ReviewAnalytical science advances2025
A Review of Analytical and Chemometric Strategies for Forensic Classification of Homemade Explosives.
Review in Analytical science advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Collision-Induced Gas-Phase Reactions of PFB-TMS Derivatives of FMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Detection and characterization of explosives and explosives residues: a review 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Review
- Forensic classification of gunpowder and fireworks powders by ATR-FT-IR spectroscopy and chemometric modelling.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Homemade explosives (HMEs), commonly used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs), present a significant forensic challenge due to their chemical variability, accessibility and adaptability. Traditional forensic methodologies often struggle with environmental contamination, complex sample matrices and the non-specificity of precursor residues. Recent advances in analytical techniques and chemometric methods have enhanced the detection, classification and interpretation of explosive residues. Infrared (IR) spectroscopy and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) have seen improvements in spectral resolution and real-time detection capabilities, allowing for more accurate differentiation of explosive precursors. Thermal analysis techniques, such as thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), now provide refined kinetic modelling to assess the decomposition pathways of unstable energetic materials, improving forensic risk assessments. Additionally, x-ray diffraction (XRD) has contributed to forensic material sourcing by distinguishing between industrial-grade and improvised explosive formulations. Chemometric approaches, including principal component analysis (PCA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), have revolutionized forensic data analysis by improving classification accuracy and enabling automated identification of explosive components. Advanced machine learning models are being integrated with spectral datasets to enhance real-time decision-making in forensic laboratories and portable field devices. Despite these advancements, challenges remain in adapting laboratory-based techniques for field deployment, particularly in enhancing the sensitivity and robustness of portable analytical instruments. This review critically evaluates the latest developments in forensic analytical chemistry, highlighting strengths, limitations and emerging strategies to improve real-world HME detection and classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.