ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
A swab and wetting agent combination investigation for enhanced touch DNA recovery: A step towards standardisation.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Swabs are commonly used in forensic contexts to recover biological material from surfaces. Previous investigations have shown that there is no single best swab and wetting agent combination for DNA recovery. Touch DNA is often present in low quality and quantity, and the recovery and processing methods used during casework can result in DNA loss, therefore even small improvements in recovery could influence successful detection. Therefore, a DNA recovery method tailored for a touch DNA workflow is fundamental to effective forensic casework. In this study, combinations of five swabs (viscose, cotton, nylon, foam and polyester) and three wetting agents (water, 100% isopropanol (IPA) and 2% sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS)) were used to collect samples of synthetically and naturally derived touch DNA from a polypropylene surface. Surfaces were swabbed using a single systematic swabbing method and extracted using the DNA IQ™ system. Interactions between the swabs and wetting agents had the greatest effect on DNA recovery, and polyester swabs moistened with SDS were among the combinations with the highest DNA yield under these experimental conditions. The worst-performing swabs differed by DNA type sampled. Polyester, viscose and cotton swabs moistened with water were amongst the combinations yielding the lowest DNA recovery for the synthetic touch deposits, whereas foam and nylon swabs moistened with IPA had the lowest yield for natural touch deposits. This research aims to contribute towards the development of a standardised touch DNA recovery method applicable to the sampling of polypropylene surfaces and other relevant touch DNA collection related objectives, such as investigations into DNA transfer and shedder testing.
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.