Authors : Haritha H; Sreya Menon

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bdey2fvk

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2fyrzjvm

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25apr016

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : Blood is critical evidence in crime scenes, and perpetrators often conceal it using multiple layers of paint. This study aims to detect blood hidden beneath various automotive and household paints available in the Indian market, specifically in Kerala, using Luminol, a reagent known for its chemiluminescent properties. The impact of the number of layers of paint on chemiluminescence and the detection of blood, comparing the effectiveness of automotive and household paints, and examining variations among different paint types within each category were also subjected to study. Two surfaces were used for this study: a brick for household paint and a bumper for automotive paint, with a total of eight different paints (four from each category). Around 5 progressive layers of paint was used to conceal blood. Blood was spattered on the surfaces and was later concealed using progressive layers of paint. it was then detected using Luminol, which was then critically analysed and photographed. Results showed that concealed blood could be effectively detected through all layers of both paint types. Automotive paint provided better concealment than household paint, and variations in chemiluminescence were noted among different paints of the same category. It could be concluded that Luminol is effective in detecting concealed blood, with the type of paint and number of layers influencing detection outcomes.

Keywords : Blood; Luminol; Concealed Bloodstains; Automotive Paint; Household Paint.

References :

1. Creamer, J. I., Quickenden, T. I., Crichton, L. B., Robertson, P., & Ruhayel, R. A. (2005). Attempted cleaning of bloodstains and its effect on the forensic luminol test. Luminescence, 20(6), 411–413. DOI:10.1002/bio.865
2. Bily,Christopher; Maldonado, Helene Journal of Forensic Identification; Alameda Vol. 56, Iss. 6,  (Nov/Dec 2006) DOI:896-905
3. Barni, F., Lewis, S. W., Berti, A., Miskelly, G. M., & Lago, G. (2007). Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection. Talanta, 72(3), 896–913. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2006.12.045
4. Howard, Maria C, Nessan, Mitch Journal of Forensic Identification Alameda Vol. 60, Iss. 6, (Nov/Dec 2010): DOI : 682-717
5. Nagesh, D., & Ghosh, S. (2017). A time period study on the efficiency of luminol in the detection of bloodstains concealed by paint on different surfaces. Forensic Science International, 275, 1–7. DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.01.028
6. Brenzini, V., & Pathak, R. (2018). A comparison study of the detection of bloodstains on painted and cleaned surfaces with luminol. Forensic Science International, 289, 75–82. DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.043
7. Wykoff, A. (2020). Qualitative analysis of luminol efficacy on Bleach-Cleaned and Paint-Concealed blood. Themis Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 8(1). DOI:10.31979/themis.2020.0801