Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41790175›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026

Residual DNA and cleaning protocols: a comparative analysis of forensic evidence examination methods.

Katherine O'Connor, Kiran Paul

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katherine O'ConnorChemistry Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA. Katherine.a.oconnor@hofstra.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9075-2944
Kiran PaulChemistry Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess how effective commonly used cleaning protocols are in removing residual DNA from forensic evidence examination tools, thereby evaluating their ability to prevent contamination. The research question focused on whether standard cleaning techniques reliably remove residual DNA to mitigate contamination risks in forensic casework. Simulated forensic evidence samples—including bloodstains, buccal swabs, clothing, and bench surfaces—were processed using scissors, tweezers, and scalpels. After initial conservative cleaning, the tools were subjected to five experimental cleaning techniques derived from publicly available laboratory protocols. Each technique varied in terms of bleach concentration, ethanol use, and contact time, and all the techniques lacked an abrasive wiping motion. Swabs collected post-cleaning were subjected to DNA extraction (QIAamp® DNA Investigator Kit) and quantitation (Qubit™ 4 Fluorometer). Residual DNA was classified as positive (> 2.5 pg/µL), near negative, or negative (< 0.2 pg/µL). All the techniques resulted in detectable DNA in at least one trial. Among the 60 swabs, 11 were classified as positive for residual DNA, and 10 were classified as near negative for residual DNA. Only one technique incorporated a waiting period before removing bleach, and this was the only method that had no samples classified as positive for residual DNA. No tool type demonstrated lower contamination risk, and variability was observed across trials. Current single-phase cleaning solution-only cleaning practices may be insufficient for complete DNA removal. These findings underscore the need for standardized, multistep cleaning protocols, enhanced analyst training, and quality control measures to minimize contamination risk in casework.

Indexed as

BleachCleaning techniquesContaminationDNA extractionForensic DNA

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.