According to the Lockard’s exchange principle “Every contact leave Touch”.

In accordance with
this principle, the transfer of DNA due to Touch can help extensively in the crime investigation.
The crime rate in the world and in India in particularly is increasing alarmingly and the need for
fast and effective methods of criminal detection is also increasing. In some cases , there is no
biological evidence , physical evidence or any other visible evidence available to the
investigator in such cases Trace of DNA or Touch of DNA transferred from suspect due to
Touch is called Trace DNA which is also called as contact DNA which is obtained from shed
epithelial cell of skin that are transfer to surface
Figure 1- Touch DNA from epithelial cell of skin
when a person comes in contact with the surface.
( INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CURRENT RESEARCH ) When a crime is committed, a culprit of the crime
may deposit sufficient number of skin cells on item
found at crime scene like murder weapon, clothing of victim etc.

Figure 2- Touch DNA-An

investigative tool
( INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF CURRENT RESEARCH )

1.1 HISTORY OF TOUCH DNA

In the early 1990 s, forensic science started moving away from markers such as D1S80,
consisting of large core repeat units and overall large amplicon size to short tandem repeats
(STRs) The first widely used commercial kits designed for the typing of multiple STRs in a
single reaction became available in the late 1990s early 2000s. PCR allowed the generation of
genetic information from minute amounts of DNA; multiplexing of primers allowed the
generation of genetic data from multiple sites from the same aliquot of DNA thus reducing
sample consumption; fluorescent primers assisted multiplexing and new automated typing
systems; and the use of STRs improved the chances of profiling poor quality samples. As the
desire for higher discrimination power between individuals arose, the number of loci targeted by
a single multiplex increased and there are now a number of commercially available, well-
validated kits, incorporating 15 - 16 highly variable STR loci, such as ESX and ESI systems and
NGM. These new kits also include improvements in primer design, buffer composition and
amplification conditions which improve the analysis of Touch samples. PCR technique was not
effectively used due to large number and size of DNA fragments are required. In 1960s the
Touch DNA was introduced by David Cammy in the third trial followed by 5 steps i.e.-

1.2 STEPS FOR EXTRACTION OF TOUCH DNA

1. Identifying the target surfaces
2. collection of Touch DNA samples.
3. Isolation of Touch DNA
4. Determination of quality and quantity of DNA
5. DNA amplification DNA detection

1.2.1 Identifying the target surfaces and collection of Touch DNA samples-
The first important task of a forensic investigator is to identify the target surfaces which
may contain Touch of suspect DNA. In case of homicide, Touch DNA of culprit can be
recovered from the surface of murder weapon like revolver, knife, pistol etc. in case of
sexual assault, it can be recovered from the skin and clothing of the victim. In case of
burglary, the stolen item may have Touch of DNA of the thief. In forgeries, the cells of
the forger are transferred to the suspect document. These cells are the source of the DNA
which can be recovered and used for criminal detection. The Touch DNA is usually
present in Touch quantities which may be lost by destructive methods.

1.2.2 Collection of DNA

The identification of potential evidences containing Touch DNA samples is followed by
collection using various methods like swabbing, cutting, scraping, tape lifting etc.
Swabbing an area requires a moistened swab to cover the whole target area multiple
times with some pressure and rotation of the swab so that the full surface area of the swab
can contribute to the collection.
 Figure 3 Transfer of epithelial cell by swabbing method

Figure 3- Transfer of epithelial cells from skin to physical evidences

( INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CURRENT RESEARCH )

Swabbing method is common for hard surfaces life glass, plastic, etc. for soft surface life
clothing, cutting the target surface is one method of collection. However, swabbing and cutting
methods may be associated with background impurities which may inhibit the DNA profiling of
Touch samples of DNA. Two more methods have been introduced for collection of Touch DNA.
These methods are scraping and tape lifting they both reduce the contamination during collection
process
 1.2.3 Isolation of
Touch DNA-

The isolation and extraction of

DNA is carried out using chillax
extraction, organic extraction and
silica-based extraction. The organic
and chillax extraction procedures
may result in loss of a portion of
DNA. The newer method of isolation
is silica-based extraction which
makes use of silica-coated magnetic
beads capture DNA from the lysed
cell.

Figure 5- Extraction of DNA using silica- based magnetic beads

1.2.4 Determination of quality and quantity of DNA

After DNA is extracted from the epithelial skin cells, the DNA Touches are assessed for
the quality and quantity. Dot blot technique, Yield gel technique, Capillary
electrophoresis,
Fluorescent inter
chelating dye
assay and
quantitative PCR assay are used for determination of quality and quantity of DNA in the
Touch samples.

Figure 4- Determination of quality and quantity of DNA.

1.2.5 DNA Amplification

As Touch DNA is available in Touch amounts, the DNA is amplified to produce several
copies which are e then assessed for length polymorphism and sequence polymorphism.
Following the PCR amplification, 13 STR loci as depicted, are identified which exhibit
polymorphism among different individuals. The chance of matching of DNA profiles of
two unrelated individuals is negligible and hence can help in matching the DNA profile
of the Touch DNA with the DNA profile of the suspect if the suspects have been
identified. If the suspect has not been identified, then the Touch DNA profile can be
matched with the DNA databases such as CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System)
which is available.

Figure 5- DNA amplification

1.2.6 DNA detection

Fluorescent tags are added to the DNA sample. These tags bind with the specific
nucleotide sequences at the STR loci and help in detection of the STR loci.

Figure 6- DNA detection

1.3 POPULAR CASE STUDIES

Several cases have been solved using Touch DNA technology. Many innocent people
who have been falsely convicted have been freed due to the Touch DNA evidence
recovered after several years of commission of crime. Many cold cases are now being
revived in order to identify the culprit. Some of the sensational cases which were solved
based on the Touch DNA technology are as follows-

1) Peggy Hettrick murder and Tim master’s case

Tim Masters had been convicted of the murder of Peggy Hettrick, sentenced to life in
prison in 1999. However, in 2007, doubts were raised about the conviction of Tim
Masters. Dutch forensic team of Richard and Selma Eikenboom, tested the clothes of
Peggy Hettrick worn during her murder by an innovative technique called Touch DNA.
The DNA extracted from clothes of Peggy Hettrick did not match with that of Tim
Masters proving him innocent. After spending a period of nine years behind bars, Masters
was set free. Hence, Touch DNA technology has helped to prove Tim Masters innocent.

2) The JonBenét Ramsey case

Touch DNA on the clothing worn by six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey at the time of her
murder was identified and a full DNA profile was developed. The DNA profile was
obtained of a still unidentified male, presumably the killer. In addition to providing a
DNA profile, the discovery of a Touch DNA sample on a victim or object can provide
law enforcement with important evidence such as how the perpetrator removed clothes
from the victim and how long an object was held at a crime scene.

1.4 TOUCH DNA TECHNOLOGY IN INDIA

The use of Touch DNA technology has been seen most extensively in the foreign
countries in the recent past. But now, Touch DNA has taken a lead in India too. As India
does not have a DNA database, cases can be solved using Touch DNA evidence only if
suspects are available. This technology is being extensively used by the National
Investigative Agency (NIA) to catch hold of the terrorists in bomb blast cases.

1) Bodhgaya blast case

The NIA was able to crack the Bodhgaya blast case using Touch DNA technology. In this
case, the bomber was disguised as a monk and left his clothes behind. Touch DNA
recovered from the clothes could take the investigators to the perpetrator. (Vicky
Rajappa, 2015).

2) Sheena Bora murder case

Sheena Bora, an executive working in Mumbai went missing on April 24, 2012. In
August, 2015, the victim’s mother and step father were arrested for abducting and killing
her and burning her corpse. In this case, CBI has planned to use Touch DNA technique to
find the actual culprit. (Pramod Kumar, 2015) If this technology is extensively used, it
can help in solving many sensational cases in India also. However, Touch DNA
technology is being used in cases where evidences are not available.

1.5 Limitations of Touch DNA technology

Touch DNA technology has potential applications in crime investigation. However, the
following limitations of Touch DNA technology have to be considered while applying
the principles in criminal identification.

1) Contamination of Touch DNA caused by the contaminants present on the target

surface.

2) Touch DNA mixtures interpretation is difficult.

3) The transfer of DNA to target surface may be due to the secondary transfer which can
be identified only by thorough background and case investigation.

4) In case of first offenders, their profiles may not be available with the investigators for
comparison and matching with the Touch DNA profile.

5) Probable suspects should be available to match the Touch DNA profile with their
DNA profiles, so that the culprit can be linked to the crime scene, murder weapon and the
victim.
6) Financial constraints associated with Touch DNA technology should also be
considered.

1.6 Contamination issues

Contamination is a crucial issue in the analysis and interpretation of Touch DNA.

Contaminant DNA may appear as either the major or minor sample within a mixture or,
alternatively, may overwhelm the target DNA completely. From a theoretical perspective,
any DNA deposit that is not immediately relevant to the crime being investigated can be
viewed as contamination. In this light, gross or sporadic contamination may appear at any
point.

1) before the crime has been committed

2) in the interval between the crime and securing the crime scene
3) during the investigation of the scene
4) within the laboratory.

The first point can be viewed as the level of background DNA present under normal
circumstances.
The second may occur as a result of innocent interactions by unrelated individuals.
Although these two contamination points, termed adventitious transfer, cannot be strictly
controlled, there are methods to account for and to minimize the impact of such
contamination.
The third point of possible contamination at the crime scene can be controlled by the
implementation of operating procedures designed to minimize the potential for
contamination. Substantial amounts of contamination may occur from investigators
moving, talking or coughing over exhibits, with the degree of contamination proportional
to the distance from the exhibit. At a minimum, standard operating procedures to limit
contamination at a scene should include:
1. Restricting access to a potential crime related exhibit or scene.
2. The use of gloves and mouth masks by all those needing to Touch and/or closely look
at the possible crime related exhibit.

3. Regular changing of gloves by those Touching exhibits.

4. Avoiding, as much as possible, touching areas on an exhibit that may be sampled for
DNA.

5. The availability of DNA profiles of all those individuals knowingly being in contact
with an exhibit to check for potential contamination. Such data would assist in the
interpretation of profiles.

An additional point to be aware of is the use of collection/detection devices on multiple

exhibits and at multiple scenes. Fingerprint brushes are able to transfer amounts of DNA
between exhibits that could generate profiles and may retain biological evidence for a
considerable period of time
. Any device, therefore, which is in physical contact with a biological stain should be
thoroughly decontaminated between use on exhibits or, preferably, DNA-free disposable
equipment should be applied.
The fourth point, within laboratory contamination, may occur from individuals within the
laboratory, inter exhibit transfer or manufacturer-based consumable contamination.
Although these events are generally the most strictly controlled for, high profile instances
of gross contamination have been reported and research has shown that, despite strict
operating and cleaning procedures being in place, DNA may be transferred between
exhibits and equipment.
Methods to minimize the possibility of contamination in the laboratory may include the:

1. Use of DNA-free plasticware and consumables. The recent ‘phantom of Heilbronn’

incident in Germany and Austria, in which ‘sterile’ swab contamination during its
manufacture caused police to link 40 crime scenes incorrectly. To prevent this
occurring, SWGDAM (Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods),
ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes) and BSAG (Biology
Specialist Advisory Group) have now issued a position statement with specific
 recommendations for manufacturers and laboratories, to ensure that all materials used
are DNA-free, rather than sample ‘sterile’

2. Frequent and thorough cleaning of work areas within laboratories.

3. Periodic assessment of the level and location of DNA within the work place and on
relevant tools to be performed and results considered from a risk management
perspective. Where possible, recommendations derived from results relating to
opportunities for improvement should be implemented.

4. Separation of the work areas for item examination, DNA extraction and DNA
amplification and typing.

5. Different exhibits being examined at different locations and/or times and the
recording of where, when and by whom an exhibit was examined. This can assist in
investigations of unexpected contamination events that may be detected at a later
stage in analysis. The analysis of reference samples after the conclusion of crime
scene samples can also aid in minimizing both inter-case contamination and the
possibility of biased interpretation of the crime scene samples.

6. Negative controls being used at every stage of the analysis, including item
examination and sampling.

Every Touch DNA profile should be interpreted in the context of possible contamination.
A mixed sample may contain background DNA, crime-related DNA and post-crime
contamination, and it may be difficult to identify the relevant profile. In particular, the
recent increase in cold-case investigations using DNA profiling increases the risk of
detecting such samples, which may not have been collected, stored or examined with
Touch DNA detection sensitivities in mind. Thus, continued research, monitoring and a
reduction of the incidence of all types of contamination is important for the further
development of Touch DNA analysis.

1.7 Transfer issues-

Throughout the years of Touch DNA use, the major focus has been on improving
techniques in order to obtain highly discriminating genetic profiles from minute amounts
to help identify the person from whom the DNA at a crime scene is derived. However,
much less effort has been expended on understanding the activities that explain how the
DNA got there. Although the first report on Touch DNA identified the occurrence of
secondary transfer, debate regarding the existence of secondary transfer followed for
several years. However, empirical research has since demonstrated substantial levels of
transfer under a variety of situations, confirming that secondary, and possibly further
transfer, may well be occurring in a number of casework situations.
Greater effort needs to be made by police/crime investigators to investigate how a DNA
sample arrived at the location where it was found, as well as by scientists to better
understand the impact of activities on the relative amounts of DNA from particular
sources at a crime scene.
In some instances, it is possible to derive the chain of events that led to a Touch DNA
sample being present at a crime scene –
for example, prior visits to the scene or the known use of an item. Awareness of these
variables, and their impact on transfer events, will assist in weighting the likelihood of
proposed alternative scenarios. Some preliminary contributions to our knowledge of
transfer in relation to residential burglary and street robbery have recently been made.
Others have also started collecting this type of data with preliminary investigations
focusing on the type of biological material being deposited, the condition of the
biological material, the type of substrate on which the biological material is present and
with which it comes into contact and the manner of contact. It is clear that more data on
these and other variables are necessary to improve the accuracy of the likelihood
assessment of alternative scenario.

Basically, Touch DNA technology has a great potential in crime investigation. It helps in
solving many cold cases which were closed due to the lack of proper evidence. It helps in
linking a suspect to the crime or proving the innocence of a suspect convicted in a crime.
Many crimes have already been solved based on the Touch DNA technology. Many are
yet to be solved. Touch of DNA can hence help in individual and criminal identification.
 Touch DNA also known as contact trace DNA has become a powerful tool in solving
potential crimes like murder, sexual assault, etc.
However, there are certain limitations which have to be taken into consideration by the
crime investigator while applying Touch DNA as an investigative tool.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE (ROL)

2.1 Dyane J Daly. Charlotte Murphy in February 2011published about “The transfer of
touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood” in Forensic Science International in
Genetics. Their study involved 300 volunteers (100 for glass, 100 for fabric, 100 for
wood) 50% of which were male and 50% female. The DNA recovered from the object
using a mini tape lift, quantified using quantifier kit assay, extracted using a Qiagen QI
Amp DNA mini kit and amplified using the Amp FISTRs (SMG) Plus. They concluded
that there was a significant difference between 3 object types in the amount of DNA
recovered. The wood gave best yield followed by fabric then glass.
2.2 Vishi Sethi Edward a Panacek in January 2013 published about “Yield of male Touch
DNA from fabrics in an assault model” article in forensic sciences and investigation. The
motive of this study was to determine the significant amount of male touch DNA can be
collected from the clothes of assaulted victims after varying time interval. A “grab and
struggle” model was used to transfer touch DNA materials from human onto three types
of fabric (cotton, polyester and a cotton/polyester blend). Three cutting from each fabric
sample were taken and extracted at 12 hours and 7 days post-deposition. The extracted
were then quantified using the Quantifiers Duo DNA quantification kit. The maximum
yield of DNA from cotton fabric 12 hours post-deposition was 7pg/ul and 5pg/ul for the
total human DNA and human male DNA. The limit of detection is 23pg/ul, therefore
those results were below standard profile detection. Their study did not find useful
amounts of touch DNA on clothes after this assault model.

2.3 Tim Verdon. R John Mitchell. Roland A.H. van Oorschot in January 2014 published
about “Evaluation of tape lifting as a collection method for touch DNA” in Forensic
Science International in Genetics. They use types of different adhesive strength currently
used un forensic casework (Scotch Magic tape and Scene safe Fast Mini tapes) for
sampling from touch deposited on 4 different fabric- cotton flannelette, cotton drill
woven fabric, polyester/cotton plain woven fabric and polyester strapping. They
concluded that the scotch magic tape was more effective than mini tape.

2.4 Jason Yingjie Liu in February 2015 published about “PE- swab direct STR
amplification of forensic touch DNA samples” in Journal of Forensic Sciences. this
experiment was developed to process low level touch DNA. Traces collected on a 4-mm
PE-Swab; directly amplified for STR. compared to conventional STR workflow, which
involves DNA extraction, purification and elution volume reduction. They stated that PE-
Swab workflow is more sensitive than the conventional STR workflow. The average peak
height per sample obtained by the SE-Swab workflow is 3 times higher than that from the
conventional workflow.
2.5 Sharon Lim. Barbara E. Daniel in February 2016 published about “Touch DNA-
the prospect of DNA profiles from cables” in Science and Justice. They recovered DNA
from the surface of cable sheaths after deposition of a) sweat; b) extracted of DNA; c)
 finger mark. The investigator tries to collect finger mark by treat the cables with
cyanoacrylate fuming (CNA) or wet powder suspension (WPS) to enhance the marks.
This experiment studied that double swab technique and mini-taping were compared.
They resulted that there is no significant difference between using swabs or mini-tapes to
recover the DNA droom non-porous cables. It was also illustrated that CAN fuming
performed better than WPS in terms of subsequent recovery and profiling of DNA.

2.6 Celine Pfeifer. Peter Wiegand in February 2017 published about “Persistence of touch
DNA on burglary-related tools” in International Journal of Legal Medicine. They
performed short tandem repeat (STR) analyses for three groups of tools: 1) personal and
mock owned tools, 2) tools, which were first owned by the first user and then handled in
a burglary action by second user; 3) tools, which were first owned by first user and then
handled in the moderate action. In total, 234 samples were analysed regarding profiles
completeness of first and second user as well as properties like detectable major profile or
mixture attributes. They observed that the outcome depended mainly on the nature of
contact, the handle material, the user-specific characteristics.

2.7 Fabio Oldoni. D. Hall in February 2017 published about “Sensitive DIP-STR markers
for the analysis of unbalanced mixtures from Touch DNA samples” in Forensic Science
International in Genetics. Casework samples collected for forensic DNA analysis can
produce genomic mixture in which the DNA of the alleged offender is masked by high
quantities of DNA coming from the victim. DIP-STRs are novel genetic markers
specifically developed to enable the target analysis of the DNA in the presence of
exceeding quantities of second DNA. Amplification followed by identification result that
DIP-STRs are autosomal markers therefore they can be applied to any combination of
major and minor DNA.

2.8 Hui Dong. Jing Wang. Tao Zhang et. all in February 2017 published about
“Comparison of pre-processing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples” in
Croatian Medical Journal. Method Hand touch DNA samples were used to investigate the
detection and inspection results of DNA on different substrates. 4 processing method-
 direct cutting method, stubbing procedure, double swab technique and vacuum cleaner
method were used in this study. DNA extracted from all samples were quantified and
amplified using standard procedures. Result the amount of DNA and the number of
alleles detected on the porous substrate were greater than those on the non-porous
substrate. the direct cutting method displayed advantage for porous substrate and vacuum
cleaner method was advantageous for non-porous substrate. This study provides a
theoretical basis for exploration of touch DNA samples.
2.9 Nagy Alfa Daly in July 2017 published about “Evaluation of techniques used in
analysis to Touch DNA collected from crime tools in Hail” in Journal of forensic
Sciences. He divided his work in two phases- first was a statistical evaluation for success
of DNA extraction from different weapons and tools in crimes from Hail district for 5
years. Second phase of the study was a practical part, in which we evaluated the result of
Touch DNA extraction from weapons used in criminal acts. The technique used were
target the surface where the epithelial cells of skin were present, collection of epithelial
cells by using different methods (on which the result was concluded) followed by
extraction of DNA from them, amplification, PCR, quantitation and analysis. They used
Promega kits for extraction of DNA. They conclude that double sampling method (wet
then dry) is the best to give large yield of Touch DNA and Promega kit were the valuable
tool for DNA profiling of Touch DNA.

2.10 Emily Horrock’s in August 2017 published about “Investigating touch DNA
recovery from ivory as a method to identify poachers and traffickers” in conference at
International Association of Forensic Science. she used finger- mark technique like
alternative light source and gel lift and gel-scan followed by DNA extraction by using
Qiagen QI Amp micro kit and Charge switch forensic DNA purification kit. She
concluded that extracted DNA samples were dirty and low yield which was expected to
touch DNA from surface ivory only, the silica column extraction showed that difference
between the internal and external surface- internal surface having high yield, DNA
quantity varied over time, especially the internal samples.

2.11 Dina Aloraer. William Goodwin in September 2017 published about “Improving
recovery and stability of touch DNA” in Forensic Science International Genetics
 supplement series. They studied that whether detergent-based wetting agents increased
DNA yield from touch samples when compared to water as a wetting agent. They
concluded that detergent based lysis buffer led to greater DNA recovery from the trace of
touch than distilled water. They stated that use of lysis buffer in the touch DNA sample
collection improved DNA recovery and stability over 24 hr post collection.

2.12 Britta Stoop. Priscille Merci ani Defaux. Silvia Utz. Martin Zeiger in November
2017 published about “Touch DNA sampling with scene safe and fast using mini tapes”
article in legal medicine. In their study they compared the two widely used, commercially
available and automation suitable magnetic bead-based extraction methods “I Prep
Forensic Kit” and “Profiler Express BTA Kit” to conventional organic solvent extraction.
The result demonstrates that DNA extraction from standardized saliva samples applied to
Scene Safe Fast mini tapes is most efficient with phenol-chloroform. They also conclude
that Scene Safe Fast mini tapes perform better than wet cotton swabs in the sampling of
Touch DNA from cotton fabric.

2.13 Chad Hogan. Lora Ellen Bailey-Van Houten. Sulekha Coticone in August 2018
published about “Comparison of the quantity and overall quality of Touch DNA evidence
collected from substrates found at crime scenes” in Journal of Forensic Identification.
They mentioned that the ability to recover high-quality Touch DNA samples from crime
scenes depend on the characteristics of the contributor, the surfaces, the environment, and
the time until recovery. In their study, saliva samples were deposited on various surfaces,
followed by periodic swabbing at time interval for 3 months. They conclude that porous
surface (like- brick) provide lower amount and quality of DNA as compared with smooth
surface (like-plastic, glass)

2.14 Hee Sang You. Song Hee Lee. Yeon Jeong Ok. Sung Hee Hyun et. all in April
2019 published about “Influence of swabbing solution and swab type on DNA recovery
from rigid environmental surfaces” in Journal of microbiological methods. They
compared the efficiency of sample collection using swabbing with cotton swabs and three
types of medical swabs (S7, S22, S24) along with 3 different solution- phosphate-
buffered saline (PBS), 1% tween 20+1% glycerol in PBS (TG) and GS commercial
 solution. They use E. coli and staphylococcus aureus as a representative of environmental
microbial sample and number of colonies forming units. The DNA concentration, DNA
copy no. compared across group give the clear effect of efficiency of extraction of DNA.
The conclude that this technique is helpful for microbial quantification and provide
valuable data for efficient extraction.

2.15 Noora Alsnan in May 2019 published about “Potential use of Touch DNA in
terrorism cases”. They collect the sample and extract the DNA from the surface (weapon)
followed by normalization, amplification and detection after that the report was analysed.
They concluded that IEDs recovered from the crime scenes are complex hoax devices,
these devices cause the same impact of fear on citizen but we can recover the DNA
profiles from them very wisely.

2.16 Jennifer Comte. Simon Baechler. Joelle Gervais et. all in June 2019 published
about “Touch DNA collection- performance of four different swabs” in Forensic Science
International of Genetics. They choose two swabs i.e. reference swab (routinely used kit)
and challenger swabs (the sorted forensic swab, the puritan FAB-MINI-AP swab), they
choose substrate like leather, hard plastic, imitation leather followed by the sampling and
analytical procedures. Secondly, they also specify about the DNA preservation, DNA
extraction and quantification, DNA profiling and statistical analysis of quantification data
and qualitative analysis of electrophoresis. Collection was done by different person. They
conclude that DNA profiling depends on interdependent processes that are in the hand of
different partners, with their own constraints and needs.

2.17 Cintia Friedman. Fernanda T. Goncalves. Daniela O. Francisco in October 2019

published about “Efficiency of Casework Direct Kit for extraction of Touch DNA
samples obtained from the car steering wheels’’ They did 8 stimulated experiments with
6 participants and 4 cars. Each car has owner who used it daily. the other participant
manipulated the steering wheels of each car during one minute. The experiment was done
in different days and in duplicate in order to test 2 extraction kits, DNA IQ and Casework
 Direct Kit. and they collect the sample by using the double swab method. All the samples
were quantified by Quantifier Trio and Amplified with 26 PCR cycles. That amplified
product was submitted to the capillary electrophoresis and analysed by using Gene
Mapper ID software. They conclude that the extraction method with casework direct kit
was more effective for the recovery of genetic material deposited than DNA IQ kit. The
high success rate in obtaining STR profiles from car steering wheels demonstrates that
DNA collection from this surface can be a powerful crime solving tool.

2.18 Salem K. Alketbi. W. Goodwin in October 2019 published about “The effect of
time and environmental conditions on the Touch DNA” in Forensic Science International
Genetics Supplement Series. Their study investigated the influence of time between
deposition and recovery of touch DNA, as well as the temperature and humidity on a
range of porous and non-porous surfaces. They conclude that high temperature effects the
Touch DNA (breakdown of bonds due to high temperature), the porous surface might be
easy task to collect the touch DNA traces, passage of time reduce the efficiency of Touch
DNA.

2.19 Majeed Arsheed. Namaa Dhuha. Miriam Jasim. Reem Hussam in December 2019
published about “Extraction and quantification of DNA from Touched cell phone
surfaces’ ‘in Journal of Biotechnology. They use the technique of sample collection
(cleaned with 10% bleach and ethanol) then cell phone is Touched without washing hand,
the samples were collected by wetted or dry swabs, after that DNA extraction, real time
PCR amplification, amplification for STR’s were done. They concluded that the reports
vary on the basis of time of Touching the surface of the cell phone and on the basis of
smoothness or roughness (quality of surface of cell phones).

2.20 Dan Nana. Denice Higgins. Jeremy Austin in January 2020 published about
“Forensic Touch DNA recovery from metal surface’’ in Science and Justice. They
introduced that DNA binding substrate by preparing a buffer solution followed by using
tape lifting technique, soaking method, barcode M- vac method, direct PCR and then
recognize the effect of substrate surface. They conclude that metal DNA interaction
 including the impact of specific metal composition and surface condition on DNA
recovery, these are the fundamental method to improving the chance of obtaining
interpretable profiles from Touch sample resources.

2.21 Dan Osei Mensah Bonsu. Jeremy J. Austin in January 2020 published about
“Touch DNA recovery from metal and wooden surfaces” in science and justice. They
specify the relation between metal and DNA, different sampling methods for DNA
recovery from metal surfaces i.e. standard swabbing method- buffer solution, tape lifting
method, soaking method, barcode M-VAC method, direct PCR and they explained about
the effect of substrate surface – they stated that the surface characteristics of substrate are
relevant to nucleic acid persistence and recovery. They conclude that metal-DNA
interaction, including the impact of specific metal composition and surface condition on
DNA recovery, are fundamental to improving the chances of obtaining interpretable
profiles from trace sample sources. Such investigation will enhance the forensic
capabilities of law enforcement in general.

2.22 Esiri Tasker. Madeline G. Roman et. all in January 2020 published about
“Efficacy of touch DNA recovery and room-temperature storage from assault rifle
magazines” in book of Legal Medicine. This study assessed the ability of new storage
device (The swab saver) to preserve touch DNA from AR-15 magazine rifles using 3
different collection devices. Three volunteers loaded bullet cartridges into plastic polymer
and aluminium AR-15 magazine. DNA was collected with cotton swab, layered cotton
paper swabs. these collection devises were then stored at room-temperature for up to 2
months in empty centrifuge tube or Swab Saver device. They conclude that substrate and
swab type had less of an effect on profile completeness than storage type.

2.23 Hee-Gyoo Kang. Sung Hee Hyun in January 2020 published about “Comparison
of Swabbing Solution Volume and gDNA Extraction kits on DNA Recovery from Rigid
Surface “in Indian Journal of Microbiology. They used bacteria culture and sample
prepared from the gram-negative bacterium (E. coli) and gram-positive bacterium
(Staphylococcus aureus) and swabbed the sample then they studied the recovery rate of
 the bacteria followed by DNA extraction, quantitative PCR and statically analysed. They
conclude that the result on the basis of comparing efficiency of gDNA extraction,
bacterial recovery of PBS and PBST solution, DNA concentration according to amount
and types of solution and copies based on amount and types of solution that this
technique is favourable for bacterial investigation.

2.24 Jennifer M. Young. Adrian Linacre on February 2020 published about “Use of
spray device to locate Touch DNA’’ in Journal of Forensic Sciences. They use
fluorescent dye to visualize the cellular material on surface. They select 5 devices to
apply Diamond Nucleic Acid Dye (DD) on substrate with saliva and Touch DNA and
after that they visualized them by using the Dino-lite microscope and polilight. They
concluded that this study indicated that full STR profile can be obtained through a
cellular piece on crime scene by using spraying with DD solution.
2.25 Rachel B. Gilmare. Claire L. Glynn in February published about “Recovery of
Touch DNA: a comparison of 4 collection method on various substrate” in Forensic
Science. They selected one volunteer to deposited Touch DNA on all samples to ensures
consistency. All the samples were performed in triplicate and included a blank control
which was resulting in 128 samples. The substrates selected as an evidence are cotton,
denim, felt, polyester, plastic, ceramic tile, wood, cardboard. They collect the samples by
using wet or dry swabs, SDS swabs, mini tapes, gel films. The samples were amplified
followed with DNA extraction and DNA quantitation. They conclude the range of
collection methods i.e. gel film yield ranged from 0-0.180/ng, the wet/dry double swab
ranged from 0-2.68 ng, the SDS swab method ranged from 0-0.134 ng and the mini
taping yields ranged from 0-0.188 ng.

2.26 Claudio Zito in March 2020 published about “Aging Touch-systematic and
unbiased presentation of tactile stimuli’’ in Psychology and forensics. The experiment
shown the methodology and step-by-step guide for gathering data. His setup is composed
of 3-DOF parallel robot arm, a 6channel force-torque sensor and a stepper motor. In his
setup the question was raised and answering were decide that whether the person was
male or female with approximate age of the person.
2.27 Johannes Hedman. Linda Jansson. Yasmine Akel et. all in May 2020 published
about “The double-swab technique versus single swabs for human Touch DNA recovery
from various surfaces” in Forensic Science International of Genetics. Their experiment
was based on absorbing and non-absorbing surface. For non-absorbing surface (like-
window, glass, steel, brass, synthetic leather and ridged plastic), the first wet swab gave
more DNA than second dry ones. They showed that non-absorbing surfaces, the first wet
swab takes up most of the cells in dried stains, making it less valuable to apply a second
dry swab. The double-swabbing fragment might be preferable for some complex surfaces.