It is common to see lipstick smears analyzed in TV shows within minutes, but in reality, the procedure isn’t simple. For many years, forensic scientists have utilized various methods to successfully remove lipstick stains from crime scenes and analyze their chemical components. The procedures currently used are costly since they involve steps such as meticulously removing lipstick by hand or examining samples by Raman spectroscopy or X-ray diffraction. Moreover, they require specialized equipment and professional training, which are scarce in supply in financially neglected forensic labs.
Taking these facts into account, forensic scientists at Western Illinois University decided to develop a more efficient and cheaper way to lift samples and analyze them further. Starting with the established method, they began to eliminate unnecessary steps. They challenged themselves with 40 types of lipsticks, making a mark on paper for each one of them; distinguishing different brands of lipsticks since they have unique compositions of organic molecules that give distinct chromatography signals. The final method concluded into a two-part process: add an organic solvent to remove most of the oils and waxes; then add a basic organic solvent to extract the remaining mark. They also didn’t forget to omit methods that involve complex training; the team investigated three types of chromatography — thin layer chromatography (TLC), gas chromatography (GC) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). GC and HPLC both simply need the sample to be injected into a machine while TLC involves investigators to examine samples on a special type of surface under UV light.
The researchers are still working on the best method but so far they see best results with gas chromatography. They will continue their study by creating a thorough lipstick database and applying various methods.
I thought this was a fascinating study since we never care to think about how investigators collect physical evidence from lipstick stains. Through this article, I was able to get an overall idea of what method is currently utilized and how researchers are working on a more easily applicable method. While I enjoyed the piece, I think it would have been better if it provided a specific example with pictures. With visual samples, it could deepen the readers’ understanding. I am excited to follow up on the research when extensive results are made.
American Chemical Society. "Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 March 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314085037.htm>.
10 comments:
Emme Kerj
Current event 17 comment
Yumi, I really liked that you explained the errors with the previous methods of removing lipstick and then led that into what the article was actually about: the new method of analyzing lipstick stains. You also summarized the article really well and made sure to explain every step that the scientists took when developing the new method which made it really easy for me as a reader to follow along the story without any confusion. You also did a great job explaining the steps that the article talked about and the struggles that the scientists encountered when working on the new method of lipstick analysis. I also agree with your critique that the article should have included pictures of maybe the different methods that they are testing since some readers might not be as familiar with the topic as others.
I think that you could possibly have broadened your critique of the article a little more and maybe discussed what this new method could help with other than lipstick analysis and how important it is for the scientific community to constantly strive towards improving different methods since that might lead to findings that weren’t intended at first.
One thing that surprised me is how complicated the process of analyzing lipstick stains is because I thought that scientists could just get the DNA from the lipstick and then be done with it. It is also surprising that scientists spend so much time and dedication on trying to perfect a new method and it was nice to read that they are seeing progress with gas chromatography.
Overall I thought you did a great job summarizing this article and it didn’t confuse me even though some of the material was slightly complicated.
Works cited:
American Chemical Society. "Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 March 2016. .
I think that Yumi did a great job summarizing what the article, “Tying Lipstick Smears from Crime Scenes to Specific Brands,” was trying to say. For instance, she perfectly explained the difficulties that forensic analysts have trying to identify lipstick smears from crime scenes. She explained that some reasons why forensic analysts struggle to identify brands could is because of the lack of funding for specific technology in certain forensic labs, or the fact that lots of funding is needed to support the lengthy process of collecting the lipstick smears. I also think Yumi explained the new study very well by keeping the information sequential and straight to the point. I think the review could have been improved if Yumi talked more about what the article said specifically rather than just explaining the study itself. I also think that adding in more of her opinion on the article would help bring more of a personal feel to the review.
Overall, I was shocked to have learned how difficult the process is to actually collect physical evidence, such as lipstick smears, from crime scenes. I found it interesting how everyday we’re finding new ways to make solving crimes easier by improving the technology and technique in the forensic labs.
I thought that overall Yumi did a great job with her current event article review. One thing I thought she did well was summarizing the article in a concise and efficient way. It did not drag out too long and I was constantly intrigued while reading the important details of the article. Another thing I thought she did well was stressing the importance of the subject. The main part of these summaries is to discuss the relevance it has to the modern forensics world, and she did a great job at stressing the importance it had. Finally, I thought that she did a great job at critiquing the article. She did so in a proper manner and did so in a great way.
While I thought this review was great, some things that could be improved upon include voicing her opinion more in the review, and maybe explaining the method a little bit more and in detail so it’s more understandable.
From this article and the review I learned that lipstick analysis is very difficult and much more complicated than I had originally thought.
Works Cited:
American Chemical Society. "Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 March 2016. .
One thing I liked about Yumi’s review on the article “Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brand” was the way she summarized it. Yumi first began by explaining the importance of lipstick smears by relating it shows. Next, she listed the current ways that forensic investigators are identifying lipstick smears and how that process is tedious. The summary then goes on to explain how in a new experiment, scientists from Western Illinois University developed a new method for removing and processing the smears. Another part I liked was her critique of the article itself. Although it was short, I agreed with her on several points. One of the key ones was how the article could have included pictures to help readers visualize the process better. I also enjoyed Yumi’s reasoning for why she found the article interesting. She wrote a bit on how most people gloss over how forensic investigators get evidence such as the lip smears and how identifying the specific brands is a much more difficult task than most people realize.
One thing I think Yumi could do better on was describing how the article relates to humanity. She mentioned it a little in the beginning when she talks about how lipstick smears are common evidence used in shows. Yumi could go more in depth on that and explain why lipstick is important as evidence (many women use it, leaves imprints on glass, DNA, gives details about who was at crime scene,etc). Something the article could have worked on was describing the tests done. Although it gives general information such as what machines and processes the evidence goes through, it does not mention the number of tests or the exact number of how many of the tests were successful (although it does mention that gas chromatography had most positive results).
One thing I learned from reading this article/review was about how hard it really is to tie lipstick smears to a specific brand. With the large variety of colors and the large number of store brands, it would seem obvious that finding a specific rand would be difficult, but as mentioned before, most people don't bother with details like that. Instead they focus on what they learn from shows, and most shows portray this task as easy (the smear is analyzed correctly in minutes). I also thought this was interesting because it tied back to what we learned in class about class vs individual characteristics.
I really liked how you explained the errors with the previous methods of removing lipstick and then led that into what the article was actually about: the new method of analyzing lipstick stains. You also summarized the article really well and made sure to explain every step that the scientists took when developing the new method which made it really easy for me as a reader to follow along the story without any confusion. You also did a great job explaining the steps that the article talked about and the struggles that the scientists encountered when working on the new method of lipstick analysis. I also agree with your critique that the article should have included pictures of maybe the different methods that they are testing since some readers might not be as familiar with the topic as others.
I think that you could possibly have broadened your critique of the article a little more and maybe discussed what this new method could help with other than lipstick analysis and how important it is for the scientific community to constantly strive towards improving different methods since that might lead to findings that weren’t intended at first.
One thing that surprised me is how complicated the process of analyzing lipstick stains is because I thought that scientists could just get the DNA from the lipstick and then be done with it. It is also surprising that scientists spend so much time and dedication on trying to perfect a new method and it was nice to read that they are seeing progress with gas chromatography.
Overall I thought you did a great job summarizing this article and it didn’t confuse me even though some of the material was slightly complicated.
Works cited:
American Chemical Society. "Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 March 2016
Yumi, I really enjoyed your review of the article “Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands.” There were a few things that stood out. One, you did a great job summarizing the article. You did a great job explaining the difficulties forensic analysts face trying to identify smears from crime scenes. Two, I thought you did a great job focusing on the importance of this topic. You did a great job of connecting your review back to society which is also important. Three, I liked your critique of the article. I definitely agreed with some of your points.
Although your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it even better. One, I wish you added a quote or two from the article or an expert, because this would have strengthened your review. Two, I also wish you spoke more about the article and the results of the study than the actual study itself.
After reading your review, I was shocked to figure out how hard it is to identify lipstick smears from a crime scene. You wouldn’t think it would be that hard, or that experts would at least have a procedure to collect the evidence.
American Chemical Society. "Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 March 2016. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314085037.htm
Yumi did a great job of picking an article that was unique and interesting to read. Most people wouldn’t even think of lipstick as a forensic tool, and so it was interesting to read about how difficult it is to examine lipstick evidence. Yumi did a good job of breaking down the problems associated with testing lipstick as the tests stand right now. She also explained the currently available tests to examine the lipstick and a couple pros as to why each should be used. She gave a basic understanding of what these tests are and how the results are communicated. She also told how further research would allow for a growing database to give results more rapidly.
She did a great job and there were very few flaws in her review. I feel like her review could have benefited, however, from an explanation as to why lipstick can be important in forensic cases, and why identifying it can be so important. I was left wondering why all this information is so useful to obtain. This would give the article more overall meaning. She also could have used some more information on why HPLC and thin layer are useful when it comes to testing the lipsticks.
This article was very interesting in how it shows that even some of the smallest things can be utilized as forensic evidence, and ultimately put criminals in prison.
I read Yumi’s review of the article she chose on how forensic scientists are starting to pair the lipstick smears found in crime scenes to lip brands. What Yumi did well with on her review was she talked specifically about what researchers at Western Illinois University were doing with this case, and she talked of their step by step method. What Yumi did which was really great was that she chose a topic that was relevant to what we are studying in forensic science with an emphasis on gas chromatography. I also really enjoyed how Yumi included that the procedure that the scientists are working on is not yet perfected, because science is always evolving and improvements can always be made.
If I were to suggest anything to Yumi, it would be to add a small background on the importance of lipstick in crime scenes. Another suggestion for Yumi would be to explain more on the method that has been used in the past for analyzing lipstick smears and why exactly are they so costly.
I really enjoyed this article and honestly found it very interesting because it had to do with lipstick smears and I find that that is such a small detail often overshadowed in crime scenes, so it is cool to know more about what analyzations are done.
American Chemical Society. "Tying lipstick smears from crime scenes to specific brands." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 March 2016. .
Yumi chose a great article to do her current event on. She summarized the article very well by including the difficulties of identifying lipstick smears from a crime scene. Also, she talked about the problems that occur when testing lipstick. Yumi stayed on topic when writing this review and did a great job with connecting it back to modern society. Even though Yumi did a great job at reviewing the article, I would have liked to see some quotes somewhere from an expert. Another thing that Yumi should have done was voiced her own opinion on the topic at hand. Overall, Yumi did a great job reviewing the article and I learned a lot from it.
Yumi did a wonderful job on her article, as usual. I was impressed with all the details she recounted from the article. She mentioned that forensic investigators are working on making the lipstick identification process shorter, she explained exactly what they do in order to identify the brand and possibly the name of the lipstick, she told of the extensive training that must be received, and she made reference to apparatuses that we talked about in class: gas chromatography, thin layer chromatography and high power liquid chromatography, and some things we have not seen in class: Raman spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction. What more could you want? I also enjoyed the way Yumi gave the steps needed for proper lipstick analysis. It seemed quite interesting and makes me wish that police found a lipstick stained wine glass at John Wayne Gretzky’s house so we can repeat the process in class. I also liked Yumi’s reaction to the article. I feel the same way about it. I got an approximate idea about this topic but I would enjoy a more comprehensive analysis of lipstick forensics.
If anything had to be improved, I would like to have read how lipstick analysis is used to solve a crime. The exact significance eludes me at this time. I agree with Yumi who would have also liked to see pictures or perhaps a video showing the process actually happening.
I was impressed that something as simple and seemingly trivial as a lipstick stain could play such an important role at a crime scene. Of course, it would be better if we had blood to identify the killer but Yumi made it seem that lipstick is just as good. Even if it does not solve the case, it could point to someone who was involved. I read about William Heirens who wrote message in lipstick at his crime scenes. If this technology was available in the 1940’s, perhaps he would have been caught a lot sooner.
Post a Comment