↓ Skip to main content

The reference cube: A new ballistic model to generate staining in firearm barrels

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
The reference cube: A new ballistic model to generate staining in firearm barrels
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12024-017-9868-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Schyma, Kristina Bauer, Julia Brünig

Abstract

After contact shots to the head biological traces can be found inside firearm barrels. So far silicone coated, gelatin filled box models were used to generate such staining according to the triple contrast method (mixture of acrylic paint, barium sulfate and blood sealed in a thin foil bag). This study was conducted to develop a transparent ballistic model allowing contact shots. Gelatin filled polyethylene bottles with and without a silicone coat were tested in comparison to non-covered gelatin blocks. Finally, thin foil bags of 5 cm × 5 cm dimension were glued on a synthetic absorbent kitchen wipe on top of which 1 L 10% gelatin solution was molded to create blocks of 8.5 cm length. A kitchen wipe with a paint pad on its inside formed the front of the cube. Three contact shots each with a 9 mm Luger pistol and a .38 special revolver were performed on all model variations. The staining was documented by endoscopy and swabs gathered from both ends of the barrel were analyzed by quantitative PCR. Reliable staining was achieved using the front covered gelatin block with comparable results to the silicone coated box model used before. For further research using ballistic models to simulate a human head a symmetric form of the gelatin block such as a cube is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Unspecified 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#407
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,269
of 313,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.