Highlights
- •The quantity of DNA deposited on routine household items spans a broad range.
- •The habitual user’s DNA was detected on most items as the major donor
- •A one-time user’s DNA was detected on fewer items, typically at lower quantities
- •Most items also had low level DNA deposits from at least one unknown individual.
- •Cleaning non-porous items with household cleaners is only partially effective
Abstract
Empirical data obtained from controlled experiments is necessary to ensure that sound
expert opinion evidence is provided regarding transfer and persistence of DNA in criminal
proceedings. Knowledge in this area is also required at the outset of criminal investigations,
to ensure that the proposed examinations can assist with answering questions that
are relevant to forensic investigations. This study aimed to provide such data by
examining the relative and absolute quantities of DNA deposited on items that are
routinely submitted to the forensic laboratory by a habitual user, defined as someone
who used it for ~1 week, and a subsequent one-time user. We found that the quantity
of DNA deposited on routine household items spanned a broad range. The habitual user’s
DNA was detected on most items as the major donor, regardless of whether it was subsequently
handled by another person for a short period of time. The one-time, short duration,
user’s DNA was detected on approximately two thirds of the items, albeit typically
at quantities lower than the habitual user. Most of the household items we examined
also had detectable DNA deposits from at least one other, unknown individual, typically
in low quantities. Attempts to clean non-porous items with readily available household
cleaners were partially effective but failed to completely eliminate detectable DNA
from a habitual user in most cases.
Abbreviations:
LR (Likelihood Ratio), POI (Person of Interest), AO (Alternate Offender), ALH (Automated Liquid Handler), PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Forensic Science International: GeneticsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Analysis of DNA transfer to firearms considering relevant alternative handling scenarios.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2019; 7: 433-435
- Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: a review.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2018; 36: 34-49
- DNA transfer in forensic science: a review.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2019; 38: 140-166
- Helping to distinguish primary from secondary transfer events for trace DNA.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 28: 155-177
- Considering DNA transfer issues in a retrospective analysis of forensic examinations.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2019; 7: 853-855
- DNA transfer: review and implications for casework.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2013; 7: 434-443
- On DNA transfer: the lack and difficulty of systematic research and how to do it better.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2019; 40: 24-36
- Trace DNA: a review, discussion of theory, and application of the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact.J. Forensic Sci. 2002; 47
- Prevalence of human cell material: DNA and RNA profiling of public and private objects and after activity scenarios.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 21: 81-89
- Cell free DNA as a component of forensic evidence recovered from touched surfaces.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2012; 6: 26-30
- The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces.Forensic Sci. Int. 2002; 129: 25-34
- Trace DNA evidence dynamics: An investigation into the deposition and persistence of directly- and indirectly-transferred DNA on regularly-used knives.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 29: 38-47
- Shedder status—An analysis of self and non-self DNA in multiple handprints deposited by the same individuals over time.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 23: 190-196
- Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – a review.Sci. Justice. 2020; 60: 206-215
- Shedding light on shedders.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2018; 36: 20-25
- Assessment of the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA traces from clothing: an inter-laboratory study on worn upper garments.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2019; 42: 56-68
- Shedding light on the relative DNA contribution of two persons handling the same object.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 24: 148-157
- Assessment of individual shedder status and implication for secondary DNA transfer.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2008; 1: 415-417
- Transfer and persistence of non-self DNA on hands over time_ Using empirical data to evaluate DNA evidence given activity level propositions.Forensic Sci. Int. 2018; : 14
- Transfer and persistence of DNA on the hands and the influence of activities performed.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 28: 10-20
- The implications of shedder status and background DNA on direct and secondary transfer in an attack scenario.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 29: 48-60
- Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2010; 4: 62-67
- Touch DNA: the effect of the deposition pressure on the quality of latent fingermarks and STR profiles.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2019; 38: 105-112
- Sharing data on DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery: arguments for harmonization and standardization.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2018; 37: 260-269
- Investigation of secondary DNA transfer of skin cells under controlled test conditions.Leg. Med. 2010; 12: 117-120
- The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting.Leg. Med. 2015; 17: 82-91
- Probability of detection of DNA deposited by habitual wearer and/or the second individual who touched the garment.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 20: 53-60
- Persistence and secondary transfer of DNA from previous users of equipment.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2015; 5: e191-e192
- Opportunistic crimes: evaluation of DNA from regularly-used knives after a brief use by a different person.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2019; 42: 135-140
- Prevalence of DNA from the driver, passengers and others within a car of an exclusive driver.Forensic Sci. Int. 2020; 307110139
- Study of criteria influencing the success rate of DNA swabs in operational conditions: a contribution to an evidence-based approach to crime scene investigation and triage.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 20: 130-139
- Persistence of DNA deposited by the original user on objects after subsequent use by a second person.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2014; 8: 219-225
- The effect of pressure on DNA deposition by touch.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2017; 6: e12-e14
- Persistence of touch DNA on burglary-related tools.Int. J. Leg. Med. 2017; 131: 941-953
- The origin of unknown source DNA from touched objects.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 25: 26-33
- Trace DNA and street robbery: a criminalistic approach to DNA evidence.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2009; 2: 544-546
- The effect of surface type, collection and extraction methods on touch DNA.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2019; 7: 704-706
- A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2018; 33: 136-146
- The importance of considering common sources of unknown DNA when evaluating findings given activity level propositions.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2021; 53102518
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 09, 2022
Accepted:
June 6,
2022
Received in revised form:
May 19,
2022
Received:
January 12,
2022
Identification
Copyright
Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
