Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Presumptive blood detection tests are used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood or to investigate suspicious stains. Through the years, a number of articles have been published on the popular techniques of the day. However, there is no single paper that critiques and compares the five most common presumptive blood detection tests currently in use: luminol, phenolphthalein (Kastle-Meyer), leucomalachite green, Hemastix and the forensic light source. The present authors aimed to compare the above techniques with regard to their sensitivity, ease of use and safety. The luminol test was determined to be the most sensitive of the techniques, while Hemastix is a suitable alternative when the luminol test is not appropriate.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bio.908 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!