SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Lu Y, Chen P, Harrington PB. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2009; 394(8): 2061-2067.

Affiliation

Clippinger Laboratories, Center for Intelligent Chemical Instrumentation, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, OHIO University, Athens, OH 45701-2979, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s00216-009-2786-9

PMID

19396432

Abstract

The significance of forensic arson analysis accelerates the applications of new technologies in this area. Based on the previously reported application of differential mobility spectrometry (DMS) as a detection method for gas chromatography (GC) in arson analysis, the performances of DMS and mass spectrometry (MS) were compared using a novel chemometric tool, projected difference resolutions (PDRs). The PDR results show that one-way mass spectra data exhibit higher resolution than DMS data, while total ion chromatograms from GC-DMS show higher resolution than that from GC/MS for differentiating seven kinds of ignitable liquids. Combining the information from both chromatography and spectra, two-way data always have higher resolution than one-way data for these two detection methods, and GC/MS would exhibit better performance than GC-DMS according to the minimum resolution value. To verify the PDR results, a fuzzy rule-building expert system was applied for classifying these seven kinds of ignitable liquids from fire debris based on GC-DMS and GC/MS data, respectively. The prediction accuracies were consistent with PDR results, which proved that PDR is a powerful tool in comparing the performances of different analysis methods for pattern recognition.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print