Virginie Redouté Minzière

Gunshot residues (GSR) are routinely exploited by forensic scientists in the investigation of firearm‐related events. While many new techniques are daily reported in the literature for the analysis of GSR, there is still a significant lack of data on the transfer, persistence, and prevalence of GSR. Such fundamental knowledge is essential to fully exploit the information potential of GSR for investigation or in Court. This article provides an overview of the relevant questions related to GSR, more particularly to infer about the trace's origin (i.e., is it from a firearm discharge?) and the activity that caused transfer (e.g., primary, secondary, or subsequent transfer). GSR production and composition will be briefly described, considering both inorganic and organic components. Then, the available knowledge about the primary transfer, the secondary transfer, and the persistence of GSR will be outlined, as well as the prevalence (background level) of the targeted elements and/or compounds in the environment, more particularly on the hands of people unrelated to firearm incidents. Finally, the methods developed for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of GSR will be discussed. A holistic approach combining fundamental forensic science knowledge about GSR transfer, persistence, and prevalence together with other available information is discussed as a path forward to increase the relevance and value of the GSR trace in practice.This article is categorized under: Crime Scene Investigation > From Traces to Intelligence and Evidence Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Trace Evidence Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Explosive Analysis

Gunshot residue (GSR) analysis and their interpretation provide crucial information on a criminal investigation involving the use of firearms. To date, several approaches have been proposed for the implementation of a combined sampling and analysis of inorganic (IGSR) and organic GSR (OGSR). However, it is not clear at this stage if concurrent analyses of both types of residue might be detrimental to the analysis of IGSR currently applied in forensic laboratories. Thus, this work aims to compare and evaluate three different protocols for the combined collection and analysis of IGSR and OGSR. These methods, respectively, involve the use of a modified stub (with two halves, one for the detection of IGSR and the other for the analysis of OGSR); the sequential recovery of GSR with two stubs mounted with different adhesives (double‐sided carbon tape and Tesa® TACK) and the sequential analysis of IGSR and OGSR from a single carbon stub following carbon deposition. The detection of IGSR was carried out using SEM‐EDX, while OGSR analysis was performed using ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC‐MS/MS). Obtained results for experiments performed using Geco Sinoxid^® ammunition indicated that sequential analysis was the most suitable protocol for the combined collection and analysis of both IGSR and OGSR. A higher number of inorganic (characteristic and consistent) particles and higher concentrations of ethylcentralite, N‐nitrosodiphenylamine, diphenylamine, and nitroglycerin were recovered with this method.