A study of common interferences with the forensic luminol test for blood

Abstract

A wide range of domestic and industrial substances that might be mistaken for haemoglobin in the forensic luminol test for blood were examined. The substances studied were in the categories of vegetable or fruit pulps and juices; domestic and commercial oils; cleaning agents; an insecticide; and various glues, paints and varnishes. A significant number of substances in each category gave luminescence intensities that were comparable with the intensities of undiluted haemoglobin, when sprayed with the standard forensic solution containing aqueous alkaline luminol and sodium perborate. In these cases the substance could be easily mistaken for blood when the luminol test is used, but in the remaining cases the luminescence intensity was so weak that it is unlikely that a false-positive test would be obtained. In a few cases the brightly emitting substance could be distinguished from blood by a small but detectable shift of the peak emission wavelength. The results indicated that particular care should be taken to avoid interferences when a crime scene is contaminated with parsnip, turnip or horseradish, and when surfaces coated with enamel paint are involved. To a lesser extent, some care should be taken when surfaces covered with terracotta or ceramic tiles, polyurethane varnishes or jute and sisal matting are involved.

A comprehensive experimental study of industrial, domestic and environmental interferences with the forensic luminol test for blood

“…The resultant output was passed through an inverting operational amplifier and was displayed as a scan on a computer monitor. Table 2 (and the accompanying footnotes) presents all of the results obtained in the present study and, for completeness, a small set of results transferred from a previous publication (2). The selection of the various categories in Table 2 was carried out with some thought for the lifestyles in modern society, and the interaction of these lifestyles with typical crime scenes.…”

“…The testing procedure was the same as described by Quickenden and Cooper (1), and Quickenden and Creamer (2). All samples were mounted the same distance away from the photomultiplier tube, and the photomultiplier had the same area of view at all times.…”

The forensic use of luminol chemiluminescence to detect traces of blood inside motor vehicles

“…The testing procedure was the same as described by Quickenden and Cooper (9) and Quickenden and Creamer (10). Each sample was mounted and sprayed with standard luminol solution within the light-tight compartment, and any resultant chemiluminescence was passed through a calibrated circular graded interference filter (Barr and Stroud CGS2), which monochromated the emitted light, which was then detected by the photomultiplier tube (EMI 9635 QAM).…”

Postmortem interval of skeletal remains through the detection of intraosseal hemin traces. A comparison of UV-fluorescence, luminol, Hexagon-OBTI®, and Combur® tests

“…As mentioned by other authors, a wide range of environmental and manmade substances and diagenetic processes between bone and soil during the burial period may -at least in some cases -mimic positive chemiluminescence even when no hemoglobin remains are present [16][17][18].…”