The recent article by Kranz et al. (Forensic Science International, 2014, vol. 236, 157–163) presents a misleading interpretation on the use of headspace volatiles from plasticized explosives, specifically 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (2E1H), as a routine training aid material for explosive detection canines. It is the intent of this commentary to highlight several limitations concerning the authors’ results related to the setup and execution of the canine field trial used in the study from which the authors’ conclusions are based.
|Journal||Forensic Science International|
|State||Published - Jun 2015|