Variation Within Ignitable Liquid Classes

  • Mary R. Williams
  • Susan Seebode Hetzel


Classification implies similarity of the members within a class; however, there is still variation within a class. Some classes have more variation within them than other classes. Classes with broader class characteristics tend to have more variation. Classes with more chemically complex ignitable liquids have more variation than classes with simpler chemical composition. This chapter will provide insight into the reasons for variation within ASTM E1618 classes of ignitable liquids and present examples demonstrating the variation.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    ASTM Standard D4814–18c (2018) Standard specification for automotive spark-ignition engine fuel. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
  3. 3.
    EN 228:2008 Automotive fuels—Unleaded petrols—Requirements and test methods,
  4. 4.
    Ethanol Production and Distribution, Accessed June 2018
  5. 5.
    ASTM Standard E1618 (2014) Standard test method for ignitable liquid residues in extracts from fire debris samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA,
  6. 6.
    Hetzel SS (2008) Survey of American (USA) Gasolines (2008). J Forensic Sci 60(Suppl 1):S197–206. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendrikse J, Grutters M, Schäfer F (2015) Identifying ignitable liquids in fire debris: a guideline for forensic experts. Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peschier L, Grutters M, Hendrikse J (2018) Using alkylate components for classifying gasoline in fire debris samples. J Forensic Sci 63:420–430. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandercock PML (2012). A Survey of Canadian Gasolines (2010). Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. Vol. 45:64-78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baerncopf J, Hutches K (2014) A review of modern challenges in fire debris analysis. Forensic Sci Int 244:e12–e20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Center for Forensic Science (2000) Ignitable liquids reference collection database. University of Central Florida. Accessed 21 Mar 2018
  12. 12.
    Newman R, Gilbert M, Lothridge K (1998) Guide to ignitable liquids. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandercock PML (2007) A survey of Canadian gasolines (2004). Can Soc Forensic Sci J 40:105–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Center for Forensic Science (2006) International database of ignitable liquids. University of Central Florida, Accessed June 2018
  15. 15.
    Sigman M, Williams M, Ivy R (2007) Individualization of gasoline samples by covariance mapping and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 79:3462–3468. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mann DC (1987) Comparison of automotive gasolines using capillary gas chromotography I: comparison methodology. J Forensic Sci 32:606–615Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mann DC (1987) Comparison of automotive gasolines using capillary gas chromotography II: Limitations of automotive gasoline comparisons in casework. J Forensic Sci 32:616–628Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barnes AT, Dolan JA, Kuk RJ, Siegel JA (2004) Comparison of gasolines using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and target ion response. J Forensic Sci 49:1018–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rankin JG, Harrington P (2012) Development and validation of a method for individualization of middle petroleum distillates and kerosene ignitable liquids. Rockville (MD): National Criminal Justice Reference Service; 2012 Dec. Document Number 240686, NIJ Award Number 2008-DN-BX-K146Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM Standard D3415 (2011) Standard practice for identification of waterborne oils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
  21. 21.
    Sandercock PML, Du Pasquier E (2003) Chemical fingerprinting of unevaporated automotive gasoline samples. Forensic Sci Int 134:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sandercock PML, Du Pasquier E (2004) Chemical fingerprinting of gasoline. 2. Comparison of unevaporated and evaporated automotive gasoline samples. Forensic Sci Int 140:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandercock PML, Du Pasquier E (2004) Chemical fingerprinting of gasoline. Part 3. Comparison of unevaporated automotive gasoline samples from Australia and New Zealand. Forensic Sci Int 140:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary R. Williams
    • 1
  • Susan Seebode Hetzel
    • 2
  1. 1.National Center for Forensic Science, University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.S-E-A LtdColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations