Recovery of DNA from Exhibits Contaminated with Chemical Warfare Agents: A Preliminary Study of the Effect of Decontamination Agents and Chemical Warfare Agents on DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bloodstains were exposed to chemical warfare agents and then to decontamination agents to evaluate the effect on DNA extraction and profiling for human identification. DNA profiles were not obtained from blood dilution samples exposed to the decontamination agents CASCAD® and the American equivalent, MDF LSA-100, even when quantifiable DNA was extracted. Fresh and aged bloodstains were exposed to nine chemical warfare agents: hydrogen cyanide, phosgene, chlorine, dimethyl sulfate, sodium fluoroacetate, diazinon®, sulfur mustard, lewisite I, and sarin in gaseous and/or liquid form. In general, following exposure to chemical warfare agents, most bloodstains gave lower concentrations of DNA relative to controls. Full DNA profiles were obtained from bloodstains exposed to sarin, diazinon®, sodium fluoroacetate, and hydrogen cyanide. During exposure to chlorine, phosgene, lewisite I, and dimethyl sulfate, the bloodstains changed colour from red to brown. These four chemical warfare agents were shown to inhibit the recovery of DNA. Although samples exposed to sulfur mustard did not exhibit any colour changes, recovery of DNA was inhibited in some samples exposed to sulfur mustard.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".