Volume 56, Issue 1 pp. 82-94

Analysis and Discrimination of Electrical Tapes: Part I. Adhesives* ,†

Andria H. Mehltretter M.S.

Andria H. Mehltretter M.S.

1 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135.

Search for more papers by this author
Maureen J. Bradley Ph.D.

Maureen J. Bradley Ph.D.

1 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135.

Search for more papers by this author
Diana M. Wright Ph.D.

Diana M. Wright Ph.D.

1 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 30 September 2010
Citations: 32
Additional information and reprint requests:
Andria H. Mehltretter, M.S.
Forensic Examiner/Chemist
Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Division
2501 Investigation Parkway, Room 4220
Quantico, VA 22135
E-mail: [email protected]

Presented in part at the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 18–23, 2008, in Washington, DC.

This is the FBI Laboratory Division’s publication number 09-06. Names of commercial manufacturers are provided for identification only, and inclusion does not imply endorsement of the manufacturer, or its products or services by the FBI. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the FBI or the U.S. Government.

Abstract

Abstract: This study involved the comparative analysis and discrimination of 90 electrical tape adhesives. The objectives included the evaluation of the ability of individual techniques to discriminate samples and the assessment of the ability of the techniques combined to distinguish samples. The techniques utilized were stereomicroscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS), and scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS). Stereomicroscopy, to assess adhesive colors of black, clear/colorless, and clear adhesives with brown tint, resulted in a discrimination of 53%. FTIR analysis yielded eight distinct groups with a discrimination of 67%. Py-GC/MS analysis resulted in 16 groups with a discrimination of 83%. These analyses confirmed and further subdivided the FTIR groups. SEM/EDS resulted in five separate groups at 17% discrimination, increasing the overall discrimination to above 85%.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.