Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220

214
Published ORIGINAL
online 27 AprilRESEARCH J. L. Webb, ORIGINAL
2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bio.908 J. I. Creamer andRESEARCH
T. I. Quickenden

A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood

with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques

Joanne L. Webb,1,2 Jonathan I. Creamer1,3* and Terence I. Quickenden1#

1
Chemistry M313, School of Biomedical and Chemical Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA
6009, Australia
2
Forensic Science Unit, Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1
1XW, UK
3
Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia

Received 17 November 2005; revised 19 January 2006; accepted 20 January 2006

ABSTRACT: Presumptive blood detection tests are used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood or to investigate
suspicious stains. Through the years, a number of articles have been published on the popular techniques of the day. However,
there is no single paper that critiques and compares the five most common presumptive blood detection tests currently in use:
luminol, phenolphthalein (Kastle–Meyer), leucomalachite green, Hemastix® and the forensic light source. The present authors
aimed to compare the above techniques with regard to their sensitivity, ease of use and safety. The luminol test was determined to
be the most sensitive of the techniques, while Hemastix® is a suitable alternative when the luminol test is not appropriate. Copyright
© 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEYWORDS: forensic science; presumptive blood testing; chemiluminescence; luminol; bloodstains

INTRODUCTION chemical test, this is quite a useful forensic procedure

The presumptive luminol test for blood (1–6) is an im-
portant practical application of the well-known chemilu-
minescent oxidation of luminol (7–10). Presumptive
blood tests are usually regarded as preliminary indica-
tors of the likelihood of the presence of blood but are
generally followed by further confirmation (1, 11, 12).
They are nevertheless of considerable importance in
practical forensic work. There are also a number of non-
chemiluminescent presumptive chemical tests for blood
that are used but unfortunately there has been no com-
prehensive, quantitative evaluation of the merits of all
of these tests.
Table 1 provides a list of the commonly available pre-
sumptive tests for blood. One of these tests is somewhat
different from all the others and simply involves the
illumination of the suspect forensic area with a bright
light of controllable wavelength. Although not strictly a
and so-called ‘forensic’ light sources of high intensity are
readily available and used in most policing situations.
Such light sources usually allow the possibility of iden-
tifying blood stains by reflected light or by the emitted
fluorescence excited when ultraviolet wavelengths are
used to illuminate the forensic sample.
The first two tests in Table 1, the benzidine and
o-tolidine, are no longer generally regarded as accep-
table because of the strong carcinogenic properties of
the chemical reagents (13, 15) and have largely been
abandoned in recent years. Those tests will not be con-
sidered in any further detail here and were not included
in the present study. Attention will, however, be paid to
possible safety considerations related to the remaining
tests which are currently in use. Some police procedures
involve extensive spraying of the reagents (usually
luminol) on to all of the interior surfaces of a house in-
volved in a crime scene. Any toxic effects of the chemi-
cals used in the tests are thus of importance in the areas
of both occupational health and safety and public health.

*Correspondence to: J. I. Creamer, Department of Pathology,
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, C3321A, Medical Center
North, Nashville, TN 37232-2561, USA.
E-mail: jonathan.i.creamer@vanderbilt.edu
#
Deceased.
Contract/grant sponsor: University of Western Australia.
The mechanism of the forensic blood tests
Interestingly, all of the chemical tests, including the
luminol test for blood, involve a similar mechanism at
the early stage of each test. In the case of the luminol
test, the first step is the oxidation of luminol by an agent

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220
Comparison of luminol test for blood with non-CL forensic techniques
Table 1. Common presumptive tests for blood
Name of test Reagent
Benzidine test Benzidine
o-Tolidine test o-Tolidine
Kastle–Meyer (KM) Reduced phenolphthalein
Leucomalachite green Reduced LMG
(LMG)
Hemastix® test 3,3′, 5,5′-Tetramethylbenzidine
Luminol test 5-Amino-2,3-dihydro-1,4-
phthalazinedione
Forensic light source – Black emission
such as hydrogen peroxide or some other peroxide in
the presence of a so-called catalyst, such as peroxidase.
Haemoglobin, or more specifically haem, is known to
have peroxidase-like activity (17). In most of the tests
in Table 1 the peroxidase-catalysed oxidation changes
the oxidation state of the substrate used in the test (e.g.
of phenolphthalein in the Kastle–Meyer test) and hence
the colour of the substrate changes. In the special case
of the luminol reaction, the colour change is replaced by
the electronic excitation of luminol and the subsequent
emission of blue chemiluminescence. The sensitivity
of these tests depends on the threshold concentration
of haemoglobin, which triggers a significant amount of
substrate oxidation.
A recent, commercially available detection system for
blood is the Hemastix® test (18), which was originally
designed for the detection of blood in urine but which
also works quite well for the detection of blood on
surfaces in a forensic application. The chemistry of the
Hemastix® test is similar for that of the benzidine test as
the operating substance is a benzidine derivative (3,3′,
5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine), which does not appear to
have the severe carcinogenic hazards associated with the
parent molecule.
A review of presumptive blood testing
In a search of the mainstream scientific literature, no one
journal article compared the most common presumptive
blood tests: luminol, KM, LMG, Hemastix® and the
forensic light source. The aim of the present work is to
provide a detailed comparative evaluation in regards to
the sensitivity, safety, ease of use and reliability of these
tests. The several comparative studies that exist in the
literature (4, 11, 13–16) are fragmentary and do not
achieve the above goals, although they provide helpful
insights into the merits of several of the tests.
Grodsky, Wright and Kirk (4) provide a comparative
study of the luminol, KM, LMG and benzidine presump-
tive tests and discuss the preparation, sensitivity and
specificity of each reagent in moderate detail. While it
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
RESEARCH 215
Colour change
Colourless → deep blue
precipitate
Yellow → blue/green
Colourless → bright pink
Colourless → blue-green
Orange → dark blue/green
Colourless → blue light
emission
is a comprehensive experimental review, it was
published in 1951 and, although still relevant in many
aspects, some points in it are outdated, especially with
respect to the use of benzidine, which was the most com-
mon blood detection technique at that time. It is also
apparent that the sensitivity testing of reagents was only
performed using solutions of diluted blood. Although in
some situations this may be the form in which the blood
is found at the crime scene, dry blood stains are equally
as significant and both approaches should be available
for scene examiners to refer to.
Hunt, Corby and Dodd (13) conducted a ‘critical
survey of some of the presumptive tests for blood in cur-
rent use’, including the KM, LMG and luminol tests
along with the benzidine and o-tolidine tests. However,
this series of experiments only makes up a small section
of the article and it is difficult to compare between
different techniques.
Cox (15) conducted a study more recently in 1991
comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the KM,
LMG, TMB and o-tolidine tests. The article attempts
to address some of the inconsistencies arising (as
mentioned above) in previous articles and provides an
extensive list of fruits and vegetables tested with each
reagent for potential ‘false positives’.
Other non-comparative articles are also available.
Higaki and Philip (19) published a study focusing on
the sensitivity, stability and specificity of the KM pre-
sumptive test for blood. Although detailed, the article
could not be used unaccompanied by an investigator
for the purpose of choosing a suitable blood detection
technique.
There are numerous articles published featuring
luminol, many of which deal with the interferences or
specificity of the test (1–8). These papers largely focus
upon the possibilities of obtaining a false negative with
the use of luminol.
As the forensic light source is used to search for a
wide range of physical evidence at the crime scene (20),
there are very few articles which deal solely with its
use in the search for blood. Stoilovic (21) discusses the
Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220
216 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
use of the Polilight® to detect semen and blood stains.
The article highlights some of the advantages of
the Polilight® for blood detection, mainly as an aid to
enhancing the stain for photographic purposes. Once
more the advantages and disadvantages of the technique
are not placed in a comparative context.
No articles whatsoever were found which dealt solely
or comparatively with Hemastix® as a forensic tool for
presumptive blood detection. This is not surprising as
this is a relatively new application for this technique.
What is most apparent is that the literature available
on presumptive blood detection techniques is somewhat
variable. There is a great diversity of experimental
conditions, which makes comparison between reagents
tested by different authors difficult. Specificity of rea-
gents and common interferences seems to be the one
area on which agreeable data was readily available (3, 4,
6, 11, 14, 15) to refer to and so it was decided that this
study would not include such experiments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Preparation of reagents
The Kastle–Mayer (KM) test. The reagent stock solu-
tion was prepared by combining 2.0 g phenolphthalein
(Sigma), 20 g potassium hydroxide (Ajax), 30 g pow-
dered Zn (Univar) and 100 mL distilled water in a
round-bottomed flask. The mixture was refluxed for
2 h until the solution was reduced (shown by a colour
change from deep pink to clear). The solution was then
cooled to room temperature and stored in an amber
glass bottle. An excess of powdered zinc was added to
ensure that the stored solution remained in a reduced
state. A ‘working’ KM solution was made by combining
10 mL stock solution with 40 mL absolute ethanol
(Ajax) in an amber dropper bottle. Both bottles were
stored at 4°C.
The leucomalachite green (LMG) test. The LMG rea-
gent stock solution was prepared in a similar manner to
the KM reagents. 0.25 g malachite green (Gurr), 100 mL
glacial acetic acid (Ajax) and 150 mL distilled water
were combined with 5 g powdered zinc in a round-
bottomed flask and refluxed until the deep green-blue
colour had disappeared and the solution was clear.
After cooling, the solution was transferred to a bottle
containing an excess of powdered zinc to ensure that it
remained in a reduced state, and stored at 4°C.
The luminol test. The luminol stock solution was pre-
pared by adding 0.13 g sodium perborate (Aldrich) to
10 mL distilled water and gently heated for approxi-
mately 3 min until completely dissolved. After removing
from the heat, 0.5 g sodium carbonate (Merck) was
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. L. Webb, J. I. Creamer and T. I. Quickenden
added to the warm solution and swirled until fully
dissolved. The solution was then left to cool to room
temperature, after which 0.01 g luminol (Sigma) was
added. The solution was stored in the dark and used for
up to 1 h after its preparation.
Hemastix® test. The Hemastix® (Bayer) was purchased
as a pre-prepared test for blood in urine. The test kit
consisted of 50 reagent strips containing 3,3′, 5,5′-
tetramethylbenzidine. A reagent strip was simply dipped
into a solution and a colour change from orange to blue-
green was observed if haemoglobin was present.
Forensic light source (Polilight®). The Polilight® was
used at filter setting number 5, centre wavelength
400 nm.
Haemoglobin preparation
The concentration of haemoglobin in human blood is,
on average, around 150 g/L. Bovine haemoglobin pow-
der (Sigma) was used in place of whole human blood. A
solution of haemoglobin was prepared that was equal
to one-tenth of the average concentration of haemo-
globin in blood; 4 g sodium hydroxide (Fluka) was
dissolved in 100 mL distilled water to give a concentra-
tion of 0.2 mol/L and 1.5 g haemoglobin powder was
dissolved into the aqueous solution. For the purposes
of this experiment, the stains made using the haemo-
globin solutions may be referred to as ‘bloodstains’.
Serial dilutions. The haemoglobin solution was then
used to prepare a series of 10 further test solutions at
dilutions which stimulated the dilution of normal blood
by the dilution factors: 1:100, 1:1000, 1:5000, 1:10 000,
1:50 000, 1:100 000, 1:500 000, 1:1 000 000, 1:2 000 000
and 1:5 000 000. Distilled water, rather than a 0.2 mol/L
NaOH solution, was used for the dilutions, as any
attempts to clean up blood at a crime scene would
almost certainly involve water. The slight pH change
caused by the dilutions has no detectable effect on test
results (unpublished results).
Experiment 1—Sensitivity
The sensitivity of each blood detection technique was
determined both directly, upon a piece of stained cloth,
and indirectly, by eluting some of the bloodstain on to
a secondary material.
Preparation of bloodstains. All bloodstains were
prepared on white cloth (100% cotton) which was cut
into squares of approximately 4 × 4 cm. A 50 µL drop of
each haemoglobin dilution was added to the centre of
the squares of cloth and allowed to dry overnight. The
stains were divided into sets. One set comprised four
Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220
Comparison of luminol test for blood with non-CL forensic techniques
separate bloodstains at each of the eleven dilutions for
each of the five blood detection techniques (220
separate bloodstains). Therefore, each blood detection
technique was tested against any given dilution by at
least four replicate determinations to determine 95%
confidence intervals and increase the reproducibility
of results.
A comparable series of stains was also produced, but
this time with a greater amount of haemoglobin. The
cloth was soaked in samples of each dilution for at least
2 min and allowed to dry overnight. Again for each
dilution, four squares of cotton were stained for each
blood detection technique.
A third and fourth set of stains were tested by tak-
ing swabs from the cloth using cotton-tipped swabs and
filter paper. This method of swabbing and testing the
blood stain is the common approach used by crime scene
investigators (19).
Testing of bloodstains. The two-stage method of test-
ing was used for both the KM and LMG tests to reduce
the likelihood of obtaining a false positive; two drops of
the reagent being tested was added to the centre of the
cloth where the stain had previously been applied. A
colour change at this stage could indicate the presence
of an interfering substance, such as a peroxide, and
be classed as a false positive. If no colour change was
observed after 15 s, two drops 3% hydrogen peroxide
was added to the same area. A positive reaction for
the KM test was signalled by the presence of a bright
pink colour developing in the stained area within 10 s.
A positive reaction for the LMG test was signalled by
the presence of a blue-green colour developing within
10 s. Negative controls were carried out using a blank
square of cotton to ensure that no positive results were
obtained from the cloth alone.
The Hemastix® test was used by moistening the stain
with a drop of distilled water and then pressing and
holding the tip of the strip against the cloth for approxi-
mately 5 s. A positive result was signalled by a rapidly
developing colour change from orange to blue-green
within 10 s. A negative control was again performed
repeating the procedure using a blank, moistened piece
of cloth.
The indirect testing of the third set of bloodstains was
achieved by rubbing a portion of the dried stain with a
cotton-tipped swab which had been moistened with a
few drops of distilled water. The fourth set was rubbed
with the moistened corner of folded filter paper. The
KM and LMG reagents were applied to the swab or
filter paper, using the same two-stage method. The
Hemastix® test was used in the same manner as was
outlined above, but the strip was pressed against the
prepared swab or filter paper instead of directly on to
the stained material. Negative controls were performed
using a blank, moistened cotton-tipped swab and a piece
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
RESEARCH 217
of blank, moistened filter paper to ensure that neither
produced a false positive result.
The sensitivity of visual identification of bloodstains
using the forensic light source was determined by using
the Polilight® in a dark room to ascertain at which dilu-
tion a stain was still visible using the 400 nm filter. Blank
cloth was used as a control for visual comparison and
placed next to the stained cloth.
A set of stains was used to test the sensitivity of
luminol. The squares of cloth were placed in a light-tight
box and a drop of luminol was applied to each stain,
using a Pasteur pipette. A positive result was observed
as a blue-white chemiluminescent glow. Negative con-
trols were performed by applying a drop of luminol to a
blank square of cloth to ensure the cloth alone did not
produce a false positive.
Preparation and testing of solutions. All five blood
detection techniques were also tested using the vari-
ous diluted haemoglobin samples. 50 µL of each hae-
moglobin solution was placed into each of a number
of small ceramic crucibles. A drop of the KM, LMG
or luminol solution was applied as described above.
The Hemastix® reagent stick was dipped into the
solution in each crucible. The Polilight®, using the same
settings as above, was shone on to the solution. As in
all of this work, four replicate determinations were
carried out, using four duplicate haemoglobin samples
in each case.
Experiment 2—ageing of bloodstains
Preparation and testing of bloodstains. Every 7 days
for 7 consecutive weeks a set of 25 bloodstains was
prepared. This consisted of four bloodstained pieces
of cloth plus one blank piece of cloth (for a negative
control) per blood detection technique. A 50 µL drop of
the original haemoglobin solution was placed on each
cotton square and left to dry. Exactly 1 week after the
last set was prepared; each blood detection technique
was applied directly to each stain. As before, the two-
stage method was employed with the KM and LMG
reagents, as outlined above. The luminol, Polilight® and
Hemastix® tests were also used in the same way as
described in Experiment 1.
Literature search for safety and toxicity of
blood detection techniques
Primarily, Scirus, a science-specific internet search
engine was used to search for health and safety infor-
mation on each test. Other sources, such as Ingenta,
Scifinder and the library catalogues of both the Univer-
sity of Western Australia (UWA) and the University
of Strathclyde, were also searched for additional
information.
Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220
218 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Table 2. Maximum detectable dilution of haemoglobin. All dilutions were relative to the hae-
moglobin concentration (150 g/L) normally found in blood
Method/test KM LMG
50 µL bloodstain 1:100 000 1:1000
Blood-soaked cloth 1:100 000 1:1000
Solution 1:100 000 1:1000
Filter paper 1:100 1:100
Cotton swab 1:100 1:100
RESULTS
Sensitivity of blood detection techniques
The KM, LMG and Hemastix® tests were applied
as described. These tests were applied to both the
original samples and the swabs taken with filter paper
and cotton-tipped swabs. Swabbing of the samples
was not used with the luminol test or the Polilight®, as
these were inappropriate sampling methods. All blank
controls were found to be negative. The measured
sensitivity of each blood detection technique is shown
in Table 2.
Effect of bloodstain ageing
As describe earlier, 50 µL bloodstains were applied
to cotton squares and left to dry for 1–7 weeks. These
bloodstained squares, along with blank controls, were
then directly tested with the five presumptive blood
detection techniques to determine whether the age of a
bloodstain would affect its detection. Even after 7 weeks
of drying, all five techniques were still able to detect the
bloodstain on the cotton cloth, indicating that there is
no detectable effect of ageing over a 7 week period. All
blank controls were found to be negative over the same
time period.
Ease of use
All of the presumptive blood detection techniques inves-
tigated here were fairly simple to use. The KM, LMG
and luminol tests all required some level of chemical
synthesis or preparation of a working solution, however,
these processes were straightforward and these tests can
generally be bought in ready-to-use kits, eliminating
these steps. Furthermore, while the luminol test required
darkness for its effective use, this provides only a minor
inconvenience that is easily outweighed by its easy
application over large areas via an aerosol spray. The
Polilight® was relatively heavy and cumbersome, how-
ever its assembly and use is uncomplicated. Finally,
the Hemastix® test was the easiest to apply, requiring
a simple touch of a reagent strip to the suspect stain.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. L. Webb, J. I. Creamer and T. I. Quickenden
Hemastix® Luminol Polilight®
1:100 000 1:5 000 000 1:100
1:100 000 1:5 000 000 1:100
1:1 000 000 1:5 000 000 1:100
1:100 – –
1:100 – –
Safety and toxicity
Phenolphthalein (CAS No. 77-09-8) is ‘reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen’, as reported by
the National Toxicity Program (NTP) (22). Use of the
KM test in the correct manner would mean that the
only routes of human exposure would be through
dermal contact or inhalation. The NTP categorize LMG
(CAS No. 129-73-7) has having ‘equivocal evidence’
of carcinogenicity (in studies conducted on rats); these
are defined as uncertain findings (23).
Hemastix® is available to the general public as an
over-the-counter diagnostic test. The active reagent,
TMB (CAS No: 54827-17-7) is a derivative of benzidine;
however, it has been found that TMB is not carcino-
genic, due to presence of the 2-o-methyl groups which
obstruct the hazardous reactions with the relevant amino
group (24).
Sanders et al. (25) determined the metabolism and
disposition of luminol in the rat when administered
dermally, orally and by intravenous injection. The
findings of the study indicated that orally administered
luminol was rapidly absorbed, completely conjugated
and readily excreted in urine, with little chance for ac-
cumulation in tissue. No evidence of potentially reactive
species was found. Sanders et al. (25) concluded that,
assuming that the disposition and metabolism of luminol
in the human is similar to that in the rat, the ‘anticipated
levels of exposure by either route [dermal or inhalation]
should not result in an appreciable toxicity in humans’.
Use of the Polilight® does not pose any immediate
toxic hazards due to the nature of the technique.
However, using the Polilight® UV filter in other situa-
tions may be harmful to the operator if the correct
precautions are not taken.
DISCUSSION
Based on the results presented here, the luminol test
is clearly the most sensitive blood detection tech-
nique commonly used by forensic investigators. The
Hemastix® test was the next most sensitive, followed
by the KM and LMG techniques. The Polilight® was by
far the least sensitive technique, being 50 000 times less
Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220
Comparison of luminol test for blood with non-CL forensic techniques
sensitive than the luminol test and 10 times less sensitive
that the next least sensitive technique investigated here
(LMG). Another interesting finding was that the sensi-
tivity of the KM, LMG and Hemastix® tests decreased
considerably when applied to filter paper or cotton
swabs of bloodstains. While the amount of blood trans-
ferred from a stain to a swab may vary considerably,
depending on the investigator, this result clearly shows
that it is favourable to test a bloodstain directly.
The sensitivity of the luminol test was found to be
1:5 000 000 for both the bloodstained cloth and hae-
moglobin solutions. This was consistent with previously
reported literature values (4, 14). No literature re-
sults were found regarding the sensitivity of either the
Hemastix® or Polilight® tests for blood; however, previ-
ous literature on the active reagent of the Hemastix®
test, TMB, determined its sensitivity to be 1:1 000 000
for diluted haemoglobin solutions (4). Again, this was
consistent with the results of the present study.
The results obtained for both the KM and LMG
tests varied from previously reported literature values,
although it should be noted that the previous literature
values fluctuate from paper to paper, possibly indicating
inherent variability within the techniques. The sensitiv-
ity of the KM test from previous publications ranged
from 1:10 000 for blood-soaked cloth (15), 10 times
less sensitive than presently reported, to 1:100 000–
1:1 10 000 000 for haemoglobin solutions (4, 13), the
present study being consistent with the less sensitive
edge of the range. The swab results also varied in the lit-
erature, from 1:10 000 (15) to 1:5 000 000 (14), 100 to
50 000 times more sensitive than reported in the present
study. The LMG technique showed similar, although less
pronounced, variability throughout the literature. The
sensitivity of the test ranged from 1:100 (swabs) to
1:1000 (blood-soaked cloth and solutions) within this
study, compared with 1:5000 (swabs, cloth and solutions)
to 1:100 000 (swabs) from previous publications. The
variability of the KM and LMG techniques, both within
this research and throughout the literature raise ques-
tions about the reliability of the tests.
All of the presumptive blood detection techniques
investigated here are fairly easy to use, especially the
Hemastix® test. While the weight and dimensions of the
Polilight® and the darkness required for the luminol test
may cause some initial difficulties, these would easily be
overcome by regular use.
Finally, both the KM and LMG tests use reagents that
are considered carcinogens. This risk can be reduced,
although not eliminated, by wearing the appropriate
protective clothing (particularly gloves) and by ensuring
that the test is used in a well ventilated area. The
Hemastix® and luminol techniques contain no known
carcinogenic or toxic reagents, while the Polilight® uses
no chemicals at all and is thus the safest technique for
investigators to use.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
RESEARCH 219
All of the presumptive blood tests examined here
are useful to the modern forensic investigator. However,
the Kastle–Meyer and leucomalachite green tests use
carcinogenic reagents, while the Polilight® exhibits poor
sensitivity, making their use undesirable. The luminol
test is by far the most sensitive technique, and is easy
to perform, particularly when application over a large
area is required. When the luminol technique is not
appropriate, the Hemastix® test is a simple and effective
alternative.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Professor Dieter Wege for help with
the synthesis of some of the blood-detection reagents,
Professor Shari Forbes for her support and critical
comment, and Jenna Valentin for her excellent techni-
cal assistance in performing some of the experiments.
The authors also wish to thank the PathCentre of West-
ern Australia, as well as the Faculty of Life and Physi-
cal Sciences, Chemistry (School of Biomedical and
Chemical Sciences) and the Centre for Forensic Science
at the University of Western Australia for funding
J.I.C.’s PhD scholarship.
REFERENCES
1. Castelló A, Alvarez M, Verdú F. Accuracy, reliability and safety
of luminol in bloodstain investigation. Canad. Soc. Forens. Sci. J.
2002; 35: 113–121.
2. Zweidinger RA, Lytle LT, Pitt CG. Photography of bloodstains
visualised by luminol. J. Forens. Sci. 1973; 18: 296–302.
3. Quickenden TI, Creamer JI. A study of common interferences
with the forensic luminol test for blood. Luminescence 2001; 16:
295–298.
4. Grodsky M, Wright K, Kirk PL. Simplified preliminary blood
testing. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 1951; 42: 95–104.
5. Quickenden TI, Cooper PD. Increasing the specificity of the
forensic luminol test for blood. Luminescence 2001; 16: 251–253.
6. Creamer JI, Quickenden TI, Apanah MV, Kerr KA, Robertson P.
A comprehensive experimental study of industrial, domestic
and environmental interferences with the forensic luminol test
for blood. Luminescence 2003; 18: 193–198.
7. Albrecht HO. Chemiluminescence of aminophthalic hydrazide. Z.
Physik. Chem. 1928; 135: 321–330.
8. Specht W. Die Chemiluminesenz des Hämins, ein Hilfsmittel zur
Auffindung und Erkennung forensisch wichturger Blutspuren.
Angew. Chem. 1937; 50: 155–157.
9. White EH, Zafiriou O, Kagi HH, Hill JHM. Chemiluminescence
of luminol: the chemical reaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1964; 86:
940–941.
10. White EH, Bursey MM. Chemiluminescence of luminol and
related hydrazides: the light emission step. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1964; 86: 941–942.
11. Ponce AC, Pascual FAV. Critical revision of presumptive tests for
bloodstains. Forens. Sci. Commun. 1999; 1.
12. Bevel T, Gardner R. Blood Pattern Analysis. CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, 1997.
13. Hunt AC, Corby C, Dodd BE, Camps FE. The identification
of human blood stains: a critical survey. J. Forens. Med. 1960; 7:
112–130.
14. Sutton TP. Presumptive testing for blood. In Scientific and Legal
Applications of Blood Pattern Interpretations, James SH (ed.).
CRC Press: Boca raton, FL, 1999; 47–69.
Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220
220 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
15. Cox M. A study of the sensitivity and specificity of four
presumptive tests for blood. J. Forens. Sci. 1991; 36: 1503–
1511.
16. Wilkinson D. A comparison of the forensic light sources; Polilight,
Luma-lite and Spectrum 9000. J. Forens. Ident. 1994; 44: 632–
651.
17. Ahlquist DA, Schwartz S. Use of leuco-dyes in the quantitative
colorimetric microdetermination of hemoglobin and other heme
compounds. Clin. Chem. 1975; 21: 362–369.
18. Liechti-Gallati S, Borer U. Preliminary tests with Hemastix and
Sangur test strips and Phosphatesmo KM test paper do not modify
DNA typing of blood and semen stains. Arch. Kriminol. 1994; 193:
37 – 42.
19. Higaki RS, Philip WMS. A study of the sensitivity, stability and
specificity of phenolphthalein as an indicator test for blood. Canad.
Soc. Forens. Sci. J. 1976; 9: 97–102.
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. L. Webb, J. I. Creamer and T. I. Quickenden
20. Western Australia Police Service. Physical Evidence Laboratory
Polilight Instructions.
21. Stoilovic M. Detection of semen and blood stains using polilight
as a light source. Forens. Sci. Int. 1991; 51: 289–296.
22. National Toxicity Program. Phenolphthalein. CAS No. 77–09–8.
Tenth Report on Carcinogens 2003; National Institutes of Health:
Bethesda.
23. US Department of Health and Human Services. Toxicology and
carcinogenesis studies of 3,3′-dimethylbenzidine dihydrochloride
in F344/N Rats. National Toxicology Program Technical Report
Series 1991; 390. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda.
24. Weisberger JH. Comments on the history and importance of
aromatic and heterocyclic amines in public health. Mutat.
Res./Fundament. Mol. Mechan. Mutagen. 2002; 506–7: 9–20.
25. Sanders JM, Chen L-J, Burka LT, Matthews HB. Metabolism and
disposition of luminol in the rat. Xenobiotica 2000; 30: 263–272.
Luminescence 2006; 21: 214–220