Soil is primarily composed of various intricate natural elements, including inorganic and organic materials and a wide range of living organisms. Forensic soil scientists focus on analyzing soils that have been disturbed or moved, usually due to human activities. Each soil type has distinct characteristics, such as color, texture, and mineral content, and these variations in the soil make soil valuable evidence to prove the linkage between a suspect and a crime scene. Soil evidence acts as a silent witness even a suspect may be unaware that soil particles can get stuck on them (like shoes, clothes vehicles) or around them (like the carpet in the car). Techniques like microscopy (Stereo binocular microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy) help examine the physical properties of soil like color, and size while chemical analysis techniques like (X-ray powder diffraction) reveal its mineral composition. The main goal of forensic soil analysis is to determine whether the two sample sets came from the same location. This article explores various analytical methods for differentiating soils and offers a comprehensive overview of soil as trace evidence. It is intended to support academics, researchers, and forensic soil scientists in their investigations.

• 1.   R.C. Murray, Soil in trace evidence analysis, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Trace Evidence, 1991, pp. 75–78.
• 2.   R. Saferstien, Glass and Soil, in: Criminalistics, An Introduction to Forensic Science, Prentice Hall Regents, New Jersey, 1998.
• 3.   J. Mcphee, Annals of Crime, New Yorker 29 (1996) 44–69.
• 4.   R.C. Murray, Devil in the details: the science of forensic geology, Geotimes 45 (2) (2000) 14–17.
• 5.   rapid prediction of death place of drowndied green sea turtle by comparison of lung bronchial surface and sea water composition (results of a rapid assessment), Electrolytes 19 (2002) 70–74.
• 6.   M.J. McVicar, W.J. Graves, The forensic comparison of soils by automated scanning electron microscopy, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 30 (1997) 241–261.
• 7.   E. Junger, Assessing the unique characteristics of close proximity soil samples: just how useful is soil evidence? J. Forensic Sci. 41 (1996) 27–34.
• 8.   R. Sugita, Y. Marumo, Validity of color examination Forensic Sci. Int. 83 (1996) 201– 210.
• 9.   Y. Marumo, R. Sugita, Validity of simple techniques for screening soil evidence, in: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Association of Forensic Science, 1999 p. 13.
• 10.   R. Sugita, Y. Marumo, Screening of soil evidence by a combination of simple techniques: validity of particle size distribution, Forensic Sci. Int. 122 (2001) 155–158.
• 11.   M. Cave, J. Wragg, Measurement of trace element distributions in soils and sediments usingsequential extraction system with chemometric data processing, Analyst 122 (1997) 1211–1221
• 12.   F. Elsass, Characterization of soil clay minerals: decomposition of X-ray diffraction diagrams and high resolution electron microscopy, Clays Clay Miner. 44 (1996) 791– 800.
• 13.   M.R. Cave, J. Wragg, Measurement of trace element distributions in soils and sediments usingsequential non-speci extraction system with chemometric data processing, Analyst 122 (1997) 1211–1221.
• 14.   Interpol Forensic Science Symposium, Lyon, France, October 16–19, 2001.
• 15.   J.H. Bock, D.O. Norris, Forensic botany: an under-utilized resource, J. Forensic Sci. 42 (1997) 364–367.
• 16.   M.E. Tucker, Techniques in Sedimentology, BlackwellScienti Publications,1988,394pp.
• 17.   magnetic structures, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2 (1969) 65–71.
• 18.   R. Saferstein, Criminalistics: an Introduction to Forensic Science, seventh ed., Prentice-Hall International, 2001, p. 576.
• 19.   P. Boersma, D. Weenink, The PRAAT Principal Component Analysis Software University of Amsterdam, 2003

Funding

Below is the link to the supplementary material.