PURPOSE
The purpose of this experiment is to determine the possibility of using
multiple forensic science methods to solve a crime.
I have always wanted to do a science experiment that involves
cosmetology. My dream is to be a nail artist but there is no one around
here to guide me through the science of nail products. I am also
interested in forensic science and am a “C.S.I”, “Num3ers”, “House” junkie.
I simply got thinking and came up with a way to study both forensics and
cosmetics at the same time.
The information gained from this experiment could potentially solve a serious
crime. These methods are used in this experiment are basic versions of
what they actually perform in real crime labs. A forensic scientist could
really solve a horrific murder by such simple evidence such as the lipstick and
latent prints found at the scene of the crime. A possible career path for
me is to become a forensic scientist. The skills I learn in this
experiment may help me pursue a career in forensic science. Careers in
law and criminal science need to know the basics of obtaining and processing
basic evidence such as the latent prints and chromatography, which my research
and experimentation involves.
HYPOTHESIS
I hypothesize that the perpetrator (suspect) will be identified by lip print
identification and chromatography methods.
I base my hypothesis that a suspect can be identified by lip prints by an
article written by Thurman Ray Williams titled “Lip Prints – Another Means of
Identification.” The article stated that lip prints were similar to
fingerprints and that people can be identified by their lip prints.
I base my hypothesis that a suspect can be identified by chromatography because
the evidence (lipstick) can be broken down into two or more pure substances
that are physically close together. Chromatography is used to solve many
different crimes (Martha Stewart’s insider trading, Oklahoma City Bombing, D.U.I.’s,
and arson cases) by testing wide varieties of substances. If that many
diverse substances can be processed for criminal evidence using chromatography,
then lipstick too can be broken down to its basic components and used to solve
a crime.
The Experiment design is in two parts: latent lip prints and chromatography of
lipstick. This is because there are essentially two experiments performed
to retrieve data that used to determine the solution to the
problem.
Latent Lip Prints
The constants in the latent lip print study are:
The method of lifting the lip print.
Tape used to lift the lip print.
Camera, film, and setting of the photography of the lip prints.
The objects the lip prints are lifted
from.
The “perpetrator”.
The manipulated variables are:
The lipstick’s shade and
manufacturer.
The test suspect’s individual lip structure.
The test suspect’s method of applying
lipstick.
The test suspect’s method of kissing the object to be tested.
The responding variable is the number of matching focal points of reference to
the control sample.
To measure the responding variable the lip prints are observed via naked
eye, & hand lens. The lip prints are photographed with a 35mm
camera. The film is developed and put on CD and print photographs are
made. The photographs, on CD and print, are compared to the raw
data. Comparisons are made between the lip prints on glass and the lip
prints on paper. The suspect’s data is compared to the control
(perpetrator).
Chromatography of Lipstick
The constants in the chromatography study are:
The brand of the chromatography paper
The size (length and width) of the
chromatography paper strip.
The individual test tubes used.
Brand and amount of acetone used.
Size of dot of sample lipstick used.
Time each sample is processed in the
acetone solution.
The “perpetrator” and the lipstick she
used.
The manipulated variables are the shades and manufacturers of the lipstick, and
any residue (food, lip-gloss, or medication) that might be on the suspects’ or
perpetrator’s lips.
The responding variable is the distance the solvent and the lipstick components
moved up the strip of chromatography paper.
To measure the responding variable the distance the solvent and each lipstick
component is measured and compared to each other and the control
(perpetrator).
11 tubes of lipstick
4 tubes of 3 different shades and manufacturers, only 11 will be
selected.
9 mirrors
9 small sealed envelopes
8 large envelopes to distribute supplies to the subjects.
135mm camera and 400 asa film
1 Fingerprinting kit from BSA for the Pre-Experiment stage
12 strips of chromatography paper
4 additional strips of chromatography paper
1 scraps of chromatography paper
4 additional scraps of chromatography paper
1 Metal knife
1 pair of scissors or paper cutter
12 test tubes
1 Test tube holder
1 can of commercially available acetone (from hardware store)
1 Pencil
1 Sharpie pen
1 Hole punch
1 pair of eyeglasses or safety goggles
1 Stopwatch or watch with second hand
1 Ruler
1 Calculator
1 Spool of black thread
1 Roll of Scotch tape
1 Roll of masking tape
1 Roll of paper towels
1 Old container of commercially available acetone or similar style empty &
clean
container.
Pre-Experiment Phase
1. Purchase single tubes of different colors and manufacturers of lipstick to
test to determine if the lipstick will be acetone solvent. Four tubes
were purchased for this phase of the experiment.
2. Prepare chromatography paper to test by cutting into strips narrow enough to
fit inside the test tubes without touching the sides. A hole is punched
at the top of the strip and a thread is tied to the top of the strip using a
monk’s head knot. Each strip is labeled with it’s test number with a
pencil on the top edge.
3. 1 test tube and 1 strip of
chromatography paper is needed to test each individual tube of
lipstick.
4. Punch a hole in a scrap piece of chromatography paper and place over the
strip of chromatography paper to be used in the test.
5. Smear lipstick, stencil method, onto the chromatography paper using the
punched hole as a guide 1cm from the bottom of the strip.
6. Using a Sharpie pen, make a small line 1/3rd from the bottom of the test
tube.
7. Pour commercial grade acetone to the line of each test tube, over a steel
sink, taking care not to spill. Place each test tube in the test tube
holder.
8. Carefully lower the chromatography strip with the lipstick circle on it into
the acetone, taking care not to dip the lipstick in the acetone. Only the
chromatography paper should touch the acetone. Tape the thread to the
outside of the test tube to secure. Tape a second piece of tape to the
top of the tube to prevent evaporation.
9. With a stopwatch, record when you first see the chemical components stop
moving. Remove chromatography strips if after 15 minutes there is no
change.
10. Carefully
remove the tape and chromatography paper.
11. Place the processed chromatography strips on a folded piece of paper towel
for absorption.
12. Pour the used acetone from the test tubes into a second can to store for
disposal later.
13. The chromatography strips are examined to determine if the chemicals
present did break down and separate in commercial acetone. Three
manufacturers are chosen for the experiment phase. 12 tubes, four of each
manufacturer is purchased. Chosen shades are close in color.
14. Evidence cards are made on cardstock to mount the lifted lip prints.
See appendix.
15. Lifting of latent lip prints is practiced using the BSA Fingerprinting kit
and latent print tape.
Experiment Phase
1. Preparation of Materials
a. With help from a non-biased individual, assign each test suspect a
number. Have the non-biased individual record the number and their name
in a way that it will not be disclosed unless a supervisor or teacher needs
it.
b. Label 8 envelopes with the test suspect’s number.
c. Label 8 tubes of lipstick with the test suspect’s number at
random.
d. Label 8 compacts with the test suspect’s number. Label the ninth
compact as “Control” and “Who dun it”. Open each compact. Clean
each mirror. On the magnified mirror in each compact, place a tiny
question mark written on masking tape. On the opposite mirror in each
compact, place a tiny “x” written on masking tape. X=kiss.
e. Seal 9 envelopes. Label 8 envelopes with the test suspect’s number
discreetly in a corner. Label the 9th envelope as “Control” discreetly in
a corner
f. In the envelopes, place the corresponding lipstick, compact, and sealed
envelope. Have the non-biased individual secretly place the control or
perpetrator compact and sealed envelope in one of the 8 labeled envelopes of
their choice. Have them remember whose envelope they selected but remind
them they are not to disclose the information until after the experiment is
complete and the results are documented.
2. Obtaining Evidence
a. Bring prepared envelopes to school.
b. Non-biased individual is given envelopes to hand out to the participants.
This individual is instructed in the procedure the participants must follow in
case they are confused. The selection of this method is to eliminate the
amount of time the participants must be out of their classroom to participate
in the extracurricular experiment. The individual is able to provide
excused hall passes to allow students into the restrooms and back to class
during class time.
c. On Valentine’s Day, give each participant a letter explaining the procedure
they will need to follow when they participate in the experiment. A
letter to the individual’s teacher is also provided requesting that they allow
their student to go to the non-biased individual at a convenient time during
their teacher’s class to participate in the experiment. The procedure is
explained as follows:
What You Do:
1. I will send you down to my mom (a.k.a. mean old attendance lady) to do the
“kissing” because I cannot know who the “criminal” is.
2. My mom will give an envelope full of stuff that is listed above.
3. Take out the compact and the tube of lipstick (you can use the mirror).
4. Open the compact. There are two mirrors inside of it. Two pieces
of masking tape will be in the corner of both mirrors. The piece of tape
with the “X” on it is the mirror that you kiss. When you kiss, apply two
coats of lipstick together, and rub lips together. Then kiss the
mirror.
5. On the other mirror put a question mark on it with the lipstick. Yes
with the lipstick. I know that it sounds crazy but trust me. Don’t be shy
be bold in your writing. I will scrape this lipstick off to test
it.
6. Close the compact and the tube of lipstick and put them back in the
envelope. If there are two compacts in your envelope then you were
selected to be the “criminal”. If you were chosen then repeat steps 3-5.
7. There is a sealed envelope folded in half. All you need to do with it
is kiss the back of it and put it back in the envelope. This is the “love
note”. If you received two compacts, you would have also received two
sealed envelopes. You need to kiss the second envelope in the same manner
as you kissed the first one.
8. Put everything back in the envelope and give it back to my mom, and know you
can go back to class. She will write you an excused pass.
d. Individual participants go to the non-biased individual, obtain their
envelope. The non-biased individual reviews the procedure to the
individual participants as written. The participants return to
class.
e. The envelopes are secured and an appointment is made to schedule the
Designated Supervisor to run the experiment.
3. Processing the Evidence
a. Prepare chromatography paper to test by cutting into strips narrow enough to
fit inside the test tubes without touching the sides. A hole is punched
at the top of the strip and a thread is tied to the top of the strip using a
monk’s head knot. Each strip is labeled with it’s test suspect’s number
with a pencil on the top edge.
b. 1 test tube and 1 strip of chromatography paper is needed to test each
individual tube of lipstick.
c. Punch
a hole in a scrap piece of chromatography paper and place over the strip of
chromatography paper to be used in the test.
d. Open compact #1. Photograph the question mark from each compact.
Carefully scrape the lipstick from the question mark off of the mirror with a
sharp knife
e. Smear lipstick, stencil method, onto
the chromatography paper using the punched hole as a guide 1cm from the bottom
of the strip.
f. Repeat steps d & e until all 8 test suspect’s and the control
(perpetrator) evidence is prepared for processing.
g. Using a Sharpie pen, make a small line 1/3rd from the bottom of the test
tube.
h. Pour commercial grade acetone to the line of each test tube, over a steel
sink, taking care not to spill.. Place each test tube in the test tube
holder.
i. Carefully lower the chromatography strip with the lipstick circle on it into
the acetone, taking care not to dip the lipstick in the acetone. Only the
chromatography paper should touch the acetone. Tape the thread to the
outside of the test tube to secure. Tape a second piece of tape to the top
of the tube to prevent evaporation.
j. With a stopwatch, record when you first see the chemical components stop
moving. Remove chromatography strips if after 15 minutes there is no
change.
k. Since the test tube holder only holds 6 test tubes, cover the remaining 6
lipstick samples with plastic wrap to prevent dust from settling on it,
smearing, or evaporation.
l. Carefully remove the tape and chromatography paper.
m. Place the processed chromatography strips on a folded piece of paper towel
for absorption.
n. Pour the used acetone from the test tubes into a second can to store for
disposal later.
o. Repeat steps g to m for the final half of the lipstick samples.
p. All used acetone can be returned to original container for later household
and eventual proper disposal as a hazardous waste.
q. Acetone is moved to the outside shed for proper storage.
r. The chromatography strips are visually examined to determine if the
chemicals present did break down and separate in commercial
acetone.
s. Photographs are taken of the strips to compare the differences and
similarities between the strips.
t. The rate and distance of the breakdown of chemical components are calculated
and recorded.
u. The lip prints from each test suspect’s lip print is lifted from their
compact and mounted on an evidence card. They are not dusted prior to
being lifted with latent print tape. The data on the card is
completed.
v. The lip prints are photographed
w. The lip prints are compared using photography and a hand lens to note the
differences and similarities. Data is recorded.
x. The experiment is complete and the test suspect’s lipsticks and compacts are
returned to the individual for their private use.
RESULTS
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the possibility of using
multiple forensic science methods to solve a crime. The goal was to prove
that a “perpetrator” could be identified by their lip prints and the
chromatography of the lipstick that they used. I hypothesized that these
two methods, latent lip print identification, and chromatography could solve a
serious crime.
Results of Latent Lip Print Identification.
Evidence proved that the perpetrator (control #1) was identified by their lip
print. This was proven after careful comparison of the lip prints of the
perpetrator (control #1) to the 8 suspects. The evidence providing the
best documentation was the latent lip prints lifted directly from the lip print
on the compact and placed on an evidence card. The lip prints from the envelope
were only useful as a back up to the mirror method. Some prints on the
compact were smudged and the envelope was a better match. Controls 2-4
were not used in this phase of the experiment except for visual comparison of
the shade of lipstick.
To determine a positive match 10 matching reference points were found on both
control #1 and suspect #8 from the lip prints on the evidence cards.
Suspects #1-7 had only 1-2 matching reference points. The reference point
marks were made on the mounted samples in contrasting colors. The
reference dots, because of their size are not visible in the photography of the
evidence cards. Below are the photographs taken of the latent lip print
evidence:
The data of the reference points the suspects had in relation to the
perpetrator are illustrated in the two figures below. It is obvious that
Suspect #8 is the closest match to the perpetrator based on the number of
reference points their latent lip prints showed.
Latent Lip prints are classified into six different classifications based on
their characteristics. It is possible for a person to have more than one
type classification of their lips. In this experiment the majority, five
suspects, had three different type classifications, one suspect had two
different type classifications, and two suspects had four different type
classifications.
In addition, each lip characteristic classification was represented by the
suspects at least three times. Class I characteristics were represented
the most and therefore the most common classification of the suspects in this
experiment.
Results of Chromatography Test
The results of the chromatography test supported that Suspect #8 was the
perpetrator. The chromatography of Control #1 (Perpetrator) and Suspect
#8 did not break down into analytes. The suspects who used the same
lipstick as Control #2 and Control #3 were no longer suspects because their
lipstick components perform as expected using acetone as the solvent.
Visual observation of the chromatography results match the following controls
with the following suspects:
Lipstick sample Color Match
As you can see it appears that one more suspect used the same kind of lipstick
as Control #4 than what was planned. There should only be a maximum of
three suspects using each manufacturer of lipstick in this
experiment.
Visual comparison of the chromatography strips shows some definite matches in
first appearance (Figure 32). By color and chemical break down it appears
that Control #3 and Suspect #7 match. It also appears that Control #2
will mach Suspects #1 and #4 based on color but the breakdown did not match
since Control #2 had three components and Suspects #1and #4 have 4 components
each.
Many different visual observations were made. The table below (figure 33)
shows the visual observations of the latent lip print evidence and the
chromatography evidence observations that were made for each control sample and
suspect sample. The table also notes the similarities of the suspects to
Control #1, the perpetrator. To support my theory that Suspect #8 was the
perpetrator, the graph in figure 34 illustrates the high number of similarities
in the evidence obtained to that of Control #1.
Visual Comparison of shade or color
Comparison of the written "?" Comparison of
the shape of lip prints Comparison of the classification of
the lip prints Comparison of the lip print on the envelope
Visual comparison of lipstick samples after chromatography
Calculation of chemical components after chromatography (Rf=
distance chemical traveled/ distance solvent traveled)
The table below (Figure 34) shows the data obtained from the chromatography
experiment. The table shows the mathematical results when finding the Rf
or Retention Factor and its similar calculation HETP. The data supporting
the capacity factor (K’) and the selectivity factor (Ω) which too are closely
related.
Retention Factor and HETP – The
retention factor is one calculation that you may use to compare the elution of
one component to that of another. It is essentially a percentage of the
rate traveled by a chemical component; it is calculated as follows:
Rf = Distance traveled by one lipstick component / Distance traveled by
the acetone
That is a very simple calculation instructed in Crime Scene Investigations,
Walker & Wood but the data results were inconclusive. None of the
suspect’s calculations came close to any of the control samples with the
exception of those who used the Control #4 lipstick.
A similar calculation is HETP or Height Equivalent to a Theoretical Plate and
was found in “Chromatography – Introductory Theory”. HETP is based on
theoretical or imaginary plates that serve as a way to measure the column
efficiency by counting the imaginary plates in a chromatography column.
The calculation of HETP is as follows:
HETP = L/N
Or
HETP = length of the column of the analyte / number of theoretical plates in a
column.
I obtained the data by placing the column in figure 34 up to the individual
chromatography strips and counted the number of theoretical plates as described
in the above calculation Suspect #1, #4, and #6 did not match
Control #2 as I expected they should nor did Suspect # 7 match Control
#3. Controls #1 and #4, Suspects #2, #3, #5, and #8 all matched because
their lipstick would not break down in the acetone.
A second method that calculates the retention factor, which is also called the
capacity factor calculates the migration rate of an analyte but uses time as a
primary unit. This second calculation determines k’. k’ can be
calculated as follows:
k’A = tR – tM / tM
or
k’A = retention time – time of mobile phase /time of mobile phase
Using this calculation obtained from “Chromatography – Introductory Theory,” I
was slightly more successful in proving that the controls matched the
suspect. By visual observation of color, Control #2 should have been the
same as Suspects #1, #4, and #6. In the chromatography phase of the
experiment, Suspect #6’s lipstick behaved the same as Control #4 and no
components moved. This phenomenon again questioned the accuracy of the
chromatography phase. However, Control #3 and Suspect #7 had identical
calculations when k’ was calculated and the visual appearance of
the chromatography of those two strips were a very close match.
After k’ is calculated for each component, the selectivity factor or Ω can be
calculated. This calculation describes the rate that the separation of
the components displays. To obtain this calculation I used k’ of the
slowest analyte and divided it by the k’ of the fastest analyte on the
individual chromatography strip. The calculation is as follows:
Ω = k’B / k’A
Once again, the calculations did not support what I had theorized. The
calculation did not support the Suspects that I assumed used the same lipstick
as Control #2. Since several controls and suspects did not break apart
during chromatography, they had no data to calculate. Control #3 and
Suspect did have the quotient proving that that the two samples had matching
data after the chromatography calculations.
To summarize the chromatography results, most of the calculations were
inconclusive in proving that the suspects matched their anticipated
control. Control #3 and Suspect #7 were the only two samples that had
data to support my visual observations. Suspect #8 still appears to be
the perpetrator because the sample did behave the same as did Control #1
(perpetrator) and Control #4. Visual observation appears to be more
accurate in this experiment than the calculations performed.
My hypothesis was that the perpetrator (suspect) would be identified by lip
print identification and chromatography methods. The results of the
experiment indicate that both the two hypotheses should be
accepted.
Even though I was able to prove the perpetrator by both examination of latent
prints and the chromatography of lipstick, most of the calculations of the
chromatography were inconclusive and not accurate to prove someone guilty or
innocent in a court of law. I believe that there are several factors that
could have contributed to the inconsistencies.
The first reason for the inconsistencies could simply be the quality control of
the lipstick itself. The pre-experiment lipstick manufacturer was one
shade number different from the shade used in the experiment. Although
the same brand manufacturing line was selected, the color originally tested was
no longer available. Because it was the same manufacturing line, the only
difference should have been the color and had the same base components in
it. However, even if you purchase the same shade and manufacturer of
expensive lipstick, every time for several years the color will differ from
tube to tube because of its dye lot.
A second reason is the possibility that the suspects could have compromised
their evidence just like a person would if they were trying to conceal their
identity in a crime lab. The suspects could have done this with out even
realizing it or telling me. This is very possible since the suspects
included two sets of twins and five of the 8 suspects are very close
friends.
A third reason is the incredibly small variances in the chromatography data
itself. I am measuring with a ruler purchased from the local Wal*Mart
while a real crime lab has special equipment and computer programs to do the
measuring and calculations.
I understood the math, but I wonder if there were other calculations that I
could have done that would have provided more accurate results but are too
complicated for my 7th grade math level. Along that line, when I plotted
the data on a line graph and inserted the results in my report, the graph did
not truly match the data that was put in the supporting spreadsheet. The
graph did show some interesting parallels in the data but no matter what I
tried, two of the lines were definitely incorrect while the other 10 lines were
accurate when I tested it on graph paper myself.
Above all, there is always human error when working with such small quantities
of materials no matter what experiment or activity you are
pursuing.
I do believe that the latent lip print evaluation was much more accurate.
I knew as soon as the lip print evidence was lifted and placed on the evidence
cards and matched who the perpetrator was. I was hoping to determine
which suspects were the twins but had nothing to prove my theory. I had a
hunch on two twins but the lip print on their hunch was still similar to
another suspect’s. The other two twin suspects have motor skill
“disabilities”, one with gross motor delays, and the other with fine motor
delays. The motor skill issues could have made it difficult for them to
provide evidence with out smearing or upsetting the evidence. I do think
having the twins with the motor delays it was educational for me to be aware of
the abilities of others. I considered the selection of the compact to make sure
it was a style that they could open and handle easily. I made sure the
plastic wrappings were off the lipstick tubes which could have been especially
difficult for two of the suspects them to open by themselves. We learn so
much by working with others.
My results should be useful to those interested in law or criminal justice
because these methods of forensic science can help solve a serious crime such
as a murder of kidnapping. In addition, chromatography principles could
be used in medical fields as well to determine what substance a person has
encountered that might be making them sick.
If I were to conduct this experiment again I would have the test suspects kiss
a mirror without having applied lipstick then lift the lip print with graphite
powder. I would have also tried to do third stage of the experiment in an
actual crime lab or lab that regularly does chromatography. By performing
the experiment in such a facility, I could have compared my results to a more
standardized method. I would have also found someone who understood the
math directly in relation to the chromatography experiment so I could learn the
higher level math skills needed to perform other calculations involving
chromatography.