researchers to 

assist at BATFE Fire Research or NIST. 

c. Utilize T/SWGFEX to research and create the searchable database of fire 

modeling data. This may require sufficient funds for obtaining reference 

materials, software, and or hardware, as well as travel and lodging for the 

researchers to meet. 

d. Once projects are selected, funded, and completed, ensure that the 

results are delivered to the relevant community through publication of the 

research and/or presentation at professional seminars and symposia. 

e. Provide a link to the database and research results/papers through the 

T/SWGFEX Website. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

25 
FINAL VERSION 

H. Selected ILRC Reference Materials for Forensic Laboratories 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Laboratories performing fire debris analysis must compare the data 

generated by submitted evidence to data generated by reference 

standards analyzed on their own instrumentation in order to follow the 

guidance of the American Society for Testing and Materials E1618. 

b. The survey revealed that some laboratories are not following this basic 

precept for quality and proper analysis of ignitable liquids. 

c. For an individual laboratory to create a collection of ignitable liquids 

(including all the various classifications and ranges of ASTM E1618 

described ignitable liquids) the expense would be significant and storage 

would become a problem. Not only would storage space be needed, but 

also it would impose a requirement for additional flammable and 

combustible storage cabinets to be purchased and installed. 

d. This may be an untenable expense for some local and state laboratories. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. The NIJ with the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC, 

http://www.nfstc.org) has attempted to address this by sending fire debris 

validation kits to various laboratories, which included ignitable liquids from 

a commercial vendor. 

b. For laboratories without the basic collection of ignitable liquids, provide a 

selection of twenty reference standards from the ILRC (which will include 

one ASTM Test Mix, one Gasoline, and three each [light, medium, and 

heavy] from the remaining ASTM classes) to be prepared and transferred 

to a maximum of 200 Forensic Laboratories. 

c. Of those 200 laboratories selected, some may have the basic ignitable 

liquid resources and would prefer to use the twenty new standards to 

expand their “libraries.” 

d. T/SWGFEX will prepare an application to be completed by forensic 

laboratories wishing to receive this collection of reference materials. 

T/SWGFEX will prepare a select panel of forensic laboratory directors to 

review the applications and select the laboratories to which the reference 

collections will be sent. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

26 
FINAL VERSION 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Identify appropriate NIJ solicitation to fund the cost of preparing the 

applications, distributing the applications, reviewing the applications, 

preparing the reference standards, and shipping the reference materials. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

27 
 

FINAL VERSION 

I. Internal Standards Research 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Some forensic laboratories add a chemical as an internal standard to fire 

debris samples or the solvent used to extract the fire debris. 

b. This ostensibly provides quality assurance information that is useful. 

c. Some laboratories do not follow this procedure arguing that adding even 

an inert material to a sample changes the sample. 

d. Objective research needs to be conducted to establish whether this 

procedure adds or detracts from the value of analyses. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Solicit applications for grants to study this practice and issue a report. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Solicit grant proposals via the normal NIJ process to specifically, “research 

and report on the value and role of the use of internal standards in fire 

debris analysis.” 

b. Once completed, post the report on the NIJ Website and link to 

http://ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/mission.html, the T/SWGFEX Website. 

c. Have the research presented as a paper to the T/SWGFEX symposium, 

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS, http://www.aafs.org) 

annual meeting, or other relevant scientific meetings29 and symposia. 

29 Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists (http://www.maafs.org), Midwestern 

Association of Forensic Scientists (http://www.mafs.net), Northwest Association of 

Forensic Scientists (http://www.nwafs.org), Southern Association for Forensic Scientists 

(http://www.southernforensic.org), and the Southwestern Association of Forensic 

Scientists (http://www.swafs.us). 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

28 
FINAL VERSION 

J. Development of Gasoline “Taggants” 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. The goal of most forensic testing is to associate evidence from a scene 

with evidence from the possession of a suspect. 

b. Ignitable liquids do not lend themselves to this type of comparison as they 

are usually extracted from debris or matrices after they have been burned 

and weathered. 

c. As a result, the extracted ignitable liquid will have lost many of its 

components and will have added compounds pulled from the matrix and 

the burning of the matrix (pyrolysis products). 

d. Current instrumentation does not sufficiently characterize the remaining 

compounds so that probability matches between samples can be made. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Convene a meeting with NIJ, T/SWGFEX and representatives from 

academia, the petroleum refiners, and petroleum marketers to discuss the 

potential of adding combinations of inert and stable chemicals with high 

boiling points that can be added to gasoline as a marker of its 

manufacturer or distributor. 

b. Obtain agreement from gasoline refiners and marketers on participation in 

this program as a way of assisting the forensic community and fighting 

crime. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. If determined to be feasible, use the group to design an implementation 

strategy by first determining the markers to be used, the amounts to be 

incorporated, the analytical methodology for “seeing” them (which may be 

different from the GC/MS of ignitable liquids) and assigning them to 

refiners and marketers. 

b. Encourage and applaud refiners and marketers. 

c. Monitor compliance with this voluntary program by having samples 

submitted to a laboratory specified by S/TWGFEX for analysis. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

29 
FINAL VERSION 

II. Improve Communications, Contacts, and Cooperation 

Survey Questions 10, 12, 15, 16, 24, 68, 69, 84, 85, 86, and 87. 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Currently, most professionals in fire and explosion investigations and 

analyses are segmented into communities within either the investigative or 

the laboratory subgroup. There is additional segmentation of the sub-groups 

by specialties and geography. All of these divisions and convoluted pathways 

give rise to unsatisfactory levels of communication and can cause some 

practitioners to become isolated. 

b. These professionals have identified a need for cross-communication. Among 

the reasons, is a need to determine the expertise of other members across 

and within the forensic science and investigative communities. They also 

need to contact other professionals in the field to promote finding solutions to 

problems and gathering information. This information exchange enhances 

the professionalism and competence of the individual. This information may 

sometimes be sensitive and should not be freely accessible to all members of 

the public. Direct contact allows for a greater exchange of pertinent 

information on techniques, methods, and equipment. 

c. Some forensic laboratories having a small one-person fire debris or 

explosives analysis section may not have a second expert on site available to 

perform peer review of casework, a necessary component of providing quality 

analyses. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. A centrally available listing of professionals in fire or explosion scene 

investigation and fire or explosion debris analysis is needed to provide a 

secure method of contact between the members of the relevant communities. 

This will enhance communication between the members of the scientific and 

investigative communities and promote a free exchange of ideas. 

b. This listing should include curriculum vitae of the individual’s areas of 

expertise as well as contact information in the event that one-to-one contact is 

desired. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

30 
FINAL VERSION 

c. The contact list should also indicate if the listed professional would be 

available to assist other professionals in specific areas such as peer review of 

casework. 

d. An annual meeting/symposium, which would offer training in multiple topics of 

fire debris and explosives analysis and fire and post-blast investigations. 

3. Implementation Strategies 

a. Promote and continue to subsidize the Technical Working Group for Fire and 

Explosives/Scientific Working Group for Fire and Explosions (T/SWGFEX) 

organization, which has an existing membership of leading experts from 

forensic analytical laboratories and scene investigations in both fires and 

explosions. 

b. Promote the evolution of T/SWGFEX so that it will move from a subsidized 

subsistence to one that can support itself. 

c. Promote attendance at annual T/SWGFEX symposia and enhance its quality 

through targeted presentations on topics, resources, and experts defined in 

other sections of this report. 

d. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) should facilitate T/SWGFEX in 

creating and posting a comprehensive listing of professionals in the field(s) of 

fire and explosion analysis and investigation with curriculum vitae of expertise 

and contact information. 

e. Poll the professionals listed to determine if they would be willing to provide 

advice and direction without a financial cost. This could be for scientific peer 

review of data or for the exchange of experience and/or opinions on the utility 

of equipment. The core to begin this project should be T/SWGFEX members 

as they are already part of an organization, which has at its core the desire to 

merge the two communities. 

f. T/SWGFEX would establish a sub-committee to design and build this list and 

ensure the accuracy of the information concerning the people on it. 

g. The T/SWGFEX committee would design the template for listing a 

participant’s professional qualifications. 

h. This would effectively create a clearinghouse of analysts willing to perform 

peer review for those laboratories not currently doing peer review. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

31 
FINAL VERSION 

i. Once listed, the individual would be given access to the T/SWGFEX list 

serve. Listing would not automatically place them as members of 

T/SWGFEX. 

j. Other individuals and organizations would be contacted through their 

publications and meetings to explain the benefits of being listed. 

k. This already existing list serve would provide a free Internet link for 

professionals. This strategy would only require its expansion and publication 

of its existence once the pertinent protocols are established. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

32 
FINAL VERSION 

III. Enhance and Standardize Qualifications and Training 

Survey Questions 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 32, 56, 57, 59, 71, 72, 88, and 89. 

A. Near and Long Term Education and Training of Analysts and Investigators 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Formal Education Assistance 

1) Investigators and analysts who seek to better themselves and become 

more adept at their profession are often in a precarious position. 

a) Most work full time and are at a point in their lives where they do 

not have the additional resources to pay for a formal degree even if 

they can find the time. 

b) Some are located in areas where no provider of a relevant degree 

is available. 

c) Some on-line degrees are available, but will not be subsidized by 

their employers and the individual is back to the problem of 

resources. 

2) Subsidy of individuals seeking formal degrees has been attempted in 

the past by some governments only to find that some individuals 

abused the program. 

3) Safeguards would be necessary to mitigate this additional 

consideration. 

b. Symposia and Seminars 

1) Scene Investigators 

a) International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI, 

http://www.firearson.com) annual meeting. 

b) International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators 

(IABTI, http://www.iabti.org) annual meeting. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

33 
 

FINAL VERSION 

2) Analytical Chemists and Forensic Scientists 

3) American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS, http://www.aafs.org) 

annual meeting. 

4) Pittsburgh Conference and Exposition on Analytical Chemistry and 

Applied Spectroscopy (Pittcon, http://www.pittcon.org) 

5) Other National/Regional forensic science conferences, meetings, and 

symposia30. 

6) Investigators/Analysts 

7) The only symposia which have deliberately attempted to blend 

presentations germane to investigators and analysts from both the fire 

and explosion communities have been the ones produced by 

T/SWGFEX (http://ncfs.ucf.edu/twgfex/symposium.html). Even those 

have not appealed to all due to venue, format, and the availability of 

speakers. 

c. Continuing Education 

1) There are a variety of commercially available training programs 

available in a wide variety of topics. 

2) Some organizations provide free training classes via the Internet. 

a) For fire investigators and bomb technicians most of these no-cost 

on-line seminars are quite good and fulfill many of their needs. 

b) For laboratory analysts, very few no-cost symposia are completely 

relevant to their positions in the forensic laboratory and most are 

limited to specific instrumental techniques. 

30 Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists (http://www.maafs.org), Midwestern 

Association of Forensic Scientists (http://www.mafs.net), Northwest Association of 

Forensic Scientists (http://www.nwafs.org), Southern Association for Forensic Scientists 

(http://www.southernforensic.org), and the Southwestern Association of Forensic 

Scientists (http://www.swafs.us). See the AAFS Website (http://www.aafs.org) for 

contract information for other national/regional forensic science-related organizations as 

well as dates/times for upcoming national/region meetings. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

34 
FINAL VERSION 

3) Many commercial training programs on DVD, tape, or CD cover 

subjects so broadly that they only have limited applicability to the 

needs of the fire and explosion community. 

d. Interactive training 

1) An essential component to insert into as many of the selected 

opportunities as possible is to encourage the interaction between 

analysts and investigators. 

2) The more that one can understand about the capabilities and 

limitations of the other, the better they can interact with each other. 

3) Interactive experiments and short cross-training experiences in the 

basic aspects of each other’s work are desired. 

4) Accessibility to each other in a broad network across state, local, and 

federal lines is desired and has the potential to improve the quality of 

investigations and analyses by simply reducing any perceived or real 

isolation (by relatively small and remote units). 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Formal Education 

1) Contact those schools known for providing quality on-line and nonconventional degree programs to determine if any have a residency 

requirement (on campus for a set period or number of hours). Ensure 

that their programs can be completed either entirely on-line or wholly 

on weekends and evenings. List these programs and contacts and 

make them the priority programs for the following scholarships. 

2) Establish and fund a scholarship program where ten (10) investigators 

per year are selected for enrollment into a Bachelor or Master’s 

Degree program in Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, Fire Science, 

Forensic Science, or a related and germane field. Fund only the tuition 

costs for a maximum of four years and the minimum number of credit 

hours required to obtain the degree. All other costs are to be borne by 

the individual selected. 

3) Establish and fund a scholarship program where ten (10) analysts per 

year are selected for enrollment into a Graduate Certificates and 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

35 
FINAL VERSION 

Degree program in Chemistry, Fire Science, Forensic Science, or a 

related and germane field. Fund only the tuition costs for a maximum 

of three years and the minimum number of credit hours required to 

obtain a Master’s or Doctoral degree. All other costs are to be borne 

by the individual selected. 

4) Require that any persons selected for this program reimburse the 

funding agency for any costs incurred should the individual opt to 

discontinue the program prior to completion. 

5) Require that any person selected for this program remain employed by 

the same agency through the completion of the program and two years 

thereafter. 

b. Symposia and Seminars 

1) Secure solicitations for the registration, travel, and lodging costs for a 

maximum of ten (10) individuals per year to attend a fire, bombing, 

analytical, forensic seminar, or symposium where they have been 

accepted to provide a workshop, paper, or presentation. 

2) Promote attendance of the T/SWGFEX symposia by subsidizing the 

costs for meeting space/venue; speaker honoraria; travel/lodging costs 

for speakers, hosts, staff, and organizers. 

a) Require that the T/SWGFEX symposium seek an equivalent 

balance between speakers and presentations germane to 

investigations and analysis as well as fire and explosions. 

b) Set aside a portion of the symposium where individuals from 

either the analytical or the investigative communities may present 

papers regarding original research or unusual cases. 

c. Continuing Education 

1) Include some of the topics identified in the survey as targeted 

presentations or workshops to be included in the T/SWGFEX 

symposium. 

2) Create instructional presentations specific to the needs of the fire and 

explosion communities for no-cost distribution on DVD or download via 

the Internet. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

36 
FINAL VERSION 

d. Interactive Training 

1) Develop solicitations that include the resources to coordinate 

experimental fires and explosions conducted around the nation so that 

more than just local or limited agency personnel can participate. This 

is necessary as it is becoming more difficult to meet all the regulatory 

and statutory requirements for conducting these “live” experiments. A 

special effort to determine the capabilities of the BATFE Fire Training 

Center should be made. 

2) Create a protocol for contacting an organizing agency to determine if 

they would like assistance in the set-up and data gathering and if they 

will allow observers to attend. 

3) Determine a level of assistance that may be made available to the 

organizing agency: data gathering, recording, consumables, and 

personnel. 

4) Use available resources to identify laboratories willing to host guests to 

shadow the fire debris or explosives analytical process for a maximum 

of three days. 

3. Implementation Strategies 

a. Formal Education 

1) Utilize T/SWGFEX to research and create lists and links to the schools 

that meet the above criteria and post such lists and links on the 

T/SWGFEX Website. 

2) Utilize T/SWGFEX to research and create scholarship application 

forms that will assess the applicant’s experience, work history, existing 

education, potential to complete a formal program, financial need, and 

geographic distribution. 

3) Utilize T/SWGFEX to review completed applications and provide a 

listing of top candidates to NIJ for final selection. 

4) Utilize T/SWGFEX to create the attendant promissory forms and to 

monitor the progress of selected candidates. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

37 
FINAL VERSION 

b. Symposia and Seminars 

1) Utilize T/SWGFEX to research and create symposia and seminar 

scholarship application forms that will ask which seminar or 

symposium the applicant wishes to attend. The application form would 

additionally assess the applicant’s experience, work history, existing 

education, training need, and geographic location. 

2) Utilize T/SWGFEX to review completed applications and provide a 

listing of top candidates to NIJ for final selection. 

3) Utilize T/SWGFEX to create the attendant promissory forms and to 

monitor the progress of selected candidates. 

4) Utilize T/SWGFEX to review completed applications and provide a 

listing of top candidates to NIJ for final selection. 

5) Utilize solicitations to distribute funds to pay the selected attendee’s 

travel and registration in advance and to reimburse the attendee for 

hotel and meals after completion of the seminar or symposium. 

6) Support financially efforts to continue to sponsor T/SWGFEX’s 

Symposium. 

7) Determine if a change of venue would increase attendance and, if 

changed, the increased costs of logistics for managing it remote from 

Orlando, Florida. 

8) Topics suggested in the survey, which would be directly applicable to 

the T/SWGFEX. 

9) Speakers should be targeted and solicited who are involved in the 

development of new technology and instrumentation in the analysis of 

fire and explosives. 

10)Presentations on TATP and other peroxide based and homemade 

explosives, including manufacture, handling, use, mis-use, and 

analytical procedures. 

11)Scene investigation workshops for both fire and explosives that will 

promote interaction and idea sharing between investigators and 

analysts. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

38 
FINAL VERSION 

12)Develop a session for investigators in explaining the various ASTM 

classes of ignitable liquids, examples, and why they are used. 

13)A session of the use of polarized light microscopy (with an 

accompanying DVD) and its use in explosives analysis. 

c. Continuing Education (CE) – This will require considerable financial 

support by NIJ in the development of recorded short courses that can be 

made available by either DVD or on-line. 

1) Utilize T/SWGFEX to research and create recorded sessions on the 

following topics. The initial presentation could be made on-site at 

NCFS, in a laboratory, at an experimental scene, or an explosives 

range. This footage would be incorporated into the DVD and online 

products and may require a legal disclaimer that all methods, 

parameters, and possibilities may not have been included: 

a) Polarized Light Microscopy Of Explosives. 

b) Following Fire Debris Evidence Through The Laboratory: 

Extraction, Analysis, And Interpretation For The Investigator. 

c) Following Explosives Evidence Through The Laboratory: 

Extraction, Analysis, And Interpretation For The Investigator. 

d) Understanding ASTM Ignitable Liquid Classifications And Why 

They Are Used. 

e) Organic Chemistry of Fire Debris Analysis: Molecular 

Composition of Ignitable Liquids and Materials at a Scene; 

Combustion Reactions and Products; Analytical Procedures for 

Organic Species. 

f) Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy of Ignitable Liquids and 

Pyrolysis Products. 

g) The Making Of Ignitable Liquids: From Crude Oil Through The 

Refinery To Commercial Product. 

h) Fundamental Fire Scene Investigation According To The NIJ 

Research Report – Fire And Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide For 

Public Safety Personnel (June 2000). 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

39 
FINAL VERSION 

i) Fundamental Post-Blast Scene Investigation According To The 

NIJ Research Report – A Guide For Explosion And Bombing 

Scene Investigation (June 2000). 

j) Advanced Fire Scene Investigation. 

k) Advanced Post-Blast Scene Investigation. 

l) Fire Dynamics. 

m) How To Be An Effective Expert Witness (One Each For Fire 

Investigations, Post-Blast Investigations, Fire Debris Analysts, 

And Explosives Analysts). 

n) The Instruments And Methods For Analyzing Explosives. 

o) The Collection And Preservation Of Evidence (One Each For Fire 

Scenes And Post-Blast Scenes). 

p) Investigating Potential Electrical Fires. 

q) The Training, Use, And Value Of Canines In The Fire (Or 

Explosion) Scene. 

r) Using A Disruption Scenario To Create The “Post-Blast” Scene: 

Considerations Of Positioning, Comparison Sampling, And 

Evidence Collection. 

s) The When, Where, And How To Of “Render Safe.” 

t) Interpretation Of Fire Debris Analysis Data. 

u) Extraction And Sample Preparation Methods In Explosives 

Analysis. 

v) Report Writing For Accuracy And Validity: Scientific And Legal. 

w) How Explosives And Pyrotechnics Are Manufactured. 

x) IED’s And Homemade Explosives – Recognition And 

Construction. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

40 
FINAL VERSION 

d. Interactive Training 

1) Use T/SWGFEX to identify ongoing opportunities where experimental 

fires and explosions are being conducted around the nation. Special 

effort to coordinate with the BATFE Fire Training Center should be 

made a priority. 

2) Contact the organizing agency to determine if they would like 

assistance in the set-up and data gathering and if they will allow 

observers to attend. Assist the organizing agency with the cost of 

consumable supplies. 

3) Maintain a cache of measuring devices and sensors relevant to 

collecting data on temperature, wind direction, humidity, pressure 

wave, available oxygen, and heat flux at specified locations. Augment 

this cache with miniature cameras that can be placed into the 

experimental environment to collect images during the experimental 

event. 

4) In addition to the cache, T/SWGFEX members must be trained in data 

recording and camera set-up and so that they can operate the cache of 

equipment at any experimental scene. 

5) Provide funds for travel, lodging, and meals for up to fifteen (15) 

investigators and analysts to attend these events. 

6) Use T/SWGFEX to identify laboratories willing to host guests to 

shadow the fire debris or explosives analytical process for a maximum 

of three days. 

7) Provide funds for travel, lodging, and meals for up to fifteen (15) 

investigators or analysts. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

41 
FINAL VERSION 

B. Fire Dynamics 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Much has been done to develop our understanding of the dynamics of a 

fire scene. A training program has been developed by NCFS and the 

United States Fire Academy (USFA) offers a two-week class on the 

subject. 

b. While there is some information, research, and references on the 

dynamics of an explosion or the logistics of a post-blast scene, there is 

currently no comprehensive program describing the dynamics of an 

explosion scene. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Utilize T/SWGFEX to develop a program of training in the dynamics of the 

explosion scene. 

b. Conduct additional research necessary as to fill any gaps in knowledge. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Issue NIJ grant solicitations for fundamental research as it can be applied 

to the dynamics and physics of explosions. 

b. Utilize T/SWGFEX to provide a pool of subject matter experts to review 

the solicitations and grant application proposals from which they would 

provide recommendations to NIJ for final consideration. 

c. Utilize T/SWGFEX to write and incorporate existing data and information 

with developed research into a comprehensive program guide on 

explosion dynamics. 

d. Once created, ensure that the program is delivered to the relevant 

community through publication of the research and presentation of the 

program. 

e. Provide a link to the portions of the program, which can be made publicly 

available on T/SWGFEX Website. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

42 
FINAL VERSION 

IV. Expand Access to Existing Information on Instrumentation and Equipment 

Survey Questions 12 and 31. 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Forensic laboratories have limited budgets for purchasing instrumentation. 

b. There are multiple vendors for each instrument. 

c. Each laboratory will have certain specifications for the instrument that are of a 

higher priority to them than may be held by another laboratory. 

d. The task of contacting each manufacturer, reading and sorting the multiple 

specifications, and comparing the germane specifications to aid in selection of 

the instrument for purchase is formidable and daunting. 

2. Suggested Solution 

a. Gather information on instruments, their specifications, literature, and contact 

information and place it in a single location where it can be accessed by any 

laboratory. 

b. Set up the information on technical specifications in a format that will allow 

comparison of specifications between instruments. 

c. Be certain to design the listing so that the information is taken directly from 

manufacturer’s information and that the listing is entirely objective. 

d. Encourage the inclusion of manufacturers in designing the database or 

spreadsheet and the technical specifications it should contain. 

3. Implementation Strategy 

a. Survey forensic laboratories on the types and manufacturers of instruments 

they currently use and would like to obtain. 

b. Contact each manufacturer for brochures and technical specifications for their 

instruments. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

43 
FINAL VERSION 

c. Have T/SWGFEX (and other relevant experts) review the literature to 

determine those technical specifications identified as being critical for 

comparing one instrument with another. 

d. Have T/SWGFEX create a database or spreadsheet, listing each instrument 

by type and the specifications of each so that side-by-side comparisons can 

be made. 

e. Post this spreadsheet on the T/SWGFEX Website for public access to the 

comparison information. 

f. List on a single site, within the T/SWGFEX Website, the web links, addresses, 

and telephone numbers for instrument manufacturers and their 

representatives. 

g. In a separate T/SWGFEX database or spreadsheet, list observations, 

cautions, and operational suggestions by instrument manufacturer, instrument 

type, and application. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

44 
FINAL VERSION 

V. Promote Consistency in Terminology, Methods, and Techniques 

Survey Questions 12, 15, 24, 25, 31, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83. 

A. Glossaries for Fire and Explosions 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. A glossary to promote consistency of terms relevant to fire and explosion 

investigation and forensic analysis was identified as being desirable. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Utilize the existing glossaries created by T/SWGFEX and posted on their 

Website. 

3. Implementation Strategies 

a. Create a clearly identifiable folder on the T/SWGFEX Website containing a 

professional version of these Guides. Have a link to this site from the NIJ 

and NCFS Websites. 

b. Send copies of the glossaries to members of the T/SWGFEX list serve 

with the web link as well. 

c. Send electronic copies of the glossaries and the web link to it to other 

organizations who serve fire and explosion investigation and analysis 

communities under the imprimatur of NIJ. 

d. Print copies of the glossaries under the imprimatur of NIJ for 

dissemination at professional meetings to investigators and forensic 

scientists. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

45 
FINAL VERSION 

B. Laboratory Submission Guidelines 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Professionals in the fire and explosion scene investigation and laboratory 

analyses communities want access to evidence submission guidelines 

used by other agencies. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Contact members of T/SWGFEX who represent laboratories across the 

United States, Canada, and Australia for electronic versions of their 

submission guidelines in PDF format. For those with only hard copies, 

send them to NCFS to be scanned into digital format. 

3. Implementation Strategies 

a. Create a folder of evidence submission Guides and Criteria under the 

T/SWGFEX Website (with links to it in the NIJ and NCFS Websites) where 

the electronic versions are posted by 

country>state/province>county/municipality. 

b. Have a separate area where private organization criteria can be posted so 

long as advertisement has been redacted. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

46 
 

 

FINAL VERSION 

C. Resources and Best Practices in Analysis and Investigations 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Analytical techniques for fire and explosives analyses are available from a 

variety of resources. For fire debris analysis, the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM, http://www.astm.org) has created 

authoritative resources for both the extraction of ignitable liquids from 

debris and the identification of those same ignitable liquids by gas 

chromatography (with either a mass spectral or flame ionization detector). 

These standards have recently been made available by the National 

Institute of Justice to all public forensic laboratories. 

b. For explosives analysis, the same authoritative references do not exist. 

Several agencies have protocols, methods, and techniques they are 

willing to share. T/SWGFEX has posted some guides and references on 

explosives and others are currently in development. The techniques to be 

used depend greatly on the instrumentation and resources available within 

each laboratory. Some laboratories may only have access to wet 

chemical or polarized light microscopy techniques. 

c. The respondents to the survey have identified a need for access to more 

reference materials, protocols, guides, and macro programs. They desire 

these to be easily accessible within a single source. They desire similar 

information for both fire debris and explosives analysis. Survey 

respondents desire a single source to list the various combinations of 

instrumental protocols (e.g., columns, flow rates, ion trap temperatures, 

temperature programs, etc.) for both fire debris and explosives analysis. 

Essentially they want a listing and links to the “best” methods and 

techniques. At the same time, they would also like a listing of the 

techniques and methods, which have documented deficiencies. If 

possible, the limits of detection, which have been scientifically validated, 

should be included for the various techniques. Lastly, the guides should 

be written to address the fact that all laboratories are not similarly 

equipped and that some laboratories will only have access to basic 

equipment and resources. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Use a single Website to create a reference folder with links to commercial 

sources of guides and standards such as ASTM and NFPA as well as the 

free guides and standards posted by T/SWGFEX. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

47 
FINAL VERSION 

b. Poll the membership of T/SWGFEX as well as experts outside the group 

for the instrumental techniques, protocols, references, instrumental 

parameters, and guidance they would recommend as well as any cautions 

they may offer. 

c. Review and update existing bibliographies posted on the T/SWGFEX 

Website in both fire debris and explosives analysis. Add to each 

reference a list of keywords pertinent to the article. 

d. Have the T/SWGFEX organization complete the Fire Debris Report 

Writing Guide and Post-Blast Materials Identification Protocol. 

e. Have the T/SWGFEX organization create new guides: 

1) Standardizing the process of burning comparison and control samples 

to produce pyrolysis products 

2) Defining the minimum requirements and describing the techniques for 

polarized light microscopy of explosives 

3) Describing the techniques of wet chemistry and thin layer 

chromatography in explosives analysis 

3. Implementation Strategies 

a. Utilize existing and select sub-committee(s) of T/SWGFEX to review the 

suggestions by its membership and from other experts to create a “best 

practices” guide for both fire and explosives analyses (taking care not to 

infringe on the copyright of any other organization). Rely heavily on the 

T/SWGFEX resources, which are already publicly posted and encourage 

the completion of those in development. 

b. Post this guide along with links to ASTM, NFPA, and others on the 

T/SWGFEX, NIJ, and NCFS Websites. 

c. Print copies of this guide for dissemination at professional meetings 

attended by both fire debris and explosives analysts. 

d. Utilize a separate sub-committee of T/SWGFEX to review and research 

the bibliographies and update them with newer references. The group will 

also data mine the keywords from each reference. 

e. Post the revised bibliographies in web instrument where the references 

can be searched by author, title, or keyword. 

f. Post links to resources where these reference items may be obtained. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

48 
FINAL VERSION 

D. Canine Use in Post-blast Environments 

1. Needs and Problems Identified 

a. Canines have been trained to expose the presence of explosives hidden 

in baggage and packages and to indicate if individuals have explosives 

residues on their clothing or bodies. 

b. Most canines trained in explosive detection are trained to alert to intact 

non-reacted explosives. 

c. Canines, which have been trained to alert to certain ignitable liquid 

residues, have proven themselves as invaluable tools for determining the 

areas within a scene, which have the highest probabilities for containing 

ignitable liquids. 

d. Post-blast scenes are not the same as fire scenes in many aspects. One 

primary aspect, which affects a similar use of canines, is that in fire 

scenes the ignitable liquids used as accelerants are primarily stationary, 

remaining in the areas where first deposited. In a post-blast environment, 

the explosive and its residues may be forcefully dispersed over a large 

area. 

e. Each post-blast investigation is unique. The same sets of circumstances 

and investigative parameters do not occur in each situation. 

f. The increased and improved use of canines to aid in determining the best 

sampling areas in post-blast scene is desired. 

2. Suggested Solutions 

a. Development and standardization of protocols for the post-blast usage of 

canines. 

b. Post the developed protocols in a secure environment. 

c. Existing and new research into the optimum sampling areas of post-blast 

sites is needed. Incorporate this research into the training of canines and 

their handlers. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

49 
FINAL VERSION 

d. Set up and execute field experiments to gather data which can be applied 

to the training of these canines. 

3. Implementation Strategies 

a. Convene a gathering of experts in the handling of canines, explosives 

canines, analytical chemists, bomb technicians, and bombing scene 

investigators. 

b. Charge the group with gathering and collating all existing protocols on the 

use of canines in post-blast scenes. 

c. Charge the group with developing additional protocols, training guides, 

and field exercises to promote the improved proficiency of post-blast 

canines. 

d. Support the group by incorporating them into T/SWGFEX so that the 

benefits of access to related experts is expedited, development of required 

materials is on-going, and training via the T/SWGFEX annual symposium 

can continue. 

e. Have NIJ, or one of its partners, act to create and track canine 

proficiencies as a national and central clearinghouse. This will improve 

documentation and records for canine results. 

f. This strategy for NIJ to track canine proficiencies as a national and central 

clearinghouse should additionally be expanded to fire debris canines. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

50 
FINAL VERSION 

Appendix A.1 Participants, State, and Local 

National Needs Assessment Planning Panel 

 James Crippin 

3⁄4 Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (Pueblo, 

Colorado) 

 Dennis Hilliard 

3⁄4 Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory (Kingston, Rhode Island) 

 J. Ron McCardle, Major 

3⁄4 Florida Division of State Fire Marshal (Tallahassee, Florida) 

 P. Mark L. Sandercock, PhD. 

3⁄4 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) 

 Sharee Booke Wells 

3⁄4 Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (Birmingham, Alabama) 

 Lisa Windsor 

3⁄4 Tucson Police Department Crime Laboratory (Tucson, Arizona) 

 Carl Chasteen (Project Manager and Principal Author) 

3⁄4 Florida Division of State Fire Marshal (Havana, Florida) 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

51 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Appendix A.2 Participants, State, and Local (continued) 

National Needs Assessment Sub-Committee Members 

 Judy Hoffman 

3⁄4 Montana Forensic Science Division (Missoula, Montana) 

 Kim Freeland 

3⁄4 Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory (Kingston, Rhode Island) 

 Mary Williams 

3⁄4 The National Center of Forensic Science (Orlando, Florida) 

 Jimmie Oxley 

3⁄4 University of Rhode Island (Kingston, Rhode Island) 

 Wendy Norman 

3⁄4 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Ottawa, Ontario) 

 Graham Rankin 

3⁄4 Marshall University (Huntington, West Virginia) 

 Mike Sigman 

3⁄4 The University of Central Florida (Orlando, Florida) 

 Joe Powell 

3⁄4 South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (Columbia, South Carolina) 

 Jim Vose 

3⁄4 Vermont Department of Public Safety (Waterbury, Vermont) 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

52 
 

FINAL VERSION 

 Vince Desiderio 

3⁄4 New Jersey State Police Office of Forensic Sciences (Hamilton, New 

Jersey) 

 Kristen McDonald 

3⁄4 New York City Police Crime Laboratory (New York, New York) 

 Jerry Rudden 

3⁄4 Tennessee State Fire Marshal (Nashville, Tennessee) 

 Frank Doyle 

3⁄4 Federal Bureau of Investigation (Retired) (San Ramon, California) 

 Dennis Chapman 

3⁄4 Iowa State Police Crime Laboratory (Ankenny, Iowa) 

 Jess Dunn 

3⁄4 Iowa State Police Crime Laboratory (Ankenny, Iowa) 

 Doug Williams 

3⁄4 United States Fire Administration (Emmitsburg, Maryland) 

 Jeffery Jagamin 

3⁄4 Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory (Tacoma, Washington) 

 Tammy White 

3⁄4 Florida State Fire Marshal (Fort Myers, Florida) 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

53 
FINAL VERSION 

Appendix A.3 Participants, State, and Local (continued) 

The T/SWGFEX Executive Committee 

 James Crippin, Chair 

3⁄4 Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (Pueblo, 

Colorado) 

 Clyde Liddick, Vice Chair 

3⁄4 Pennsylvania State Police (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) 

 Dennis Chapman, Executive Board 

3⁄4 Iowa State Police Crime Laboratory (Ankenny, Iowa) 

 Dennis Hilliard, Executive Board 

3⁄4 Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory (Kingston, Rhode Island) 

 Doug Williams, Executive Board 

3⁄4 United States Fire Administration (Emmitsburg, Maryland) 

 Sherrie Thomas, Executive Board 

3⁄4 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Atlanta, 

Georgia) 

 Ingrid Dearmore, Executive Board 

3⁄4 Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory (Marysville, Washington) 

 Tracey Thompson, Assistant Director 

3⁄4 Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (Pueblo, 

Colorado) 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

54 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Appendix A.4 Participants, State, and Local (continued) 

The National Center of Forensic Science (NCFS)31, Orlando, Florida 

 Carrie Whitcomb, Director 

 Stephen Allen, Technical Manager 

 Thomas Minnich, Technical Manager 

 John Bardakjy, Coordinator, Research Programs/Services 

 Christopher Parker, Computer Systems Analyst 

 David Galat, Survey Technical Assistant 

31 NCFS is a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) program hosted by the University of 

Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, Florida. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

55 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Appendix B. Synopsis of Survey Results 

Discussion of Survey Results 

This Appendix will provide a synopsis of the results of the survey. Questions 1 through 

15 are the demographic, general, and professional development sections. This will 

allow the reader to understand more about the identity and qualifications of the 

respondents to the survey. As you will see, the respondents were from a broad 

spectrum of both public and private agencies. The remaining questions of the survey 

instrument (Questions 16 through 100) contain the full results of the survey. The 

reader is encouraged to cross-reference both the synopses provided and the full survey 

with the various recommendations made by the Needs Assessment Committee. 

Four-hundred and seven (407) responses to the survey were received. Public sector 

agencies provided 307 respondents (75.43%) and private organizations provided 93 

respondents (22.85%). Seven (7) respondents (1.72%) did not indicate if their agency 

was public or private. A breakdown of all public agency respondents indicates that city 

employees were the largest group with 170 respondents (41.77%). The remaining 

public respondents are: county employees – 70 (17.12%); state employees – 52 

(12.78%); and federal employees – 15 (3.69%). 

An examination of the respondents by discipline found that most individuals work in 

multiple disciplines. For example, a person may perform fire debris analysis for 50% of 

their time, explosives analysis for 10%, supervise others 20%, and teach for 20%. 

Thus, this individual would have entered responses into those questions germane to 

four of the six disciplines. Other examples of an individual responding to multiple 

disciplines are possible. This is the reason respondent totals were different from the 

407 respondents. 

In order to gain a better understanding of each discipline, it was more useful to extract 

the raw input data and use SPSS software to examine cross-relationships. With this 

approach the “0 – 10%” grouping for each discipline must be excluded since there is no 

method to ascertain if the respondent was referring to “0%, “10%”, or any percentage in 

between. For this section of the report, it will be consistently assumed that most 

respondents would divide their activities into approximate 10% blocks and would mark 

10% or higher when identifying their activities. 

One hundred twelve (112) respondents indicated they performed fire debris analysis for 

more than 10% of their work time. Of these, 59.82% (67) performed fire debris analysis 

from 10 to 40% of their time. Only 16.97% (19) worked as fire debris analysts from 40 

to 70% of the time. Surprisingly, 23.21% (26) indicated they were engaged in fire debris 

analysis from 70 to 100% of their time. This is seen in Table 1. In Table 2, another 

way to examine the 112 fire debris analysis respondents shows that 24.11% (27) work 

in private organizations and 75.89% (85) work in public agencies. The public agency 

grouping can be sub-divided into city 30.36% (34), county 16.96% (19), state 24.11% 

(27), or federal 3.57% (4) as is seen in Table 3. 

Making the same breakouts as above, but placing the data in tabular form: 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

56 
FINAL VERSION 

Discipline Total 10 to 40% of time 40 to 70% of time 70 to 100% of time 

Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 

Fire Debris Analysis 112 59.82 67 16.97 19 23.21 26 

Explosives Analysis 68 91.18 62 5.98 4 2.94 2 

Fire Scene Investigation 292 38.36 112 16.44 48 45.21 132 

Bomb Scene Investigation 144 91.67 132 3.47 5 4.86 7 

Supervisory 128 56.25 72 11.72 15 32.03 41 

Training or Teaching 149 83.89 125 12.08 18 4.03 6 

Table 1: Percent Of Time A Discipline Is Performed By A Respondent 

Discipline Total 

Private Public 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Fire Debris Analysis 112 27 24.11 85 75.89 

Explosives Analysis 68 15 22.06 53 77.94 

Fire Scene Investigation 292 80 27.38 212 72.06 

Bomb Scene Investigation 144 36 25 108 75 

Supervisory 128 26 20.31 128 79.69 

Training/Teaching 149 40 26.85 109 73.15 

Table 2: Comparison Of The Number And Percent Of Private Vs. Public Respondents By Discipline 

Discipline by Public 

Sector Agencies Total City County State Federal 

No. Per. No. Per. No. Per. No. Per. 

Fire Debris Analysis 85 34 30.36 19 16.96 27 24.11 4 3.57 

Explosives Analysis 53 25 36.76 12 17.65 11 16.18 5 7.35 

Fire Scene Investigation 212 141 48.29 43 14.73 19 6.51 9 3.08 

Bomb Scene Investigation 108 54 37.5 32 22.22 16 11.11 6 4.17 

Supervisory 128 47 36.72 29 22.66 20 15.63 6 4.69 

Training/Teaching 109 53 35.57 27 18.12 23 15.44 6 4.03 

Table 3: Number and Percent of Respondents Working in Public Sector Agencies by Discipline 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 57 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Question 3 of the survey, “List the number of employees (including you) in your 

laboratory or unit involved in fire debris or explosives analysis, scene investigation, 

and/or reporting for each of the following categories,” sought to determine the average 

number of individuals in the various responding agencies. The degree of variation 

between responding agencies is reflected in the standard deviation noted in Table 4. 

Position Average per 

Respondent Standard Deviation 

Analyst/Scientist 2.00 3.81 

Lab Supervisor/Manager 0.80 2.30 

Scene Investigator/EOD 6.62 15.04 

Scene/EOD Supervisor 2.28 5.27 

Table 4: Average Number of Personnel per Agency By Job Type 

For Question 4, the respondents were requested to indicate the number of employees 

having specific years of experience from 0 to more than 30. The posting of this survey 

item failed to include a choice for 15 to 20 years. Even with this anomaly however, 

charting the responses received shows that the respondent’s organizations have 

individuals with a broad level of experience (See Figure 1). The bell shape of the curve 

(minus the data for 15 to 20 years) would indicate that 10 to 15 years of experience is 

typical. A potentially disturbing phenomenon is the rise in the number of respondents 

who indicate they have a significant number of employees with more than 30 years 

experience. This could potentially indicate a significant loss of experience as these 

individuals retire and should increase the emphasis on training and continuing 

education of those who remain. 

Average Number of Employees by 

Years of Experience 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

0-2

2-5

5-10

10-15 

15-20

20-25 

25-30

>30 

Years of Experience 

Number of Employees

in Respondent's 

Organization

Mean # of 

Employees 

Standard 

Deviation 

Figure 1: Graph of the Average Number of Employees Per Agency By Years of Experience 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

58 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Question 5 sought to determine the level of education of employees within the 

respondent’s organizations. The responses would seem to indicate that most 

respondent’s organizations are populated primarily with high school graduates and very 

few with Bachelor’s and advanced degrees. Because this data set did not separate 

those with a primary duty in investigations from those with a primary duty in forensic 

analysis, it is likely skewed. Forensic Laboratories typically require a minimum of a 

Bachelor’s degree in a natural science in order to be employed while it is common for 

investigative agencies to have a high school diploma as the minimum requirement. 

Regardless of this, however, it should be noted that the numbers having Master’s and 

Doctoral degrees drop significantly. This may be an indication of the need for more 

formal educational opportunities for both investigators and analysts. 

The responses to Question 6, “Indicate the number of times you testified in court in 

2006” are not surprising. Those who testified only one (1) to five (5) times comprise 

80% (256 of the 320 responding to the question). Those indicating six (6) to ten (10) 

times comprise 10.9% (35 of 320) and those indicating eleven (11) to fifteen (15) 

comprised 4.1% (15). Thus 95% of the 320 respondents to this question testify fewer 

than fifteen (15) times in 2006. Compared to other forensic disciplines this is very few. 

The reasons are anecdotal yet will be reflected in other answers found in this survey. In 

many areas of the nation, prosecution for fire and or bombings are rare. The main 

reason is that these cases are largely composed of circumstantial evidence. Even the 

forensic evidence rarely points to a perpetrator and typically only proves that a crime 

was committed. Thus, prosecutors identify the amount of work to be done on these 

cases to be inordinate with their chances for conviction and are thus willing to plea the 

case before it goes to court or are unwilling to prosecute. The discussion among the 

planning panel members and T/SWGFEX indicates that in jurisdictions having a 

dedicated prosecutor, who has received active training from both investigators and 

forensic laboratory personnel, the rate of cases proceeding to prosecution and eventual 

conviction is higher. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

59 
FINAL VERSION 

As we move into Part B of the survey, we sought to determine information regarding the 

professional development of the respondents. Question 7, “Which, if any, of the 

following professional development activities will your laboratory or agency pay (in part 

or in full) for employees to attend (check all that apply)”, received responses from 390 

individuals. The most encouraging response was that only 6.2% (24) respondents 

indicated that their employer would not pay for any courses, seminars, conferences, or 

symposia. If a conference, seminar, or symposium were held in the same state or 

province as the respondent, 86.9% (339) indicated their agency would be willing to 

assume at least a portion of the costs. Another 80% (312) respondents indicated 

support from their agency to attend local, state, or regional professional association 

meetings. The remaining six choices are broken down as: 

 Seminars of courses held off site – 70% (273) 

 Conference, seminar, or symposium were held outside the same state or 

province – 62.6% (244) 

 Seminar or course held on site – 60% (234) 

 Classes held at a local university – 52.1% (203) 

 On-line classes from an accredited university – 42.1% (164) 

 Conference, seminar, or symposium were held outside of home country – 12.3% 

(48) 

Question 8 attempted to determine the level of funding typically provided by an 

organization for an employee. 375 of the respondents provided an estimate to this 

question. A level from $501 to $2000 was indicated by 41.6% of the respondents. The 

level from $2001 to $5000 per employee was indicated by 24.2%. At the opposite 

extremes were those agencies that provided either no funding, 8.8% of respondents, or 

over $5000, 8.3% of respondents. Considering the cost of travel, hotels, and 

registration fees, the funding levels indicated would tend to limit the training and 

educational opportunities for the vast majority of respondents. Question 9, in 

anticipation of this result, asked respondents the likelihood of the individual’s ability to 

assume the costs of their own training. If an individual were asked to pay for 100% of 

the costs, 65.4% of respondents said that it would be unlikely to never. At 75% of cost, 

the number indicating unlikely to never dropped to 61.3%. For 50% of the cost for 

training, the number of respondents dropped further to 40.8%. In fact at 50% of the 

costs, the shift indicated that the majority of respondents, 59.2%, would assume part of 

the training costs. If they were asked to pay for 25% of the training costs, the number 

indicating a positive response raises to 80.2%. Obviously the percentage of 

respondents who indicated their level of participation in training as extremely likely to 

absolutely if they were not asked to pay for any training costs rose to 85.4%. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

60 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Continuing Education Course Primary Secondary Tertiary 

Rank Rank Rank 

EOD Range Time (Training with EOD personnel) 7 4 1 

Fire Scene Evidence Collection, Preservation, and 

Packaging 7 4 5 

Explosives Scene Collection, Preservation, and 

Packaging 7 4 NA 

Fire Dynamics (including Chemistry and Physics) 7 4 5 

Petroleum Refining Processes 1 4 3 

Ignitable Liquid Classification System 4 7 NA 

Electrical circuitry and fire 7 4 5 

Testifying as an Expert Witness 7 5 4 

Explosives Manufacturing Processes 7 4 5 

IED recognition and construction 7 4 5 

Computer Fire Modeling 7 4 5 

Gas Chromatography 4 1 2 

Mass Spectral Interpretation 1 4 3 

Raman Spectroscopy for Explosives 1 4 NA 

X-Ray Analysis Techniques (Diffraction, Fluorescence, 

Energy Dispersive) 7 1 4 

Ion Chromatography 1 3 4 

Capillary Electrophoresis 1 3 4 

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy 1 4 3 

Advanced Organic Chemistry for Fire Debris Analysis 1 4 7 

Advanced Topics in the Chemistry of Organic 

Explosives 1 4 7 

Advanced Topics in the Chemistry of Inorganic 

Explosives 1 4 7 

Forensic Fire Scene Examination 7 5 NA 

Forensic Explosive Scene Examination 7 5 4 

Communication and Cooperation between Investigators 

and Analysts in Fires 7 4 5 

Communication and Cooperation between Investigators 

and Analysts in Explosions 7 NA NA 

Table 5: Ranking of Continuing Education Courses 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 61 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
FINAL VERSION 

Question 10 is logically in the “Professional Development” section and the information it 

provides is of particular use to the sub-committees charged with investigation of the 

training needs. An issue, raised when the task group met to discuss survey results, is 

that the responses of the forensic analysts are not separate from those of the 

respondents with investigations as their primary focus. Because more investigators 

responded, these measures are skewed. In order to attempt to glean the best 

information, the probability density plot of the responses for each “continuing education” 

topic must be carefully examined. If we ascribe the major peak in each as being 

weighted primarily by the investigators, then any secondary (and in some instances a 

tertiary) peak would be indicative of the rankings by the analytical community. The 

complete question for #10 is, “Rate how interested you would be in taking each of the 

following types of continuing education courses (1-7 where 1 = Never, 4 = Likely, and 7 

= Absolutely). Creation of a tabular display of the responses where the probability is 

measured at more than 0.15 is seen in Table 5. 

Those with the primary ranking at 7 with secondary and tertiary rankings of 4 or lower 

are courses which would be most desired by investigators (marked in tan). Those with 

a primary ranking of seven with secondary and tertiary rankings above 4 would appeal 

to both investigators and analysts (marked in pale blue). Those with a primary ranking 

of 1, but with a secondary and tertiary ranking of 4 or higher would appeal most to 

analysts (marked in light turquoise). The key anomalies to this ranking begin with the 

last listing, “Communication and Cooperation between Investigators and Analysts in 

Explosions.” It appears to be ranked as a “7” by all respondents and thus would appeal 

to everyone. Next the “Ignitable Liquid Classification System” with a primary ranking of 

4 but a secondary of 7 with no tertiary ranking would also tend to be a course which 

would have strong attendance by both investigators and analysts. 

Training and continuing education continued under Question 11 when the respondents 

were asked to identify “training/classes that you feel would be helpful to you in order to 

do your job better.” A review of the inputs, excluding several that were redundant to 

courses already listed, and condensing similar items provided the following list of 

additional topics of interest: 

 Vehicle, Heavy Equipment, And Recreational Vehicle Fires 

 Death Scenes And Investigations 

 Quality Assurance In The Laboratory – Reducing Interferences And Eliminating 

Contamination 

 Digital Photography And Image Management 

 Appliance Fire Investigations: Electrical And Gas 

 Watercraft And Underwater Investigations 

 Data/Document Management And Writing Reports 

 Complex Scene Management 

 Effect Of Fire Suppression And Overhaul On Fire Scene Evidence 

 Interview And Interrogation Techniques Including Kinesics 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

62 
FINAL VERSION 

 Hazardous Materials Recognition And Sampling 

 Latent Prints In Fires And Bombings 

 Live Experimental Fires And Explosions: Investigation And Evidence Collection 

 Laser Documentation And Computer Aided Design For Crime Scene 

Documentation 

 Wildland Fire Investigations 

 Objectivity And Avoiding Bias: Using The Scientific Method 

 Forensic Accounting And Financial Analysis In Fires With Fraud Implications 

 Case Law Studies And Review Pertaining To Fire And Bombings 

 Safety At Fire And Bombing Scenes – Awareness Of Acute And Chronic 

Dangers 

 Reading And Comprehending The Technical Report 

 Military Ordnance Recognition 

 Spontaneous Combustion Fire Investigation 

 Surveillance 

 Chemical Incendiaries And Hypergolic Mixtures 

 Serial Arson Investigations – Recognition And Techniques 

 Legal Liability And Spoliation In The Fire Scene 

Resource Mean 

Ranking 

Comprehensive Listing Of People Working In The Field (Private And Government) 5.20 

Create A Secure Internet Link For E-Mail And Information Exchange Between 

Professionals 5.70 

Establishment Of A Collection Of Sample Laboratory Reports 4.95 

Creation Of A Glossary Of Analytical, Explosives, And Fire Debris-Related 

Technology 5.42 

Creation Of Information Templates For Evidence Submission 5.08 

Establishment Of A Collection Of Methods And Protocols For Analytical Techniques 5.28 

Establishment Of Databases Of Reference Materials For Analytical Techniques 5.27 

Creation Of A National Database For Tracking Bombing Matters 5.16 

Creation Of A National Database For Tracking Arson Matters 5.73 

Establishment Of A National Resource Database (For Lab Equipment, Expertise, 

Etc.) 4.99 

Establishment Of A National Explosives Formulation Database 4.82 

Creation Of A Bulletin Board For Communication Between Explosives Analysts 4.78 

Creation Of A Bulletin Board For Communication Between Fire Debris 5.26 

Creation Of A Library Of Manufacturers’ Literature 5.55 

Database Of Explosives Analyst Training Manuals And Materials 5.19 

Information center for inter-agency training exercises 5.65 

Table 6: Ranking of Initiatives for the Fire and Explosion Communities (Investigative & Analytical) 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

63 
 

 

 

 

FINAL VERSION 

Under Question 12, the Needs Assessment Task Groups wanted to determine both 

whether certain initiatives would be well met by the fire and explosion community and 

whether the community was aware that some initiatives already existed. It asked the 

respondents to rank the resource along a scale from 1 - “Not at all” to 7 – “Very 

Important.” The results are in table 6. 

While Table 6 indicates the average ranking for all these initiatives is above the midpoint of the ranking scale, the top five (5) resources desired are: 

 Creation of a national database for tracking arson matters (5.73). 

 Create a secure Internet link for E-mail and information exchange between 

professionals (5.70). 

 Information center for inter-agency training exercises (5.65). 

 Creation of an library of manufacturers’ literature (5.55). 

 Creation of a glossary of analytical, explosives, and fire debris-related technology 

(5.42). 

Questions 13 and 14 sought to determine if agencies provide employees with the 

opportunity to conduct “research” and if so, the time allowed. Of the 375 respondents 

who answered this question, 54.1% indicated that they were allowed to conduct 

research. The averages for the four (4) categories of research are: 

 Fire Debris Analysis 57.12 hours 

 Explosives Analysis 49.8 hours 

 Fire Scenes 146.30 hours 

 Explosives Scenes 121.92 hours 

Topic Ranking 

Sufficiency of explosives and fire debris publications provided by your laboratory 3.60 

Interest in receiving a library of ignitable liquid standards on a regular basis 4.98 

Interest in receiving a library of pyrolysis standards on a regular basis 4.75 

Importance of national standards for report writing 4.90 

Importance of a specific protocol for wording of both positive and negative samples 4.91 

Importance of a national database for chromatographic data for ignitable liquids 5.28 

Importance of a national source for ignitable liquid standards 5.52 

Interest in participating in the fire and explosives debris analysis technical working 

group 4.90 

Table 7: Ranking of “Sufficiency, Importance, or Level of Interest” 

The last question in the Demographics and General Section, Question 15, asked 

respondents to rank the sufficiency, importance, or level of interest (from 1 = “Not at all” 

to 7 = “Very”) on eight (8) topics. The most important to the respondents, as seen in 

Table 7, is the maintenance of both a national database and source for ignitable liquids. 

Fortunately these resources are already provided through the NCFS and T/SWGFEX. 

The explosives and fire debris publications provided by agencies to their employees 

was ranked the lowest and clearly shows that more references are needed in the field. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

64 
 

 

 

FINAL VERSION 

The first grouping, Questions 16 through 32 are primarily for Fire Debris Analysts. 

Some allow an assessment of the typical workload, some allow assessment of the 

methods and quality control employed, and others the importance of certain classes 

essential for the field. 

Question 16 divides the work typically done by an agency into fire debris samples 

versus ignitable liquids. Though the analyst uses the same standards to make a 

determination, the distinction is in how the samples are submitted and processed. 

Agency 1 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 750 751 to 1000 1001 to 2000 > 2000 

Private 8 2 2 3 0 0 2 1 

City 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

County 5 3 5 0 0 3 0 0 

State 4 3 5 3 3 0 0 2 

Federal 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Total 34 10 12 6 4 3 2 3 

Table 8: No. of Respondents Indicating the Number of Debris Samples Worked by their Agency 

An examination of Table 8 indicates thirty-four (34) respondents from all five sectors 

indicate that their agencies processed fewer than fifty (50) fire debris samples in 2006. 

In fact, the vast majority of agencies (56) processed fewer than 250 fire debris samples 

in 2006. Only thirteen (13) agencies indicated that they processed from 251 to 1000 

samples. None were City laboratories and the majority were from State laboratories (6). 

Only three (3) Private and two (2) State respondents indicated their laboratories 

processed more than 1001 fire debris samples in 2006. Both of the state laboratories 

indicated they processed more than 2000 samples in 2006. 

Agency 1 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 750 751 to 1000 1001 to 2000 > 2000 

Private 8 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 

City 14 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 

County 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 

State 11 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 

Federal 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 

Total 41 8 8 6 2 0 0 4 

Table 9: No. of Respondents Indicating the No. of Ignitable Liquid Samples Worked by their 

Agency 

Table 9 shows forty-one (41) respondents from four of the five sectors indicate that their 

agencies processed fewer than fifty (50) ignitable liquid samples in 2006. Again, the 

majority of agencies (57) processed fewer than 250 ignitable liquid samples in 2006. 

Only 8 agencies indicated that they processed from 251 to 750 samples. None of the 

agencies indicated processing 751 to 2000 samples. Two City, one State, and one 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 65 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
FINAL VERSION 

Federal laboratory indicated they processed more than 2000 ignitable liquid samples in 

2006. 

Passive headspace sampling using activated charcoal/carbon was indicated as the fire 

debris extraction technique of choice by 76.2% of respondents. This was distantly 

followed by dynamic headspace sampling by 20.2% of respondents. Question 17 also 

indicated that very few respondents used Tenax ® (3.6%) or solid phase micro 

extraction (SPME) (1.2%). When asked about other adsorbents the remaining 8.3% 

provided answers that indicate that they did not comprehend the question with 

responses ranging from gauze pads and non-bleached flour to clay chips and sterile 

pads. 

The choice of eluting solvent in Question 18 indicated that 56.7% of respondents use 

carbon disulfide. This solvent’s efficiency at stripping ignitable liquids from adsorbents 

is considerable, but presents several safety issues. This may be the reason that 16.4% 

indicate they use thermal desorption or SPME. Another 16.4% of respondents indicate 

the use of pentane, which has been touted as a safer alternative to carbon disulfide. 

Surprisingly, 9.0% indicated the use of diethyl ether that has its own significant health 

hazards. Dichloromethane, which has health hazards as well, was indicated by 7.5%. 

The only solvent identified by the remaining 6.0% of respondents indicated a 1:1 

mixture of carbon disulfide and pentane. 

The use of an internal standard either added to the debris during extraction or to the 

solvent was indicated by only 15.1% and 15.2% of respondents respectively as 

indicated in Questions 19 and 20. For those adding an internal standard to the debris, 

it appears that the use of 3-phenyltoluene is the most common. There is not a common 

internal standard indicated for those who add it to their solvent. With the vast majority 

of respondents not indicating the use of an internal standard, the practice should be in 

question. While it is common practice in many other fields of analytical chemistry, the 

question is why fire debris analysts do not use it. 

Question 21 assesses the usage of various types of instrumentation employed in fire 

debris analysis. The scale is 1 = Never and 7 = Exclusive. Clearly at an average rating 

of 6.08 the most common instrumental method is gas chromatography with mass 

spectroscopy (GS-MS). This is followed by Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization 

Detection (GC-FID) at a rating of 2.29. GC-FID has been shown not to be as effective 

or efficient in the analysis of fire debris as GC-MS. This may indicate a problem with 

getting the GC-MS technology to some laboratories. 

Split solvent injection mode (69.4%) with analysis on a 100% polydimethylsiloxane 

column (58.8%) or 5% phenylmethylpolysiloxanne: 95% polydimethylsiloxane were 

parameters indicated in Questions 22 and 23. These responses were expected and are 

anecdotally accepted as being the most common in use by the relevant community. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

66 
FINAL VERSION 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures are necessary to provide acceptable levels 

of dependability when performing chemical analyses. Forensic analysis of fire debris 

should not be an exception. Question 24 assessed the commonality of certain of these 

QA/QC procedures where the scale was 1 = Never and 7 = Exclusive: 

QA/QC Technique Ranking 

ASTM 1387 test mix or similar mixture 5.09 

Internal Standards (e.g., 3-phenyltoluene) 2.90 

Solvent Blanks 5.68 

Apparatus Blanks (e.g., strips, glassware) 5.16 

Recovery Checks (e.g., simulated case extractions) 3.19 

Peer Review 5.72 

Other: (specify) 5.50 

 Validation kits (NFSTC) 

 Proficiency Tests 

Ignitable Liquid Reference Materials 

Table 10: Ranking of QA/QC Techniques 

As seen in Table 10, Peer Review ranked as the most common measure followed 

closely by the use of solvent blanks. Apparatus blanks and the use of the ASTM E1387 

test mix also ranked above 5. 

Question 25 sought to determine the level of conformance to the provisions in various 

ASTM methods. Again the scale is 1 = Never and 7 = Exclusive: 

Standard # General Topic Rank 

ASTM-E 1387-01 Analysis by GC-FID 4.00 

ASTM-E 1618-06 Analysis by GC-MS 5.69 

ASTM-E 1385-00 Extraction by Steam Distillation 2.03 

ASTM-E 1412-00(2005) Extraction by Passive Headspace 5.00 

ASTM-E 1413-06 Extraction by Dynamic Headspace 2.08 

ASTM-E 1388-05 Simple Headspace 3.33 

ASTM-E 1386-00(2005) Solvent Extraction 4.12 

ASTM-E 1492-05 Receiving and Handling Evidence 5.03 

ASTM-E 1459-92(2005) Evidence Labeling and Documentation 5.00 

Table 11: Ranking of Conformance to ASTM Guides 

The analytical method of most common use is again confirmed as GC-MS, but GC-FID 

ranked higher than expected as is seen in Table 11. Of the extraction techniques, the 

use of Passive Headspace as the most common was also confirmed. The fact that 

solvent extraction ranked above “4” would indicate that it is also used by many 

laboratories. It is disturbing to note that simple headspace was ranked as high as it is, 

considering that the technique should be limited to screening. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

67 
 

FINAL VERSION 

When queried as to new equipment and techniques available to fire debris analysts, 

85% of the respondents to Question 26 indicated “no.” Those who responded “yes” 

were asked to describe the equipment and techniques. The following is a synopsis: 

 New software for comparison of data. 

 Tandem GC-MS (GC-MS-MS). 

 Two-dimensional GC with MS (GC X GC-MS). 

 Flash Chromatography. 

 Pyrolysis product database. 

 Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Mass Spectroscopy (FT-ICMS). 

 Stable Isotope Ratio MS. 

 DART sample introduction. 

 Alternative Light Sources (scene investigation). 

 GC with Infrared and mass detection (GC-IRMS). 

 Time-of-flight GC-MS. 

Questions 27 and 28 directly asked respondents to assess the needs of fire debris 

analysts. Question 27 focused on the short-term needs and Question 28 on the long 

term needs. In review of the responses it was noted that there were several responses 

which were listed in both. The following lists of suggestions were prepared by 

consolidating similar responses. 

Short Term Needs in Fire Debris Analysis: 

 Improvements to turnaround for processing evidence. 

 More personnel. 

 Improved software for analysis and comparison of data. 

 More information on pyrolysis products and interference compounds inherent to 

matrices. 

 Improved chromatographic resolution. 

 Improved and greater access to reference materials and standards. 

 An extraction procedure which can replace the use of carbon disulfide without 

sacrificing efficiency (solvent free and improved desorption). 

 More training for personnel. 

 Financial assistance to laboratories. 

 Development of a field gas-chromatograph with sufficient ease of use and 

accuracy to allow high quality presumptive analyses on the scene. 

 Place a GC-MS in all laboratories. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

68 
FINAL VERSION 

Long Term Needs in Fire Debris Analysis: 

 Enhanced ability to compare ignitable liquids from separate sources at a level 

where individualization (similar to DNA analysis) can be made. 

 Improve the library search function of the Ignitable Liquid Reference Collection 

database currently posted on the NCFS database. 

 Greater access to extraction and analysis standards and procedures. 

 Training in advanced organic chemistry for analysts. 

 Enhanced sharing of data between laboratories. 

 Seek and promote consistency in wording between reports from various 

laboratories. 

 Greater understanding of the effect of ignitable liquids on bodies. 

 Increase understanding and adherence to American Society for Testing and 

Materials guidelines and test methods. 

 Cross-training in the “scientific method” for investigators and analysts. 

 Lower cost and more affordable instrumentation. 

The responses to Question 29 were disturbing. The question sought to determine if the 

respondents used an in-house ignitable liquid reference collection in casework. ASTM 

E1618 and E1387 both require that analysts compare the data of an unknown against 

the data of reference materials analyzed on the same instrument. With only 25.4% 

indicating that they do this in every case and 18.4% indicating “often,” it appears that 

the majority of respondents are not in compliance (18.4% reported “sometimes,” and 

37.7% reported “never”). 

Question 30 asked if the respondents used the on-line reference collection data 

available through NCFS and found that 59.5% of the respondents answered “never” 

while a scant 1.8% answered “every case.” Those responding with “sometimes” made 

up 28.8% and those who indicated “often” only 9.9%. These responses may be 

interpreted to indicate that NCFS needs to promote this resource more widely. 

Previous questions asked about extraction procedures and instrumentation. Question 

31 asked, “How does your laboratory routinely identify an ignitable liquid in fire debris”? 

The overwhelming response at 73.2% was “pattern recognition by mass 

chromatography (extracted ion chromatogram or extracted ion profile)”. The next 

highest at 12.7% was “other.” The majority of those responses indicated use of multiple 

combinations of all of the listed choices. These responses appear to be consistent with 

the majority responses received on extraction and instrumentation. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

69 
FINAL VERSION 

The last question specific to fire debris analysts (Question 32) asked them to rank the 

importance of various classes to the training of a fire debris analyst (Table 12). It was 

not noticed until after the return of the surveys that the choice of “Advanced Physics” 

was listed twice. We will use the responses from the first iteration only, thus the 

percentages reported here were derived from the analysis of the raw data after 

redacting the secondary response. The choice of “other” only had four responses and 

will be discussed later. The ranking was from 1 = “Not Important,” to 4 = “Moderate,” to 

7 = “Extremely.” Out of a total of 90 responses, the choice of “Instrumental Analysis” 

was ranked highest at 6.30, and “Organic Chemistry” was ranked second highest at 

6.16 Third was “General Chemistry” at 6.02, ranked by 91 respondents. The table 

below shows all classes, the rankings, and the number of respondents: 

Class Respondents Mean Rank (1 to 7) 

Other: 4 6.33 

Instrumental analysis 90 6.30 

Organic chemistry 90 6.16 

General chemistry 91 6.02 

Analytical chemistry 87 5.88 

Advanced organic chemistry 90 5.48 

Inorganic chemistry 91 4.67 

Introductory physics 90 4.67 

Physical chemistry 88 4.25 

Advanced physics 87 3.70 

Advanced mathematics 87 3.57 

Table 12: Ranking of Training Classes for Fire Debris Analysts 

As stated earlier, the choice of “other” was input by only four respondents and the mean 

ranking of 6.33, while technically the highest, was not considered valid in relation to the 

other classes. While the respondents who entered “other” were not many, the 

suggestions they listed should be considered. They are: spectroscopy with structural 

elucidation, combustion gas analysis, digital imaging, and logic. 

Explosive % Yes % indicating 1 to 50 samples 

Intact Low Explosives 44.9% 53.2% 

Intact High Explosives 26.0% 32.8% 

Intact IED’s 35.1% 40.0% 

Post-Blast Low Explosives 56.6% 55.4% 

Post Blast High Explosives 21.3% 26.2% 

Post Blast IED’s 42.5% 40.6% 

Intact Incendiary Device 48.1% 49.2% 

Post-Reaction incendiary 47.4% 45.3% 

Table 13: Types and Percent of Analyses Performed by Respondents 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

70 
FINAL VERSION 

Question 33 began the sections specific to explosives analysts. From Questions 33 to 

40 (summarized in the “% Yes” column of Table 13), the determination was whether or 

not the respondent performed the analysis in 2006. Questions 41 to 48 (summarized 

in the “% Indicating 1 to 50 Samples” column of Table 13) asked the respondent to 

indicate the number of samples processed by their laboratory. 

In Question 49, respondents were asked to indicate their ranking of the frequency 

which they utilized various forensic techniques with the scale of 1 = “Never” and 7 = 

“Exclusive.” The following, Table 14, is a summary of the responses with the mean 

from all respondents sorted from highest rank to lowest rank: 

Technique Mean Ranking (1 to 7) 

Ignition analysis 3.50 

IR 3.20 

FTIR 3.17 

GC/MS 2.88 

SEM-EDX 2.83 

Other: 2.70 

Microchemical analysis using stereomicroscopy 2.45 

Microchemical analysis using PLM 2.42 

Spot tests 2.25 

IC 2.10 

XRF 2.00 

Field explosives screening 1.78 

TLC 1.76 

Raman spectroscopy 1.57 

GC/FID 1.46 

HPLC 1.46 

XRD 1.46 

HPLC/MS 1.46 

GC/ECD 1.27 

CE 1.26 

GC/TEA 1.23 

ICP 1.21 

HPLC/TEA 1.21 

IMS 1.21 

NMR 1.13 

SEM-WDX 1.11 

Table 14: Ranking of Explosives Analytical Techniques 

The top five (5) responses were Ignition Analysis, Infrared Spectroscopy, Fourier 

Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Gas Chromatography with Mass Spectroscopy, 

Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-Ray detection. However, it 

must be noted that none of the responses ranked above 3.5 and the top three are the 

only ones above 3.0. The next eight (8) responses in the table are clustered between 

2.0 and 2.99. The reason for this is most likely that the sheer variety of explosive 

compounds and mixtures often require the use of multiple techniques to make a 

determination. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

71 
FINAL VERSION 

For Question 50, 86% of the respondents indicated that they were not aware of new 

techniques, instruments, or methods for explosive analysis. In Questions 51 and 52 

respondents were asked to indicate their sense of the short and long term needs for 

explosives analysis. In review of the responses it was noted that there were several 

responses which were listed in both. The following lists of suggestions were prepared 

by consolidating similar responses. 

Short Term Needs in Explosives Analysis: 

 Education and training in the production of improvised and homemade devices 

and materials. What is out there? 

 Collation and dissemination of comprehensive analytical methods covering 

multiple analytical techniques. If one is unavailable, what else can be used? 

 Basic and Advanced training in the comprehensive analysis of explosives 

(analytical methods/techniques, compositions, reactions, dynamics). 

 Explosive Materials Database and reference collection. 

 Financial assistance. 

 Digital Imaging Training. 

 Improvements to the use of robotics technology. 

 Improvements to sample collection. 

 Improving field analyses and their value (instruments, presumptive tests, etc.). 

 Improvement of communication between analysts and investigators. 

Long Term Needs in Explosives Analysis: 

 Information and data sharing between agencies with significant resources 

(federal and some state) and those who are resource challenged. 

 Chemical derivatization protocols to allow alternate analytical methods. 

 Reduced cost of instrumentation. 

Procedure Mean Ranking (1 to 7) 

8095 Calibration Mix A 1.47 

8095 Calibration Mix B 1.47 

Smokeless Powder (or similar) mixture 3.37 

Internal Standard (please indicate): 1.57 

Solvent Blank 3.62 

Peer Review 3.79 

Other: 3.16 

Table 15: Ranking of Explosives QA/QC Procedures 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

72 
FINAL VERSION 

Question 53 sought to determine the use of various Quality Assurance and Quality 

Control procedures and methods in explosives analysis. Table 15 summarizes the 

results. The scale ran from 1 = “Never” to 7 = “Exclusive.” The only internal standard 

indicated was 5-nitro-2-fluorotoluene. The primary “other” QA/QC procedures listed 

were proficiency testing and comparison of unknowns to explosives and chemical 

standards. 

The respondents (82) under Question 54 indicated that 36.6% “never,” and only 37.8% 

“sometimes” used an internal explosives reference collection in casework. This result 

was discouraging. The question becomes, how do these analysts assure themselves of 

an identification without comparative data? Question 55 regarding the use of an online collection of explosives data by the respondents (79) provided more encouraging 

results. Those who selected “sometimes” (38%) and “often” (34.2%) were the clear 

majority. 

Similar to Question 32 for Fire Debris Analysts, Question 56 asked respondents to 

rank the importance of various courses as part of the education of an explosives 

analyst. Again the scale ran from 1 = “never” to 7 = “extremely.” The results after 

isolation and examination of the raw data inputs are summarized and sorted from 

highest to lowest ranking in Table 16: 

Courses for Explosives Analysts Mean Ranking (from 1 to 7) 

Explosives analysis 6.56 

Introduction to explosives 6.40 

The chemistry of pyrotechnics 6.33 

Chemical analysis of explosives 6.17 

Combustion explosions 6.03 

Instrumental analysis 6.00 

General Chemistry 5.77 

Inorganic chemistry 5.60 

Analytical chemistry 5.53 

Organic chemistry 5.47 

Advanced organic chemistry 5.30 

Introductory physics 5.07 

Physical chemistry 4.77 

Advanced physics 4.30 

Advanced mathematics 4.17 

Other: 6.50 

Table 16: Ranking of Importance of Courses of Study for Explosives Analysts 

The items indicated under “other” are “blast effect calculations” and “safety” 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

73 
FINAL VERSION 

Question 57 sought to rate additional training and course work in the professional 

development of an explosives analyst. Again the scale ran from 1 = “never” to 7 = 

“extremely.” The results after isolation and examination of the raw data inputs are 

summarized and sorted from highest to lowest ranking in Table B17: 

Training/Continuing Courses Mean Ranking (1 to 7) 

Analytical examination of high and low explosive materials 

and residues 6.50 

Composition of low explosive materials 6.20 

Construction of improvised devices 6.13 

Recognition of improvised device components 6.11 

Manufacturing of explosives 6.00 

Construction of military devices (e.g. simulators, rockets, 

hand grenades) 5.97 

Composition of high explosive materials 5.95 

Construction of commercial pyrotechnic devices 5.94 

Peroxide Based Explosives 5.92 

Terminology and vocabulary of explosives 5.85 

Range procedures 5.51 

History of Explosives 4.88 

Other: 5.50 

Table 17: ranking of Additional Training for Professional Development of Explosives Analysts 

Questions 58 through 69 were designed to assess opinions of those who identified 

themselves as fire scene investigators. 

The first question of this group, Question 58, asked them to indicate the number of fire 

scenes processed in 2006 by all the investigators at their particular location. The 

largest grouping indicated by the 270 respondents indicated that 48.1% worked from 1 

to 50 scenes. Significantly, 15.2% indicated they worked from 51 to 100 scenes, 15.2% 

indicated they worked from 101 to 250 scenes, and 12.2% indicated they worked 251 to 

500 scenes. The number of individuals indicating they worked 501 to > 2000 scenes 

was only 9.3% of respondents. 

The majority of respondents, 94.8%, indicated that they have had formal training in fire 

scene investigation in Question 59. Another majority, 85.1%, indicated that formal 

training was “very important” in the investigation of fire scenes. 

Question 60 asked respondents to identify the types of containers used to secure 

evidence by percentage of time used. Clean unused paint cans were indicated as being 

used 78.82% of the time. Glass jars and vials were indicated as being used 21.58% of 

the time and Nylon bags 16.8% of the time. The items listed in “other” included a 

number of entries for “Kapak TM” bags and the respondents were unaware that they are 

included in the “nylon bag” category. There were a significant number of entries stating 

the use of paper bags. It is hoped that these are used for non-fire debris evidence as 

they are useless in securing fire debris for ignitable liquid determination. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

74 
FINAL VERSION 

In Question 61 respondents were asked to identify the equipment “essential to help you 

process fire scenes.” In Question 62, respondents were asked to identify “equipment 

desirable to help you process a fire scene.” All entries were free text entry and not from 

a pre-set list which led to a significant variety in the responses. The lists of entries were 

examined and significant repetition and overlap was noted. Many of the responses 

have been combined, with similar entries being consolidated, and summarized in the 

lists below: 

Equipment Essential to Processing Fire Scenes: 

 Accelerant Detection Canine team. 

 Hand tools (e.g., saws, chisels, hammers, screwdrivers, pry bar, etc.). 

 Power tools (e.g., saws, drills, etc.). 

 Gloves (both disposable and protective). 

 Personal protective and safety equipment (e.g., hard hat, coveralls, respirator, 

etc.). 

 Shovels, rakes, and scoops. 

 Cameras (both still and video). 

 Screens and sieves. 

 Knives (various). 

 Tape measure, GPS, laser measuring devices. 

 Magnets. 

 Fingerprint, trace evidence, and impression evidence kits. 

 Heavy debris removal equipment (e.g., forklifts, cranes, bulldozers) depending on 

the scene. 

 Directional and evidence flags. 

 Vehicle for transport of tools. 

 Gas/hydrocarbon “sniffer”/detector. 

 Ultraviolet light source. 

 Portable lighting for night work. 

 NFPA 921 and other authoritative reference books. 

 Brooms and brushes. 

 Ladders. 

 Generator. 

 Circuit Tester/Volt/Ohm meter. 

 Information recording tools (e.g., pens, paper, voice recorder, etc.). 

 Buckets. 

 Water and soap for decontamination and cleaning. 

 Laptop with software necessary (e.g., word processing, digital photo archiving, 

CAD software, etc.). 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

75 
FINAL VERSION 

Equipment Desired for Processing Fire Scenes: 

 Multigas detector/electronic nose. 

 Laser scanners and measuring. 

 Panoramic cameras. 

 Portable X-Ray units. 

 Portable/Handheld chemical identification equipment (e.g., GC-MS, FTIR, 

Raman). 

 Mobile Internet access. 

 Advanced scene documentation tools (e.g., laser, CAD, etc.). 

 Thermal imaging. 

 Fire Modeling software. 

Question 62 also asked if the respondent or their agency had access to an accelerant 

detection canine team. Of the 260 respondents, 69.2% indicated they have access to a 

canine team. Half of the respondents indicated that such a canine team would be used 

in only 1 to 20% of their cases. For 22.9% of the respondents the canine team would 

be used in 21 to 40% of their cases. Only 16.7% of the respondents went so far as to 

state that canines would be used in 41 to 60% of cases. Thus, very few, 10.4%, would 

use canines in more than 61% of their cases. 

As a corollary, 48% of respondents said they had access to an electronic “sniffer” and 

46.4% said they did not. Of the respondents, 31.6% indicated that an electronic “sniffer” 

would be used in 1 to 20% of their cases. For the grouping of 21 to 40% of cases, the 

number of respondents dropped to 13.2%. For each of the three remaining groupings, 

41 to 60%, 61 to 80%, and 81 to 100% of the time, the number of respondents was 

evenly distributed with 18.4% of the respondents in each group. 

Question 63 asked if the respondent’s agency had a specific criteria for activation of a 

canine unit. The majority, 67.9%, indicated they did not. The follow up question asked 

the respondent to describe the criteria. The answers were considerably varied and the 

reader is directed to the Vista TM survey in the appendix. 

Only 33.3% of respondents indicated their agency tracked the usage of the accelerant 

detection canine in each investigation (Question 64). Only 28.1% of respondents 

indicated that the canine’s positive to negative hit rate was tracked (Question 65). 

Skipping to Question 67, 72.8% of respondents think they would benefit by having 

access to a national/international database of certified accelerant detection canine 

teams. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

76 
FINAL VERSION 

When asked if investigators had access to other forensic laboratory tests in addition to 

fire debris/ignitable liquid analyses, 57.1% of the respondents answered “no” in 

Question 66. Only a very slight majority of respondents (50.4%) indicated they had 

access (on-scene, by telephone, or email) to a fire debris analyst/scientist for 

consultation while working a scene (Question 68). In Question 68a, 61.5 % of the 

respondents who indicated that they had access to a scientist indicated that in 2006 

they called upon this expertise 1 to 5 times. In Questions 69 and 69a, 91.7% of the 

respondents who answered that they did not have access to a scientist, indicated that 

this type of access would be desirable. They further ranked the importance of this 

access using the scale of 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Very” with 29% of respondents ranking 

this service at 7 (“very” desirable). For rankings of 5 or 6, 26.2% and 22.1% 

respectively indicated a positive level of importance. 

Questions 70 through 89 were designed to be specific to Explosion/Bomb scene 

investigators. Of the 157 respondents to Question 70, 87.3% indicated they worked 

from 1 to 50 cases in 2006. On the issue of having received formal training, 76.8% of 

the respondents to Question 71 answered “yes” and in Question 72, 83.2% indicated 

that formal training was “very” important in the investigation of bombing crime scenes. 

Question 73 assessed the types of sampling containers used to package debris 

collected from explosives scenes and found that clean unused paint cans were used by 

62.1% of the respondents in 61 to 100% of their cases. For 1 to 20% of their cases, 

49.0% of the respondents used glass jars and vials and 47.1% used nylon bags. The 

remaining types of containers commonly indicated in the “other” selection were various 

paper evidence bags. 

The results for Question 74 on the equipment “essential to help you process bombing 

scenes” are the same as for Questions 61 and 62 with the following additions: 

 Explosive Ordnance Disposal suits (Bomb Suits). 

 X-Ray machine. 

 Disruptors. 

 Metal detector. 

 Explosives swab kits. 

 Presumptive explosives identification wet chemical kits. 

 Robots for unmanned approach and entry. 

 Non-sparking tools. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

77 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Question 75, that asked which equipment is “desirable,” is also similar to the responses 

in Questions 61 and 62 with the following additions: 

 Better evidence preservation and sampling technology (includes vapor sampling 

and preservation). 

 Explosives Detection Instruments for field use (e.g., Ion Mobility Spectroscopy, 

Raman Spectroscopy, FTIR spectroscopy, etc.). 

 Portable wet chemical explosives identification kits. 

 Mobile Command Center. 

 Equipment that can elevate the investigator above the scene. 

 Bomb Component Blanket. 

 Blast Modeling Software. 

Question 76 asked if the respondents used the equipment they listed and 85.2% 

replied “yes.” Question 77 asked respondents what training was desired. The 

following are the training/classes listed by respondents (after consolidation and sorting): 

 Advanced post-blast training with “hands-on” experience at a “live” experimental 

scene. 

 The chemistry of explosives. 

 Bomb scene evidence sampling, collection, and preservation. 

 Scene excavation. 

 Recognition of the blast effects of high or low order explosives on various scenes 

(as a method to assess presumptively the type used upon arrival at a scene). 

 Using advanced scene documentation equipment. 

 WMD scene investigation. 

 Anti-terrorism training. 

 Partnering with federal agencies for on-scene experience. 

 Basic EOD for the fire service. 

 Using mapping tools and documentation to prepare a land survey of a scene. 

Under Question 78, 64.4% of respondents indicated they had access to and used an 

explosives detection canine. For Question 79, 53.7% of the respondents indicated that 

they used a canine explosives detection team from 1 to 20% of the time. Only 16.3% 

indicated using such a team for 81 to 100% of the time. The respondents to Question 

80 indicated that 62.8% did not have a specific criteria for calling out the canine team. 

The follow- up question asked the respondent to describe the criteria. The answers 

were considerably varied and the reader is directed to the Vista TM survey in the 

appendix. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

78 
FINAL VERSION 

Only 37.1% of respondents indicated their agency tracked the usage of explosives 

detection canines in each investigation (Question 81). Only 30.6% of respondents 

indicated that the canine’s positive to negative hit rate was tracked (Question 82). In 

Question 83, 69.3% of respondents think they would benefit by having access to a 

national/international database of certified explosives detection canine teams. 

When asked if investigators had access to forensic laboratory experts for consultation in 

explosives while investigating a bombing scene, 52.4% of the respondents answered 

“no” in Question 84. In Question 85, 76.5 % of the respondents who indicated that 

they had access to a scientist, indicated that in 2006 they called upon this expertise 1 to 

5 times. In Question 86, 96.1% of the respondents who answered that they did not 

have access to a scientist, indicated that this type of access would be desirable. For 

Question 87, they further ranked the importance of this access using the scale of 1 = 

“Not at all” to 7 = “Very” with 46.4% of respondents ranking this service at 7 (“very 

desirable). For rankings of 5 or 6, 14.5% and 20.5% respectively indicated a positive 

level of importance. 

Question 88 asked respondents to estimate the number of scenes containing various 

types of explosives which they worked in 2006. The vast majority either did not work 

that type of device or the number of incidents was few (between 1 to 20), see Table 18. 

Scenes Containing: Percent indicating “0” Percent indicating “1 to 20” 

Intact Explosives 40.00% 50.40% 

Intact IED 51.90% 40.50% 

Post Blast Explosives 39.30% 56.40% 

Post Blast IED 52.30% 43.10% 

Intact Incendiary Device 35.00% 60.70% 

Post Reaction Incendiary Device 39.40% 53.30% 

Table 18: Estimate of the Number of Scenes with Specific Types of Explosives 

Question 89 sought to determine the number of times that a respondent was called 

upon to “render safe” a device and the methods used to accomplish the task. Table 19 

provides a synopsis of the data: 

Render Safe Method “0” occasions “1 to 20” occasions 

Hands on 54.30% 43.20% 

Remote Cutter 75.00% 22.20% 

Disrupter 28.30% 46.70% 

Other 57.80% 33.33% 

Table 19: “Render Safe” Method and the Number of Occasions Used 

It must be additionally noted that another 13% of respondents used the Disruptor from 

21 to 50 times and 8.7% indicated Disruptor use from 51 to 100 times. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 79 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
FINAL VERSION 

Questions 90 through 100 were designed to assess laboratory research needs. Many 

of the questions asked respondents to write their opinions and comments as free entries 

instead of simply checking a box. Those with free entries were examined, and insofar 

as possible, were consolidated by combining similar comments and opinions. Answers 

which were flippant or not relevant to the laboratory analysis of fire debris or explosives 

were not considered. 

Question 90 was one of these questions. It asked, “What major breakthrough in the 

area of ignitable liquid or explosives analysis would have the most impact on the area of 

forensic science (think big the sky is the limit)?” The following is the synopsis of the 

written responses: 

 A simple to use, portable, cost effective, validated instrument that can reliably 

produce presumptive identifications of ignitable liquids from samples (with 

minimal sample preparation) while at the scene. Portable GC-MS instruments 

were suggested. 

 A simple to use, portable, cost effective, validated instrument that can reliably 

produce presumptive identifications of explosives from samples (with minimal 

sample preparation) while at the scene. Portable GC-MS or IMS instruments 

were suggested. 

 Instrumental software that can reliably match data from unknowns to library 

reference standards and can provide a realistic probability index of a match 

against a specific ASTM class of ignitable liquid. 

 Research instrumental methods, software, or new instruments that will allow the 

exclusion of interfering compounds and pyrolysis products so that only ignitable 

liquid components are seen. 

 The introduction of taggants or chemical markers in ignitable liquids that will not 

be destroyed or altered by fire and will allow identification of the specific ignitable 

liquid and identify the manufacturer or brand of ignitable liquid. 

 Instrumentation and/or software that will allow a probability match of ignitable 

liquids found at a scene to ignitable liquids in the possession of the suspect or 

from specific sources. DNA for fire debris analysis. 

 Improved and low or no cost access to a database listing relevant scientific 

research (for fire debris and explosives analysis) which has been peer reviewed 

and published. The ability to obtain specific articles at low or no cost without the 

need to subscribe to the publication is also requested. 

 Research into the source determination of explosive residue compounds found in 

a sample versus the same compounds inherent or produced in the scene. For 

example, could stable isotope ratio MS tell you if the nitrate anion found in a soil 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

80 
FINAL VERSION 

sample has the same ratios as the nitrate anion from different sources. These 

may be the fertilizer previously added to the soil or the black powder in the 

possession of the suspect. Other instrumentation may work as well and could be 

used so long as there was a differentiation. 

 Federal financial support to provide low or no cost portable instruments for onscene testing (Ion Mobility Spectroscopy, portable Raman, portable FTIR, etc.). 

 Research into alternate extraction technologies which would reduce the presence 

of background interferences (supercritical fluid extraction for example). 

 A single comprehensive analytical technique for identifying any compound 

(organic or inorganic) extracted from explosive residue (Fourier Transform Ion 

Cyclotron Mass Spectroscopy was suggested as an existing technique which 

needs research). 

 Research into the persistence of ignitable liquids on footwear or tracked by 

footwear onto different substrates. 

 Research into the deterioration rates of various ignitable liquids based on 

variables such as time of exposure, temperature, air flow over the ignitable liquid, 

and the absorptive protection provided by various matrices. 

 Video documentation of the investigation or analysis which could be used to 

show the jury exactly what was done by an investigator or analyst. 

 Prepare and distribute testing kits that can be used to assess initially the identity 

of explosives or ignitable liquids at a scene. 

 Determine the likelihood of determining DNA from evidence in a fire or bombing. 

 Research into the differentiation of terpenes found inherent to natural wood 

versus those found in commercial solvent products. 

 Research into the use of alternate light sources as tools to aid in determining the 

areas with ignitable liquids in fire scenes. 

 RSP of HME’s or PBE’s. Not spray misting but actual RSP methods. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

81 
FINAL VERSION 

Question 91 asked the respondents to rank several research areas in terms of whether 

the research area would have “a significant impact on ignitable liquid or explosives 

analysis.” The scale for ranking is 1 = “not likely,” 3 = “is possible,” 5 = “is probable,” 

and 7 = “extremely likely.” Table 20 lists the research area then indicates the 

percentage of respondents who selected a ranking of 5, 6, or 7. 

Research Area % Ranking “5” % Ranking “6” % Ranking “7” Total of 5, 6, & 7 

New Analytical Methods 28.70% 11.10% 30.60% 70.40% 

New and Improved Databases 23.40% 16.20% 40.50% 80.10% 

New Data Analysis Methodology 27.80% 7.40% 32.40% 67.60% 

New Standards 24.10% 4.60% 24.10% 52.80% 

Sample archiving practice/method 19.40% 8.70% 30.10% 58.20% 

Table 20: Ranking the potential Impact of Areas of Research in Ignitable Liquid & Explosion 

Analysis 

Once the totals for the rankings of 5, 6, or 7 are viewed, the respondents indicated that 

“New and Improved Databases” followed by “New Analytical Methods” and “New Data 

Analysis Methodology” are the areas “probable” to “most likely” to have an impact. 

For 93.0% of the 115 respondents to Question 92, the need for additional research “in 

the area of explosives disposal/disruption” is clearly “yes.” In Question 94, the ranking 

of “the importance of an analyst’s knowledge of the fate and transport of explosives in 

the environment as related to forensic casework” was ranked at “7” or “urgent” by 36.9% 

of respondents and at “5” or “very important” by 26.2%. When asked about the push to 

lower detection limits in the analysis of explosives (Question 95), 64.5% of the 

respondents ranked the subject from “is very important” to “urgent.” 

In Question 93, the respondents were asked to indicate “the most significant 

improvement on the efficiency of useful sample collection at the fire and explosive 

scenes.” The response with the highest percentage (36.3%) was “New field 

instrumentation/sensors to aid in sample selection.” The second highest response 

(32.7%) indicated the need for “Training of sample collection personnel.” 

Question 96 is another free entry question that asked fire and explosives analysts to 

identify their greatest challenges. The list is below. 

 Maintaining a turnaround time (from the submission of the samples to the issuing 

of a report) that is low enough to allow the report to be useful while the 

investigation is open, yet long enough to insure proper and adequate analysis 

and evaluation. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 82 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
FINAL VERSION 

 Obtaining training and education at a professional level that is affordable to an 

agency with budget considerations and can be scheduled to avoid a hardship on 

the agency. 

 Receiving adequate and appropriate comparison samples from the scene. This 

promotes being able to determine if the trace ignitable liquid in the sample was 

inherent to the matrix/scene or foreign to the scene (an accelerant). 

 Budget restrictions to negate the ability to purchase equipment or hire more 

personnel. As a result, many of us are forced to use obsolete equipment. 

 Inadequate staffing levels to meet the workload. 

 Communication and cooperation between the investigators and analysts and 

from one agency to another. Roadblocks to sharing information with peers. 

 Advising investigators of the best and worst areas for sample collection in the 

scene with a follow-up on proper and adequate packaging and preservation of 

the samples collected. 

 References and a better understanding of pyrolysis products. A pyrolysis 

product database. 

 Having the research, data, and references to allow a determination of the 

presence of an explosive though many of the post-blast residues are individually 

considered inherent to a scene or innocuous. 

 Working with prosecutors to train them in our capabilities and more importantly, 

our limitations. Keeping open dialogue with prosecutors or other attorneys so 

they fully understand what you can and cannot say when on the stand. 

Encouraging pleas when appropriate and pursuing prosecutions when justified. 

 Having access to ignitable liquid reference standards. Knowing about new 

petrochemical products that could be used as accelerants. Open 

communications with the petrochemical industry. 

 Not being able to make probability match comparisons between samples from a 

scene and a suspect with the same level of certainty as DNA analysts. 

 Awareness and familiarity with NFPA 921 so that it does not become a tool to 

attack the work that you did, but rather a source to show that you were objective. 

 Inadequate funding for research into fire and explosion dynamics as well as 

analytical methods and instruments. 

 How to assess the reputation and objectivity of experts brought in to conduct an 

investigation or analysis. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

83 
FINAL VERSION 

 Proper scene security and preservation until the public investigator can conduct 

his investigation. Timeliness of transferring the scene from public to private 

investigation. 

 Awareness and training in new legal issues which affect the investigation, 

analysis, and testimony. 

 Availability of forensic engineers to public agencies for investigation of electrical 

fires. 

 Raising the forensic and scientific awareness and training of investigative 

personnel. Teaching the “scientific method” as applied to investigations. 

 Raising the national standards on bomb squads to ensure that only properly 

trained and adequately equipped squads are working. 

 Greater understanding and information on the identification of peroxide based 

explosives. 

 Greater understanding and awareness of trends and procedures in homemade 

explosives and improvised devices. Staying one step ahead of the bomb 

makers. 

 Understanding and support by those outside of the agency or laboratory that may 

not be knowledgeable about the particulars of your job. Getting administrators 

and politicians to not attempt to micro-manage areas outside of their expertise. 

Getting them to treat and trust the agency/laboratory representative as then 

subject matter expert and avoid second guessing them. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

84 
 

FINAL VERSION 

Question 97, “What area(s) of your investigation analysis is (are) most frequently 

challenged in court?”, asked respondents to list up to three (3) items. The varied 

answers required considerable review and consolidation. The following table 

represents not only the consolidation but also a sorting of the frequency of similar 

responses as interpreted by the Needs Assessment Committee. The most common 

responses are listed first: 

Expertise/Qualifications - Including accreditation and/or personal Certification(s) 

 Origin and Cause (i.e., elimination of all other potential causes). 

 Selection, Collection and packaging of the evidence. 

 Choice of analytical methodology/Quality of the analysis. 

 Identification of a suspect/motive/intent. 

 Chain of Custody. 

 Significance and relevance of findings or results. 

 Interpretation of laboratory data and formulation of results for report (GC-MS or 

other instrumental data). 

 Education and training received (i.e., type, amount, and relevance). 

 Documentation of the scene. 

 Assessing the potential for contamination of the sample. 

 Connecting the suspect and the evidence. 

 Where the ignitable liquid originally came from. 

 Knowledge of NFPA 921. 

 General Expertise in the field. 

 Bias for employer/client. 

 Consideration of the contribution from pyrolysis/matrices. 

 Hesitance of prosecutor to proceed to trial. 

 Use and significance of a canine. 

 Completeness/quality of written report. 

 Spoliation. 

 Determining the explosive potential of devices. 

 How long the ignitable liquid was there before the fire. 

 Ability to compare recovered ignitable liquids. 

 Determination of the source of ignition. 

 How the type of explosive was determined. 

 Possible electrical causes. 

 Overall investigative process. 

 Quantification of the amount of ignitable liquid found or used. 

 Gunshot residue analysis. 

 Engineers. 

 Initial and over all assessment of scene. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

85 
FINAL VERSION 

The significance of Daubert/Frye standards when introducing a new analytical method, 

technique, or instrument into a laboratory was ranked by respondents on a scale of 1 = 

“not at all,” 3 = “fairly important,” 5 = “very important,” and 7 = “urgent” in Question 98. 

The majority (26.2%) ranked the issue as 5, “very important.” The second highest 

percentage of respondents (21.5%) ranked this issue at 7, “urgent.” The third highest 

percentage (15%) ranked the issue at 6 which would be between “very important” and 

“urgent.” If we total the percentage of responses ranking this issue above 5 or “very 

important,” the total is 62.7% and the significance is clearly seen. 

Question 99 asked respondents if the creation of a “new practices” review panel 

comprised of academic and practicing forensic scientists would facilitate the 

implementation of new methods in the view of the courts. The majority of respondents 

were ambivalent on this issue as 56.3% responded “possibly.” It must be noted 

however that a full 38.1% of respondents answered a definitive “yes” and only 5.6%a 

definitive “no.” 

The last query, Question 100, asked if laboratory analysts are interested in 

collaborating with university researchers to implement new and/or field methods. Again 

the majority of respondents (46.6%) answered “possibly. This time however, 23.3% 

answered “no” and 30.2% answered “yes.” 

The above synopses lists and tables were assembled in an attempt to clarify how the 

Needs Assessment Committee viewed the results. Even among committee members 

there may be disagreement as to the significance or interpretation of the data. The 

reader is urged to review the full survey results included in the attached appendix. 

Please be aware that additional or differing opinions concerning the results of the 

survey are possible. The opinions contained herein were developed by consensus by 

the Needs Assessment Committee members and representatives of T/SWGFEX. 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL VERSION 

Appendix C. Tables of Survey Questions 

Their Relationships to Planning Sub-Committees 

Q # Analytical Methods 

Fire Debris 

Analytical 

Methods 

Explosives 

Technology 

Fire Debris 

Technology 

Explosives 

Training 

for Fire 

Debris 

Training for 

Explosives 

General and 

Demographics 

A Demographics and 

General Questions 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

B Professional 

Development 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

C Fire Debris Analysis 

Casework 

16 

D Fire Debris Analysis 

Analytical Methods 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

E Fire Debris Analysis 

Data Interpretation 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Table C1: Questions 1 To 32 And Their Relationship To Planning Sub-Committees 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 87 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL VERSION 

Q # Analytical Methods 

Fire Debris 

Analytical 

Methods 

Explosives 

Technology 

Fire Debris 

Technology 

Explosives 

Training 

for Fire 

Debris 

Training for 

Explosives 

General and 

Demographics 

F Explosives Analysis 

Casework 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

G Explosives Analytical 

Methods 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

H Explosives Data 

Interpretation 

54 

55 

56 

57 

I Fire Scene Investigation 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

Table C2: Questions 33 To 69 And Their Relationship To Planning Sub-Committees 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 88 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL VERSION 

Q # Analytical Methods 

Fire Debris 

Analytical 

Methods 

Explosives 

Technology 

Fire Debris 

Technology 

Explosives 

Training 

for Fire 

Debris 

Training for 

Explosives 

General and 

Demographics 

J Explosives Scene 

Investigation 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

K Laboratory Research 

Topics 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

Table C3: Questions 70 To 100 And Their Relationship To Planning Sub-Committees 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 89 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 
FINAL VERSION 

Appendix D. Vista TM Survey Results and Survey (see following pages) 

TWGFEX Needs Assessment (FY-2006, 2005-MU-MU-K044, Supplement No. 1) 

Chasteen, Author/Editor (Final Version), January 2008 

90 
Survey Results 

& Analysis 

for 

Survey of Forensic Laboratories and Scene 

Investigation 

Account: NCFS 

Monday, September 17, 2007 10:09:46 AM 

VistaTM Survey System 
 

 

 

 

Introduction 

This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to your survey named Survey of Forensic Laboratories and Scene 

Investigation. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took your survey in the 94 day period from 

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 to Friday, September 14, 2007 inclusive. 

Report Contents 

This report is divided into four sections: 

1. Introduction 

2. Results Analysis 

3. Questionnaire 

4. Notes 

The Introduction (this section) contains an overview of the report structure. 

The Results Analysis section contains a summary and statistical analysis of the results to each question in your survey. 

The Questionnaire section lists all questions in your survey's questionnaire. This is provided as a reference to help you interpret 

the Results Analysis. 

The Notes sections contains definitions of key terms and tips on how to interpret your results. 

Confidence Intervals 

Wherever possible, results are presented with an indication of the results accuracy. Usually this is presented in the form of a 

confidence interval. It is important when reviewing survey results to make sure that any action you plan is based only on 

statistically significant results. 

Correlation Analysis 

In preparing the results analysis, the report generator has examined all questions in pairs to see if there are any correlations 

between answers. Whenever a significant correlation is found, it is noted. This information can be valuable in determining what 

demographic or experience characteristics tend to drive key measures such as overall satisfaction. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results Analysis 

Survey name: Survey of Forensic Laboratories and Scene Investigation 

Start date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 

End date: Friday, September 14, 2007 

Number of respondents: 407 

Filter: 

Include all respondent's answers. 

i) Because this survey is posted in a variety of locations, we ask that you fill and submit only one version. We also ask that you 

only complete answers to those questions that pertain to you. If a question does not pertain to the work you performed in 

2006, please leave it blank. 

1) Part A. Demographics and General Questions 

Indicate the type of work you do and assign a percentage of time in that activity (if you perform in multiple areas please 

indicate): 

Job Title / Percentage of Time 

1a) Fire Debris Analyst 

10-20% (39) 22.0% 

20-30% (22) 12.4% 

30-40% (6) 3.4% 

40-50% (11) 6.2% 

50-60% (6) 3.4% 

60-70% (2) 1.1% 

70-80% (6) 3.4% 

80-90% (8) 4.5% 

90-100% (12) 6.8% 

N/A (65) 36.7% 

Total (177) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 230 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

1b) Explosive Debris Analyst 

10-20% (51) 

20-30% (8) 

30-40% (3) 

40-50% (4) 

50-60% (0) 

60-70% (0) 

70-80% (0) 

80-90% (0) 

90-100% (2) 

34.7% 

 5.4% 

 2.0% 

 2.7% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 1.4% 

N/A (79) 53.7% 

Total (147) 

An answer to this question is not required and 260 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

1c) Fire Scene Investigation 

10-20% (56) 17.3% 

20-30% (37) 11.5% 

30-40% (19) 5.9% 

40-50% (21) 6.5% 

50-60% (13) 4.0% 

60-70% (14) 4.3% 

70-80% (28) 8.7% 

80-90% (35) 10.8% 

90-100% (69) 21.4% 

N/A (31) 9.6% 

Total (323) 

An answer to this question is not required and 84 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1d) Explosives (Post Blast) Investigation 

10-20% (112) 56.0% 

20-30% (13) 6.5% 

30-40% (7) 3.5% 

40-50% (2) 1.0% 

50-60% (2) 1.0% 

60-70% (1) 0.5% 

70-80% (0) 0.0% 

80-90% (0) 0.0% 

90-100% (7) 3.5% 

N/A (56) 28.0% 

Total (200) 

An answer to this question is not required and 207 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

1e) Supervisor/Administrator for either Laboratory Analyses or Scene Investigations 

10-20% (40) 

20-30% (21) 

30-40% (11) 

40-50% (6) 

50-60% (5) 

60-70% (4) 

70-80% (8) 

80-90% (6) 

90-100% (27) 

N/A (69) 

Total (197) 

20.3% 

 10.7% 

 5.6% 

 3.0% 

 2.5% 

 2.0% 

 4.1% 

 3.0% 

 13.7% 

 35.0% 

An answer to this question is not required and 210 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

1f) Academic/Teaching 
 

 

 

 

10-20% (98) 47.3% 

20-30% (17) 8.2% 

30-40% (10) 4.8% 

40-50% (9) 4.3% 

50-60% (6) 2.9% 

60-70% (3) 1.4% 

70-80% (2) 1.0% 

80-90% (1) 0.5% 

90-100% (3) 1.4% 

N/A (58) 28.0% 

Total (207) 

An answer to this question is not required and 200 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

2) Indicate the type of organization for which you work (check one): 

Private (93) 23.2% 

City/Municipal (170) 42.5% 

County (70) 17.5% 

State/Provincial (52) 13.0% 

Federal (15) 3.8% 

Total (400) 

An answer to this question is not required and 7 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

3) List the number of all employees (including you) in your laboratory or unit involved in fire 

debris or explosives analysis, scene investigation, and/or reporting for each of the following 

categories: 

Position / Number of Employees 
 

 

 

3a) Analyst /Scientist 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.00 

Standard Deviation: 3.81 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 30.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 257 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

3b) Lab. Supervisor/Manager 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 0.80 

Standard Deviation: 2.30 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 19.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 285 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

3c) Scene Investigator/EOD 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.62 

Standard Deviation: 15.04 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 180.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 83 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

3d) Scene/EOD Supervisor 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.28 

Standard Deviation: 5.27 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 56.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 204 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4) Years of Experience in this field / Number of employees 

4a) 0-2 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.02 

Standard Deviation: 1.49 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 8.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 262 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4b) 2-5 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.07 

Standard Deviation: 7.50 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 85.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 247 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4c) 5-10 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.27 

Standard Deviation: 8.42 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 90.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 211 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4d) 10-15 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.61 

Standard Deviation: 7.99 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 90.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 238 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4e) 20-25 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.73 

Standard Deviation: 4.24 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 25.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 286 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4f) 25-30 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.17 

Standard Deviation: 3.43 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 26.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 335 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

4g) >30 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.20 

Standard Deviation: 7.77 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 45.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 356 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

5) List the number of all employees (including you) in your laboratory or unit involved in fire 

debris or explosives analysis, scene investigation, and/or reporting for each of the following 

categories: 

Highest Education attained by each employee / Number of Employees: 
 

 

 

 

5a) High School 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.01 

Standard Deviation: 11.72 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 140.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 216 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

5b) 2-3 year degree / diploma 
• X 

• 1 

• 1 

• 2 

• 10 

• 2 

• 6 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 2 

• 2 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 10 

• 1 

• 1 

• 2 

• 1 

• 6 

• 2 

• 1 

• 1 

• 5 

• 15 

• 6 

• 1 

• 1 

• 7 

• 1 

• 2 

• 1 

• 2 

• 0 

• 1 

• 1 

• 2 

• 3 

• 2 
• 4 

• 2 

• 5 

• 1 

• 1 

• 7 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 3 

• 2 

• 2 

• 3 

• 3 

• 3 

• 3 

• 2 

• 5 

• 5 

• 10 

• 1 

• 1 

• 80 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 3 

• 4 

• 2 

• 2 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 5 

• 4 

• 1 

• 4 

• 2 

• 1/1 

• 3 
• 1 

• 3 

• 0 

• 4 

• 1 

• 0 

• 2 

• 3 

• 2 

• 1 

• 5 

• X 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 12 

• 2 

• 7 

• 2 

• 2 

• 2 

• 4 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 4 

• 1 

• 1 

• 4 

• 7 

• 2 

• 1 

• 2 

• 3 

• 4 

• 2 

• 1 

• 5 

• 1 

• 2 

• 10 

• 25 

• 6 

• 1 
 

• 1 

• 4 

• one 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 3 

• 1 

• 10 

• 1 

• 3 

• 3 

• 2 

• 1 

• 1 

• 4 

• 5 

• 6 

• 5 

• 2 

• 2 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 9 

• 1 

• 0 

• 2 

• 3 

• 4 

• 3 

• 2 

• 2 

• 1 

• 2 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 2 

• 2 

• 2 

• 2-2 

• 15 

• 1 

• 3 
 

• 1 

• 3 

• 2 

• 5 

• 1 

• 2 

• 2 

• 5 

• 3 

• 3 

• 1 

• 1 

• 5 

• 3 

• 5 

• 2 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 4 

• 2 

• 4 

• 3 

• 6 

• 3 

• 1 

• 8 

• 0 

An answer to this question is not required and 199 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

5c) 4 year BA or BS or BSc 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.09 

Standard Deviation: 4.46 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 35.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 179 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

5d) Master's degree 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.30 

Standard Deviation: 1.27 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 10.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

5e) PhD 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.10 

Standard Deviation: 1.94 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 10.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 377 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

6) Indicate the number of times you testified in court in 2006 

1-5 (256) 80.0% 

6-10 (35) 10.9% 

11-15 (13) 4.1% 

16-20 (4) 1.2% 

21-30 (5) 1.6% 
 

 

 

31-40 (3) 0.9% 

41-50 (1) 0.3% 

>50 (3) 0.9% 

Total (320) 

An answer to this question is not required and 87 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

ii) Part B. Professional Development (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

7) Which, if any, of the following professional development activities will your laboratory or agency pay (in part or in full) for 

employees to attend (check all that apply): 

local/state/regional professional (312) association meeting 

conference, seminar, or symposium (339) held within the state/province 

conference, seminar, or symposium (244) held outside the state/province 

conference, seminar, or symposium (48) 12.3% 

held outside home country 

seminar or course held off-site (273) 70.0% 

seminar or course held on-site (234) 60.0% 

classes held a local university (203) 52.1% 

on-line classes from an accredited 

(164) 42.1% 

university 

employer does not offer to pay for 

courses, seminars, or for (24) 6.2% 

conference/symposium attendance 

Total (390) 

An answer to this question is not required and 17 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

8) On average, in 2006 what level of funding support did your agency provide for your continuing 

education/training/professional development? (This includes tuition, registration, travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals.) 

 80.0% 

86.9% 

62.6% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

No funding provided (33) 8.8% 

$1 to $500 (63) 16.8% 

$501 to $1000 (69) 18.4% 

$1001 to $1500 (38) 10.1% 

$1501 to $2000 (49) 13.1% 

$2001 to $2500 (33) 8.8% 

$2501 to $3000 (27) 7.2% 

$3001 to $4000 (20) 5.3% 

$4001 to $5000 (11) 2.9% 

>$5000 (32) 8.5% 

Total (375) 

An answer to this question is not required and 32 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

9) Rate your level of interest (along the following scale) in attending college level courses if: (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 4 = Likely, 

7 = Absolutely) 

9a) You had to pay 100% of the costs 

1 (121) 33.5% 

2 (76) 21.1% 

3 (39) 10.8% 

4 (59) 16.3% 

5 (23) 6.4% 

6 (7) 1.9% 

7 (36) 10.0% 

Total (361) 

An answer to this question is not required and 46 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

9b) You had to pay 75% of the costs 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (92) 26.7% 

2 (61) 17.7% 

3 (58) 16.9% 

4 (68) 19.8% 

5 (25) 7.3% 

6 (15) 4.4% 

7 (25) 7.3% 

Total (344) 

An answer to this question is not required and 63 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

9c) You had to pay 50% of the costs 

1 (68) 19.4% 

2 (29) 8.3% 

3 (46) 13.1% 

4 (96) 27.4% 

5 (56) 16.0% 

6 (25) 7.1% 

7 (31) 8.8% 

Total (351) 

An answer to this question is not required and 56 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

9d) You had to pay 25% of the costs 

1 (45) 12.9% 

2 (11) 3.2% 

3 (16) 4.6% 

4 (63) 18.1% 

5 (63) 18.1% 

6 (79) 22.7% 

7 (71) 20.4% 

Total (348) 
 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 59 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

9e) You had to pay 0% of the costs 

1 (21) 5.9% 

2 (1) 0.3% 

3 (7) 2.0% 

4 (11) 3.1% 

5 (12) 3.4% 

6 (22) 6.2% 

7 (282) 79.2% 

Total (356) 

An answer to this question is not required and 51 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10) Rate how interested you would be in taking each of the following types of continuing education courses: (1-7 where: 1 = 

Never, 4 = Likely, 7 = Absolutely) 

10a) EOD Range Time (Training with EOD personnel) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.86 

Standard Deviation: 2.33 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 52 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10b) Fire Scene Evidence Collection, Preservation, and Packaging 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.70 

Standard Deviation: 1.78 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 30 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10c) Explosives Scene Collection, Preservation, and Packaging 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.49 

Standard Deviation: 1.89 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 36 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10d) Fire Dynamics (including Chemistry and Physics) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.27 

Standard Deviation: 1.79 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 34 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10e) Petroleum Refining Processes 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.39 

Standard Deviation: 2.05 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 54 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10f) Ignitable Liquid Classification System 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.18 

Standard Deviation: 1.98 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 50 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10g) Electrical circuitry and fire 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.47 

Standard Deviation: 1.83 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 30 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10h) Testifying as an Expert Witness 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.48 

Standard Deviation: 1.80 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 33 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10i) Explosives Manufacturing Processes 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.73 

Standard Deviation: 2.03 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 46 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10j) IED recognition and construction 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.02 

Standard Deviation: 2.08 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 52 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10k) Computer Fire Modeling 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.52 

Standard Deviation: 2.09 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 46 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10l) Gas Chromatography 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.65 

Standard Deviation: 1.95 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 55 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10m)Mass Spectral Interpretation 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.52 

Standard Deviation: 1.98 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 57 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10n) Raman Spectrosopy for Explosives 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.34 

Standard Deviation: 2.04 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 57 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10o) X-Ray Analysis Techniques (Diffraction, Fluorescence, Energy Dispersive) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.08 

Standard Deviation: 2.16 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 8.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 54 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10p) Ion Chromatography 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.12 

Standard Deviation: 1.93 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 63 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10q) Capillary Electrophoresis 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 2.91 

Standard Deviation: 1.83 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 66 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10r) Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.01 

Standard Deviation: 1.95 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 67 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10s) Advanced Organic Chemistry for Fire Debris Analysis 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.77 

Standard Deviation: 2.11 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 58 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10t) Advanced Topics in the Chemistry of Organic Explosives 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.70 

Standard Deviation: 2.19 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 11.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 58 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10u) Advanced Topics in the Chemistry of Inorganic Explosives 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 3.78 

Standard Deviation: 2.19 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 61 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10v) Forensic Fire Scene Examination 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.70 

Standard Deviation: 1.79 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 34 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10w) Forensic Explosive Scene Examination 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.49 

Standard Deviation: 1.87 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 49 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10x) Communication and Cooperation between Investigators and Analysts in Fire Investigations 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.30 

Standard Deviation: 1.78 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 41 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

10y) Communication and Cooperation between Investigators and Analysts in Explosion Investigation 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average: 5.44 

Standard Deviation: 3.79 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 61.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 48 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

11) List a maximum of 3 other training / classes that you feel would be helpful to you in order to do your job better? 

• Software for data processing 

Macro Writing to customize software for specific needs 

• Fire Debris Analysis by GC/MS 

Fire Scene Collection 

Matrix/Ignitable Liquid Classification Identification 

Must have Testimony (did not testify in 2006) 

• Hands on scene reconstruction and documentation 

On scene processing of fragile evidence for preservation and collection 

On scene homicide/death investigation 

• Pyrolyzates and interfering compunds in fire debris analysis. 

QA issues 

• Post Blast Investigations 

Counter Terrorism/IED RSP 

• Forensic analysis of intact high explosives, Forensic analysis of explosive residues 

• Airport X-Ray Interpretation, Underwater Explosive Recognition and Disruption, Underwater Explosive Scene 

Investigation and Photography 

• A hands on Fire Investigation Class 

• Digital photography techniques for the technophobe 

• Courtroom Training 

ASCLD Certification 

Evidence Handling 

• large and small appliance fire investigation 

advanced vehicle fire investigation 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

water craft investigations 

• Advanced Electronics 

Suicide/Hostage Bomber Investigation 

• Previous listing covers it well enough 

• Advanced GC/MS class 

Pyrolysis interpretation class 

Advanced Organic Chemistry for Fire Debris Analysis 

• Chemistry of Chemical Spot tests 

Chemical Analysis of Clandestine Drug Labs 

• lc mass spec 

management 

ion chromatography 

• Examination of low order explosives by PLM 

• any fire debris analysis training with data interpretation 

• If not covered above, Extraction techniques for explosive residue samples 

• Fire Scene Digital Photography 

Digital Photograph Printing 

• Financial Analysis 

• 4 

• Report writing 

• National level CBRN Training 

• Wet chemical analysis of explosives 

• Report Writing 

Complex Scene Management 

Data/Document Management 

• Fire Pattern analysis 

Vehicle fire investigation 

• fire death investigation, burning rates of human bodies, effects of ignitable liquids on the body 

• NFPA Life Safety Code 

NFPA Smoke Alarm Code 

Hazards of welding operations 

• Insurance aspects of fire investigation 

Effects of fire supression on fire scene 

demolition of fire scene 

• NFA and ATF classes as well as Interveiwing and interrogation classes 

• Death scene investigation / post mortem evidence collection 

• ELECTRICAL WIRING AND/OR APPLIANCE FIRES 

LEGALITIES OF FIRE SCENE INVEST./ COURT PROCEDURES 

• CV writting, DIgital photography, TAsk force communications 

• Gases - appliances and failure, Crime scene investigation as fire/crime scenes often are one in the same. The 

necessity of scene and evidence integrity integrity - many cases are void due to lack of scene and evidence 

integrity being maintained or retained. 

• 1. fuel cell technology 

2. IED development 

3. Modern technology concerning electronics and manufacturing if IC's and plastics. 

• People Management 

Budget 

Communication Skills 

• Hazardous materials sampling and analysis 

• Statistical analysis of fire incidents 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Classes which provide information pertaining to the insurance industry and the resources they have that can be 

used. 

• Interviewing 

Interogation 

Evidence collection 

• Photography, Reasearch of data, Civil and Criminal Law 

• Live fire investigaton trainings 

Site review/site case studies 

• Digital imaging classes 

• Cooperation between Investigators and Prosecutors. 

• advanced burn pattern recognition 

• Examinaion of appliances involved with fire 

Vehicle fire investigstions 

Interview interrogation techniques 

• auto fire investigations 

heavy equipment (construction, logging, farm) fire inves. 

RV fire inves 

• All Classes through ATF and National Fire Academy 

• Auto fire investigation 

• vehicle 

computer forensic 

• Report writing 

• Private Public working to gether this would be more local due to various imunity laws 

• More advance electrical classes 

• Interrogation 

• report writing 

• interviewing 

interrogation 

fatals 

• Interview Techniques 

• Accelerant Detection K-9 Utilization 

• Fire Fatality Investigation 

• Preparing for CFI Examination 

• interview/ interogation 

photography/ scketching 

case managment 

• Evidence collection and chain of evidence 

Fire scene cross contamination 

Fire scene reconstruction 

• Kinesics 

Electrical Issues in fire scene examination 

Kinesics 

• Evidence Collection and preservation, Forensic Photography 

• Serial Arson Analysis-Planning 

Law Enforcement Operations/Fire-Surviellance 

• Crime scene photography 

Total Station for crime scenes 

CAD for crime scenes 

• examination of gas appliances 

electrical examination 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• interviewing and interrogation techniques 

proper techniques on crime scenes 

• general crime scene investigations 

latent fingerprints 

fire scene photography 

• Learning to be Objective 

Report writing 

Evidence Collection and Protection 

• Homemade explosives 

• Vehicle and heavy equipment fire investigation techniques 

• On scene vehicle fires 

On scene building fires 

• live demonstrations of burns and explosives. 

• Interviewing Tech. 

Large Scale Investigations 

wildland 

• None 

• Interviewing 

Financial Analysis 

Advanced evidecne handling techniques 

• identification of fire damaged components/equipment. Vehicle fire investigation. 

• Search warrant prep. for post blast investigation. 

• finger print preservation and lifting prints 

• Interviewing Techniques 

• Interview / interrogation techniques 

Forensic Photography 

The role of a fire investigator, engineer, & scientist in fire & explosion investigations 

• The scientific method 

NFPA 921 

Avoiding bias 

• Report Writing 

Photography of evidence 

Finger Printing 

• investigation 2 A and 2B 

• fire pattern recognition, digital photography, 

• inter-agency ops 

TDY assignments as compared to FBI SABT's out of country assignments 

• Commercial Explosives 

Post Blast/Residue Analysis 

• Arc tracking/mapping 

• Case Law Studies 

Interviewing 

Fire Death Investigations 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Photography 

X-Ray photography 

HAZWOPER 

• Car fire origin and cause 

Transponder/Vats/Passlock operation 

eLECTRONIC "SNIFFING" DEVICES 

• Car fires, car bombs 

• Juvenile Fire Setters, Fraud Case Managment, Interview Tech. 

• Digital Photes 

Case Preperation 

Report Writting 

• photography, sketching classes and programs 

• Standards in Reports. 

Case studies, 

Safety on and around the fire scene during an investigation. 

• 1.History of Explosives and composition. 

2.Home Made Explosives (with Range time) 

3.Improvised Explosive recognition and manufacturing 

• n/a 

• Bulding an arson case 

Investigating Financial Motives 

Health Concerns due to long term exposures 

• 1. Digital Photography 

2. ICS for Major Fire and Explosives Scenes. 

3. How to read techinical reports. 

• Reasearch areas 

Marine Fire Investigations 

Auto Fires 

• Advanced electronics course. 

• Court Room Prep 

Report Prep 

Scene Documentation 

• Marine fire and explosion investigation 

• Advanced arson investigation; 

• Electronics circuitry, 

• VEHICLE FIRES,FINDING CLUES AFTER FLASHOVER,PSY CLASS OF CRIMINAL MIND TO COVER CRIME WITH FIRE. 

• Legal liability in the fire service 

Spoliation 

• Advanced Render Safe Procedures 

Use and training in ECM techniques 

Advanced Electronics training with DTMF, collapsing circuits and observation at sites like TEDAC where real world 

devices, triggers and switches can be examined and evaluated. 

• Electronics class, Current trends in IED's, Delivery methods for LVBIED's 

• Interviewing techniques. 

• Buget and Grant writing 

• Fire-Explosion Dynamics 

Fire-Explosion Modeling 

Scene documentation for modeling 

• Fire modeling,interview interrogation, frire debris analysis 

• Interview/Interrogation Classes by John Reid 

• na 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Interview / interogation 

Report writing 

• Vessel Fires 

Large Scale, Forestry/Wildland Fire Investigations 

Large Scale Building Construction Techniques 

• Serial Arsonists 

Fraud Arson 

Chemical Fires 

• Residential Fire Investigation programs 

Improved communication between attorneys, insurance companies, and investigators 

• Legal Aspects of Fire Scene Examination 

Cooperation Between Police and Fire Investigators 

• advanced on hands explosives course 

• Coordination of / Participation in Multi-Agency Investigations; The OSHA perspective on Fire Investigator Safety; 

Understanding the Legal System for the Non-Sworn Fire Investigator 

• Interviewing and Intoerrogation classes e.g. Reid, W-Z Method, Kinesics etc... 

Investigating/Responding to Clan-Lab Fires 

Fire Fatality/Injury Investigations 

• Photography 

Drafting/Drawing 

Interveiwing Techniques 

• Vehicle Fire Investigation, Report Writing, Appliance Fires 

• Interview and Interragation 

Computer Information Systems 

Criminal Back ground investigation 

Agency Overviews(Design and makeup of other agencies for basic information and improved communication.) 

• testifing 

report writting 

diagram 

• 1. Interview/Interrogation techniques 

2. Courtroom testimony training 

3. Digital photography training 

• Mechanical systems and fires. 

Fires in Gas Appliances 

• Big bomb disruption tools, standards. 

Training on standard eq. 

• survellence and interview techniques 

• Use of digital photography 

Interviewing 

Personal protection at fire scene 

• report wrting 

• mathematical calculations for heat flux, etc. 

legal update re: expert witness exclusion 

report writing for technical experts 

• Interviewing techniques 

Available investigation equipment and uses 

Fire patterns 

• Scene Preservation 

Scene Reconstruction 

Interviewing 

• Management of large loss scene investigations 

Establishing protocols for muti-party bench exams 

• Financial alnalyisi of Fire Suspects 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• documentation 

• Legal guidelines, warrants, evidence issues, roles of the municipality in investigations. 

• IED electrical analysis 

Field exercise with improvises explosives (ie TATP) 

• Fire scene reconstruction 

• Vehicle Fires 

• Electronics/ basic Circuitry 

• Explosive Breaching, Advanced IED electronics, Advanced X-ray 

• Robot Operations, Rigging Operations, Associate Degree Program in Explosives Disposal Technology 

• Hands on Arson Investigation classes 

• Hands on training. 

• Vehicle fires 

Appliance fires 

• Investigative writing techniques. 

• 80 hour arson investigation course taught at local level for l.e. investigators; 

• Legal courtroom analysis and testifying 

• Military ordnance recognition, explosive range development/ hazmat osha concerns 

• Advanced technologoy in fire scene examination 

• Report writing 

Training budget and analysis 

• Advanced Vehicle Fire Investigations 

Insurance Fraud Investigations 

• Spontaneous combustion fire analysis, Building construction as it relates to the fire investigator, 

• Propane explosions and defeat\ 

standoff distances for bomb techs 

• Legal Updates, Surveillance, Search and Seizure 

• WItness interview 

Electrical shorting and arcing 

• Refresher courses in all above on an on-going basis 

• Advanced scene investigation 

Electrical Investigation 

Case management 

• IED, EOD, and Courtroom testamony 

• Explosives crime scene management 

• x-ray interpretation 

• Interviewing and Interrogation 

Report writing 

Multi-juristictional wildland fire investigation case building 

• Juvenile firesetting, Fire Scene Reconstruction, Hands on Electrical Fire Investigation 

• maritime fires 

equivocal death investigations 

structures/construction 

• n/a 

• Vehicular systems functions for fire investigators. 

Boating systems functions for fire investigators. 

Ignition chemistry: Spontaneous combustion 

• Interview and Interrogation 

Fatal fire scene examination 

• Physical chemistry 
 

 

 

 

• new automobile fire causes/possible heat sources/possible danger zones 

new building material burn and heat related failure compared to older more conventional building components 

health hazards/related cancer studies/ studies on safe levels of atmosphere on post fire scenes 

• Evidence Collection 

• Interviewing and Report writing 

• Court room testimony, trial preparation, interrogation 

• Forensic Analysis of Explosive Residues 

An answer to this question is not required and 227 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12) Rank how important would each of the following resources be to you? (1-7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very Important) 

12a) Comprehensive Listing of people working in the field (private and government) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.20 

Standard Deviation: 1.87 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 46 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12b) Creation of a secure Internet link for E-mail and information exchange between professionals in the field of explosives and 

fire debris analysis 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.70 

Standard Deviation: 1.71 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 48 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12c) Establishment of a collection of sample laboratory reports 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.95 

Standard Deviation: 4.32 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 77.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 60 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12d) Creation of a glossary of analytical, explosives, and fire debris-related technology 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.42 

Standard Deviation: 1.69 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 53 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12e) Creation of information templates for evidence submission 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.08 

Standard Deviation: 1.87 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 54 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12f) Establishment of a collection of methods and protocols for analytical techniques 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.28 

Standard Deviation: 2.82 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 45.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 59 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12g) Establishment of databases of reference materials for analytical techniques 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.27 

Standard Deviation: 1.88 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 64 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12h) Creation of a national database for tracking bombing matters 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.16 

Standard Deviation: 2.02 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 62 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12i) Creation of a national database for tracking arson matters 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.73 

Standard Deviation: 1.76 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 57 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12j) Establishment of a national resource database (for lab equipment, expertise, etc.) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.99 

Standard Deviation: 1.96 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 64 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12k) Establishment of a national explosives formulation database 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.82 

Standard Deviation: 2.04 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 66 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12l) Creation of a bulletin board for communication between explosives analysts 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.78 

Standard Deviation: 2.06 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 71 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12m)Creation of a bulletin board for communication between fire debris 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.26 

Standard Deviation: 1.88 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 69 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12n) Creation of an library of manufacturers' literature 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.55 

Standard Deviation: 1.77 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 60 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12o) Database of explosives analyst training manuals and materials 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 5.19 

Standard Deviation: 1.96 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 65 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

12p) Information center for inter-agency training exercises 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

 

Average: 5.65 

Standard Deviation: 1.68 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 10.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 60 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

13) Are you given time and resources to perform research in your field(s)? 

Yes (203) 54.1% 

No (172) 45.9% 

Total (375) 

An answer to this question is not required and 32 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

14) If so, approximately how many hours in 2006? 

14a) Fire debris analysis 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 57.12 

Standard Deviation: 128.15 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 1,200.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 281 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

14b) Explosives Analysis 

• 120 

• 20 

• 0 

• 0 

• 0 
• 0 

• 0 

• 20 

• 0 

• 0 

• 10 

• 0 

• 0 

• 0 

• 30 

• 40 

• 25 

• 200 

• 12 

• NA 

• 0 

• 12 

• 0 

• 0 

• 0 

• 25 

• 10 

• 20 

• 20 

• 50 

• 0 

• 1 

• 5 

• 10 

• 0 

• 100 

• 0 

• 50 

• 0 

• 20 

• 0 

• 20 

• 10 

• 0 

• 40 

• 0 

• 40 

• 10 

• 10 

• 0 
• 3 

• 25 

• 0 

• 400 

• 35 

• 0 

• 30 

• 20 

• 10 

• 0 

• 40 

• 0 

• 100 

• 24 

• 300 

• 40 

• 0 

• 96 

• 100 

• 0 

• 0 

• 0 

• 40 

• 1650 

• 80 

• 0 

• 10 

• 100 

• 0 

• 50 

• 0 

• 10 

• n/a 

• 0 

• 700 

• 0 

• 0 

• 0 

• 200 

• 80 

• na 

• 0 

• 0 

• 144 

• 0 
 

• 20 

• 1 

• 5 

• 0 

• 0 

• 40 

• 0 

• 25 

• 0 

• 0 

• 30 

• 0 

• 0 

• 50 

• 0 

• 80 

• 0 

• 10 

An answer to this question is not required and 294 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

14c) Fire Scenes 

• 0 

• 100 

• 0 

• 0 

• 60 

• 40 

• 0 

• 0 

• 25 

• 0 

• 0 

• 0 

• 40 

• 0 

• 40 

• 75 

• 40 

• 0 

• 40 
• 0 

• 25 

• 100 

• 100 

• NA 

• 80 

• 100 

• 25 

• 48 

• 0 

• 200 

• 50 

• 1000 

• 100 

• 6240 

• 0 

• 50 

• 4 

• 100 

• 25 

• 120 

• 20 

• 1000 

• 50 

• 1 

• 100 

• 40 

• 250 

• 50 

• 80 

• 75 

• 10 

• 10 

• 200 

• 100 

• 8 

• 300 

• 24 

• 100 

• 80 

• 40 

• 30 

• 500 

• 60 

• 1000 
• 20 

• 80 

• 10 

• 0 

• 12 

• 20 

• 40 

• 100 

• 40 

• 20 

• 50 

• 10 

• 80 

• 0 

• 40 

• 200 

• 60 

• 50 

• 1000 

• 24 

• 100 

• 80 

• 100 

• 250 

• 20 

• 25 

• 1000 

• 25 

• 30 

• 60 

• 150 

• 40 

• 900 

• 15 

• 1100 

• 100 

• 80 

• 40 

• 1800 

• 96 

• 70 

• 8 

• 0 

• 120 

• 20 
• 60 

• 55 

• 300 

• 50 

• 60 

• 75 

• 500 

• 50 

• 0 

• 30 

• 48 

• 4 

• 40 

• 80 

• 40 

• 20 

• 200 

• 100 

• 56 

• 20 

• 20 

• 40 

• >100 

• >80 

• 100 

• 150 

• n/a 

• 200 

• 4 

• 25 

• 24 

• 50 

• 20 

• 40 

• 40 

• 40 

• 0 

• 100 

• 0 

• na 

• 80 

• 131 

• 10 

• 100 

• 0 
 

• 0 

• 0 

• 4 

• 100 

• 40 

• 40 

• 10 

• 40 

• 0 

• 100 

• 2 

• 0 

• 50 

• 80 

• 0 

• 150 

• 0 

• 200 

• 20 

• 0 

An answer to this question is not required and 233 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

14d) Explosive Scenes 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 121.92 

Standard Deviation: 614.91 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 6,240.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 288 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15) Rate each of the following statements as they apply to your laboratory or to you using the scale given below: (1-7 where: 1 

= Not at all, 7 = Very) 

15a) How sufficient are the explosives and fire debris publications provided by your laboratory? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.60 

Standard Deviation: 2.16 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 229 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15b) How interested would your laboratory be in receiving a library of ignitable liquid standards on a regular basis? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.98 

Standard Deviation: 2.27 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 233 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15c) How interested would your laboratory be in receiving a library of pyrolysis standards on a regular basis? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.75 

Standard Deviation: 2.26 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 233 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15d) How important do you feel it would be to have national standards for report writing? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.90 

Standard Deviation: 2.10 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 197 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15e) How important would it be to have a specific protocol for wording of both positive and negative samples? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.91 

Standard Deviation: 2.13 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 210 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15f) How important would it be to have a national database for chromatographic data for ignitable liquids? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.28 

Standard Deviation: 2.00 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 213 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15g) How important would it be to have a national source for ignitable liquid standards? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.52 

Standard Deviation: 1.84 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 209 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

15h) How interested are you in participating in the fire and explosives debris analysis technical working group? 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

 

Average: 4.90 

Standard Deviation: 2.16 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 203 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

iii) Part C. Fire Debris Analysis Case Work (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

16) Indicate the total number of fire debris samples analyzed/processed in 2006 by all the analysts within your agency (check 

one): 

1-50 (87) 60.4% 

51-100 (16) 11.1% 

101-250 (13) 9.0% 

251-500 (8) 5.6% 

501-750 (6) 4.2% 

751-1000 (4) 2.8% 

1001-2000 (3) 2.1% 

>2000 (7) 4.9% 

Total (144) 

An answer to this question is not required and 263 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

16a) Indicate the total number of ignitable liquid samples analyzed/processed in 2006 by all the analysts within your agency 

(check one): 

1-50 (94) 70.1% 

51-100 (11) 8.2% 

101-250 (12) 9.0% 

251-500 (9) 6.7% 

501-750 (3) 2.2% 

751-1000 (0) 0.0% 

1001-2000 (1) 0.7% 

>2000 (4) 3.0% 

Total (134) 

An answer to this question is not required and 273 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

iv) Part D. Fire Debris Analytical Methods (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

17) Extraction method routinely used for fire debris analysis (check one): 

activated charcoal (passive headspace 

sampling - includes strips, “tea bags”, (64) 

wires, and ribbons) 

activated charcoal (dynamic 

headspace sampling) (17) 20.2% 

TENAX (passive or dynamic headspace 

sampling) (3) 3.6% 

SPME (please indicate the phase 

used): (1) 1.2% 

Other absorbent: (7) 8.3% 

Total (84) 

An answer to this question is not required and 323 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

 76.2% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

17a) If you checked "SPME" (Please indicate the phase used here): 

• none 

• n/a 

An answer to this question is not required and 405 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

17b) If you checked "Other absorbent" above, (please specify which one used here): 

• N/A 

• solid or bulk sample 

• gauze pads 

• n/a 

• non-bleached flour 

• clay chips/ sterile pads 

An answer to this question is not required and 401 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

18) Indicate which eluting solvent used for extracts from fire debris: 

no eluting solvent used (e.g. thermal 

desorption or SPME) (11) 16.4% 

carbon disulfide (CS2) (38) 

dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) (5) 7.5% 

diethyl ether (6) 9.0% 

pentane (11) 16.4% 

Other (specify): (4) 6.0% 

Total (67) 

 56.7% 

An answer to this question is not required and 340 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

18a) If you checked "Other" above (please specify which one was used here): 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• CS2/Pentane 1:1 

• none 

• N/A 

• n/a 

• unknown 

• not preformed 

An answer to this question is not required and 401 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

19) Internal standard routinely added to fire debris? 

Yes (11) 15.1% 

No (62) 84.9% 

Total (73) 

An answer to this question is not required and 334 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

19a) If "Yes", (please specify which compound(s) used): 

• 3 pphenyl toluene used in lab can controls for recovery 

• 3PT 

• trichloroethylene 

• but BHT is in ether 

• 3-phenyltoluene 

• 3 phenyl toluene 

• 3-phenyltoluene 

• none 

• 3-phenyltoluene 

• N/A 

• kflex 

An answer to this question is not required and 396 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

20) Internal standard routinely added to eluting solvent (if solvent used to elute absorbent)? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes (10) 15.2% 

No (56) 84.8% 

Total (66) 

An answer to this question is not required and 341 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

20a) If "Yes", (please specify which compound(s) used): 

• Trichloroethane 

• PCE 

• diphenylmethane 

• Alane mix 

• thiophene 

• none 

• perchloroethylene 

• N/A 

• alcohols, gas, kerosene, diesel fuel 

An answer to this question is not required and 398 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21) For Instrumentation used in fire debris and/or ignitable liquid analysis, how often do you use each of the following analytical 

techniques? (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

21a) GC-FID 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.29 

Standard Deviation: 1.80 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 362 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21b) GC-MS 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.08 

Standard Deviation: 1.95 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 347 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21c) GC-MS-MS 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.32 

Standard Deviation: 1.27 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 366 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21d) FTIR 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.51 

Standard Deviation: 0.99 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 362 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21e) GC-FTIR 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.18 

Standard Deviation: 0.87 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21f) other: (specify) 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.50 

Standard Deviation: 2.28 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 393 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

21g) If you checked "Other", (please specify which technique(s) used): 

• SEM/EDS 

• Headspace analyzer 

• sem/eds 

• none 

• N/A 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• outsource 

• FLASH POINT 

• fed lab 

• n/a 

• 1 

• XRF, SEM-EDS, Py GC/MS 

An answer to this question is not required and 396 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

22) Sample introduction to GC 

22a) (check one): 

split solvent injection (34) 69.4% 

splitless solvent injection (7) 14.3% 

thermal desorption (7) 14.3% 

SPME (please indicate the phase (0) 0.0% 

used): 

Other: (specify) (1) 2.0% 

Total (49) 

An answer to this question is not required and 358 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

22b) If you checked "SPME" above, (please specify phase used): 

• n/a 

An answer to this question is not required and 406 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

22c) If you checked "Other" above, (please specify which was used): 

• splitless 5973, split VArian 2000 
 

 

• headspace 

• none 

• N/A 

An answer to this question is not required and 403 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

23) Type of column phase routinely used for GC separation (check all that apply): 

100% polydimethylsiloxane (e.g. DB1, DB-1ms, HPMS-1, OV-1, Rtx-1, DB- (30) 

PETRO, etc.) 

(5% phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane (e.g. 

DB-5, DB-5ms, HPMS-5, OV-5, Rtx-5, (21) 

etc.) 

(14%-Cyanopropyl-phenyl)-

methylpolysiloxane (e.g. DB-1701, (0) 0.0% 

SPB-1701, Rtx-1701, etc.) 

polyethylene glycol (e.g. DB-WAX, 

Carbowax, HP-20M, Supelcowax 10, (1) 2.0% 

HP-Innowax, etc.) 

other: (specify) (1) 2.0% 

Total (51) 

An answer to this question is not required and 356 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

23a) If you checked "Other" above, (please specify column phase used): 

• none 

• N/A 

• n/a 

An answer to this question is not required and 404 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

58.8% 

 41.2% 

24) For fire debris analyses, how often do you use the following QA/QC tests? (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = 

Exclusive) 
 

 

 

 

24a) ASTM 1387 test mix or similar mixture 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.09 

Standard Deviation: 2.41 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 353 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24b) Internal Standards (e.g., 3-phenyltoluene) 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 2.90 

Standard Deviation: 2.57 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 358 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24c) Solvent Blanks 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.68 

Standard Deviation: 2.12 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 351 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24d) Apparatus Blanks (e.g., strips, glassware) 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.16 

Standard Deviation: 2.15 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 351 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24e) Recovery Checks (e.g., simulated case extractions 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.19 

Standard Deviation: 2.31 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 355 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24f) Peer Review 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.72 

Standard Deviation: 2.09 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 350 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24g) Other: (specify) 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.50 

Standard Deviation: 2.46 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 397 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

24h) If you checked "Other" above, (please specify QA/QC tests used): 

• NFSTC Validation Kit performed also each batch a blank strip can, an IS recovery can, a gasoline kerosene diesel 

recovery can and a 50% evaporated can are run We also work with canine for testing of dog and our imethods 

• proficiency testing also running known standards on our instruments 

• proficency testing 

• known IL standards 
 

• n/a 

• GC-FID and GC/MS on all fire debris samples 

• Run ASTM1387 monthly, gasoline and method blank with each run, and solvent blank between each sample 

• SAM mixture 

• Daily Gasoline Standard 

An answer to this question is not required and 398 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25) If you adhere to the following ASTM standards and guides, please indicate how closely you follow them? (1-7 where: 1 = 

Never, 2 = Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

25a) ASTM-E 1387-01 (Standard Test Method for Ignitable Liquid Residues in Extracts from Fire Debris Samples by Gas 

Chromatography) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 4.00 

Standard Deviation: 2.31 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25b) ASTM-E 1618-06 (Standard Test Method for Ignitable Liquid Extracts by Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.69 

Standard Deviation: 1.61 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 358 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25c) ASTM-E 1385-00 (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris Samples 

by Steam Distillation) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 2.03 

Standard Deviation: 2.01 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 370 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25d) ASTM-E 1412-00(2005) (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris 

Samples by Passive Headspace Concentration) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.00 

Standard Deviation: 2.07 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 364 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25e) ASTM-E 1413-06 (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Liquid Residues from Fire Debris Samples by 

Dynamic Headspace Concentration) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 2.08 

Standard Deviation: 1.90 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 371 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25f) ASTM-E 1388-05 (Standard Practice for Sampling of Vapors from Fire Debris Samples) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.33 

Standard Deviation: 2.25 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25g) ASTM-E 1386-00(2005) (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris 

Samples by Solvent Extraction) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 4.12 

Standard Deviation: 2.30 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 11.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 365 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25h) ASTM-E 1492-05 (Standard Practice for Receiving, Documenting, Storing and Retrieving Evidence in a Forensic Science 

Laboratory) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 5.03 

Standard Deviation: 1.85 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

25i) ASTM-E 1459-92(2005) (Physical Evidence Labeling and Related Documentation) 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

 

 

Average: 5.00 

Standard Deviation: 1.76 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 366 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

26) Are you aware of new equipment or techniques on the market or in development that could be potentially of use in fire debris 

analysis? These may be in the extraction, analysis, instrumentation, or interpretation of fire debris and ignitable liquids. 

Please indicate the type of potential improvement such as: reduction of analysis time, elimination of background, specificity 

of identification, etc...? 

Yes (20) 15.0% 

No (113) 85.0% 

Total (133) 

An answer to this question is not required and 274 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

26a) Description and/or Contact 

• Galaxie Software 

• I would like to develop a GC/MS/MS method on Saturn 2000 If anyone has info 

I worked a NASA for a five years and we recovered used TENAX Solid Sorbant Materials , collected with SAS and 

then cryo focused GC/MS I do not have the preconcentrator or instrumentation but I do believe we could have 

excellent recovery, maybe try different combos of sorbents 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Jeff Foust; tower112@verizon.net 

• GC-GC, coelution software 

• Flash GC/saves time 

• Currently developing a database of pyrolysis products 

• 1. GC X GC/MS - Coast Guard 

2. FT-Ion Cyclotron MS - Alan Marshal @ Florida State 

3. Stable Isotope Ratio MS - John Jasper 

4. DART with JEOL 

• Rapid idaho tech. 

• Statical methods for automated searches of a database. Contact Dr. Michael Sigman of the National Center for 

Forensic Science. 

• All of our samples are sent out to State/Federal labs for analysis 

• not new - but dflex apparatus when put into can during evidence collection seem to mitigate effects of length 

between collection and examination on samples 

• Not brand new but we are using ALS (Alternative Light) 

• reduction of analysis time-custom column 

• Lt. Joe Powell 

• fast GC, GC-IRMS 

• Time of Flight GC-MS 

An answer to this question is not required and 391 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

27) What are the short-term needs in analytical methods for fire debris analysis? 

• Faster turn-around time, more personnel, better software 

• More pyrolysis matrix practice! 

• more rapid turn around times from the laboratories doing the analysis 

• Better information on background interferences 

• Higher Resolution 

• Comparison improvement in selectivity 

• updated software, GC comsumables 

• Better method for recovery of light oxygenates in every sample (i.e. without special prep, separate extraction, 

etc,) 

• Access to standards 

• Replacing CS2 as a solvent 

Alternate extraction media other than the ACS 

• More training opportunities 

• HAving State LAbs process Faster COOK COUNTY IL 

• Faster analysis 

• N/A for our investigation team 

• Fire debris control samples and fire debris other than ignitable liquids 

• Financial 

• None 

• GREATER PERSONNEL 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• N/A 

• Reduction in analysis time. 

• Our team dooesn't deal in these matters. 

• Not a lab guy, can't tell you other than the ISP lab is awful and never gets a positive sample. 

• better communication between technicians and investigators 

• Field GC 

• update standards and pyrolysis database 

• GC/MS in all labs 

• simple/reliable/testifible on scene real time hit on accelerents-either polar or non-polar. 

• N/A 

An answer to this question is not required and 379 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

28) What are the long-term needs in analytical methods for fire debris analysis? 

• fingerprinting of ignitable liquids, expecially in regards to relating the liquid found at the scene to the liquid found 

in t he fire debris. 

• Database of pyrolysis products and pyrolysis/ILR mix 

More sensitive and discriminating sorbant develop. 

• same a #27, often results are received too late to be of much help to an investigation. 

• A comprehensive library of ignitable liquids with TIC and EIC of compounds 

• See #27 

• Library Searches on TIC 

• Better containers 

• TRACEABLE STANDARDS 

• Pyrolysis database 

Classes offered for interpretation of pyrolysis products 

Classes offered for advance organic chemistry for fire debris analysts 

• pyrolysis standards, extensive training of recovery of materail, access to new technology 

• More info about petroleum products in background materials (quantities, types, etc.) 

• Sharing of data nationwide 

• Consistency of reports and better interaction between laboratory analysts and fire investigators 

• Indiviualization of IL found on two sources - matching. 

Pyrolisis Product Standards. 

Applying FAST GC 

Items in # 

• Shorter run times, extraction times 

• effects of ignitable liquids on the human body 

• On site initial testing - example a small kit 

• unknown 

• Influence of heat and fire on materials 

• Financial 

• Better adherence to ASTM standards 

• IN DEPTH SCIENTIFIC METHOD 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• We would like to see production of DFLEX resume. 

• N/A 

• Consistency and increased specificity in data interpretation. Reduce effects from interfering products. 

• N/A 

• see above 

• reduced costs associated with modern instrumentation 

• update instrumentations 

• New/better adsorption media, solventless elutions 

• nationally recognized varifiable results from documented on scene equipment, used by on scene investigators 

• new equipment 

An answer to this question is not required and 375 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

v) Part E. Fire Debris Data Interpretation (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

29) How often do you use an in-house ignitable liquid reference collection in case work? 

never (43) 37.7% 

sometimes (21) 18.4% 

often (21) 18.4% 

every case (29) 25.4% 

Total (114) 

An answer to this question is not required and 293 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

30) How often have you used the on-line Ignitable Liquid Reference Collection (ILRC) in case work? (See 

http://ncfs.ucf.edu/databases.html for more information about this database) 

never (66) 59.5% 

sometimes (32) 28.8% 

often (11) 9.9% 

every case (2) 1.8% 

Total (111) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 296 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

31) How does your laboratory routinely identify an ignitable liquid in fire debris (check one): 

Pattern recognition by FID pattern (3) 4.2% 

alone 

Pattern recognition by TIC pattern (2) 2.8% 

alone 

Pattern recognition by mass 

chromatography (extracted ion (52) 

chromatogram or extracted ion profile) 

target analysis (0) 0.0% 

Identification of individual components (5) 7.0% 

Other: (specify) (9) 12.7% 

Total (71) 

An answer to this question is not required and 336 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

31a) If you checked "Other" above please specify how your laboratory would identify an ignitable liquid: 

• all of the above 

• Combination of TIC, EIC and component identification 

• TIC also 

• Combo of pattern recognition by TIC, EIC and identification of target compounds. 

• Acombination of all of them: pattern from the TIC, and individual componenets within the pattern 

• N/A 

• outsourced 

• N/A 

• Tic Pattern, extracted ion pattern, and identification of individual components 

An answer to this question is not required and 398 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

 73.2% 

32) Rate the importance of the following courses as part of the education of fire debris analysts. (1-7 where: 1 = Not Important, 

4 = Moderate, 7 = Extremely) 
 

 

 

 

32a) General chemistry 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.99 

Standard Deviation: 1.46 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 316 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32b) Advanced organic chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.41 

Standard Deviation: 1.54 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 317 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32c) Inorganic chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 4.87 

Standard Deviation: 1.56 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 316 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32d) Introductory physics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 4.98 

Standard Deviation: 1.78 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 317 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32e) Instrumental analysis 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.11 

Standard Deviation: 1.47 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 317 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32f) Organic chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.02 

Standard Deviation: 1.42 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 317 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32g) Analytical chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.78 

Standard Deviation: 1.42 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32h) Advanced physics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 4.00 

Standard Deviation: 1.83 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32i) Physical chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 4.60 

Standard Deviation: 1.98 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 319 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32j) Advanced physics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.89 

Standard Deviation: 1.86 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32k) Advanced mathematics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.87 

Standard Deviation: 1.87 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32l) Other: 

• 7 

• 7 

• 5 

• 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 403 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

32m)(if other please indicate course names here): 

• One needs either a degree in chemistry or sufficient chemistry, physics and math . I personally went back to 

school after already having a B>A> and took sciene and egineering courses-eventually received an MS-mainly 

though in house continuous learning on the job is a must!! 

• Spectroscopy / Structural Elucidation 

• Combustion gas analysis 

• Digital Imaging 

• logic 

An answer to this question is not required and 402 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

vi) Part F. Explosives Analysis Case Work (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

vii) Please indicate which, if any, of the following explosives analytical laboratory procedures your agency performed (items 34 

through 41) and the number of times they were performed items 42 through 49) in 2006: 

Analytical Procedure (Yes/No) 

33) Intact Low Explosives 

Yes (35) 44.9% 

No (43) 55.1% 

Total (78) 

An answer to this question is not required and 329 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34) Intact High Explosives 

Yes (20) 26.0% 

No (57) 74.0% 

Total (77) 

An answer to this question is not required and 330 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

35) Intact IED’s 

Yes (27) 35.1% 

No (50) 64.9% 

Total (77) 

An answer to this question is not required and 330 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

36) Post-Blast Low Explosives 

Yes (43) 56.6% 

No (33) 43.4% 

Total (76) 

An answer to this question is not required and 331 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

37) Post Blast High Explosives 

Yes (16) 21.3% 

No (59) 78.7% 

Total (75) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 332 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

38) Post Blast IED’s 

Yes (31) 42.5% 

No (42) 57.5% 

Total (73) 

An answer to this question is not required and 334 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

39) Intact Incendiary Device 

Yes (37) 48.1% 

No (40) 51.9% 

Total (77) 

An answer to this question is not required and 330 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

40) Post-Reaction incendiary 

Yes (36) 47.4% 

No (40) 52.6% 

Total (76) 

An answer to this question is not required and 331 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

41) Intact Low Explosives 

0 (24) 36.9% 

1-50 (34) 52.3% 

51-100 (6) 9.2% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

101-150 (0) 0.0% 

151-200 (0) 0.0% 

201-250 (0) 0.0% 

251-300 (0) 0.0% 

>300 (1) 1.5% 

Total (65) 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

42) Intact High Explosives 

0 (40) 65.6% 

1-50 (20) 32.8% 

51-100 (1) 1.6% 

101-150 (0) 0.0% 

151-200 (0) 0.0% 

201-250 (0) 0.0% 

251-300 (0) 0.0% 

>300 (0) 0.0% 

Total (61) 

An answer to this question is not required and 346 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

43) Intact IED’s 

0 (37) 56.9% 

1-50 (26) 

51-100 (1) 

101-150 (1) 

151-200 (0) 

201-250 (0) 

251-300 (0) 

>300 (0) 

Total (65) 

 40.0% 

 1.5% 

 1.5% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

44) Post-Blast Low 

0 (26) 40.0% 

1-50 (36) 55.4% 

51-100 (2) 3.1% 

101-150 (0) 0.0% 

151-200 (1) 1.5% 

201-250 (0) 0.0% 

251-300 (0) 0.0% 

>300 (0) 0.0% 

Total (65) 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

45) Post Blast High 

0 (44) 72.1% 

1-50 (16) 

51-100 (0) 

101-150 (0) 

151-200 (0) 

201-250 (0) 

251-300 (0) 

>300 (1) 

Total (61) 

26.2% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 0.0% 

 1.6% 

An answer to this question is not required and 346 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

46) Post Blast IED's 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0 (35) 54.7% 

1-50 (26) 40.6% 

51-100 (2) 3.1% 

101-150 (0) 0.0% 

151-200 (1) 1.6% 

201-250 (0) 0.0% 

251-300 (0) 0.0% 

>300 (0) 0.0% 

Total (64) 

An answer to this question is not required and 343 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

47) Intact Incendiary Device 

0 (31) 49.2% 

1-50 (31) 49.2% 

51-100 (1) 1.6% 

101-150 (0) 0.0% 

151-200 (0) 0.0% 

201-250 (0) 0.0% 

251-300 (0) 0.0% 

>300 (0) 0.0% 

Total (63) 

An answer to this question is not required and 344 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

48) Post-Reaction incendiary 

0 (30) 46.9% 

1-50 (29) 45.3% 

51-100 (2) 3.1% 

101-150 (1) 1.6% 

151-200 (1) 1.6% 

201-250 (0) 0.0% 

251-300 (1) 1.6% 
 

 

>300 (0) 0.0% 

Total (64) 

An answer to this question is not required and 343 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

viii) Part G. Explosives Analytical Methods (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

49) In explosives analyses, how often do you use each of the following analytical techniques? (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = Rare, 5 

= Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

49a) Microchemical analysis using PLM 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 2.42 

Standard Deviation: 1.97 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49b) Spot tests 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.10 

Standard Deviation: 2.25 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 366 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49c) Ignition analysis 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.50 

Standard Deviation: 2.27 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 363 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49d) Microchemical analysis using stereomicroscopy 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 2.45 

Standard Deviation: 2.01 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49e) TLC 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.76 

Standard Deviation: 1.40 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 369 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49f) Field explosives screening 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.78 

Standard Deviation: 1.54 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 366 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49g) IR 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.20 

Standard Deviation: 2.33 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49h) Raman spectroscopy 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.57 

Standard Deviation: 1.34 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49i) SEM-EDX 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 2.83 

Standard Deviation: 2.40 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49j) ICP 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.21 

Standard Deviation: 0.73 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 5.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49k) XRF 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 2.00 

Standard Deviation: 1.99 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49l) GC/MS 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 2.88 

Standard Deviation: 2.00 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 364 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49m)GC/FID 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.46 

Standard Deviation: 1.05 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 5.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 366 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49n) CE 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.26 

Standard Deviation: 0.85 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 5.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49o) HPLC 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.46 

Standard Deviation: 1.27 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49p) HPLC/TEA 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.21 

Standard Deviation: 0.77 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 4.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49q) FTIR 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 3.17 

Standard Deviation: 2.38 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49r) NMR 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.13 

Standard Deviation: 0.47 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 3.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49s) SEM-WDX 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.11 

Standard Deviation: 0.39 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 3.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 369 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49t) IMS 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.21 

Standard Deviation: 0.57 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 3.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49u) XRD 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.46 

Standard Deviation: 1.31 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49v) GC/TEA 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.23 

Standard Deviation: 0.74 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 5.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49w) GC/ECD 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 1.27 

Standard Deviation: 0.96 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49x) IC 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 2.10 

Standard Deviation: 1.98 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49y) HPLC/MS 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 1.46 

Standard Deviation: 1.33 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 368 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49z) Other: 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average: 2.70 

Standard Deviation: 2.98 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 9.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 397 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

49aa)(please indicate): 

• We do not have SOPs for explosives -all we do is possibly process, visually inspect and call ATF or FBI 

• Have none available to us 

• Didnt receive samples for analysis 

• N/A 

• 1 

An answer to this question is not required and 402 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

50) Are you aware of new equipment or techniques on the market or in development that could be potentially of use in explosives 

analysis? These improvements may be in analytical instrumentation, recovery of post-explosion residue, isolation of unreacted products, component reconstruction, etc... Please indicate the type of potential improvement such as: reduction of 

analysis time, elimination of background, specificity of identification, etc...? 

Yes (13) 14.0% 

No (80) 86.0% 

Total (93) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 314 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

50a) Description and/or Contact 

• IMS ( I did my MS on this instrument) is not new but a drift tube GC/MS , electronic sniffer-

• Jeff Foust; tower112@verizon.net 

• lc-ms 

• Arkansas State Crime Laboratory 

• air sampling detection devices 

• not at this time 

• jamesp.taylor@dc.gov 

• Capillary Electrophoresis 

An answer to this question is not required and 399 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

51) What are the short-term needs in analytical methods for explosives analysis? 

• Education on what is out there -we are located in the refinery and Ship Channel area of HOuston 

• There needs to be some comprehensive methods or maybe just training procedures for analysis published by 

swgfex. What is there is, is good but it is more of an outline than a comprehensive how-to. 

• Basic/Advanced Course in Explosive Analysis and a Federal mandate ordering departments to allow their EOD 

teams to allow for analysis in each case. 

• training in explosive chemical composition, analysis, and availability of resources. 

• Training course for laboratory analysts that deals specifically with the chemistry and analysis of explosive 

materials (the two federal courses I've attended are geared toward investigators and put all the emphasis on postblast scene processing) 

• Explosives materials analytical data database by analytical method 

• Unknown 

• Financial 

• Digital imaging training 

• analysis of items for investigative purpose- no suspect no tests. 

• GREATER ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGY 

• Sample collection 

• N/A 

• Resources and training 

• simple field explosive analytical analysis system 

• Trained technicians who communicate well with investigators. 

• My agency doesn't currently have the means for this. 

• on scene analysis of suspect explosive compounds 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Rapid in field use 

An answer to this question is not required and 388 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

52) What are the long-term needs in analytical methods for explosives analysis? 

• Developing relationship or support for agency 

• There needs to be more sharing of information and analytical techniques especially by the federal agencies as they 

have abundant resources and encounter more than the state or local laboratories. 

• on-going training 

• Derivitization protocols to allow alternate analytical methods. 

• Unknown 

• Financial 

• Digital imaging training 

• GREATER PREVENTION METHODS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS 

• Equipment and training 

• N/A 

• resources and training 

• simple field explosive analytical analysis system 

• Reduced costs for modern instrumentation. 

• Have the capability to complete this. 

• Maricopa County Crime Lab has no resources in explosive analysis 

• lost cost simple analysis 

• We would like to start analyzing explosives 

An answer to this question is not required and 390 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53) For explosives/explosives residue analysis, how often do you see the following QA/QC tests: (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = 

Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

53a) 8095 Calibration Mix A 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.47 

Standard Deviation: 1.26 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 373 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53b) 8095 Calibration Mix B 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.47 

Standard Deviation: 1.26 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 373 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53c) Smokeless Powder (or similar) mixture 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.37 

Standard Deviation: 2.27 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 369 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53d) Internal Standard 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 1.57 

Standard Deviation: 1.45 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 6.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 377 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53e) (please indicate): 

• 5 nitro 2 fluoro toluene 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 

• 1 
 

 

 

• IC Standards 

An answer to this question is not required and 401 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53f) Solvent Blank 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.62 

Standard Deviation: 2.73 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 367 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

53g) Peer Review 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 3.79 

Standard Deviation: 2.79 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 369 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53h) Other: 
 

 

• 1 

• 7 

• 6 

• 7 

• 7 

• 1 

• 1 

• 0 

• 1 

• 5 

• 1 

• 1 

An answer to this question is not required and 395 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

53i) (please indicate): 

• proficiency testing, standards of explosives run on our instruments 

• known chemical compounds and mixtures 

• in house standards 

• "known" reference standard are run prior to any testing performed (ie color tests for anions, etc.) 

• no samples were received for analysis 

• N/A 

• 1 

• 1 

An answer to this question is not required and 399 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

ix) Part H. Explosives Data Interpretation (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

54) How often do you use an in-house explosives reference collection in case work? 

never (30) 36.6% 

sometimes (31) 37.8% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

often (12) 14.6% 

every case (9) 11.0% 

Total (82) 

An answer to this question is not required and 325 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

55) Would you use an on-line explosives data (morphological descriptions, microphotographs, IR, MS, etc...) in case work? 

never (14) 17.7% 

sometimes (30) 38.0% 

often (27) 34.2% 

every case (8) 10.1% 

Total (79) 

An answer to this question is not required and 328 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56) Rate the importance of the following courses as part of the education of explosives analysts. (1-7 where: 1 = Not Important, 

4 = Moderate, 7 = Extremely) 

56a) General Chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.86 

Standard Deviation: 1.45 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 341 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56b) Advanced organic chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.28 

Standard Deviation: 1.57 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 343 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56c) Inorganic chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.50 

Standard Deviation: 1.55 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 343 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56d) Introductory physics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.34 

Standard Deviation: 1.62 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 343 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56e) Advanced physics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 4.55 

Standard Deviation: 1.89 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56f) Advanced mathematics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 4.38 

Standard Deviation: 1.83 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56g) Intro. to explosives 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.38 

Standard Deviation: 1.20 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 341 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56h) Combustion explosions 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.20 

Standard Deviation: 1.28 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 341 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56i) Organic chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.54 

Standard Deviation: 1.57 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56j) Analytical chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.49 

Standard Deviation: 1.59 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56k) Physical chemistry 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.02 

Standard Deviation: 1.64 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56l) Instrumental analysis 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.73 

Standard Deviation: 1.59 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 344 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56m)Chemical analysis of explosives 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.09 

Standard Deviation: 1.47 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 342 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56n) The chemistry of pyrotechnics 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.20 

Standard Deviation: 1.39 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 341 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56o) Explosives analysis 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.49 

Standard Deviation: 1.09 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 339 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56p) Other: 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.33 

Standard Deviation: 2.08 

Minimum: 3.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 404 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

56q) (please indicate): 

• Blast effects calculations 

• Digital imaging training 

• N/A 

• 3 
 

• Safety, Post and Pre-Blast 

An answer to this question is not required and 402 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57) Rate training or course work in the following areas for explosives analysts? (1-7 where: 1 = Not Important, 4 = Moderate, 7 

= Extremely) 

57a) History of Explosives 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.16 
 

 

 

Standard Deviation: 1.57 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57b) Terminology and vocabulary of explosives 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.98 

Standard Deviation: 1.49 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

57c) Composition of low explosive materials 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.22 

Standard Deviation: 1.22 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 319 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57d) Construction of commercial pyrotechnic devices 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.00 

Standard Deviation: 1.30 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 8.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57e) Construction of military devices (e.g. simulators, rockets, hand grenades) 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.13 

Standard Deviation: 1.19 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57f) Range procedures 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 5.73 

Standard Deviation: 1.53 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57g) Peroxide Based Explosives 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.05 

Standard Deviation: 1.25 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 315 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57h) Manufacturing of explosives 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.13 

Standard Deviation: 1.25 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57i) Composition of high explosive materials 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.10 

Standard Deviation: 1.28 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57j) Construction of improvised devices 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.22 

Standard Deviation: 1.21 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 314 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57k) Analytical examination of high and low explosive materials and residues 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.29 

Standard Deviation: 1.23 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 318 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57l) Recognition of improvised device components 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.21 

Standard Deviation: 1.27 

Minimum: 1.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 313 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57m)Other: 

Probability Density Function 
 

 

 

Cumulative Distribution 

Average: 6.30 

Standard Deviation: 0.95 

Minimum: 5.00 

Maximum: 7.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 397 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

57n) (please indicate): 

• All sections involving practical 

• Oxidizers 

• Digital imaging training 

• any explosive advanced training 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Post Blast Investigation procedures 

An answer to this question is not required and 402 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

x) Part I Fire Scene Specialists (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

58) Indicate the number of fire scenes processed in 2006 by all of the investigators at your physical location (check one): 

1-50 (130) 48.1% 

51-100 (41) 15.2% 

101-250 (41) 15.2% 

251-500 (33) 12.2% 

501-750 (10) 3.7% 

751-1000 (6) 2.2% 

1001-2000 (4) 1.5% 

>2000 (5) 1.9% 

Total (270) 

An answer to this question is not required and 137 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

59) Have you had formal training in the investigation of fire scenes? 

Yes (273) 94.8% 

No (15) 5.2% 

Total (288) 

An answer to this question is not required and 119 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

59a) Rate the importance of formal training in the investigation of fire scenes: (1-7 with 1 = Not at all, and 7 = Very) 
 

 

 

1 (3) 1.1% 

2 (2) 0.7% 

3 (2) 0.7% 

4 (2) 0.7% 

5 (6) 2.2% 

6 (26) 9.4% 

7 (235) 85.1% 

Total (276) 

An answer to this question is not required and 131 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

60) What type of containers do you use in submitting fire debris to a laboratory for ignitable liquid determination? 

Container / Percent of Time 

60a) Clean Unused Paint Cans 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

Average: 78.82 

Standard Deviation: 30.81 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 100.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 199 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

60b) Glass Jars/Vials 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 21.58 

Standard Deviation: 29.08 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 100.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 292 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

60c) Nylon Bags 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

Average: 16.80 

Standard Deviation: 26.18 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 100.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 330 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

60d) Other: 

Probability Density Function 

Cumulative Distribution 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average: 12.24 

Standard Deviation: 21.02 

Minimum: 0.00 

Maximum: 80.00 

An answer to this question is not required and 375 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

60e) If you checked "Other" above, (please specify what you would use here): 

• Absorbent Pads 

• Kapak 

• paper bags 

• kapak 

• PAPER BAGS 

• paper bags 

• Paper & plastic bags 

• Special Sample Containers 

• plastic bags 

• K pac bags 

• bags 

• plastic bags 

• Clear arson bags 

• evidence cans 

• choice of CFI and Lab 

• paper bags 

• sterile cans/jars 

• Paper Bags 

• paperbags (large items) 

• paper bag 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Other Bags, Envelopes 

• Plastic bags with sealed bottom exemplar space 

• Plastic/paper depending on size of object and what it is being analized for. 

• paper sacks 

• KPAK 

• Kapak Bags 

• paper evidence bags 

• brown paper bags 

• Paper bags 

An answer to this question is not required and 378 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

61) What type of equipment is essential to help you process fire scenes? 

• An Accelerant K-9 is one of the most useful tools available outside of a shovel and pointing trowl. 

• Proper carpentry tools, cans, gloves, protective gear. 

• Shovels, cameras, sieves, scoops, knife, gloves, containers , measuring tools 

• rakes, shovels, sreens, magnets, fingerprint processing equipment, hand tools, magnifying glass, sometimes large 

equipment for debris removal 

• knowledgable investigators, accelerant detection canine team, misc. hand tools cans, glass jars/vials, personal 

protective equipment 

• PROTECTIVE GEAR, SEARCHING TOOLS, EVIDENCE CONTAINERS 

• Hand Tools 

Power Tools 

Heavy Equipment 

Manpower 

Canine 

• magnet, directional flags, tweezers, camera, patience. so many more. 

• Camera, Hand tools 

• Hand Tools 

Heavy Equipment 

Minimum, Level C protection 

Standard Safety Equipment 

Vehicle 

Digital cameras 

Digital Video 

• Hydrocarbon detector 

UV source 

• lighting 

evidence collection equiptment cordless saws and drills 

• Photographic, VOC monitors, Laptops, Digging equipment, lighting, measuring equopment, evidence collecting 

• Good lighting, respiratory protection, basic tools to dig, excellent camera, proper evidence packaging materials, 

sharp utility knife 

• SHOVELS, STRAINER / SIFTERS, SMALL TOOLS & BOLT & NUT DRIVERS, HAND TROWEL, PORTABLE LIGHTING. 

• Proper evidence collection and storage facilities on vehicles 

• Measuring devices, shovels, evidence containers, hand tools, safety gear 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• We use a mobile laboratory containing microscopes and much equipment 

• Shovel, drywall puller, flashlight digital camera, safety equipment 

• Camera, Shovel, Rake, broom, Screw drivers, Gloves, Evidence collection containers, power tools, hand held tools, 

boots, cover-alls, 921 

• NFPA 921 

• Shovel 

rake 

hand shovel 

hand rake 

camera 

tape measure 

lighting 

• all listed in NFPA 921 

• evidence collection tools and containers 

• Gas detectors 

assortment of tools 

camera 

detection canine 

• Shovels, rakes and other hand tools 

• lot of lights 

• Digital imaging equipment 

• Shovel, rake, trowel, brush/broom, camera, tape measure 

• Camera, disposable gloves, Protective clothing, safety gear, shovels, brooms, eviedence containers, labels, 

scrappers, Flash light, saw, small tools i.e. screw drivers, wood chisels, razor blades, 

• manpower, 

• many types starting with shovel and small to big rakes and hoes, electric saws, etc 

• liquid and solid material apparatus, shovels, tweezers 

• hand tools, gloves, evidence cans, digital cameras, lights, generator 

• Temp lighting, camera, tape recorders paper pads ect... 

• evidence containers, cut off hoe, screen, TIF8800A accelerant detector, shovels, camera 

• Personal Protective Equipment 

• too braod of a question 

• Paper/Pen; Flashlight; Camera; shovel, rake, broom, etc.; PPE-Gloves,Helmet,Boots, etc.; Decon Equipment; 

Misc. Hand Tools; 

• camera and evidence collection materials as well as resource books 

• Basic Hand tools 

• Hand tools, safety equipment, lighting 

• Paint cans, hand tools, lights, digging tools 

• Al various types of construction equipment. Every thing from shovels to sifters. 

• Basic tools/Shovel/Protective gloves/Bunker gear/Evidence collection kit/Crime scene tape/Evidence marking 

cones/Measuring divices/Haz-Mat suits when needed/Lighting/Camera/Canine 

• Hydrocarbon Detector, Laser Measuring Device, Shovels, Water Cans, Graph paper, Digital Recorders, Digital 

Cameras, Respiratory Protection, PPE 

• Basic Disposable Hand Tools & Metal Containers 

• lights, hand tools, camera, tape recorder, video, portable power, phones/ radios, power saw, ladders, sifters. 

• shovels, scoops, brooms, water standard hand tools 

• Pickup 

Water 

• Hand tools large and small 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Small, clean hand tools; camera; pen and paper; measure device; good lights; latent print kit; circuit tester 

• shovesl rakes, cameras 

• Camera, shovels, rakes hand tools K-9, ignitable vapor detectors, volt-ohm meters, etc. 

• lighting, hand tools, camera, video recorder, tape recorder, sketch pad, tape measure, water, generator, evidence 

cans and bags 

• Tools and sterile evidence cans/jars 

• screens, flammable/combustible vapor detector, shovels, volt/ohm meter, various hand tools, personal protective 

equipment. 

• Camera, flash, shovels, trowels, measuring tools, portable ladder, evidence containers; cans, plastic bags, paper 

bags, clean uncontaminated razor knifes or other cutting tools, Safety equipment; hard hat, nomex clothing, steel 

toe water proof boots, knee pads 

• An open mind. a good forensic team. 

• Personal Protective equipment 

• Adequate tools and evidence collection equipment 

• Shovel, rake, broom, flashlight, camera, clipboard, hammer, drill, screwdriver, crowbar, bags, cans, tape, jack 

• Combustible gas detector, shovel, rake, broom, flashlights, leather gloves, evidence collection gloves, cans, tape 

measure, graph paper, safety boots, hard hat, camera, computer, recorder 

• Camera's, Assorted hand tools as well as small gardening tools, brooms, shovels, large tubs, tape measure, 

flashlight, PPE, 

• gloves, respirator, eye protection, head gear, shovel, troughs, evidence containers, labels, camera, absorption 

material, water, decon soap, brushes 

• shovel, masons trowel, garden trowel, screw drivers, hammer, pry bar, various types of wrenches, evidence 

containers, evidence tags, tape measure, various types of gloves, hard hat, boots, tyvek suits, safty glasses, 

ladder, camera, notebook, pens, pencils 

• Shovel, latex gloves, flashlight, basic tool kit, camera, sketch pad, hose, boots, work gloves, evidence collection 

tools, note pad 

• sifting screens, measuring devices, video & digital photograph, USB microscope 

• Brain, proper attitude, eyes, shovel, boots, respirator, camera, graph paper, 

• shovels, rakes, brooms, water, ladders, evidence cans, protective equipment 

• Hand tools 

• Shovels, rakes, small hand tools, Camera, evidence collection supplys 

• Lights, Camera, shovel, broom, tape measure 

• PPE, Instrument list is endless 

• digital camera 

• digtial camera, aux lighting 

• Photo/Video Equipment. Measuring equipment. Shovel. Evidence collection equipment. Safety equipment. More. 

• Photography equipment, hand tools, measuring equipment, safety equipment 

• Hand Tools, PPE, Lighting Equipment 

• accelerant detection, lighting, tools 

• Cameras, measuring devices, K-9 

• Hand held shovels 

Fire/debris proof boots 

Hard Hat 

Collection kits 

• Shovel, rake, lights, hand tools, evidence collection containers, safety equipment 

• accelerant detection equipt. 

• LIGHTING 

HAND TOOLS 

• Camera, diagram, shovel, rake, broom, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• camera, shovel, flashlight, eyeballs, common sense 

• Shovle, hand tools, cleaning agent, water, collection bags, camera, tape, paper, writting tool. 

• protective clothing, shovels, rakes, and camera 

• camera, type recorder, sketching software, lights. tools 

• manpower 

• camera 

• Hand Tools, Cameras, electronic tape measurement equipment. 

• rubber gloves,photo equipment,shovel, 

• sniffers 

• photographic equipment, evidence containers, gloves, pen, paper, measuring tape, hand tools 

• Tools such as shovels, rakes, saws, cameras 

• shovel, rake, hoe, tape measure, LIGHTS, camera, ladder, electric drill & saw, prybars, hand tools 

• shovel, gardening tools, camera 

• Ignitable liquid detector 

• Shovels, rakes, Camera, Protective clothing, disposable tyvek suits, forceps, bucket water w.brush to wash foot 

wear to avoid cross contamination 

• MINI RE 2000 

• Breather mask, evidence bags, camera, shovel, paint brush 

• hand tools and time 

• Camera, hand tools, and reports. 

• Proper Safety Equipment 

Shovel 

Other items as necessary 

• area to clean tools that is easy to assemble and transport 

• tools,cameras, lighting, personal protection devices 

• shovels,brooms,rakes, small hand tools,cameras, lighting, evidence containers and bags, fire scene paperwork. 

• See NFPA 921 

• Hand tools, generators, sniffer 

• shovels, saws,trowels, hand shovels, brooms, water,co2 monitor, hydrocarbon detector, canine accelerant 

detection 

• basic 

• laptop computer 

digital camera 

• camera, hand tools, video camera 

• Hand Tools, Lighting, Photographic, Videographic, Written Documentation, Dictation 

• TIF meters, various HAZMAT meters and air processors 

lighting, cameras 

• 35mm camera (we don't do digital!), shovel. 

• Shovels, rakes, photographic, lighting, magnification, evidence collection evidence packaging 

• Clean evidence collection containers and collection equipment including both disposable and cleanable tools. 

Measuring devices (electronic and scalar), photographic equipment, and field data collection forms. 

• shovels, rakes, hand tools, evidence containers, 

• Camera, evidence containers, brushes, digging tools, 

• Light, protective equiptment, fans, personnel, cameras 

• shovels, lights, proper training for knowing what to look for and how to process it. containers 

• NFPA 921,camera,tools,lap top,lights, 

• Disposable gloves, unlined cans,shovel.razor knife, hatchet, small tools, camera 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• buckets, shifters, rakes, camera, lights 

• Laser measuring 

Hydrocarbon detector 

shovel 

• everthing 

• personal protective equipment, camera, paper & pen, tape rule, debris removal tools (shovel, trowel, garden 

cultivator), sample containers, evidence bags/boxes, ladder 

• A GOOD SHOVEL, GOOD LIGHTING AND A STRONG BACK. 

ALSO EXPERIENCE 

• Air masks, haligan, pry bar, camera, evidence collection containers, lights, screw drivers, knife, 

• Digging tools, lighting, photography equipment(35mm and digital), cad software 

• Shovel - 3 Tine Hoe 

• good photography and video equipment, good hand tools 

• lighting, photography, various large ansd small hand tools, 

• Camera, forms, lights, digging tools, evidence collection equipment. 

• supply of gloves;handtools 

• shovels, scoops, cameras, lighting 

• Hand tools, cameras 

• evidence containers, lighting, hand tools, cameras and related accessories, digitial voice recorders, personal 

protective equipment 

• documentation supplies: sharpies (various colors), notepad, dial calipers, wire/conductor size tool, pens, pencils, 

acetate sheets, 

tools: hammer, screw drivers, saw saw, gardening tools (i.e. small spade, claw), wire cutters, side cuts, needle 

nose pliers, crescent wrenches, mini saw, sifting screens, multi-meter, 

Camera supplies...too much to list 

• Lighting, Sniffers, Screens, Hand tools, Heavy Equipment when needed, Cameras, Evidence containers, 

• clean hand tools 

• Protective gear, leather gloves, helmet, breathing appr., misc. hand tools 

• gloves, cutting tools, extraction tools, camera, measurement devices, evidence containers. 

• various tools used for digging in debris and collecting samples; proper footwear; 

• digging tools, photo equipment, collection materials, lights 

• shovel, hand tools, flash light, ppe 

• lighting, adequate clean PPE, large evidence collection containers 

• Gas Detectors 

Electric Meters 

• Proper lighting, camera, work gloves, rubber gloves, coveralls, hard hat, pen and paper, scoop shovel, respirator 

(full and half-face), evidence collection equipment, 

• Camera, trowel, shovel, recorder, multi-meter, brooms 

• Various Hand Tools, Computer Equipment, Digital/Video/ SLR Cameras, Electronic Measuring Devices, Drawing 

Programs etc... 

• hydrocarbon detectors, camera, general overhaul tools 

• Camera, shovel, trowel, magnifying glass, tape measure, coveralls, evidence cans, vapor detector, gloves, 

evidence sealing, forms, core borer, knife, scraper, etc., etc. 

• Time... 

• For wildland fire: Kestrel or other weather reading device; 

GPS unit; digital cameras; 35mm camera; binoculars; magnets; magnifying glass;powerful flashlights; material 

for casting footprints and tire tracks; measuring tapes, wheels, and rulers; evidence collection material; audio and 

video recorders; high temperature thermometer with probe; metal detector; and cause determination handbook, 

fire regulations guides, and fire prevention field guides 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• hand tools, lighting, resource materials, heavy equipment at times 

• Camera, shovels, etc. 

• camera , hand tools , some time heavy equipment 

• Clean, hand operated equipment 

• Multiple tools 

• Lights, flashlight, mirrors, camera, shovel, broom,pry bar, hand tools 

• documented, clean cans and collection equipment, reliable mechanical equipment for second opinion on possible 

accelerent 

• Hand tools and sometimes heavy equipment 

• hand tools, firefighter turn out gear, disposal nitrile gloves, cameras, evidence marking numbers and collection 

materials, Dawn dishwashing liquid for decontamination of tools, Battery operated power tools, portable electric 

generators and so on 

• Digital cameras, hand tools for excavation, PPE- respiratory and clothing 

An answer to this question is not required and 239 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

62) What type of equipment is desirable to help you process fire scenes? 

• Electronic sniffer, laser scanner, lighting systems 

• portable xray machine, portable sniffing devices, dogs 

• Multi-Gas Detector, Handheld identification instrument, (First Defender XL) 

• SAME AS ABOVE 

• containers, magnet(very large) sectioning rope or twine, camera, lots more. 

• Evidence collection kit 

• electonic detector for picking sample points 

• Mobile internet access for data research in the field 

• Portable Full Gas & Chemical ID Chromatagraph 

• ignitable liquid detection lighting 

• Hydrocarbon dectector, sifting screens, fingerprint and casting kits, 

• DISPOSABLE GLOVES, CEMENT TYPE HAND TROWEL FOR SMALL DIGGING & SCRAPING. 

• Lights, cans, Evidence bags 

• air sampling equipment, fire debris analysis equipment, 

• S/A Above # 61 

• time, and the willingness to do a thorough analysis. 

• sifter screens 

• Hand tools 

• detectors 

camera 

canine 

• K-9, hydrocarbon detectors 

• personnel 

• Digital imaging equipment 

• Volt meter, Tape recorder, Laptop computer, Large light, Ladder 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• same 

• saa 

• Respiratory Protective 

• accelerant detectors 

• all of it! bad question! 

• Hydrocarbon detector; Accelerant Detection K-9, 

• more resource books 

• power tools 

• As above 

• all of the above in addition to trace evicence colleciton. 

• Electronic air quality tester/hydrocarbon based fuel detectors 

• Extra lighting, exhaust fan, handtools, computer with internet access, 

• all of the above 

• Portable x-ray 

• Generator, electric tools instead of battery 

• UV light device; combustible gas detector; 

• need a good hydrocarbon detector 

• same as above 

• Hydrocarbon detector 

• all of the above. 

• Pry bars, hammer, saw, hand tools, volt ohm meter, microscope (small portable) magnifying glass, sheet rock 

saw, ph test strips, any one of variety of portable sniffers, CO meter, several magnets of different sizes, 

• gloves, cans, camera, shovels, brooms, jars, tweezers, qtips, paper bags, nylon bags, many more 

• Advanced scene documentation equipment 

• portable x-ray unit, 

• gas chromatograph, exray machine, 

• It depends on how comples the scene is. 

Anything from buldozers to cranes. 

• additional lighting, ventilation, electronic sniffer 

• x-ray 

• another investigator, electrical engineer, fire protection engineer, canine 

• computer 

• Technical goods 

• cad diagraming program 

• The list of equipment necessary and desireable is so vast and varies from fire scene to fire scene that it could 

never be completed here. 

• Same as Above 

• Respiratory protection, K-9, 

• accelerant detection equipt. 

• protective clothing, shovel, rakes, and camera 

• gas scopes 

• man power 

• sniffers, 

• alot 

• video equipment, multi-meter, respiratory protection, x-ray, thermal imager, Gas meter 

• The above listed tools as well as electronic measuring devices for hydrocarbons 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Same as above; video camera 

• accelerant detection canine 

• portable hydrocarbon detector 

• Knowledge then equipment necessary to re-construct scene 

• extra manpower 

• accelerant sniffers 

• Accelerant Detection Canine 

• basic 

• Hand tools. unsure what eveyone else is using 

• Same as Above (61) Resource Laptop with full chemical libraries. 

• Better gas meters than what we have. 

• Heavy machinery. Backhoe,payloader etc. 

• Computer modeling programs. 

• Deep pockets $. 

• sifters, good personal. 

• Disposable gloves, unlined cans,shovel.razor knife, hatchet, small tools,camera, meter to identify ignitible liquids 

• meters, computers, 

• everthing 

• graph paper & colored pencils, laser measuring device, small brushes, sifting screen, generator and lighting, 

reciprocating saw 

• hydrocarbon detection equipment 

• Mobile investigation vehicle 

• Large Tarp 

• measuring devices 

• sniffer, multi-gas air monitoring device for safety 

• K-9, atmospheric monitor 

• infrared thermometers, fire scene resource guides available on laptop computer 

• see above 

• Flamable liquid detector 

• same 

• portable gas chromatograph, canine or electronic means 

• crime scene kits, digital cameras, florescent lighting 

• same as above 

• Sniffers 

• Two investigators to conduct all fire scene investigations; mandatory two person staffing 

• video camera, electronic "sniffer", trailer for all of the invesitgation equipment 

• GPS Equipment 

• same as above 

• analytical-field instruments 

• All of the above 

• front end loader, backhoe, crane, bobcats, shovels, rakes, wheelbarrels 

• Electric power tools 

• Accurate GPS that can diagram eveidence collection points. 

• documentable onscene detection equipment, documentable collection components, 

• Hand tools and sometimes heavy equipment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• man power 

• hydrocarbon detection and accelerant detection 

An answer to this question is not required and 295 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

62a) Does your agency have, or have access to, an accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team to assist in investigations? 

Don't Know (5) 1.9% 

Yes (180) 69.2% 

No (75) 28.8% 

Total (260) 

An answer to this question is not required and 147 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

62b) If yes, what percentage of the investigations would utilize such a team? 

1-20% (96) 50.0% 

21-40% (44) 22.9% 

41-60% (32) 16.7% 

61-80% (7) 3.6% 

81-100% (13) 6.8% 

Total (192) 

An answer to this question is not required and 215 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

62c) Does your agency have, or have access to, a portable electronic "sniffing" device to assist investigations? 

Don't Know (14) 5.6% 

Yes (121) 48.0% 

No (117) 46.4% 

Total (252) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 155 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

62d) If yes, what percentage of the investigations would utilize such a device? 

1-20% (48) 31.6% 

21-40% (20) 13.2% 

41-60% (28) 18.4% 

61-80% (28) 18.4% 

81-100% (28) 18.4% 

Total (152) 

An answer to this question is not required and 255 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

63) Does your agency have a specific criteria used calling out the services of an accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team? 

Yes (79) 32.1% 

No (167) 67.9% 

Total (246) 

An answer to this question is not required and 161 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

63a) If "Yes", (please briefly describe the criteria used here): 

• If the investigator susects the use of an ignitable liquid for any reason the K-9 should be called. In the event of 

large scale fires or multiple fires this is required. 

• Whenever necessary 

• Notify State Fire Marshal 

• Anytime a fire task force call out is requested, an accelerant detection canine team is automatically called out to 

the scene to assist. If as a single investigator am called to a scene and determine by interviews and a preliminary 

scene investigation, I will call a canine team out if deemed necessary. 

• requested by the local authorities or the state police Lt in charge of the fire investigation unit 

• FOLLOW THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO AS THE CANINE 

• Evidence of the presence or use of an accelerant at a fire scene and investigator unable to locate or identify 

sample for analysis. 

• INCENDIARY FIRES WITH SIGNS OF IGNITABLE LIQUID 

FATALITY SCENES AND LARGE INCIDENTS. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• When I/C or its INv call 

• If the client says ok. 

• If the fire is considered suspecious 

• When the fire is obviously incendiary and there are indications of an ignitable liquid, but no ignitable liquid odor is 

able to be detected by the investigator on the scene. 

• Incendiary fire with difficulty determining points of origin 

• State dog thru Fire Dept. 

• We have access to ATF and CBI and local FD 

• fatalities 

high $ loss 

suspicious / arson known 

• we have applied for a grant for a canine 

• Contact the State Fire Marshal's Office 

• suspected incedianiary fires 

• called on most fires 

• any significant structure fire 

• Investigator reasonably believes accelerants were used or wishes to rule out the use of accelerants (negative 

scene search) 

• Evidence of ignitable liquid involvement, high suspicion 

• The accelerant canine is part of local jurisdiction and we have to go through the local ATF agent for calling out. 

Would use the canine more if we had a canine handler with our agency. 

• Investigator discretion 

• Contact the State Department of Justice Fire investigation Unit Area Special Agent 

• very high probability of positive find. 

• Fatality 

High dollar loss 

Investigator request 

• o won the dog and use him where there is no ignitable liquid inherently present such as garages, etc. 

• Fatality, severe injury, dollar loss exceeding $500000.00 

• Request is made through the dispatch center. 

• suspicion of illegal fire. 

• We have one in the detail 

• when the sniffer shows negative 

• Looks like arson 

• Approval by investigation officer incharge to page canine team 

• Agent must respond and evaluate the need 

• Any time the investigator feel that canine is required. 

• when deemed a large loss and potential accelerant used 

• as needed basis OT dependant and monitored closely 

• CALLED ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS 

• notify through County radio 

• Contact OFPC NY State 

• 24 hour 7 day a week call out center 

• If I determine it is needed a request is made to the 911 communications center 

• We have 3 teams in our agency 

• Based on the need by the on scene investigator. 

• Rely on public sector input 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• notify the state fire marshals office 

• All undetermined fires and all death/injury fires, 

others if investigator is unsure 

• generally fatal fires 

• Contact NC SBI via FMO 

• Only if fire scene has suspected clues of arson 

• In cases where there are large pour patterns or multiple large patterns, we will use a K9 to get quick parameters 

• Major Case, Fire death. 

• If accelerent use is suspected 

• The on scene investigator has the descretion to call a canine unit as part of our Task Force 

• Any time the investigator needs the assistance. 

• It is up to the lead investigator. 

• If arson is suspected the local authority having jurisdiction is notified 

• Dollar loss over $30,000. Fire fighter injury or death. Fire fatality. Apparent multiple points of origin. 

• The on scene Investigator request the AK-9 through FD communications. 

• In house 

• STATE FIRE MARSHAL 

• When we determine the cause to be incendiary, along with the circumstances. 

• if the investigator feels a canine would be helpful, ATF is contacted who has the caninine in this area. 

• Rediculous 

• state division of fire safety 

• Required on all Incendiary Fires 

• Incidents where the use of ignitable liquid is suspected, fires where death or serious injury occured, multiple 

arlarm fire scenes, fire bombings. 

• Fatal fires and suspect scenes when the investigator deems it necessary. 

• The investigator notifies the EMS dispatcher, who then notifies the neighboring jurisdiction. That jurisdiction then 

pages the canine accelerant detection team. 

• gas detectors 

• The Division saw it on TV 

• Whenever an ignitable liquid accelerant is suspected 

• handler and detection K-9 retired due to medical problems. We used to use the team quite often when the 

onscene investigator would determine the need. 

• High value loss or fatality/serious injury involved 

An answer to this question is not required and 330 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

64) Does your agency officially track the usage of accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team in each investigation? 

Yes (80) 33.3% 

No (160) 66.7% 

Total (240) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 167 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

65) Does your agency officially track the track positive/negative hit rate of accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team in 

each investigation in which a team is used? 

Yes (64) 28.1% 

No (164) 71.9% 

Total (228) 

An answer to this question is not required and 179 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

66) Do your fire/explosion scene investigators have access to laboratory tests other than fire debris/ignitable liquid analysis (e.g. 

flame spread testing, identification of unknown materials in debris, fire modeling, etc.)? 

Yes (108) 42.9% 

No (144) 57.1% 

Total (252) 

An answer to this question is not required and 155 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

67) Do you think that you would benefit from having access to a national and/or international data base of certified accelerant 

(hydrocarbon) detection canine teams? 

Yes (185) 72.8% 

No (69) 27.2% 

Total (254) 

An answer to this question is not required and 153 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

68) Does your agency have ready access to a fire debris analyst/scientist for consultation either with you at the fire scene or by 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

telephone or Internet? 

Yes (131) 50.4% 

No (129) 49.6% 

Total (260) 

An answer to this question is not required and 147 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

68a) If Yes, how often was their expertise called upon while you were processing fire scene in 2006? 

1-5 (67) 61.5% 

6-10 (17) 15.6% 

11-15 (10) 9.2% 

16-20 (4) 3.7% 

21-30 (4) 3.7% 

31-40 (2) 1.8% 

41-50 (1) 0.9% 

>50 (4) 3.7% 

Total (109) 

An answer to this question is not required and 298 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

69) If No, would you want to have access to this type of expertise to assist you with your investigation? 

Yes (144) 91.7% 

No (13) 8.3% 

Total (157) 

An answer to this question is not required and 250 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

69a) Rate the importance of having a fire debris analyst/scientist available for consultation while you are processing a scene. (1-7 

where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) 
 

 

 

 

 

1 (3) 2.1% 

2 (5) 3.4% 

3 (7) 4.8% 

4 (18) 12.4% 

5 (38) 26.2% 

6 (32) 22.1% 

7 (42) 29.0% 

Total (145) 

An answer to this question is not required and 262 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

xi) Part J. Explosive Scene Specialists (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

70) Indicate the number of explosive scenes analyzed/processed by all of the investigators at your physical location (check one): 

1-50 (137) 87.3% 

51-100 (13) 8.3% 

101-250 (4) 2.5% 

251-500 (1) 0.6% 

501-750 (0) 0.0% 

751-1000 (0) 0.0% 

1001-2000 (0) 0.0% 

>2000 (2) 1.3% 

Total (157) 

An answer to this question is not required and 250 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

71) Have you had formal training in the investigation of bombing crime scenes? 

Yes (152) 76.8% 
 

 

 

 

 

No (46) 23.2% 

Total (198) 

An answer to this question is not required and 209 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

72) How important is formal training in the investigation of bombing crime scenes? 

(1-7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) 

1 (2) 1.0% 

2 (3) 1.6% 

3 (2) 1.0% 

4 (2) 1.0% 

5 (9) 4.7% 

6 (14) 7.3% 

7 (159) 83.2% 

Total (191) 

An answer to this question is not required and 216 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

73) What types of containers do you use in submitting explosion debris to a laboratory for examination? 

Container / Percent of Time 

73a) Clean Unused Paint Can 

0% (3) 2.0% 

1% to 20% (23) 15.5% 

21% to 40% (13) 8.8% 

41% to 60% (17) 11.5% 

61% to 80% (36) 24.3% 

81% to 100% (56) 37.8% 

Total (148) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 259 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

73b) Glass Jars / Vials 

0% (11) 11.5% 

1% to 20% (47) 49.0% 

21% to 40% (16) 16.7% 

41% to 60% (7) 7.3% 

61% to 80% (6) 6.2% 

81% to 100% (9) 9.4% 

Total (96) 

An answer to this question is not required and 311 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

73c) Nylon Bags 

0% 

1% to 20% 

21% to 40% 

41% to 60% 

61% to 80% 

81% to 100% 

Total 

(10) 

(41) 

(15) 

(10) 

(3) 

(8) 

(87) 

11.5% 

 17.2% 

11.5% 

 3.4% 

 9.2% 

 47.1% 

An answer to this question is not required and 320 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

73d) Other 

0% (8) 19.0% 

1% to 20% (18) 42.9% 

21% to 40% (5) 11.9% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

41% to 60% (4) 9.5% 

61% to 80% (2) 4.8% 

81% to 100% (5) 11.9% 

Total (42) 

An answer to this question is not required and 365 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

73e) If you checked "Other" above, (please specify what container you used here): 

• paper bags/envelopes 

• paper bags 

• paper bags 

• anti static 

• PAPER BAG/BOX 

• paper bags 

• paper bag 

• Kpac 

• bags 

• paper bags/boxes 

• paper bags 

• choice of Lab 

• Paper containers, plastic zip lock bags (10-40 gal size) 

• clear plastic bag 

• brown paper bags 

• paper bags 

• PAPER BAG 

• Paper bags 

• paper 

• Sealable Plastic bags 

• paper bags 

• paper/cardboard 

• commercial plastic containers 

• cardboard box for larger items; 

• Kapak 

• paper bags or cardboard boxes 

An answer to this question is not required and 381 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74) What type of equipment is essential to help you process bombing scenes: 

• Tape measures 

Survey and/or GPS equipment 

Flags 

• Camera, Video, Gloves, Paper Bags, Secured Explosive Boxes (For low ordered explosives) 

• Lots of people, rope, stakes, magnets, magnifying glass, 

• digital camera 

• gc-ms 

sem-eds 

• ROBOTS, PROTECTIVE GEAR 

• Hand Tools 

Power Tools 

Heavy Equipment 

Canine 

• sifting screens, shovels, rakes, brooms, wheel barrows, marker flags, tape measure, laser transit, gloves, 

tweezers, cameras (digital still and video) lights, tents 

• Same as Above 

• UV source 

• Same as fire scenes 

• MANPOWER SHOVELS BROOMS POWER TOOLS AND HAND TOOLS 

• ANy thing available Usually call ATF 

• S/A as #60 and 61 

• NFPA standard 

• Small hand tools 

• Digital imaging equipment 

• Shovel, rake, trowel, brush/broom, camera, tape measure 

• hand tools, lighting, digital photo, equipment 

• lighting, camera equipment for documenting scene 

• Certified Bomb Tech for screening for secondary devices 

• Hand tools, safety equipment, lighting 

• Same as arson 

• All items listed for fire scenes with the addition of EOD suits and robots/X-ray machine 

• same as above 

• Metal Detector, Explosive swabs 

• marking flags, barrier tape, camera, video recorder, tape recorder, hand tools, generator, lighting, evidence 

containers 

• Magnets, shovels, brooms, dust pans, bags, cans, bottles, camera, flash, flagging tape, evidence markers, mirrors, 

safety equip; 

• same as fire scenes 

• Adequate tools and evidence collection equipment 

• swab kits, photographic equipment, screens for sifting 

• areial photography 

• Proper Safety Gear 

• Scene documentation equipment. Safety equipment. Evidence Collection supplies/equipment. 

• CGI, robotics, xray, photographic, protective clothing, equipment and training consistent with FEMA type 1 Bomb 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Squad classification 

• PPE, Hand Tools Lighting Equipment 

• sniffer and outside team resources 

• Shovel, rake, hand tools, lights, personnel 

• portable x-ray equipment, bomb suit, shovels, rakes, disrupter, energetic tools, metal detecter, assorted hand 

tools and power tools. 

• Shovel, camera, tape measure, knife, large magnet, unused paint cans, gloves, 

• small flgs, hand tools, mapping equipment, photography equipment, laser range finders & thermal imaging camers 

• screen sifters, metal detectors, 

• Normal fire scene equipment is used. 

• rakes, sifting screens, portable tables, shovels, disposable forceps and tyvek suits, camera decomtamintion station 

• MY EYES. 

• Same as I would use at any fire scene 

• Gloves, packing equipment 

• sifting screens, quality hand tools, sterile evidence containers. 

• qualified man power 

• A method of securing and marking the scene 

• knowledge 

• basic evidence collection materials 

• See NFPA 921 

• shovels, clean shoes and cloths, de-con equipment. sifting screens, gloves. 

• same as fire scene 

• Standard Tools, Markers, Magnets, Metal Detectors, Small Hand Tools, Brushes, Photographic - Videographic - 

Written and Artistic Documentation. 

• Evidence collection equipment, photography. debris sifting equipment, explosive detection dogs 

• more training, more money 

• gloves , containers, boots, misc itmes 

• Disposable gloves, unlined cans,shovel.razor knife, hatchet, small tools, camera 

• Lighting, wire screen sifters, personnel trained in post blast investigations. 

• buckets, shifters, rakes, lights, camera 

• Eyes, shovel 

• qualified personnel 

• photography equipment, measuring devices, video equipment 

• the same as fire's 

• camera 

evidence containers 

tools (uncontaminated) 

• handtools, camera 

• In addition to equipment listed in question #61, sifting screens 

• Too numerous to provide 

• Standard evidence collection equipment 

• Cans, plastic evidence bags, flags, string, nitrile gloves, safety glasses, digital cameras, Total Station GPS 

• K-9, misc. handtools, protective equipment to include gloves, eye protection, boots, and scuba equipment for 

underwater investigation. 

• any 

• digital camera and various tools used in general evidence collection; 

• laser range finders, instruments for collection, disposable brooms-dust pans, sifting screens 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• same as above 

• same as fire debris with more evidence collection and a measuring wheel. 

• New (uncontaminated) supplies 

• Lights, flashlight, camera, shovel, broom, pry bar, hand tools, 

• no idea 

• Hand tools and sometimes heavy equipment 

• gps, 

• PPE - Uncontaminated clothing, 

An answer to this question is not required and 323 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

75) What type of equipment is desirable to help you process bombing scenes: 

• Better evidence preservation system 

• Explosive Detection Instruments 

• portable xray machine 

• SAME AS ABOVE 

• Portable Chemical ID 

• same as fire scenes 

• MANPOWER - SHOVELS BROOMS & HANDTOOLS 

• Digital imaging equipment 

• Power tools 

• SAA 

• Mobile command center 

• same as above 

• Same as above 

• same as above 

• Hand tools, screens, wheel barrows, pry bars, hammer, ladders, magnifying glass, microscope, explosive residue 

test kit, 

• Another list that is too long for this venue. 

• Same as Above 

• Air sampling device, more personnel, K-9 

• portable x-ray equipment, bomb suit, shovels, rakes, disrupter, energetic tools, metal detecter, assorted hand 

tools and power tools 

• Same 

• Unknown 

• Same as above 

• Chemical identifiers 

• elevation equipment 

• Bomb Componet Blanket 

• basic evidence collection materials 

• State of the Art - Handheld Explosives Residue Detection Equipment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Heavy construction machinery 

• odor detection equipment 

• Disposable gloves, unlined cans,shovel.razor knife, hatchet, small tools, camera 

• meters, computers 

• good hand tools, total station 

• UV illumination 

field test instrument 

• handrools camera 

• residue detection 

• Total Station GPS System, Laser Range Finders, Blast Modeling Software 

• any 

• total station or like equipment. 

• same as above 

• sams as fire debris 

• no idea 

• Hand tools and sometimes heavy equipment 

• accident reconstruction equipment for mapping debris position in reference to the seat of the blast 

• Blast modeling software, metal detectors 

An answer to this question is not required and 363 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

76) Do you currently utilize the equipment you listed? 

Yes (75) 85.2% 

No (13) 14.8% 

Total (88) 

An answer to this question is not required and 319 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

77) Are there other types of training/classes that you feel would be helpful to you in order to do your job? 

• Better access to continuing education. 

• Advanced Post Blast; Crime Scene Technician 

• Chemistry 

• Hands-on processing of explosion scenes to "get the feel" of looking for clues 

• POST BOMB INVESTIGATION 

• EOD training 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Required annual update training on current events and cituations that private invesytigators may be confronted 

with on a day-to-day basis. 

• Post Blast School 

• Digital imaging equipment 

• hands on evidence collection, scene excavation 

• Any as we have none at this time. 

• Pattern (high/low order) Recognition, evidence preservation 

• Advanced scene documentation equipment 

• Any and all Training 

• always. You can never have enought of it. 

• Explosives/post blast 

• yes 

• any and all 

• continuation of post blast re-construction 

• Formal post blast schools, blast analysis, a list of essential equipment to process the scenes. 

• BOMB TRAINING. 

• Advanced training in scene investigations 

• More Post Blast Investigation Classes and follow-up courses to keep people proficient 

• Any and all training and information is allways helpfull 

• High profile fire scene examinations, scene control, WMD scene examinations 

• Explosive detection courses 

• on the job training with federal agencies 

• EOD training made available to fire service personel 

• land survey classes using total stations to map and analize debris patterns 

• higher level/more advanced levels of training, there is a lot of basic training but little advanced 

• More post blast courses 

Post blast instructors course 

• A class that focused on case studies of complex fire scenes would be helpful 

• Advance field evidence collection 

• any post blast. 

• 40 hour post-blast investigation course taught at local level; 

• more intensive on-scene training 

• Anti-terrorisim training 

• this is not my area of responsibility 

An answer to this question is not required and 369 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

78) Does your agency have, or have access to an explosives detection canine team to assist in investigations? 

Don't know (20) 11.3% 

No (43) 24.3% 

Yes (114) 64.4% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total (177) 

An answer to this question is not required and 230 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

79) If yes, what percentage of the investigations would utilize such a team? 

1-20% (66) 53.7% 

21-40% (16) 13.0% 

41-60% (10) 8.1% 

61-80% (11) 8.9% 

81-100% (20) 16.3% 

Total (123) 

An answer to this question is not required and 284 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

80) Does your agency have a specific criteria used calling out the services of an explosive detection canine team? 

Yes (61) 37.2% 

No (103) 62.8% 

Total (164) 

An answer to this question is not required and 243 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

80a) If "Yes", (please briefly describe the criteria used here): 

• Dependent on size of crime scene or area to be searched. 

• Our agency K-9 division refuses to comply with the ATF/FBI K-9 Explosive Detection Canine Certificiation program 

and only uses NAPWDA. Therefore, we use another agency. 

• Call State Fire Marshal 

• state police dispatcher off hours and Lt incharge of the state police bomb squad 

• FOLLOWING THE DEPARTMENTS GUIDELINES THAT HAVE THE CANINE 

• EDU supervisor or duty officer request EDU K9 

• AT OUR REQUEST 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• IC OR Inv Call along with PD dective 

• Any scene that seems suspecious 

• Contact local Bomb Squad and CBI & ATF 

• Investigator discretion 

• very high probability of positve results. 

• Same as above 

• Suspicious packages, deaths/serious injuries where possibility exists of a secondary device. 

• Request is made through the dispatch center. 

• suspicion of an accelerant present at scene. 

• when unidentified material cannot be found 

• Notify State Police 

• Must be approved by USAF Base Commander @ Cannon AFB after request is submitted through local channels of 

command, Chief - City Manager - Mayor - then to AFB 

• At the discretion of the Bomb Squad Commander 

• Through County radio 

• 24 hour 7 day a week call out center 

• Suscipous Packages without threat 

• Bombing incident where the threat of a secondary device exists. 

• Go through the Bomb Squad Sergeant. 

• To conduct protective and dignitary sweeps, on bomb threats or when requested by bomb technicians. 

• When necessary - call ATF for K-9 

• Supervisor calls Bomb Squad commandar and he calls k-9. 

• If explosives are suspected 

• when ever the lead investigator or Bomb Commander calls them out 

• determined by Police Department 

• Request with proper guidelines 

• If arson is suspected the local authority having jurisdiction is notified 

• Used for sweep before significant events. Threats at certain location. 

• The request is made through FD communications 

• request of on scene commander 

• fer secondary checks, never wothout a tech 

• Called by the bomb squad 

• Bomb Squad Commander activates team when needed. 

• large event's 

• when requested by bomb tech 

• supervisor approval 

• Discretion of bomb squad commander 

• phone call 

• vip visits and when a technician requests it 

• protocol set by the fbi, atf, nabscab and the ipwda 

• Bomb threats, dignitary protection and special event details. Upon the request of bomb technicians 

An answer to this question is not required and 360 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81) Does your agency officially track the usage of explosive detection canine team in each investigation? 

Yes (59) 37.1% 

No (100) 62.9% 

Total (159) 

An answer to this question is not required and 248 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

82) Does your agency officially track the track positive/negative hit rate of explosive detection canine team in each investigation 

in which a team is used? 

Yes (48) 30.6% 

No (109) 69.4% 

Total (157) 

An answer to this question is not required and 250 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

83) Do you think that you would benefit from having access to a national and/or international data base of certified explosive 

detection canine teams? 

Yes (115) 69.3% 

No (51) 30.7% 

Total (166) 

An answer to this question is not required and 241 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

84) Does your agency have ready access to an explosives analyst/scientist for consultation either with you at the bombing scene 

or by telephone or Internet? 

Yes (80) 47.6% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

No (88) 52.4% 

Total (168) 

An answer to this question is not required and 239 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

85) If Yes, how often was their expertise called upon while you were processing bombing scenes in 2006? 

1-5 (52) 76.5% 

6-10 (9) 13.2% 

11-15 (1) 1.5% 

16-20 (2) 2.9% 

21-30 (3) 4.4% 

31-40 (0) 0.0% 

41-50 (0) 0.0% 

>50 (1) 1.5% 

Total (68) 

An answer to this question is not required and 339 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

86) If No, would you want to have access to this type of expertise to assist you with your investigation? 

Yes (98) 96.1% 

No (4) 3.9% 

Total (102) 

An answer to this question is not required and 305 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

87) Rate the importance of having an explosives analyst/scientist available for consultation while you are processing a scene: (1-

7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) 
 

 

 

 

1 (4) 2.4% 

2 (4) 2.4% 

3 (7) 4.2% 

4 (16) 9.6% 

5 (24) 14.5% 

6 (34) 20.5% 

7 (77) 46.4% 

Total (166) 

An answer to this question is not required and 241 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

88) In 2006 how often did you respond to scenes which contained the following: 

88a) Intact Explosives 

0 (54) 40.0% 

1 to 20 (68) 50.4% 

21 to 50 (9) 6.7% 

51 to 100 (2) 1.5% 

101 to 150 (2) 1.5% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (135) 

An answer to this question is not required and 272 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

88b) Intact IED 

0 (68) 51.9% 

1 to 20 (53) 40.5% 

21 to 50 (6) 4.6% 

51 to 100 (2) 1.5% 

101 to 150 (1) 0.8% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151 to 200 (1) 0.8% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (131) 

An answer to this question is not required and 276 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

88c) Post Blast Explosives 

0 (55) 39.3% 

1 to 20 (79) 56.4% 

21 to 50 (6) 4.3% 

51 to 100 (0) 0.0% 

101 to 150 (0) 0.0% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (140) 

An answer to this question is not required and 267 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

88d) Post Blast IED 

0 (68) 52.3% 

1 to 20 (56) 43.1% 

21 to 50 (4) 3.1% 

51 to 100 (2) 1.5% 

101 to 150 (0) 0.0% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (130) 

An answer to this question is not required and 277 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

88e) Intact Incendiary Device 

0 (49) 35.0% 

1 to 20 (85) 60.7% 

21 to 50 (4) 2.9% 

51 to 100 (1) 0.7% 

101 to 150 (0) 0.0% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (1) 0.7% 

Total (140) 

An answer to this question is not required and 267 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

88f) Post Reaction Incendiary Device 

0 (54) 39.4% 

1 to 20 (73) 53.3% 

21 to 50 (6) 4.4% 

51 to 100 (1) 0.7% 

101 to 150 (1) 0.7% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (2) 1.5% 

Total (137) 

An answer to this question is not required and 270 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

89) In 2006, of the scenes in which it was necessary to "render safe" a device, please indicate the method and times employed: 

89a) Hands on 

0 

1 to 20 

21 to 50 

(44) 

(35) 

(2) 2.5% 

 54.3% 

43.2% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51 to 100 (0) 0.0% 

101 to 150 (0) 0.0% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (81) 

An answer to this question is not required and 326 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

89b) Remote Cutter 

0 (54) 75.0% 

1 to 20 (16) 22.2% 

21 to 50 (1) 1.4% 

51 to 100 (1) 1.4% 

101 to 150 (0) 0.0% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (72) 

An answer to this question is not required and 335 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

89c) Disrupter 

0 (26) 

1 to 20 (43) 

21 to 50 (12) 

51 to 100 (8) 

101 to 150 (2) 

151 to 200 (0) 

>200 (1) 

Total (92) 

 28.3% 

 46.7% 

 13.0% 

 8.7% 

 2.2% 

 0.0% 

 1.1% 

An answer to this question is not required and 315 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89d) Other 

0 (26) 57.8% 

1 to 20 (15) 33.3% 

21 to 50 (2) 4.4% 

51 to 100 (2) 4.4% 

101 to 150 (0) 0.0% 

151 to 200 (0) 0.0% 

>200 (0) 0.0% 

Total (45) 

An answer to this question is not required and 362 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

89e) If you checked "Other" above, (please specify what container you used here): 

• ROBOT 

• Water cannon 

• MWB, Hydrajet 

• counter charge 

• N/A 

• robot 

• Burning in place 

• Mineral water bottle 

• Rigging procedures 

• MWB 

• MWB, Hydra Jet 

• disruptor 

• robot manipulation 

• counter charge 

• counter charge 

• robot 

• water cannon 

• robot 

An answer to this question is not required and 389 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xii) Part K. Laboratory Research Needs (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

90) What major breakthrough in the area of ignitable liquid or explosives analysis would have the most impact on the area of 

forensic science? (Think big the sky is the limit) 

• A machine that is portable, cost effective and produces reliable ignitable fluid results from samples while at the 

scene. (you said the sky is the limit) 

• Field usable (and hand-held size) GC/MSD 

• Good matching software that could match unknowns to a library std like we do with drug standards. 

Also to be able to id an ignitable to a company like they do with oil spills etc. 

• 100% accuracy in identifying significant residues and excluding all backgorund interferences 

• easily detectable taggants in flammable products 

• Library Searchable Database 

• manufacter identification markers in products. 

• The ability to identify the source of ignitable used in a fire scene. 

• SOFTWARE TO HELP INTERPRET TICS 

• Pyrolysis library 

• ability to distinguish source of individual compounds (acetone from decomposition or ignitable liquid?; nitrate form 

black powder or fertilizer?). 

• Acess to a database of published research papers (similar to the FBI library- but more conprehensive) without 

having to pay for a membership or a particular artical. 

• isotopes 

• for explosives, portable instrumentation that could positively identified post blast explosive residue. 

• DETECTION OF WHITE GAS 

• More training opportunities 

• Tagging of gasoline samples 

• I am not sure 

• low cost IMS instruments bought by Feds and distributed to agencies 

• Being able to make a statistical comparison to compare how well two samples "match". 

Applying supercritical fluid extraction 

Ion Cyclotron MS for explosives. 

A single comrehensive analytical technique for conclusive ID of either organic or inorganic explosives (affordable 

technology) 

• Addressing some of the beliefs that you can track ignitable liquids through a scene from your footwear, or dog. 

Comparing fire debris samples and comparing to known gasoline sources to determine if it came from same 

container, supplier, vendor, service station etc. 

• Portable analysis at the scene 

• Portable (on-scene) GCMS 

• Video documentation of the collection and analysis process to provide a jury with real-time information concerning 

the information and conditions that were available at the time of the collectyion and/or processing. 

• A kit to conduct initial testing on scene. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• To identify if an starting fluid or similar flammable liquid was used to start a fire. 

• Make the lab as capable as the dog. 

• Matching a specific gasoline to a specific brand/gas station. 

Matching a specific sample at the scene to residue on clothing. 

Degree of decay of ignitable liquid - i.e., this residue was laid out x hours prior to collection. 

• Perfected accelerant detectors with air proof seal evidence containers 

• dna identification on containers, incendiary devices 

• Inexpensive, indestructible, hand held analyzer, for the instantaneous fire scene identification of suspected 

ignitables and explosives, that was courtroom bullet-proof. 

• If there was a way to better distinguish the specific types of agents present in the samples, to clear up confusion 

in court proceedings 

• The field of fire debris analysis is settled! The techniques we have are sensitive enough and specific enough. If a 

lab can do E1412, E1386 and E1618, that is sufficient. Too much treasure is wasted on SPME, MSMS and other 

intereasting but forencsically useless techniques. 

• Training in explosives, IED IID, and post blast evaluation 

• A statisitcal probability in the identification of an ignitable liquid. 

• on scene analysis 

• Differentiation between natural turpentine residue in wood fire debris and turpentine as an accelerant/ignitable 

liquid. 

• RSP of HME's or PBE's. Not spray misting but actual RSP methods. 

• A reliable field unit that will give the investigator correct results quickly. 

• I have no idea, the ISP lab never gets us what we need anyway. 

• Portable equipment for on scene preliminary determinations 

• ALS (Alternative Light Sources), Portable Carbon Counting Technologies that will indicate the approximate total 

burn time and temperature. 

• hand-held mass spec or explosive analysis devices 

• Portable/battery operated devices that are pre-calibrated and can be used at the scene. 

• Process for positive identification of ignitable liquids that can be used in the field without laboratory analysis 

• not enough knowledge to answer question 

• Have a central labratory when submitting fire debris where an accelerant detection canine was utilized. As a 

handler I find it difficult when different agencies are utilizing different labratories. Even though there is a standard 

in place it is not always followed by different labratories. 

• Field GC 

• Use of alternate light sources to find where the residue is at the fire scene. 

• low-cost and extremely reliable portable detection equipment able to identify/classify 

• any 

• GC-MS-MS 

• safer solvents 

• hand held instrument, court room acceptable, detection of results on scene, printable, documentable--- easy to 

zero out- documented- and free. 

• more definative explinations of the liquids found within the samples, the ability to be able to track the ignitable 

liquid to it source such as seperate chemical markers added to each manufactures gasoline and hydrocarbon 

products 

An answer to this question is not required and 352 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

91) Rank the following research areas in terms of how likely you believe they will have a significant impact on ignitable liquid or 

explosive analysis? (1-7 where: 1 = not likely, 3 is possible, 5 is probable, and 7 is extremely likely) 

91a) New Analytical Methods 

1 (3) 2.8% 

2 (7) 6.5% 

3 (11) 10.2% 

4 (11) 10.2% 

5 (31) 28.7% 

6 (12) 11.1% 

7 (33) 30.6% 

Total (108) 

An answer to this question is not required and 299 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

91b) New and Improved Databases 

1 (1) 0.9% 

2 (3) 2.7% 

3 (8) 7.2% 

4 (10) 9.0% 

5 (26) 23.4% 

6 (18) 16.2% 

7 (45) 40.5% 

Total (111) 

An answer to this question is not required and 296 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

91c) New Data Analysis Methodology 

1 (1) 0.9% 

2 (3) 2.8% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 (17) 15.7% 

4 (14) 13.0% 

5 (30) 27.8% 

6 (8) 7.4% 

7 (35) 32.4% 

Total (108) 

An answer to this question is not required and 299 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

91d) New Standards 

1 (4) 3.7% 

2 (7) 6.5% 

3 (19) 17.6% 

4 (21) 19.4% 

5 (26) 24.1% 

6 (5) 4.6% 

7 (26) 24.1% 

Total (108) 

An answer to this question is not required and 299 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

91e) Sample archiving practice/method 

1 (5) 4.9% 

2 (8) 7.8% 

3 (17) 16.5% 

4 (13) 12.6% 

5 (20) 19.4% 

6 (9) 8.7% 

7 (31) 30.1% 

Total (103) 
 

 

 

 

An answer to this question is not required and 304 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

92) Is additional research required in the area of explosives disposal/disruption? 

Yes (107) 93.0% 

No (8) 7.0% 

Total (115) 

An answer to this question is not required and 292 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

93) In your opinion, which of the following issues would provide the most significant improvement on the efficiency of useful 

sample collection at the fire and explosive scenes? (please select only one) 

New field instrumentation/sensors to 

aid in sample selection (61) 

Training of sample collection 

personnel (55) 

Development of standard sampling 

plans (10) 6.0% 

Implementation of data quality 

objectives for sampling (2) 1.2% 

Improved real-time coordination 

between laboratory and field 

personnel 

(40) 

Total (168) 

 36.3% 

32.7% 

 23.8% 

An answer to this question is not required and 239 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

94) Please rank the importance of an analyst's knowledge of the fate and transport of explosives in the environment as related to 

forensic casework? (1-7 where: 1 is not at all, 3 is fairly important, 5 is very important, 7 is urgent) 

1 (2) 1.6% 

2 (5) 4.1% 

3 (7) 5.7% 

4 (11) 9.0% 

5 (32) 26.2% 

6 (20) 16.4% 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 (45) 36.9% 

Total (122) 

An answer to this question is not required and 285 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

95) How important is it to push for lower detection limits in the laboratory analysis of explosives? (1-7 where: 1 is not at all, 3 is 

fairly important, 5 is very important, 7 is urgent) 

1 (2) 1.9% 

2 (6) 5.6% 

3 (10) 9.3% 

4 (20) 18.7% 

5 (28) 26.2% 

6 (15) 14.0% 

7 (26) 24.3% 

Total (107) 

An answer to this question is not required and 300 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

96) In fifteen words or fewer, what is the biggest challenge that you face as a fire or explosion analyst? 

• Turn-around time - useful data for the investigator to use in a timely manner 

• Obtaining training and education at a professional level that is affordable for an agency with budget limitations. 

• Detecting extremely low amounts of an ignitable liquid in a case and its likely-hood that it was intentionally used 

as an accelerant. 

• Time 

• lack of resources and training 

• Cooperation and Communication between agencies 

• Making sure appropriate comparison samples are collected at the scene 

• not adequate training in analysis procedures 

• Sample Identification 

• Pyrolysis product interference 

• need more training and equipment 

• Determining what is found in the can. Whether we are looking at something that is placed there as an accelerant, 

or if that pattern is originating from the material itself, in the can. 

• finding time to develop and maintain skills 

• limited workers experienced to analyze cases. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• being able to postivel identified trace post blast residue 

• Lack of funding for good equipment/training 

• Striving for perfections to be 100% correct. 

• Coordinating the case with the collecting agency. 

• SAFETY, THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, AND COOPERATION FROM THE LAB PEOPLE, EDUCATION OF 

PROSECUTORS 

• Acquiring the latest Ignitable liquid standards 

• Getting casework done in a timely way. 

• Explaining why our comparison capabilities between two samples is not as exact as the DNA analysts 

• Fighting the defense of "Didn't follow 921 to the letter so he/she is wrong." 

• To be capable of interpreting the patterns and pin point the location of proper samples 

• funding for research 

• Gaining access to necessary traing for fire and EOD. 

• Getting funding to properly man and equipt MAnpower with the right tools 

• Court attacks from other fire investigators that are not applying NFPA 921 principles or practices. 

• Proving our case after a public/state investigator has conducted an inadequate investigation prior to ours. 

• The scene tampering of a municipality and the practices imposed to process a scene. 

• Getting proper funding from the muncipal government 

• Collaborating with fire investigators for expert analysis of fire debris for cause and origin determination 

• Getting the cases into an over crowded court system and not plea deals. 

• turn around time from evidence submittal until results of testing are returned. 

• That you do not get to focused on what you see and hear 

• personnel and time managmen 

• Figuring out how the fire or explosion took place is the biggest. 

• Court cases seem to be the biggest challenge. You can pay anyone to say anything these days. A standard for 

defense experts would be welcome. 

• getting the scene secured, collecting the proper evidence. 

• Use of NFPA 921 to defeat by technicality 

• new legal issues 

• Determining electrical cause or result of a fire. 

• Lack of desire to be objective in collecting data. 

• Getting to the scene as quickly as possible - cutting down on the time between the incident and the time the 

incident is assigned by claims personnel to investigator. 

• Early access to the scene before evidence is destroyed 

• being able to 

• Dealing with hack fire investigators with no real scientific training. 

• resources- budget, training, personnal 

• getting the local politicians to take it serious 

• Lawyers 

• ELIMINATION OF CIGARETTES AS POSSIBLE IGNITION SOURCE 

• Getting samples evaluated on a timely manor. 

• Obtaining the correct location for a sample 

• not enough training 

• For peers to evaulate new research with an open mind. 

• Higher national standards placed on bomb squads making it harder for smaller squads to keep up or survive. 

• Getting the Department to support you even though there is are only a few call for service. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• positively identifiying TATP and other peroxide based explosives 

• Getting non experts to listen and understand. 

• As a fire analyst my biggest challenge is being able to respond timely to a fire scene 

• The need to stay a head of the bomb makers and their capabilities to make HME. 

• Lack of understanding by prosecutors what fire scene investigators do. 

• safety 

• Coordination between me in the private sector and those in the goverment or public sector. Standardization of my 

datapoints and those of the many different agencies. 

• scene contamination before inv. arrival and proper collection techniques 

• Obtaining data from samples that have not been contaminated by poor handling 

• not enough training time or money 

• The frequency of changes in standards and laws regarding how we collect samples. 

• Investigators standpoint is the LABRATORY. 

• The preservation and security of the scene until the Investigator arrives to the scene. 

• Getting reports out before the next fire. 

• AS A FULL TIME FIREFIGHTER, THE PROBLEM IS OVERTIME TO DO A THROUGH JOB 

• Information sharing 

• Keeping current with proper investigation methods 

• Managing the time required to perform a thorough examination with the resources at hand 

• Dealing with people and ORGANIZATIONS who do not understand this business, yet they feel as if they have some 

right to stick their nose into the business. 

• Cost of the materials and training 

• The abiolity to allocate of time to train. 

• pip bomb explosion's 

• Lack of sufficient manpower to sustain an operation. 

• ever changing world of petrochemical formulations 

• Having the right equipment to conduct the proper analysis 

An answer to this question is not required and 325 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

97) What area(s) of your investigation analysis is(are) most frequently challenged in court? List up to 3 please. 

97a) Area 1 

• professional qualifications 

• Quality of analysis 

• Who put it there. 

• In Service Training 

• Significance of findings 

• results 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Can you tell how long the ig liq has been there? 

• origin of sample 

• comparing similar ignitable liquids 

• fire debris 

• potential for contamination by investigators/analysts 

• My Knowledge of NFPA 921 

• GETTING PROSECUTOR TO TAKE A CHANCE 

• COC 

• RT and Mass spec of accumulated target compounds in GC/MS 

• Methodology 

• Determination 

• Credibility 

• Documentation 

• CFI and CFEI Certifications 

• Expertise 

• Why isn't my scene analysis the same as municipality. 

• Skill Set 

• Knowledge 

• Suspect identification 

• Origin and cause 

• training 

• Conclusions 

• possible sample contamination by the FD 

• My lack of college degree 

• Application of Codes & Standards 

• evidence collection 

• Credentials 

• Cause determination 

• sample identification on lab analysis sheet 

• Bias for my client 

• Voir Dire 

• ELIOMINATION OF CIGARETTES AS IGNITION SOURCE 

• testimoney 

• Type of explosive 

• evidence collection 

• NFPA 921 

• objectivity 

• Very rarely challenged 

• Chain of custody 

• Origin opinion 

• bomb scene investigation 

• Motive 

• Background 

• Elimination of other potential causes 

• Documentation 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• How evidence is collected 

• interpretation of results 

• Contamination 

• electrical faults 

• Canine detection 

• origin & cause classification 

• Record keeping 

• Investigation process 

• cause 

• collection 

• methodology 

• collection of evidence 

• general sessions court 

• chain of evidence 

• Collection and Storage 

• Expertise 

• pyrolysis samples 

• Intent 

An answer to this question is not required and 338 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

97b) Area 2 

• documentation of evidence locations (where found) 

• chain of custody 

• Certifications 

• Exclusion of interferences 

• chain of custody 

• relevancy of results 

• quantifying ignitable liquids 

• gunshot residue analysis 

• could the IL "belong" on the substrate 

• PUTTING SUSPECT AT THE SCENE 

• Subjectivity of Pattern Interpretation 

• Responsible party 

• Report 

• NFPA 921 

• Education 

• Accidental fires vs. arson fires 

• Spoliation. 

• Training 

• technique 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• suspect identification/invov 

• guilt of the accused 

• Methodology 

• Area of Expertise 

• report writing 

• Sense of smell 

• Evidence collection methods 

• contamination/spoliation 

• Personal qualifications 

• evidence 

• explosive potential of particular devices 

• Methodology 

• thoroughness 

• contamination 

• Cause opinion 

• explosive knowledge 

• Actual guilt of suspect 

• method 

• Specific item[s] involved 

• My Background 

• significance of pattern analysis 

• alternative hypotheses 

• Chain of custody 

• Fire scene examination 

• Investigator's creditability 

• credentials 

• area of origin 

• chain of custody 

• photograpgy 

• TrainingExperience 

• Source of IL 

• Qualification - Explosive cases rarely go to trial 

An answer to this question is not required and 356 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

97c) Area 3 

• opinion 

• Evidence Submission/Packaging 

• Contamination issues 

• interpretation of results 

• connecting lab results with the defendant 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• explosives analysis 

• why did the dog alert to the sample yet you called it negative? 

• CONNECTION BETWEEN SUSPECT AND EVIDENCE 

• Alternative Hypotheses 

• LAb results 

• Contract requirements 

• Engineers. 

• qualifications (very rare) 

• Report Writing 

• evidence storage 

• Prosecutoers who are stupid 

• Cause elimination 

• expertise in field/accepted testing 

• samples 

• Experience 

• training in explosives 

• education 

• determination of conclusion 

• evidence 

• initial on scene investigation 

An answer to this question is not required and 382 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

98) How significant are the Daubert/Frye standards when it comes to introducing a new methodology into your laboratory 

practice, and if this is an issue, can you suggest a method for overcoming the challenge? (1-7 where: 1 is not at all, 3 is fairly 

important, 5 is very important, 7 is urgent) 

1 (11) 10.3% 

2 (6) 5.6% 

3 (9) 8.4% 

4 (14) 13.1% 

5 (28) 26.2% 

6 (16) 15.0% 

7 (23) 21.5% 

Total (107) 

An answer to this question is not required and 300 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

99) Would a "new practices" review panel comprised of academic and practicing forensic chemists facilitate the implementation of 
 

 

 

 

new methodologies and their importance in court? (Yes, No, Possibly) 

Yes (48) 

No (7) 5.6% 

Possibly (71) 56.3% 

Total (126) 

38.1% 

An answer to this question is not required and 281 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 

100) Are you or the analysts in your laboratory interested in collaborating with university researchers to provide an avenue for 

implementing new analytical and field methodologies? (Yes, No, Possibly) 

Yes (35) 30.2% 

No (27) 23.3% 

Possibly (54) 46.6% 

Total (116) 

An answer to this question is not required and 291 of 407 respondents chose not to answer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because this survey is posted in a variety of locations, we ask that you fill and submit only one version. We also ask that you 

only complete answers to those questions that pertain to you. If a question does not pertain to the work you performed in 2006, 

please leave it blank. 

1) Part A. Demographics and General Questions 

Indicate the type of work you do and assign a percentage of time in that activity (if you perform in multiple areas please 

indicate): 

Job Title / Percentage of Time 

Fire Debris Analyst -- Choose one --

Explosive Debris Analyst -- Choose one --

Fire Scene Investigation -- Choose one --

Explosives (Post Blast) Investigation -- Choose one --

Supervisor/Administrator for either Laboratory Analyses or Scene Investigations -- Choose one --

Academic/Teaching -- Choose one --

2) Indicate the type of organization for which you work (check one): 

Questionnaire 

-- Choose one --

3) List the number of all employees (including you) in your laboratory or unit involved in fire 

debris or explosives analysis, scene investigation, and/or reporting for each of the following 

categories: 

Position / Number of Employees 

Analyst /Scientist 

Lab. Supervisor/Manager 

Scene Investigator/EOD 

Scene/EOD Supervisor 

4) Years of Experience in this field / Number of employees 

0-2 

2-5 

5-10 

10-15 

20-25 

25-30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>30 

5) List the number of all employees (including you) in your laboratory or unit involved in fire 

debris or explosives analysis, scene investigation, and/or reporting for each of the following 

categories: 

Highest Education attained by each employee / Number of Employees: 

High School 

2-3 year degree / diploma 

4 year BA or BS or BSc 

Master's degree 

PhD 

6) Indicate the number of times you testified in court in 2006 

-- Choose one --

Part B. Professional Development (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

7) Which, if any, of the following professional development activities will your laboratory or agency pay (in part or in full) for 

employees to attend (check all that apply): 

local/state/regional professional association meeting 

conference, seminar, or symposium held within the state/province 

conference, seminar, or symposium held outside the state/province 

conference, seminar, or symposium held outside home country 

seminar or course held off-site 

seminar or course held on-site 

classes held a local university 

on-line classes from an accredited university 

employer does not offer to pay for courses, seminars, or for conference/symposium attendance 

8) On average, in 2006 what level of funding support did your agency provide for your continuing 

education/training/professional development? (This includes tuition, registration, travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals.) 

-- Choose one --

9) Rate your level of interest (along the following scale) in attending college level courses if: (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 4 = 

Likely, 7 = Absolutely) 

You had to pay 100% of the costs -- Choose one --

You had to pay 75% of the costs -- Choose one --

You had to pay 50% of the costs -- Choose one --

You had to pay 25% of the costs -- Choose one --

You had to pay 0% of the costs -- Choose one --
10) Rate how interested you would be in taking each of the following types of continuing education courses: (1-7 where: 1 = 

Never, 4 = Likely, 7 = Absolutely) 

EOD Range Time (Training with EOD personnel) 

Fire Scene Evidence Collection, Preservation, and Packaging 

Explosives Scene Collection, Preservation, and Packaging 

Fire Dynamics (including Chemistry and Physics) 

Petroleum Refining Processes 

Ignitable Liquid Classification System 

Electrical circuitry and fire 

Testifying as an Expert Witness 

Explosives Manufacturing Processes 

IED recognition and construction 

Computer Fire Modeling 

Gas Chromatography 

Mass Spectral Interpretation 

Raman Spectrosopy for Explosives 

X-Ray Analysis Techniques (Diffraction, Fluorescence, Energy Dispersive) 

Ion Chromatography 

Capillary Electrophoresis 

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy 

Advanced Organic Chemistry for Fire Debris Analysis 

Advanced Topics in the Chemistry of Organic Explosives 

Advanced Topics in the Chemistry of Inorganic Explosives 

Forensic Fire Scene Examination 

Forensic Explosive Scene Examination 

Communication and Cooperation between Investigators and Analysts in Fire Investigations 

Communication and Cooperation between Investigators and Analysts in Explosion Investigation 

11) List a maximum of 3 other training / classes that you feel would be helpful to you in order to do your job better? 

12) Rank how important would each of the following resources be to you? (1-7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very Important) 

Comprehensive Listing of people working in the field (private and government) 

Creation of a secure Internet link for E-mail and information exchange between professionals in the field of explosives 

and fire debris analysis 

Establishment of a collection of sample laboratory reports 

Creation of a glossary of analytical, explosives, and fire debris-related technology 

Creation of information templates for evidence submission 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Establishment of databases of reference materials for analytical techniques 

Creation of a national database for tracking bombing matters 

Creation of a national database for tracking arson matters 

Establishment of a national resource database (for lab equipment, expertise, etc.) 

Establishment of a national explosives formulation database 

Creation of a bulletin board for communication between explosives analysts 

Creation of a bulletin board for communication between fire debris 

Creation of an library of manufacturers' literature 

Database of explosives analyst training manuals and materials 

Information center for inter-agency training exercises 

13) Are you given time and resources to perform research in your field(s)? 

Yes 

No 

14) If so, approximately how many hours in 2006? 

Fire debris analysis 

Explosives Analysis 

Fire Scenes 

Explosive Scenes 

15) Rate each of the following statements as they apply to your laboratory or to you using the scale given below: (1-7 where: 

1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) 

How sufficient are the explosives and fire debris publications provided by your laboratory? 

How interested would your laboratory be in receiving a library of ignitable liquid standards on a regular basis? 

How interested would your laboratory be in receiving a library of pyrolysis standards on a regular basis? 

How important do you feel it would be to have national standards for report writing? 

How important would it be to have a specific protocol for wording of both positive and negative samples? 

How important would it be to have a national database for chromatographic data for ignitable liquids? 

How important would it be to have a national source for ignitable liquid standards? 

How interested are you in participating in the fire and explosives debris analysis technical working group? 

Part C. Fire Debris Analysis Case Work (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

Indicate the total number of fire debris samples analyzed/processed in 2006 by all the analysts within your 

agency (check one): 

-- Choose one 

-- 

Indicate the total number of ignitable liquid samples analyzed/processed in 2006 by all the analysts within 

your agency (check one): 

-- Choose one 

-- 

Part D. Fire Debris Analytical Methods (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

17) Extraction method routinely used for fire debris analysis (check one): 

Establishment of a collection of methods and protocols for analytical techniques 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

activated charcoal (passive headspace sampling - includes strips, “tea bags”, wires, and ribbons) 

activated charcoal (dynamic headspace sampling) 

TENAX (passive or dynamic headspace sampling) 

SPME (please indicate the phase used): 

Other absorbent: 

If you checked "SPME" (Please indicate the phase used here): 

If you checked "Other absorbent" above, (please specify which one used here): 

18) Indicate which eluting solvent used for extracts from fire debris: 

no eluting solvent used (e.g. thermal desorption or SPME) 

carbon disulfide (CS2) 

dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) 

diethyl ether 

pentane 

Other (specify): 

If you checked "Other" above (please specify which one was used here): 

19) Internal standard routinely added to fire debris? 

Yes 

No 

If "Yes", (please specify which compound(s) used): 

20) Internal standard routinely added to eluting solvent (if solvent used to elute absorbent)? 

Yes 

No 

If "Yes", (please specify which compound(s) used): 

21) For Instrumentation used in fire debris and/or ignitable liquid analysis, how often do you use each of the following 

analytical techniques? (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

GC-FID 

GC-MS 

GC-MS-MS 

FTIR 

GC-FTIR 

other: (specify) 

If you checked "Other", (please specify which technique(s) used): 

22) Sample introduction to GC 

(check one): -- Choose one --
If you checked "SPME" above, (please specify phase used): 

If you checked "Other" above, (please specify which was used): 

23) Type of column phase routinely used for GC separation (check all that apply): 

100% polydimethylsiloxane (e.g. DB-1, DB-1ms, HPMS-1, OV-1, Rtx-1, DB-PETRO, etc.) 

(5% phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane (e.g. DB-5, DB-5ms, HPMS-5, OV-5, Rtx-5, etc.) 

(14%-Cyanopropyl-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane (e.g. DB-1701, SPB-1701, Rtx-1701, etc.) 

polyethylene glycol (e.g. DB-WAX, Carbowax, HP-20M, Supelcowax 10, HP-Innowax, etc.) 

other: (specify) 

If you checked "Other" above, (please specify column phase used): 

24) For fire debris analyses, how often do you use the following QA/QC tests? (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = 

Exclusive) 

ASTM 1387 test mix or similar mixture 

Internal Standards (e.g., 3-phenyltoluene) 

Solvent Blanks 

Apparatus Blanks (e.g., strips, glassware) 

Recovery Checks (e.g., simulated case extractions 

Peer Review 

Other: (specify) 

If you checked "Other" above, (please specify QA/QC tests used): 

25) If you adhere to the following ASTM standards and guides, please indicate how closely you follow them? (1-7 where: 1 = 

Never, 2 = Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

ASTM-E 1387-01 (Standard Test Method for Ignitable Liquid Residues in Extracts from Fire Debris Samples by Gas 

Chromatography) 

ASTM-E 1618-06 (Standard Test Method for Ignitable Liquid Extracts by Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry) 

ASTM-E 1385-00 (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire Debris 

Samples by Steam Distillation) 

ASTM-E 1412-00(2005) (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire 

Debris Samples by Passive Headspace Concentration) 

ASTM-E 1413-06 (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Liquid Residues from Fire Debris Samples by 

Dynamic Headspace Concentration) 

ASTM-E 1388-05 (Standard Practice for Sampling of Vapors from Fire Debris Samples) 

ASTM-E 1386-00(2005) (Standard Practice for Separation and Concentration of Ignitable Liquid Residues from Fire 

Debris Samples by Solvent Extraction) 

ASTM-E 1492-05 (Standard Practice for Receiving, Documenting, Storing and Retrieving Evidence in a Forensic Science 

Laboratory) 

ASTM-E 1459-92(2005) (Physical Evidence Labeling and Related Documentation) 

26) Are you aware of new equipment or techniques on the market or in development that could be potentially of use in fire 

debris analysis? These may be in the extraction, analysis, instrumentation, or interpretation of fire debris and ignitable 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

liquids. Please indicate the type of potential improvement such as: reduction of analysis time, elimination of background, 

specificity of identification, etc...? 

Yes 

No 

Description and/or Contact 

27) What are the short-term needs in analytical methods for fire debris analysis? 

28) What are the long-term needs in analytical methods for fire debris analysis? 

Part E. Fire Debris Data Interpretation (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

29) How often do you use an in-house ignitable liquid reference collection in case work? 

-- Choose one --

30) How often have you used the on-line Ignitable Liquid Reference Collection (ILRC) in case work? (See 

http://ncfs.ucf.edu/databases.html for more information about this database) 

-- Choose one --

31) How does your laboratory routinely identify an ignitable liquid in fire debris (check one): 

-- Choose one --

If you checked "Other" above please specify how your laboratory would identify an 

ignitable liquid: 

32) Rate the importance of the following courses as part of the education of fire debris analysts. (1-7 where: 1 = Not 

Important, 4 = Moderate, 7 = Extremely) 

General chemistry 

Advanced organic chemistry 

Inorganic chemistry 

Introductory physics 

Instrumental analysis 

Organic chemistry 

Analytical chemistry 

Advanced physics 

Physical chemistry 

Advanced physics 

Advanced mathematics 

Other: 

(if other please indicate course names here): 

Part F. Explosives Analysis Case Work (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 
 

 

 

Please indicate which, if any, of the following explosives analytical laboratory procedures your agency performed (items 34 

through 41) and the number of times they were performed items 42 through 49) in 2006: 

Analytical Procedure (Yes/No) 

33) Intact Low Explosives 

Yes 

No 

34) Intact High Explosives 

Yes 

No 

35) Intact IED’s 

Yes 

No 

36) Post-Blast Low Explosives 

Yes 

No 

37) Post Blast High Explosives 

Yes 

No 

38) Post Blast IED’s 

Yes 

No 

39) Intact Incendiary Device 

Yes 

No 

40) Post-Reaction incendiary 

Yes 

No 

41) Intact Low Explosives 

-- Choose one --

42) Intact High Explosives 

-- Choose one --

43) Intact IED’s 

-- Choose one --
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44) Post-Blast Low 

-- Choose one --

45) Post Blast High 

-- Choose one --

46) Post Blast IED's 

-- Choose one --

47) Intact Incendiary Device 

-- Choose one --

48) Post-Reaction incendiary 

-- Choose one --

Part G. Explosives Analytical Methods (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

49) In explosives analyses, how often do you use each of the following analytical techniques? (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = 

Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

Microchemical analysis using PLM 

Spot tests 

Ignition analysis 

Microchemical analysis using stereomicroscopy 

TLC 

Field explosives screening 

IR 

Raman spectroscopy 

SEM-EDX 

ICP 

XRF 

GC/MS 

GC/FID 

CE 

HPLC 

HPLC/TEA 

FTIR 

NMR 

SEM-WDX 

IMS 

XRD 

GC/TEA 

GC/ECD 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IC 

HPLC/MS 

Other: 

(please indicate): 

50) Are you aware of new equipment or techniques on the market or in development that could be potentially of use in 

explosives analysis? These improvements may be in analytical instrumentation, recovery of post-explosion residue, 

isolation of un-reacted products, component reconstruction, etc... Please indicate the type of potential improvement such 

as: reduction of analysis time, elimination of background, specificity of identification, etc...? 

Yes 

No 

Description and/or Contact 

51) What are the short-term needs in analytical methods for explosives analysis? 

52) What are the long-term needs in analytical methods for explosives analysis? 

53) For explosives/explosives residue analysis, how often do you see the following QA/QC tests: (1-7 where: 1 = Never, 2 = 

Rare, 5 = Often, 7 = Exclusive) 

8095 Calibration Mix A 

8095 Calibration Mix B 

Smokeless Powder (or similar) mixture 

Internal Standard 

(please indicate): 

Solvent Blank 

Peer Review 

Other: 

(please indicate): 

Part H. Explosives Data Interpretation (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

54) How often do you use an in-house explosives reference collection in case work? 

-- Choose one --

55) Would you use an on-line explosives data (morphological descriptions, microphotographs, IR, MS, etc...) in case work? 

-- Choose one --

56) Rate the importance of the following courses as part of the education of explosives analysts. (1-7 where: 1 = Not 

Important, 4 = Moderate, 7 = Extremely) 

General Chemistry 

Advanced organic chemistry 

Inorganic chemistry 

Introductory physics 
Advanced physics 

Advanced mathematics 

Intro. to explosives 

Combustion explosions 

Organic chemistry 

Analytical chemistry 

Physical chemistry 

Instrumental analysis 

Chemical analysis of explosives 

The chemistry of pyrotechnics 

Explosives analysis 

Other: 

(please indicate): 

57) Rate training or course work in the following areas for explosives analysts? (1-7 where: 1 = Not Important, 4 = Moderate, 

7 = Extremely) 

History of Explosives 

Terminology and vocabulary of explosives 

Composition of low explosive materials 

Construction of commercial pyrotechnic devices 

Construction of military devices (e.g. simulators, rockets, hand grenades) 

Range procedures 

Peroxide Based Explosives 

Manufacturing of explosives 

Composition of high explosive materials 

Construction of improvised devices 

Analytical examination of high and low explosive materials and residues 

Recognition of improvised device components 

Other: 

(please indicate): 

Part I Fire Scene Specialists (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

58) Indicate the number of fire scenes processed in 2006 by all of the investigators at your physical location (check one): 

-- Choose one --

59) Have you had formal training in the investigation of fire scenes? 

Yes 

No 

Rate the importance of formal training in the investigation of fire scenes: (1-7 with 1 = Not at all, and 7 

= Very) 

-- Choose one -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-

60) What type of containers do you use in submitting fire debris to a laboratory for ignitable liquid determination? 

Container / Percent of Time 

Clean Unused Paint Cans 

Glass Jars/Vials 

Nylon Bags 

Other: 

If you checked "Other" above, (please specify what you would use here): 

61) What type of equipment is essential to help you process fire scenes? 

62) What type of equipment is desirable to help you process fire scenes? 

Does your agency have, or have access to, an accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team to assist in 

investigations? 

If yes, what percentage of the investigations would utilize such a team? 

Does your agency have, or have access to, a portable electronic "sniffing" device to assist investigations? 

If yes, what percentage of the investigations would utilize such a device? 

-- Choose one 

-- Choose one 

-- Choose one 

-- Choose one 

63) Does your agency have a specific criteria used calling out the services of an accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine 

team? 

Yes 

No 

If "Yes", (please briefly describe the criteria used here): 

64) Does your agency officially track the usage of accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team in each investigation? 

Yes 

No 

65) Does your agency officially track the track positive/negative hit rate of accelerant (hydrocarbon) detection canine team in 

each investigation in which a team is used? 

Yes 

No 

66) Do your fire/explosion scene investigators have access to laboratory tests other than fire debris/ignitable liquid analysis 

(e.g. flame spread testing, identification of unknown materials in debris, fire modeling, etc.)? 

Yes 

No 

67) Do you think that you would benefit from having access to a national and/or international data base of certified accelerant 

(hydrocarbon) detection canine teams? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

No 

68) Does your agency have ready access to a fire debris analyst/scientist for consultation either with you at the fire scene or by 

telephone or Internet? 

Yes 

No 

If Yes, how often was their expertise called upon while you were processing fire scene in 2006? -- Choose one --

69) If No, would you want to have access to this type of expertise to assist you with your investigation? 

Yes 

No 

Rate the importance of having a fire debris analyst/scientist available for consultation while you are -- Choose 

processing a scene. (1-7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) one --

Part J. Explosive Scene Specialists (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

70) Indicate the number of explosive scenes analyzed/processed by all of the investigators at your physical location (check 

one): 

-- Choose one --

71) Have you had formal training in the investigation of bombing crime scenes? 

Yes 

No 

72) How important is formal training in the investigation of bombing crime scenes? 

(1-7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) 

-- Choose one --

73) What types of containers do you use in submitting explosion debris to a laboratory for examination? 

Container / Percent of Time 

Clean Unused Paint Can 

Glass Jars / Vials 

Nylon Bags 

Other 

If you checked "Other" above, (please specify what container you used here): 

74) What type of equipment is essential to help you process bombing scenes: 

-- Choose one --

-- Choose one --

-- Choose one --

-- Choose one --

75) What type of equipment is desirable to help you process bombing scenes: 
 

 

 

 

76) Do you currently utilize the equipment you listed? 

Yes 

No 

77) Are there other types of training/classes that you feel would be helpful to you in order to do your job? 

78) Does your agency have, or have access to an explosives detection canine team to assist in investigations? 

-- Choose one --

79) If yes, what percentage of the investigations would utilize such a team? 

-- Choose one --

80) Does your agency have a specific criteria used calling out the services of an explosive detection canine team? 

Yes 

No 

If "Yes", (please briefly describe the criteria used here): 

81) Does your agency officially track the usage of explosive detection canine team in each investigation? 

Yes 

No 

82) Does your agency officially track the track positive/negative hit rate of explosive detection canine team in each 

investigation in which a team is used? 

Yes 

No 

83) Do you think that you would benefit from having access to a national and/or international data base of certified explosive 

detection canine teams? 

Yes 

No 

84) Does your agency have ready access to an explosives analyst/scientist for consultation either with you at the bombing 

scene or by telephone or Internet? 

Yes 

No 

85) If Yes, how often was their expertise called upon while you were processing bombing scenes in 2006? 

-- Choose one --

86) If No, would you want to have access to this type of expertise to assist you with your investigation? 

Yes 

No 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87) Rate the importance of having an explosives analyst/scientist available for consultation while you are processing a scene: 

(1-7 where: 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very) 

-- Choose one --

88) In 2006 how often did you respond to scenes which contained the following: 

Intact Explosives -- Choose one --

Intact IED -- Choose one --

Post Blast Explosives -- Choose one --

Post Blast IED -- Choose one --

Intact Incendiary Device -- Choose one --

Post Reaction Incendiary Device -- Choose one --

89) In 2006, of the scenes in which it was necessary to "render safe" a device, please indicate the method and times 

employed: 

Hands on -- Choose one --

Remote Cutter -- Choose one --

Disrupter -- Choose one --

Other -- Choose one --

If you checked "Other" above, (please specify what container you used here): 

Part K. Laboratory Research Needs (Check an answer only on those questions which apply to you) 

90) What major breakthrough in the area of ignitable liquid or explosives analysis would have the most impact on the area of 

forensic science? (Think big the sky is the limit) 

91) Rank the following research areas in terms of how likely you believe they will have a significant impact on ignitable liquid or 

explosive analysis? (1-7 where: 1 = not likely, 3 is possible, 5 is probable, and 7 is extremely likely) 

New Analytical Methods -- Choose one --

New and Improved Databases -- Choose one --

New Data Analysis Methodology -- Choose one --

New Standards -- Choose one --

Sample archiving practice/method -- Choose one --

92) Is additional research required in the area of explosives disposal/disruption? 

Yes 

No 

93) In your opinion, which of the following issues would provide the most significant improvement on the efficiency of useful 

sample collection at the fire and explosive scenes? (please select only one) 

-- Choose one --

94) Please rank the importance of an analyst's knowledge of the fate and transport of explosives in the environment as related 

to forensic casework? (1-7 where: 1 is not at all, 3 is fairly important, 5 is very important, 7 is urgent) 

-- Choose one --
 

 

 

 

 

95) How important is it to push for lower detection limits in the laboratory analysis of explosives? (1-7 where: 1 is not at all, 3 

is fairly important, 5 is very important, 7 is urgent) 

-- Choose one --

96) In fifteen words or fewer, what is the biggest challenge that you face as a fire or explosion analyst? 

97) What area(s) of your investigation analysis is(are) most frequently challenged in court? List up to 3 please. 

Area 1 

Area 2 

Area 3 

98) How significant are the Daubert/Frye standards when it comes to introducing a new methodology into your laboratory 

practice, and if this is an issue, can you suggest a method for overcoming the challenge? (1-7 where: 1 is not at all, 3 is 

fairly important, 5 is very important, 7 is urgent) 

-- Choose one --

99) Would a "new practices" review panel comprised of academic and practicing forensic chemists facilitate the implementation 

of new methodologies and their importance in court? (Yes, No, Possibly) 

-- Choose one --

100) Are you or the analysts in your laboratory interested in collaborating with university researchers to provide an avenue for 

implementing new analytical and field methodologies? (Yes, No, Possibly) 

-- Choose one --
 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes 

Bar Graph Confidence Intervals: 

The bar graphs presented in the Results Analysis section include 95% confidence intervals to illustrate the degree of precision 

available in your results. For example, in the following graph 54.2% (160/295) of the respondents indicated they will vote 

Democrat vs. 45.8% (135/295) Republican. 

However, because the survey is based on the results of only 295 respondents, the actual percent of people who will vote Democrat 

could be somewhat higher or lower than 54.2%. Confidence intervals tell you how much higher or lower the percent could be. The 

I-bar show and the tip of each bar illustrates the spread between the lowest and highest value you are likely to see if you were to 

survey the entire population. In the example above, you can be 95% certain that the actual percent of people who will vote 

Democrat will be between 48% and 60%. Furthermore, somewhere between 40% and 52% of people will vote Republican. As you 

increase the number of respondents the range of uncertainty shrinks. 

Confidence: 

Each bar graph group is followed by the text "Confidence:" and a percentage. This number is the largest confidence interval found 

on any of the bars in the group and can be used as a summary measure of precision. The more precise, non-symmetrical 

confidence intervals are illustrated separately on each bar. 

Average Score: 

Some bar graph groups are followed by the text "Average Score:" and a number that represents the weighted average of all 

options chosen by the respondents. For example, if you asked respondents to rate their satisfaction on a scale including Very 

satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, and Very dissatisfied and half responded Very satisfied and half responded Satisfied, the 

average score would be 1.5--half chose the first option (score=1) and half chose the second option (score=2), so the average 

score is 1.5. 

Correlation: 

The answers to two questions are correlated when they tend to move together. For example, if you ask respondents to rate their 

overall satisfaction with your company and also ask if they are likely to purchase from your company again, the answers to these 

questions will probably show a strong correlation. That is, when satisfaction is high, the likelihood of repeat purchase is high. This 

is a positive correlation. Some question pairs have negative correlation. For example, the time a person spends on hold when 

calling for support usually has a negative correlation with overall satisfaction. Correlation is presented as a number from -1 to 1 

where -1 is perfect negative correlation, 0 is no correlation, and 1 is perfect positive correlation. 

When a statistically significant correlation between the answers of any two questions is found the report will include a note 

highlighting the correlation. This information can be used to gain insight into what factors drive key measures such as overall 

satisfaction.