Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	Research	Needs Assessment Form

Title	of	research	need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date	Approved:

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

Background	information:

1.	 Description	of	research	need:

2.	Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

3a.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

Evaluation	of	extraction	efficiency	of	current	adsorption	methods	used	for	the	recovery	of	ignitable	liquids	from	fire	

debris	samples.		This	will	include the	calculation	of	real	extraction	efficiencies	for	a	variety	of	ignitable	liquid	residues	

using	different	adsorbents	(e.g.	activated	charcoal and	Tenax)	and	different	eluting	solvent(s).

1.	Massey,	D,	E	Du	Pasquier,	and	C	Lennard.	“Solvent	Desorption	of	Charcoal	Strips	(DFLEX)	in	the	Analysis	of	Fire	Debris	Samples:	Replacement	of	

Carbon	Disulfide.”	Canadian	Society	of	Forensic	Science	Journal	35,	no.	4	(2002):	195–207. 1.

2.	Lentini,	JJ,	and	AT	Armstrong.	“Comparison	of	the	Eluting	Efficiency	of	Carbon	Disulfide	with	Diethyl	Ether:	The	Case	for	Laboratory	Safety.”	Journal	of	

Forensic	Sciences	42,	no.	2	(1997):	307–11.

3.	Newman	R,	Lothridge	K.	The	effects	of	time,	temperature,	strip	size	and	concentration	in	the	use	of	activated	charcoal	strips	in	fire	debris	analysis.	In:	

Current	Topics	in	Forensic	Science.	Tokyo,	Japan: Shunderson	Communications;	1996.	p.	218–24.

Laboratories	will	be	able	to	use	methods	with	demonstrated	extraction	efficiencies	and	avoid	those	

methods	with	less	than	ideal	extraction	efficiencies.		

Evaluation	and	comparison	of	different	adsorption/elution	methodology

Ignitable	liquid,	adsorbent,	activated	carbon,	Tenax,	SPME,	headspace	extraction

Fire	Debris	and	Explosives 					28JAN16
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

3b.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

3c.		In what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

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

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

informational	resource	to	the	community.

Major gap	

in	current	

knowledge

Minor gap	

in	current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	

conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

While	some	qualitative	work	has	been	done	to	explore	the	elution	efficiency	of	some	solvents,	the	

extraction	efficiencies	of	different	adsorbents	and	eluting	solvents	have	not	been	calculated.		This	

gap	in	knowledge	means	that	the	relative	efficacy	has	not	been	quantitated for the	popular	ASTM	

methods	for	fire	debris	extraction.		

If	certain	adsorption/elution	methods	are	found	to	give	superior	extraction	efficiencies	compared	

with	other	methods,	greater	standardization	of	fire	debris	methods	will	occur	as	laboratories	

choose	to	use	the	method(s)	with	greater	extraction	efficiency.

							I
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

// Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.		Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need?				Yes 							No		⃝		

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status assessment?				Yes										No		⃝

If	no,	what	is	the	status assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)

Subcommittee February	10,	2016

SAC