Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Fire Cartridge”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

Recovery of DNA from fired and unfired cartridge casings: comparison of two DNA collection methods

For over 10 years, various studies have attempted to increase the recovery of DNA from ammunition by modifying the DNA collection, extraction, purification, and amplification procedures, with varying levels of success. This study focused on the “soaking” method of Montpetit & O’Donnell [1] and the “rinse-and-swab" method of Bille et al. [2]. First, testing for the presence of exogenous DNA, 210 boxed cartridges (brass, steel, and nickel-plated) from nine manufacturers were swabbed and DNA was extracted, concentrated, and quantified. Extracts that quantified > 0 ng/µL (44 of 210) were amplified and genotyped with GlobalFiler™. Of those, only one extract yielded two alleles indicating that the manufacturing and packaging of ammunition was virtually DNA free. Next, to obtain a baseline comparison of two DNA collection methods on a non-metallic substrate and identify a suitable number of cells to spot on cartridges, different DNA input amounts of primary human adult epidermal keratinocytes (HEKa) were tested. Thereafter, 300 brass and 300 nickel-plated, cartridges were spotted with HEKa cells containing ~5 ng of DNA, fired or unfired, and processed with either method. Finally, five methods representing hybrids of the soaking and rinse-and-swab methods were tested to determine if variations of those methods could be used to increase DNA yield and recovery. The results show that the soaking method consistently yielded more DNA than the rinse-and-swab method from a non-metallic substrate. However, the comparison study demonstrated that both methods performed comparably for cartridges. On average, the soaking method recovered 0.25 ng of DNA (5.1% recovery) and the rinse-and-swab method recovered 0.28 ng (5.8% recovery). However, average recoveries were significantly different among three analysts and considerable variation in yields were observed, possibly due to storage time. Furthermore, consistent with prior reports, the DNA recovered from brass casings was only 16% of that recovered from nickel-plated casings and the average yield of DNA from fired casings was reduced to 67% of unfired casings. Moreover, DNA extracts from brass or nickel-plated casings did not appear to contain amplification inhibitors and only 30/596 appeared severely degraded. Finally, both the published rinse-and-swab and soaking methods yielded more DNA than all modifications of the two methods. Overall, both methods yielded equivalent DNA quantities. Additionally, recovery of DNA from any given cartridge casing may be dependent on storage time as well as the skill, proficiency, and experience of the analyst and may reflect stochastic effects, particularly for casings containing low copy and/or degraded DNA.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 1: Examiner error rates

This report describes a study undertaken to estimate examiner (not laboratory) error rates for false Identifications and false Eliminations when comparing an unknown to a collection of three known cartridge cases. Volunteer active examiners with Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) membership or working in laboratories that participate in the Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. In addition to determining whether the known and questioned cartridge cases were fired with the same handgun, examiners were also asked to assess how many of the three knowns in each set were suitable for comparison, providing an estimated rate of how often each firearm used in the study produces useable, quality marks. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false Eliminations was estimated as 0.367% from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as Eliminations. The overall rate of false Identifications was estimated as 1.01% from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as Identifications. The rates are not uniform across the sample population with a few examiners providing most of the false Identification responses. Rates of poor-quality mark production varied across the 25 sample handguns; those rates were 2.3% (±1.4%). Both false Elimination and false Identification rates are comparable to or lower than the rate of production of poor-quality marks by the firearms used in this study.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 2: Examiner use of the AFTE range of conclusions

Here, this report describes an analysis of how examiners used the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Range of Conclusions in a controlled study undertaken to estimate examiner error rates in comparing cartridge cases. Results of the error rate analysis are reported in [1]; this paper focuses on a broader analysis of how the entire collection of classification categories, especially those in the Inconclusive range, were used by the participating examiners. Volunteer active examiners with AFTE membership or working in laboratories that participate in Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false-negatives was estimated as 0.367 % from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as eliminations. The overall rate of false-positives was estimated as 1.01 % from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as identifications. In the case of true different-source examinations, it is clear that the three Inconclusive categories and the Elimination category are not used consistently by all examiners. We identify five different apparent patterns of use of the AFTE Range of Conclusions scale, and discuss possible reasons for and implications of these differences.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Planning, design and logistics of a decision analysis study: The FBI/Ames study involving forensic firearms examiners

This paper describes design and logistical aspects of a decision analysis study to assess the performance of qualified firearms examiners working in accredited laboratories in the United States in terms of accuracy (error rate), repeatability, and reproducibility of decisions involving comparisons of fired bullets and cartridge cases. The purpose of the study was to validate current practice of the forensic discipline of firearms/toolmarks (F/T) examination. It elicited error rate data by counting the number of false positive and false negative conclusions. Preceded by the experimental design, decisions, and logistics described herein, testing was ultimately administered 173 qualified, practicing F/T examiners in public and private crime laboratories. The first round of testing evaluated accuracy, while two subsequent rounds evaluated repeatability and reproducibility of examiner conclusions. This project expands on previous studies by involving many F/T examiners in challenging comparisons and by executing the study in the recommended double-blind format.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗