Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 2 (2009) 136–137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/FSIGSS

Research article

Trace DNA success rates relating to volume crime offences

Jennifer J. Raymond a,b,*, Roland A.H. van Oorschot c, Peter R. Gunn b, Simon J. Walsh a, Claude Roux a
a
Centre for Forensic Science, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
b
NSW Police Force, Forensic Services Group, Clunies Ross St, Pemulwuy, NSW 2145, Australia
c
Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre, Forensic Drive, Macleod, Victoria 3085, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In this study, 252 trace DNA samples (from handled surfaces) from 201 burglary, robbery and drugs cases
Received 12 August 2009 were compiled to assess success rates and to interpret the value of trace DNA evidence in volume crime
Accepted 14 August 2009 investigations. The average amount of DNA recovered from the trace DNA samples collected was 1.7 ng.
Full or major (12 or more alleles) profiles were recovered from 14% of samples. Samples from firearms
Keywords: and burglary points of entry were the least successful. Mixtures were recovered from 21% of samples,
Trace DNA presenting a case for the collection of more elimination profiles to enable more samples to be used for
Volume crime
database purposes. The research highlighted the difficulties in collecting data relating to the success
Success rates
rates of samples. Computerised automation of this process would be extremely beneficial in the
assistance of policy development, method application, training, and investigative usefulness.
Crown Copyright ß 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and 10 mL of extract amplified in 25 mL 28 cycle Profiler PlusTM

reactions, run on a ABI Prism 3130xl Genetic Analyser.
Frustrations with the inability to access DNA success rates The samples were grouped into six different categories:
have been noted across Australasian forensic jurisdictions [1]. In
many organisations results must be collated manually, and 1. Firearms
understandably given the high workloads this is given less 2. Packaging (e.g. plastic bags used to hold drugs)
priority than casework. As a result there has been no published 3. Tools (e.g. screwdrivers and weapons such as knives)
review of trace DNA success rates in Australia, particularly 4. Robbery items (e.g. wallets and mobile phones)
regarding samples from handled objects. Internationally, a New 5. Points of entry
Zealand study was conducted in 2008 assessing the results of 6. Other touched items (areas touched during an offence).
908 samples expected to produce low levels of DNA [2]. The
benefits of a similar study in the jurisdiction of New South
Wales were recognised.

2. Methods

The 252 trace samples, all from surfaces touched by hands, were
compiled from volume crime cases that had been collected
between May and June 2008. The samples had been collected by
using the double swab method, before being sent to a NATA
accredited laboratory for DNA analysis was performed. The swabs
were extracted using Qiagen1 spin columns on a BioRobot1 8000.
The extracts were quantified using QuantifilerTM real-time PCR,

* Corresponding author at: NSW Police Force, Forensic Services Group, Clunies
Ross St, Pemulwuy, NSW 2145, Australia. Fig. 1. Average DNA quantity recovered by sample type. Negative samples were
E-mail address: jjraym@hotmail.com (J.J. Raymond). included in the calculation of the mean of each group.

1875-1768/$ – see front matter . Crown Copyright ß 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.08.072
 J.J. Raymond et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 2 (2009) 136–137
Fig. 2. Completeness of profiles recovered by sample type.
3. Results
The average amount of DNA recovered from all samples was
1.7 ng in the total extract, with the highest amount recovered
being 50.8 ng from a mobile phone stolen during a robbery. In 41
samples (16%) no DNA was detected. Fig. 1 displays the average
amount of DNA recovered per sample type. Significant differences
were noted between the amounts of DNA recovered from robbery
items and the points of entry samples, and between the tools and
the points of entry samples.
111 (44%) of the trace DNA samples did not produce a profile.
Only 19 (8%) samples gave a full single profile, and 6% of the
samples produced a partial profile with 12 or more alleles. 21% of
the samples resulted in a mixed profile. Fig. 2 shows the profiles
recovered from the various sample types.
The time between the offence and the collection of the sample
ranged from less than 2 h to 62 days, and the time between the
sample collection and its submission to the laboratory ranged from 4
days to over 1 year. There was no evidence for a linear relationship
between the delay until sample collection and the quantity of DNA
recovered (R2 < 0.03), or the quality of profile recovered. Despite
lengthy time delays between the sample collection and laboratory
submission, there were no significant decreases in the DNA quantity
and profile quality (p = 0.86 and 0.28).
4. Discussion and conclusions
The overall level of DNA recovered from these trace samples was
quite low. It was a relatively similar result to those obtained in New
Zealand, with no profile resulting from 45% (NSW) and 69% (NZ), and
full profiles from 6% (NSW) and 5% (NZ). Likewise, the New Zealand
researchers estimated that 20% of ‘low level’ DNA samples produce a
profile suitable for inclusion on a database, compared to 17% in this
study. The fact that the results are so similar is interesting, given that
the methods of extraction, quantitation and amplification were
quite different between the two jurisdictions. The New Zealand
study also incorporated samples resulting from saliva, whereas this
study focussed solely on handled items.
The robbery samples gave the highest quantity of DNA of any
group, however only contained eight samples. These samples are
137
from different types of items (for example wallets and mobile
phones) likely to be handled regularly by users. It is therefore
possible that the DNA recovered from these items may be from the
victim rather than the offender; however this could not be
determined from the data available. Tools were the second most
successful sample type, again as expected given these items are
thought to be in use and therefore handled for longer periods than
other categories. The lowest quantities and least successful profiles
were achieved from the points of entry, followed closely by
firearms. Whilst the results of the points of entry were expected
given the brief amount of time the surface would be handled, it was
thought that firearms may have been more successful, as extensive
handling is often required during their loading and maintenance.
Mixtures were observed in one out of every five samples. These
mixtures may still be useful for evidentiary purposes, particularly
if elimination profiles were obtained from victims. Considering the
large investment in DNA evidence, a relatively simple task such as
this may have the potential to greatly increase the resulting
number of useable profiles.
Difficulties were encountered during the data collation, which
could not be conducted automatically by computer systems. Each
case had to be searched manually in order to garner the necessary
detail, a time consuming task even for this relatively small data set.
The full value of the DNA results to the investigation could not be
determined due to the extensive data mining required. It is clear
why such statistics are not collected on a regular basis; however
the benefit of this data in terms of policy direction, method
application and training needs is evident.
Conflict of interest statement
None.
References
[1] J.J. Raymond, et al., Trace DNA analysis: do you know what your neighbour is
doing? A multi-jurisdictional survey, Forensic Science International: Genetics 2 (1)
(2008) 19–28.
[2] S.A. Harbison, et al., An analysis of the success rate of 908 trace DNA samples
submitted to the Crime Sample Database Unit in New Zealand, Australian Journal
of Forensic Sciences 40 (1) (2008) 49–53.