The aim of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) is to identify and promote technically sound, consensus-based, fit-for-purpose documentary standards that are based on sound scientific principles. This will be achieved through the OSAC Registry. A standard that is posted on the Registry demonstrates that the methods it contains have been assessed to be valid by forensic practitioners, academic researchers, measurement scientists, and statisticians through a consensus development process that allows participation and comment from all relevant stakeholders.
Below is a listing of standards that are under consideration for the OSAC Registry, along with their status in the approval process.
Intent to Add to the OSAC Registry – Items Open for Comment
The intent of the open comment period is to collect opinion on inclusion of the standard to the OSAC Registry (OSAC is not soliciting potential revisions to the documents themselves.) Comments should be specific as to why the document should or should not be on the OSAC Registry.
Standards in Comment Adjudication Phase
The comment period is closed for the following standards as OSAC units review and adjudicate comments received.
This practice describes minimum criteria for the qualitative analysis (identification) of seized drugs.
Standards at FSSB for Vote
One objective of a forensic glass examination is to compare glass samples to determine if they can be discriminated using their physical, optical or chemical properties (for example, color, refractive index (RI), density, elemental composition). If the samples are distinguishable in any of these observed and measured properties, it may be concluded that they did not originate from the same source of broken glass. If the samples are indistinguishable in all of these observed and measured properties, the possibility that they originated from the same source of glass cannot be eliminated. The use of an elemental analysis method such as inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry yields high discrimination among sources of glass. This test method covers a procedure for quantitative determination of the concentrations of magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn), rubidium (Rb), strontium (Sr), zirconium (Zr), barium (Ba), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), neodymium (Nd), samarium (Sm), and lead (Pb) in glass samples.
* This document has been sent back to the standards developing organization for the addition of two references. The FSSB will reconsider the vote once the document is republished.
This test method covers a procedure for the quantitative elemental analysis of the following seventeen elements: lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn), rubidium (Rb), strontium (Sr), zirconium (Zr), barium (Ba), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), neodymium (Nd), hafnium (Hf), and lead (Pb) through the use of Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) for the forensic comparison of glass fragments. The potential of these elements to provide the best discrimination among different sources of soda=lime glasses has been published elsewhere. Silicon (Si) is also monitored for use as a normalization standard. Additional elements may be added as needed, for example, tin (Sn) can be used to monitor the orientation of float glass fragments.
ASTM E3085-17 Standard Guide for Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy in Forensic Tape Examinations
Infrared spectroscopy (IR) is a valuable method for the identification and comparison of pressure sensitive tapes. This guide provides basic recommendations and information about infrared spectrometers and accessories, with an emphasis on sampling techniques specific to pressure sensitive tape examinations. The particular method(s) employed by each examiner or laboratory will depend upon available equipment, examiner training, sample suitability, and sample size.
Standards in the Appeals Phase
The appeals phase is open for the following standard. Appeals may only be submitted by individuals or groups that submitted a comment during the open comment phase that believe their comment was not properly adjudicated. Submitted appeals must relate to the comment adjudication process, not technical issues.
There are no standards in the Appeals Phase at this time.