What specific debris items from MH370 were subjected to forensic analysis and what did those tests show?
Executive summary
A small set of recovered objects — most notably the Réunion Island flaperon — received formal forensic testing that tied them to a Boeing 777 and, in several cases, specifically to 9M‑MRO (MH370); other items were examined visually, by drift and materials specialists, or in independent analyses that inferred origin and crash dynamics but lacked the same laboratory provenance tests [1] [2] [3].
1. The flaperon: the one forensic “smoking gun”
The flaperon recovered on Réunion Island in July 2015 was sent to French authorities and examined in a laboratory in Toulouse, where investigators concluded it came from a Boeing 777 and matched parts known to have been fitted to Malaysia Airlines 9M‑MRO, a determination later described by multiple agencies and media as a confirmed link to MH370 [1] [4] [5]. That flaperon underwent metallurgical and identification-number checks and was also the subject of biological and drift‑related follow‑up studies because barnacle growth and buoyancy characteristics provided independent clues to its time at sea and likely origin [1] [6] [4].
2. Panels and small structure pieces: identification by marks and fit
Numerous panels and fragments found on coasts of Mozambique, South Africa, Mauritius, Tanzania and Madagascar were assessed by investigators and independent experts; several had manufacturing identification numbers, date stamps or distinctive paint and panel patterns that matched Malaysian Airlines 777 production records, leading authorities to classify many items as “very likely” or “almost certain” from MH370 [1] [3] [5]. These identifications were often morphological and documentary — matching serials, fastener patterns and decoration — rather than the full‑scale laboratory assays applied to the flaperon [1] [3].
3. Lightning‑strike protection (LSP) mesh and targeted forensic claims
A 2022/2023 forensic paper by engineer Richard Godfrey and wreck investigator Blaine Gibson focused on LSP wire mesh found in several floating debris items and argued the mesh construction was consistent with Boeing 777 practice and even matching Dexmet Corporation products used on 9M‑MRO, concluding two pieces are “almost certainly” from MH370 [2]. Official crash investigators (ATSB, Malaysian MOT) acknowledged the commonality of LSP material across items but did not, according to reporting, perform the same narrow LSP tests on floating items beyond the BEA test on the flaperon’s aluminium substrate, a gap the Godfrey/Gibson work sought to fill [2].
4. Biological and isotope forensics: barnacles as clocks
Researchers developed stable‑isotope sclerochronology methods using barnacle shell chemistry to reconstruct debris drift histories and applied these techniques to barnacles on the flaperon and other items to estimate sea‑surface temperatures and likely drift paths; preliminary results show promise for backtracking debris origins but are constrained by available samples and the absence of the largest, oldest barnacles for some items [6] [7]. Universities and forensic engineers emphasized that barnacle growth records can provide a timeline of travel but that this approach complements — it does not replace — material identification and provenance tests [4] [6].
5. Drift, buoyancy and experimental replica tests
CSIRO and other groups performed controlled drift, buoyancy and modelling work — including using a cut‑down genuine 777 flaperon for field tests — to validate oceanographic reconstructions that connect where pieces washed ashore to a probable southern Indian Ocean impact zone; these studies supported the notion that the pattern of recovered debris is consistent with an origin in the ATSB‑defined search area [8] [3] [9]. NOAA and CSIRO drift analyses helped prioritise search sectors and bolstered confidence in linking scattered finds to a single crash region, even where laboratory provenance was not exhaustive [3] [9].
6. What the tests show — and what they do not
Taken together, formal laboratory confirmation exists for the Réunion flaperon and several fragments identified by serial numbers and material matches are widely assessed as from MH370; independent engineers and wreck hunters have added LSP‑mesh and fracture‑pattern arguments pointing to specific crash dynamics such as high‑energy breakup and possible landing‑gear positions, but not all such claims are from or endorsed by official investigators and some materials‑specific tests have not been performed by ATSB or Malaysian authorities on every recovered item [1] [2] [10] [11]. The evidentiary picture therefore combines firm forensic identifications (flaperon, marked panels), strong circumstantial material matches (LSP mesh, panel patterns), oceanographic corroboration (drift and barnacle analyses), and remaining uncertainties where samples, tests or chain‑of‑custody details are incomplete or contested [1] [2] [6] [3].