Preview

Industrial laboratory. Diagnostics of materials

Advanced search

Evaluation of the reliability of the qualitative forensic method "Microscopic examination of textile fibers"

https://doi.org/10.26896/1028-6861-2022-88-12-21-27

Abstract

Methods of qualitative analysis are widely used in various spheres of public activity, including forensic examination. Making the right decisions based on the results of qualitative analysis, necessitates confirmation of the reliability (uncertainty) of the methods which can be provided by the validation procedure. However, the issues related to the validation of qualitative forensic methods are debatable in the absence general regulatory requirements for qualitative analysis methods. We consider a validation procedure of the qualitative forensic technique “Microscopic examination of textile fibers,” which consists in determining a complex of characteristic external features of natural and chemical textile fibers (color, color features, morphological features) using a microscope, as well as thickness and presence/absence of a matting agent for chemical fibers. These generic characteristics are used to differentiate the fibers under study in the forensic examination of fibrous materials. The reliability of the methodology and the competence of the performers were selected as validation parameters. The parameters were determined numerically by the likelihood ratio and by the values of the share of false and correct results in the total number of tests. Ten samples of natural and chemical textile fibers from the comparative collection of the Laboratory of forensic examination of fibrous materials of the RFCSE were used for validation. Three experts participated in the experiment independently identified the presence/absence of ten external signs in each of ten samples during a week. Each expert tested a set of one hundred different external features, 39 of them were present in the samples, and 61 were absent. When comparing the test results obtained by the expert with the corresponding regulated (known) external features, a conclusion was made about the level of true or false result for each sample. A low (1.7%) level of false results was revealed in relation to the total number of tests, as well as a low (2.6%) level of false results for each of the experts indicated the reliability of the methodology and competence of the experts. The calculation of the likelihood ratio (LR) showed that the probability of true results in the assessment of a set of features is about 60 times (significantly more than one) higher than the probability of false results, which also indicates the reliability of the technique. The results of the validation experiment allowed us to conclude that the method is suitable for use in solving expert problems in the forensic examination of fibrous materials.

About the Authors

G. I. Bebeshko
Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (RFCFS)
Russian Federation

Galina I. Bebeshko.

13-2, Khokhlovsky per., Moscow, 109028



A. I. Usov
Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (RFCFS); Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Russian Federation

Aleksandr I. Usov.

13-2, Khokhlovsky per., Moscow, 109028; 5-1, 2ya Baumanskaya aul., Moscow, 105055



G. G. Omel’yanyuk
Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (RFCFS); Bauman Moscow State Technical University; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
Russian Federation

Georgii G. Omel’yanyuk.

13-2, Khokhlovsky per., Moscow, 109028; 5-1, 2ya Baumanskaya aul., Moscow, 105055; 6, Miklukho-Maklaya ul., Moscow, 117198



I. R. Lyubetskaya
Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (RFCFS)
Russian Federation

Irina R. Lyubetskaya.

13-2, Khokhlovsky per., Moscow, 109028



References

1. GOST R ISO 5725-2002. Accuracy (truness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1-6. — Moscow: IPK Izd. standartov, 2002 [in Russian].

2. RMG-61-2010. Accuracy, trueness and precision measures of the procedures for quantitative chemical analysis. Methods of evaluation. — Moscow: Standartinform, 2013. — 59 p. [in Russian].

3. GOST ISO/IEC 17025-2019. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. — Moscow: Standartinform, 2021. — 26 p. [in Russian].

4. GOST R 8.563-2009. The state system of ensuring the uniformity of measurements. Measurement techniques (methods). — Moscow: Standartinform, 2019. — 16 p. [in Russian].

5. Zolotov Yu. A., Ivanov V. M., Amelin V. G. Chemical test methods of analysis. — Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2002. — 304 p. [in Russian].

6. Ostrovskaya V M., Zaporozhets O. A., Budnikov G. K., Chernavskaya N. M. Water. Indicator systems. — Moscow: FGUP VTII, 2002. — 266 p. [in Russian].

7. Vershinin V I. Methodology of computer-assisted identification of substances using information retrieval systems / Zh. Anal. Khimii. 2000. Vol. 55. N 5. P. 468 - 475 [in Russian]. DOI: 10.1007/BF02757475

8. Mil’man B. L. Introduction to forensic identification. — St. Petersburg: WM, 2008. — 179 p. [in Russian].

9. Milman B. L. Identification of chemical compounds / TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2005. Vol. 24. N 6. P. 493 - 508. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2005.03.013

10. Mil’man B. L., Konopel’ko L. A. Uncertainty of qualitative chemical analysis: General Methodology and binary test methods /J. Anal. Chem. 2004. Vol. 59. N 12. P. 1128 - 1141. DOI: 10.1023/B:JANC.0000049712.88066.e7

11. Vershinin V. I. A priori method of evaluating uncertainties in qualitative chromatographic analysis: (probabilistic approach) / Accredit. Quality Assur. 2004. Vol. 9. N 7. P. 415 - 418. DOI: 10.1007/s00769-004-0815-0

12. Panteleimonov A. V., Nikitina N. A., Reshetnyak E. A., et al. Binary response procedures of qualitative analysis: methodological characteristics and calculation aspects / Metod. Ob”ekty Khim. Analiza. 2008. Vol. 3. N 2. P. 128 - 146 [in Russian].

13. Ellison S. L. R., Fearn T. Characterizing the performance of qualitative analytical methods: Statistics and terminology / TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2005. Vol. 19. N 6. P. 468 - 476. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2005.03.007

14. Rios A., Telles H. Reliability of binary analytical response / TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2005. Vol. 24. N10. P. 509 - 515. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2005.03.012

15. Trullols E., Ruisacliez I., Rius F. X., Huguet J. Validation of qualitative methods of analysis that use control samples / TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2004. Vol. 23. N 2. P 137 - 145. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2005.03.007

16. Pulido A., Ruisanchez I., Boque R., Rius F. X. Uncertainty of results in routine qualitative analysis / Trends Anal. Chem. 2003. Vol. 22. N 10. P. 647 - 654. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-9936(03)01104-X

17. Pulido A., Ruisanchez I., Boque R., Rius F. X. Estimating the uncertainty of binary test results to assess their compliance with regulatory limits / Anal. Chim. Acta. 2002. Vol. 455. N 2. P. 267 - 275. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2670(01)01604-X

18. Macarthur R., von Holst C. A protocol for the validation of qualitative methods of detection / Anal. Methods. 2012. Vol. 4. P. 2744-2754. DOI: 10.1039/c2ay05719k

19. Smirnova S. A., Bebeshko G. I., Lyubetskaya I. P., et al. Probability-Based Validation of the Forensic Method “Microscopic Analysis of Textile Fibers” / Teor. Prakt. Sud. Ekspert. 2019. Vol. 14. N 2. P. 92 - 99 [in Russian]. DOI: 10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-2-92-99

20. Bebeshko G. I., Lyubetskaya I. P., Omel’yanyuk G. G., Usov A. I. Methodological Approaches to Calculating Key Validation Parameters of Forensic Methods / Inorg. Mater. 2021. Vol. 57. N 14. P. 1385 - 1392. DOI: 10.1134/S0020168521140028

21. Smith A. M., Neal T. M. S. The distinction between discriminability and reliability in forensic science / Sci. Justice. 2021. Vol. 61. P. 319 - 331. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2021.04.002

22. EUACHEM/CITAC Guide. Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, http://eurachem2011.fc.ul.pt/pdf/QUAM2011_DISl.pdf (accessed September 28,2022).

23. International vocabulary of metrology. — St. Petersburg: NPO “Professional”, 2010. — 82 p. [in Russian].

24. Puchkov V. A. The main physical and mechanical properties of fibers (technological characteristics) I Forensic analysis of fibers and products from fibers. Issue 2. Textile fibers examination: Handbook for experts. — Moscow: VNIISE, 1983. P. 182 - 202 [in Russian].

25. Puchkov V. A. The system of research methods for textile fibers in forensic expertise / Forensic analysis of fibers and products from fibers. Issue 2. Textile fibers examination: Handbook for experts. — Moscow: VNIISE, 1983. P. 203 - 225 [in Russian].

26. Puchkov V. A., Sergaeva G. A. Expert examination of natural fibers / Forensic analysis of fibers and products from fibers. Issue 2. Textile fibers examination: Handbook for experts. — Moscow: VNIISE, 1983. P. 226 - 260 [in Russian].

27. Puchkov V. A., Chernov V. P. Expert examinationof chemical fibers / Forensic analysis of fibers and products from fibers. Issue 2. Textile fibers examination: Handbook for experts. — Moscow: VNIISE, 1983. P. 260 - 306 [in Russian].

28. Faber N. M., Boque R., Rius F. X. On the calculation of decision limits in doping control / Accredit. Quality Assur. 2006. Vol. 11. N 10. P. 536 - 538. DOI: 10.1007/s00769-006-0196-7

29. Reshetnyak E. A., Nikitina N. A., Kholin Yu. V., et al. On reliable assessment of metrological characteristics of test analysis / Vestn. Kharkov. Univ. Khimiya. 2003. Issue 10 (33). N 596. P. 90 - 98 [in Russian].


Review

For citations:


Bebeshko G.I., Usov A.I., Omel’yanyuk G.G., Lyubetskaya I.R. Evaluation of the reliability of the qualitative forensic method "Microscopic examination of textile fibers". Industrial laboratory. Diagnostics of materials. 2022;88(12):21-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26896/1028-6861-2022-88-12-21-27

Views: 242


ISSN 1028-6861 (Print)
ISSN 2588-0187 (Online)