- Magazine list
- Springer
- PMC5514182
As a library, NLM offers access to scientific literature. Inclusion in any NLM database does not imply approval or endorsem*nt of the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:PMC-disclaimer|PMC Copyright Notice
Egyptian J Forensic Sci.2017; 7(1): 3.
Published online July 18, 2017. doi:10.1186/s41935-017-0008-8
PMCID:PMC5514182
PMID:28775901
Somaya Madkour,1 Abeer Sheta,1 Fatma Badr El Din,1 Yasser Elwakeel,2InNermine AbdAllah
1
Author information Article notes Copyright and licensing information PMC-disclaimer
Abstract
Background
Criminal offenders have a fundamental goal of leaving no traces at the crime scene. Some assume that objects recovered from underwater have no forensic value, so they attempt to destroy the evidence by throwing objects into the water. These spores are exposed to the destructive environmental influences. This can pose a challenge for forensic experts examining fingerprints.
Methods
This study was conducted to determine the optimal method for developing latent fingerprints on dry, nonporous surfaces immersed in water environments for various time intervals. Depending on the method used, the quality of the fingerprints developed was evaluated. In addition, two factors were analyzed in this study; the effects of the nature of the aquatic environment and the duration of immersion time. Therefore, latent fingerprints were deposited on metal, plastic and glass objects and immersed in freshwater and seawater for 1, 2 and 10 days. After recovery, the blanks were treated with black powder, small particle reagent, and fuming cyanoacrylate, and the prints were examined. Each print was graded according to the fingerprint quality rating scale.
Results
Cyanoacrylate-developed latent prints were found to have the highest average visibility scores after immersion in freshwater and seawater for 1, 2, and 10 days. The average visibility score for developed prints showed a significant decrease after 10 days of immersion. Prints immersed in freshwater showed significantly higher average visibility scores than prints immersed in seawater using different development methods and at all time intervals.
Conclusion
The study showed that it is possible to recover latent prints immersed in water on several dry, non-porous surfaces examined with the best visualization method using cyanoacrylate, either in fresh or seawater. The duration of immersion affects the quality of the fingerprints developed; the longer the duration, the poorer the quality. Furthermore, this research has shown that exposure to high salinity, i.e. seawater, has a more detrimental effect on the quality of detected fingerprints.
It is concluded that any evidence recovered underwater should be tested for prints, regardless of the time spent beneath the surface.
Keyword:Fingerprint, cyanoacrylate, seawater, freshwater, non-porous
Background
Despite advances in DNA profiling, fingerprints are still considered the most common form of forensic evidence used by law to positively identify a person (Kapoor et al.2015). Criminal offenders have a fundamental goal of leaving no traces at the crime scene. Some may think that objects recovered from underwater will have no forensic value; therefore they try to destroy these spores by throwing objects into the water (Trapecar2012a). Therefore, examining evidence from different aquatic environments is the concern of forensic authorities. Criminals and law enforcement are amazed at the physical evidence that is preserved despite the duration of immersion (Popov et al.2017).
Natural fingerprint residue consists of a mixture of numerous substances; 99% water and the remaining part consists of a small amount of organic and inorganic materials (Girod et al.2012). Non-porous surfaces do not absorb moisture. Latent prints on these substrates are more susceptible to damage because fingerprint residue on the outer surface is more exposed to environmental factors (Yamash*ta and French2011; Almog et al.2004).
Several studies have identified several factors that can influence the quality of developed latent prints in water, including; individual variation of latent fingerprint composition, nature of surface, time elapsed since deposition, environmental factors; such as air circulation, dust, moisture, light exposure, precipitation, temperature, ultraviolet radiation and enhancement techniques. The composition of fingerprints also changes over time, which can influence the effectiveness of development techniques (Girod et al.2012; Archer et al.2005; Croxton et al.2010).
Trapecar M, Jasuja et al. and Castello et al. assessed the effect of fresh water on the quality of developed latent prints using different developing methods, they found that latent prints could still be recovered from submerged substrates and that fresh water did not have a major has a destructive effect (Trapecar2012b; Jasuja et al.2015; Castello' et al.2013).
Some of the optimal techniques that have been shown to be effective for developing latent prints on non-porous surfaces are: black powder, small particle reagent and cyanoacrylate fuming, vacuum metal deposition (Polimeni et al.2004, Rohatgi and Kapoor2016; Olenik1984).
Sort powder
Black powder is one of the first and most common methods of latent print detection. It is composed of a series of carbon-based powders with a binder added for stability. Finely divided particles physically adhere to water and oily fingerprint residues (Lee and Gaensslen2001).
Small Particle Reagents (SPR)
SPR is a suspension of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) in a detergent solution (Kapoor et al.2015).
SPR works by physically bonding to grease residues and forms a gray deposit. SPR is commercially available in a premixed liquid form. Jasuja et al., Rohatgi et al. concluded that SPR is one of the most suitable methods for latent print development on non-porous surfaces, especially on wet surfaces (Jasuja et al.2015, Rohatgi and Kapoor2016); although SPR appears to work equally well on dry and wet surfaces (Cuce et al.2004).
Cyanoacrylaat (CA)
Since the late 1970s, smoking cyanoacrylate (super glue) has remained an adaptable, effective and popular development technique on virtually all non-porous surfaces and some porous surfaces. Paine et al. showed how cyanoacrylate vapor is selectively attracted to fingerprint residues, where it polymerizes on the fingerprint ridges to form a hard, white polymer known as polyethyl cyanoacrylate (PECA). The study also clarified the importance of moisture and its effect on the improvement of cyanoacrylate as a primary initiator of polymerization (Paine et al.2011). Fully developed CA prints are a white three-dimensional matrix, often visible to the naked eye, and can be further enhanced with various techniques. This method must be performed in an enclosed area to contain the vapors and because oxygen is considered a terminating agent for the polymerization process. Smoking with cyanoacrylate can be achieved in a variety of ways, ranging from inexpensive home-made rooms to large, expensive commercial units (Dadmun2009; Wargacki et al.2008).
As far as we know; none of the previous studies in this area compared the effect of freshwater and seawater on latent print development. Therefore, the aim of this study was to make such a comparison along with detecting the best visualization method (black powder, SPR and CA) at variable time intervals.
Methods
Material used
Non-porous surfaces used:
Glass plates (approx. 20×10 cm)
Compact discs (glossy surface)
Knife blades (stainless steel)
Methods used for print development:
Black Powder: BPP2018 Silver/Black “Hi-Fi” Latent Print Powder, 8 oz. (237 ml), Sirchie Co. The brush used: 120LS squirrel hair brush with dimensions; Handle length: 4 5/8" (11.75 cm), brush length: 1 3/4" (4.45 cm).
Small Particle Reagent (SPR): 100 dark SPR with nozzle, 500 ml, Sirchie Co.
Cyanoacrylate: CA102 OMEGA-PRINT™ Cyanoacrylate Fuming Compound, 20 g, Sirchie Co.
Aquarium tank made of glass (1m x 1m x 0.7m), with portable battery air pump and fan for water simulation.
Homemade cyanoacrylate chamber: plastic box 70 x 40 x 40 cm (inside lined with aluminum foil) with electric single hotplate and cup of hot water (humidity is an important factor).
Alcohol, water spray, permanent marker, gloves and magnifying glasses were used for the development and research.
Methods
The current study was conducted in both marine and freshwater.
For each of the marine and freshwater experiments, 18 glass plates, 18 plastic surfaces (CDs), and 18 knife blades were used.
Simulation/modeling of the natural water environment
The study was conducted in the winter season (air temperature 12-14°C, relative humidity 88.4%). The aquarium tank is filled with water type study (water temperature 18°C). The bottom (5 cm) was filled with seabed sand and mud at the bottom of the lake using seawater and freshwater, respectively.
The portable battery air pump is turned on daily (1 hour) to oxygenate the water, and a fan is directed tangentially toward the top of the water to simulate the laminar water flow generated by the wind.
Seawater was obtained from the Elshatby region, Mediterranean Sea (latitude 31°12'40.60"N, longitude 29°54'45.99"E), while freshwater was obtained from the Lake Racta branch of Lake Elmahmodia (latitude 31 °16'23.35"N, longitude 30° 5'4.61" E).
Fingerprint deposition
Each non-porous surface was cleaned with alcohol wipes to ensure no accidental prints were deposited.
Informed consent was obtained from five fingerprint donors. The fingerprint donors were told not to wash their hands before the experiment. They were asked to rub the forehead and around the nose with their fingertip (groomed/numerous fingerprints) and then press their fingers against the surface in a rolling motion.
Donors' fingers were applied to the surface by the researcher to ensure that fingertip area, contact time, and pressure were as consistent as possible between donors.
Five manicured fingerprints were deposited in exhaustion series on each surface. Initially the aim was to deposit good quality fingerprints onto the substrate and where possible oblique lighting was used to confirm that the quality and clarity of the newly deposited fingerprints were identifiable. The deposited prints were marked with a permanent marker.
Eighteen surfaces (of each material) were placed in the tank filled with test water one hour later (Fig.1). After each interval, eight surfaces were removed from the water; 1, 2 and 10 days. They are then left in room air to dry. Every two surfaces, with ten fingerprints, were examined with black powder enhancement techniques, SPR and CA.
figure 1
nonporous surfaces were placed in an aquarium tank filled with fingerprint examination water
Methods of visualization
The surfaces were left to air dry for two hours, after which the following methods were used:
Dusting technique
A small amount of the black powder was sprinkled onto the non-porous surface and the excess was removed with a squirrel hair brush, taking special care to leave the fingerprints intact (Fig.2Inin 33).
Fig. 2
Latent fingerprint developed usingkind of powderon the knife blade after immersion in fresh water for 2 days. (Score 3)
Afb. 3
Fingerprint developed usingkind of powderon glass surface after immersion in seawater for 1 day. (Score 3)
Small Particle Reagent (SPR)-technologie
The SPR bottle was shaken vigorously before spraying downward from the top of the nonporous surface to prevent displacement of latent pressure. The formulation is allowed to stand for one minute to react with pressure residue, after which excess SPR is washed with water spray (Fig.4).
Afb. 4
Fingerprints developed using SPR on a plastic surface (CD) after immersion in fresh water for 2 days (Score 2)
Cyanoacrylate (CA) smoking technique
Four to five drops of CA were placed in an aluminum cup on the electric hot plate. The glass, plastic and metal surfaces were placed in the closed chamber. The electric plate was applied for 5 minutes, which proved to be sufficient time for the latent prints to develop. The procedure is repeated for each trial under the same conditions, temperature and humidity (Fig.5).
Afb. 5
Developed fingerprint with cyanoacrylate on the glass surface after immersion in fresh water for 1 day (Score 5)
During the previous steps, gloves were used while handling items except at the time of donor fingerprinting to avoid unwanted impressions.
Examination of fingerprints
The induced latent prints were examined with a magnifying glass and photographed. All print marks were examined, assessed and scored according to the fingerprint quality rating scale (Castello´ et al.2013; Soltyszewski et al.2007; Devlin2011):
Score 5- Very good visibility
Clearly defined friction edges over the entire print. Can be classified as one of three basic fingerprint patterns (arc, loop or swirl). Core (middle) and details (individual features, e.g. branching, terminal edge) are visible.
Score 4- Good visibility
Well-defined friction edges are visible across most of the print. Can be classified as one of three basic fingerprint patterns (arc, loop or swirl).
Score 3- Poor visibility
Friction edges are only visible on part of the print. The print cannot be classified into any of the three basic fingerprint patterns. Prints may be smudged.
Score 2- Poor visibility
No friction ridges are clearly defined. The print is almost completely smeared or blurred and cannot be classified into any of the three basic fingerprint patterns.
Score 1 - Fading/No Printing
No print is visible or only the outline of the print is visible.
Statistical analysis
The data was entered into the computer and analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0.(2) Qualitative data was described using numbers and percentages. Quantitative data were described using the range (minimum and maximum) mean, standard deviation. For normally distributed data, a comparison between the two groups examined was performed using an independent t-test, while the F-test (ANOVA) and the Post Hoc test (LSD) were used to compare the three groups examined. The significance of the results obtained was assessed at the 5% level (Kotz et al.2006; Kirkpatrick a Feeney2003).
Results
Seawater
Sort powder
The quality of 40% of the developed marks on the glass surface was good on both the first and second days. However, no prints were found on the 10th day. Regarding metal or plastic surfaces, no good visibility markings were found on days 1, 2 or 10 (Table1).
table 1
Fingerprint development results usingblack powder techniqueon glass, metal and plastic surfaces immersed in itseawaterat intervals of 1, 2 and 10 days according to the fingerprint quality rating scale
| Sort powder | Time (days) | Number of inserted tags | Scorer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (very good) | 4 (good) | 3 (bad) | 2 (bad) | 1 (blurred/no) | ||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
| Glas | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 4 | 40% | 6 | 60% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 4 | 40% | 5 | 50% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 10 | 100% | |
| Metal | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 6 | 60% | 1 | 10% |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 4 | 40% | 3 | 30% | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 1 | 10% | 7 | 70% | |
| Plast | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 3 | 30% | 5 | 50% |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 2 | 20% | 6 | 60% | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 2 | 20% | 6 | 60% | |
Open in a separate window
SPR
The quality of the fingerprints developed on glass surfaces after 1 day showed that half were poorly visible.
On the metal surface, the quality of 40% of the developed marks was poorly visible, and most prints were blurred and disappeared after 1 day of exposure (Table2).
table 2
Fingerprint development results usingSPR techniqueon glass, metal and plastic surfaces immersed in itseawaterat intervals of 1, 2 and 10 days according to the fingerprint quality rating scale
| SPR | Time (days) | Number of inserted tags | Scorer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (very good) | 4 (good) | 3 (bad) | 2 (bad) | 1 (blurred/no) | ||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
| Glas | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 5 | 50% | 5 | 50% | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 1 | 10% | 6 | 60% | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 10 | 100% | |
| Metal | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 1 | 10% | 4 | 40% | 5 | 50% | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 3 | 30% | 5 | 50% | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 4 | 40% | 4 | 40% | |
| Plast | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 2 | 20% | 3 | 30% | 3 | 30% |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 8 | 80% | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 1 | 10% | 2 | 20% | 7 | 70% | |
Open in a separate window
Smoking CA
Sixty percent of the prints were developed on glass surfaces with good visibility after 1 day of immersion. On the second day, only half of the developed prints were clearly visible.
As for the metal surface, 50% of the fingerprints were obtained on the first day with good visibility. On the other hand; after 10 days of immersion most prints were invisible (table3).
table 3
Fingerprint development results usingTechnical CAon glass, metal and plastic surfaces immersed in itseawaterat intervals of 1, 2 and 10 days according to the fingerprint quality rating scale
| CA | Time (days) | Number of inserted tags | Scorer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (very good) | 4 (good) | 3 (bad) | 2 (bad) | 1 (blurred/no) | ||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
| Glas | 1 | 10 | 2 | 20% | 6 | 60% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 5 | 50% | 5 | 50% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 4 | 40% | 6 | 60% | 0 | 0 % | |
| Metal | 1 | 10 | 3 | 30% | 5 | 50% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 3 | 30% | 6 | 60% | 3 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 7 | 70% | |
| Plast | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 6 | 60% | 4 | 40% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | 5 | 50% | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 5 | 50% | 3 | 30% | 0 | 0 % | |
Open in a separate window
Significant differences (P< 0.001) was observed across all methods on different materials, with the highest average score obtained using the CA technique (Fig.6,,77Inin 88).
Afb. 6
Bar Chart - Comparison of Black Powder, SPR and CA development techniques at different time intervals (1, 2 and 10 days) onglass surfacerestoredseawater. Shows the highest average visibility score with CA
Afb. 7
Bar Chart - Comparison of Black Powder, SPR and CA development techniques at different time intervals (1, 2 and 10 days) onmetal surfacerestoredseawater. It shows a higher average visibility score after using CA at 1 and 2 day intervals
Afb. 8
Bar Chart - Comparison of Black Powder, SPR and CA development techniques at different time intervals (1, 2 and 10 days) onplastic surface(CD) recovered fromseawater. It shows a higher average viewability score for prints developed with CA
Fresh water
Sort powder
Half of the prints developed on the glass surface were clearly visible (50%). On the metal surface, the first day of exposure showed 70% of the good and very good visibility marks, as shown in the table4.
Table 4
Fingerprint development results usingblack powder techniqueon glass, metal and plastic surfaces immersed in itfresh waterat intervals of 1, 2 and 10 days according to the fingerprint quality rating scale
| Sort powder | Time (days) | Number of inserted tags | Scorer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (very good) | 4 (good) | 3 (bad) | 2 (bad) | 1 (blurred/no) | ||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
| Glas | 1 | 10 | 4 | 40% | 5 | 50% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 2 | 20% | 7 | 70% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 50% | 1 | 10% | 4 | 40% | |
| Metal | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10% | 6 | 60% | 3 | 30% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 6 | 60% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 5 | 50% | 3 | 30% | |
| Plast | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 40% | 4 | 40% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % | 5 | 50% | 5 | 50% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 8 | 80% | |
Open in a separate window
Bord4show that too; on the plastic surface, 40% of the prints were clearly visible on the first day.
SPR
After 1 day of immersion; the quality of the fingerprints developed on glass surfaces was highly visible at 80%, while on metal surfaces 60% was poorly visible.
Regarding the plastic surface, only 20% of the marks were clearly visible on the first or second day of exposure (Table5).
Table 5
Fingerprint development results usingSPR techniqueon glass, metal and plastic surfaces immersed in itfresh waterat intervals of 1, 2 and 10 days according to the fingerprint quality rating scale
| SPR | time (day) | Number of inserted tags | Scorer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (very good) | 4 (good) | 3 (bad) | 2 (bad) | 1 (blurred/no) | ||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
| Glas | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 8 | 80% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 6 | 60% | 3 | 30% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 1 | 10% | 6 | 60% | 3 | 30% | |
| Metal | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 6 | 60% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 5 | 50% | 3 | 30% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 3 | 30% | 4 | 40% | 0 | 0 % | |
| Plast | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 3 | 30% | 5 | 50% | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 4 | 40% | 4 | 40% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 6 | 60% | 1 | 10% | 3 | 30% | |
Open in a separate window
Smoking CA
One day after immersion in fresh water, 80% of the prints were developed on glass surfaces with very good visibility.
Regarding the metal surfaces, all developed fingerprints showed good to very good visibility after 1 or 2 days of exposure to fresh water. On plastic material, 60% of the fingerprints were clearly visible after 1 day of immersion (table6).
Table 6
Fingerprint development results usingTechnical CAon glass, metal and plastic surfaces immersed in itfresh waterat intervals of 1, 2 and 10 days according to the fingerprint quality rating scale
| CA | time (day) | Number of inserted tags | Scorer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (very good) | 4 (good) | 3 (bad) | 2 (bad) | 1 (blurred/no) | ||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
| Glas | 1 | 10 | 8 | 80% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 4 | 40% | 5 | 50% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 3 | 30% | 5 | 50% | 2 | 20% | 0 | 0 % | |
| Metal | 1 | 10 | 6 | 60% | 4 | 40% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 4 | 40% | 6 | 60% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 6 | 60% | 3 | 30% | 1 | 10% | 0 | 0 % | |
| Plast | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 6 | 60% | 4 | 40% | 0 | 0 % | 0 | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 3 | 30% | 5 | 50% | 0 | 0 % | |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 % | 2 | 20% | 5 | 50% | 3 | 30% | 0 | 0 % | |
Open in a separate window
When comparing the three examined techniques used for the development of fingerprints after immersion in fresh water, a significant difference was noted in the majority of the examined prints with the highest score using CA (Fig.9,,1010Inen1111).
Afb. 9
Bar Chart - Comparison of Black Powder, SPR and CA development techniques at different time intervals (1, 2 and 10 days) onglass surfacerestoredfresh water. It shows the highest average viewability score for prints developed with CA
Afb. 10
Bar chart - Comparison between black powder, SPR and CA development techniques at different time intervalsmetal surfacerestoredfresh water. It shows the highest average viewability score for prints developed with CA
Afb. 11
Bar chart - Comparison between black powder, SPR and CA development techniques at different time intervalsplastic surfacerestoredfresh water. It shows the highest average viewability score for prints developed with CA
Based on the results; CA was found to be the best technique used for the development of latent fingerprints on several dried investigated materials extracted from sea or freshwater, with seawater considered more destructive to fingerprints than freshwater (Table7). It was also found that the quality of the fingerprints developed was influenced by the duration of immersion.
Table 7
Comparison between the average development of fingerprintsscoresof the groups studied according toaquatic environmentand used ittechniquesfor developing latent fingerprints of differentsurfacesopdifferent time intervals
| seawater (N= 10) | Fresh water (N= 10) | T | S | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glas | Sort powder | ||||
| Day 1 | 3,40 ± 0,52 | 4,30 ± 0,67 | 3.349* | 0,004* | |
| Day 2 | 3,30 ± 0,67 | 4,10 ± 0,57 | 2.869* | 0,010* | |
| Day 10 | 1,0 ± 0,0 | 2,10 ± 0,99 | 3.498* | 0,007* | |
| SPR | |||||
| Day 1 | 2,50 ± 0,53 | 3,80 ± 0,42 | 6.091* | <0,001* | |
| Day 2 | 1,70 ± 0,95 | 3,50 ± 0,71 | 4.811* | <0,001* | |
| Day 10 | 1,0 ± 0,0 | 1,80 ± 0,63 | 4.000* | 0,003* | |
| CA | |||||
| Day 1 | 4,0 ± 0,67 | 4,80 ± 0,42 | 3.207* | 0,008* | |
| Day 2 | 3,50 ± 0,53 | 4,30 ± 0,67 | 2.954* | 0,008* | |
| Day 10 | 2,40 ± 0,52 | 3,10 ± 0,74 | 2.458* | 0,024* | |
| Metal | Sort powder | ||||
| Day 1 | 2,20 ± 0,63 | 3,80 ± 0,63 | 5.657* | <0,001* | |
| Day 2 | 2,0 ± 0,82 | 3,0 ± 0,67 | 3.000* | 0,008* | |
| Day 10 | 1,50 ± 0,85 | 1,90 ± 0,74 | 1.124 | 0,276 | |
| SPR | |||||
| Day 1 | 2,60 ± 0,70 | 3,20 ± 0,63 | 2.012 | 0,059 | |
| Day 2 | 1,70 ± 0,82 | 2,90 ± 0,74 | 3.432* | 0,003* | |
| Day 10 | 1,80 ± 0,79 | 2,90 ± 0,88 | 2.952* | 0,009* | |
| CA | |||||
| Day 1 | 4,10 ± 0,74 | 4,60 ± 0,52 | 1.756 | 0,096 | |
| Day 2 | 4,20 ± 0,63 | 4,40 ± 0,52 | 0,775 | 0,449 | |
| Day 10 | 1,30 ± 0,48 | 3,50 ± 0,71 | 8.124* | <0,001* | |
| Plast | Sort powder | ||||
| Day 1 | 1,70 ± 0,82 | 3,20 ± 0,79 | 4.160* | 0,001* | |
| Day 2 | 1,60 ± 0,84 | 2,50 ± 0,53 | 2.862* | 0,010* | |
| Day 10 | 1,60 ± 0,84 | 1,20 ± 0,42 | 1.342 | 0,202 | |
| SPR | |||||
| Day 1 | 2,30 ± 1,16 | 2,70 ± 0,82 | 5.657* | <0,001* | |
| Day 2 | 1,20 ± 0,42 | 2,80 ± 0,79 | 2.415* | 0,027* | |
| Day 10 | 1,40 ± 0,71 | 2,30 ± 0,95 | 1.964 | 0,065 | |
| CA | |||||
| Day 1 | 3,0 ± 0,82 | 3,60 ± 0,52 | 1.964 | 0,065 | |
| Day 2 | 2,30 ± 1,42 | 2,70 ± 0,82 | 0,771 | 0,453 | |
| Day 10 | 2,10 ± 0,74 | 2,90 ± 0,74 | 2.424* | 0,026* | |
Open in a separate window
t: Student's t-test for comparison between groups
*Statistically significantS≤ 0,05
discussion
Fingerprints are considered a key and most valued tool in crime scene investigations. The detection of latent fingerprints is practically a challenging analytical problem, requiring the detection of very small amounts of specific chemical compounds (Cadd et al.2015). Therefore, the current study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of recovering immersed latent fingerprints on non-porous surfaces using different techniques. In the current study, black powder, SPR and CA were used as these methods are the most commonly used techniques and are quite adaptable in terms of their applicability (Yamash*ta and French2011).
The manicured fingerprints were used in the current study. Although the International Fingerprint Research Group(IFRG)stated that natural fingerprints are preferred, but that well-groomed fingerprints are accepted in cold weather (18°C) (Almog et al.2014).
A homemade cyanoacrylate smoking chamber was used as it is cheap, easy and could be made from available items. Several agencies and institutions, especially in developing countries, cannot afford to purchase a fume hood with programmable humidity. In the current study; all surfaces exposed to cyanoacrylate smoking were placed under the same experimental conditions (temperature, humidity and time).
To assess the effect of water salinity (fresh versus seawater) on the development of latent prints and the effect of different methods on the same substrate, it was better to allow the surface to dry for two hours before applying the SPR. This is to eliminate the effect of surface moisture during the comparison of black powder, SPR and CA.
The current study showed that; successful recovery of good and very good quality of latent fingerprints is possible after immersion in various water environments. At crime scenes, fingerprint processing and enhancement is unlikely to occur immediately after deposition, especially at underwater crime scenes (Soltyszewski et al.2007). Therefore, fingerprints were examined at different intervals; 1, 2 and 10 days.
In the present work, both in marine and fresh water, the duration of water immersion has consequences with significantly degraded fingerprint quality for longer periods (10 days). However, on day 10, impressions of good vision (score 4) were still observed when CA fuming was used. This can be of practical importance when examining such evidence, regardless of the nature of the surfaces.
The reduced quality of developed fingerprints with increasing time since deposition can be explained in light of the fact that; The composition of fingerprints changes due to various chemical, biological and physical processes, resulting in the aged composition (Cadd et al.2015). Initial compounds are lost through various processes including degradation, metabolism, migration, oxidation and polymerization. The longer aging periods may result in greater degradation of fingerprint components (Girod et al.2012).
Previous research on these changes has mainly focused on lipid components; fatty acids, waxes, esters, triglycerides, cholesterol and squalene in fingerprints, as they decrease significantly in concentration over time (Mong et al.1999; Weyermann et al.2011). Moreover, water, silt, sand and other factors can easily cause prints to fade faster. Trapecar study (Trapecar2012a) showed similar results in his research on wet foil, hypothesizing that the quality of fingerprints developed on objects found in water would depend on the duration of immersion.
Similarly, Soltyszewski et al.2007) confirmed the possibility of recovering fingerprints deposited on glass slides immersed in river, sea, tap or distilled water. But they used; aluminum powder, ferromagnetic powder and CA. They found a decrease in latent fingerprint visualization with longer immersion duration. In contrast to the results of the current study, they stated that prints immersed for 1 and 7 days showed good to very good visibility on average for all techniques used at 5°C. This can be referred to the difference in visualization methods, water temperature between the two studies and the effect of sand and mud on the reduced quality of visualization.
The current study also found that the highest percentage of good and very good quality fingerprints (score 4.5) were detected when the CA technique was used.
When comparing the three methods examined, there is also a significant difference (S≤ 0.05) was found in most prints examined.
Similar results were obtained in another study by Trapecar (Trapecar2012b), where the examined glass and metal surfaces were exposed to the effects of standing water for different time intervals. He concluded that the best results were achieved with CA. Although special silver powder, SPR (black and white) and CA were used for print development. Furthermore, the time intervals were; 4 hours, 1, 2 and 7 days.
Trapecar on the other hand (Trapecar2012a), showed that SPR is the best method for developing fingerprints from a wet transparent film surface immersed in still water for different time intervals. This can be attributed to the different nature of the surface used and the enhancement technique applied while the surface is still wet, while in the current study different techniques were used after the surfaces had dried.
One study examined the effect of the aquatic environment, as a destructive crime scene condition, on the quality of fingerprints. Water has an effect on the survival of latent impressions and their successful development (Dhall and Kapoor2016). Seawater was more destructive due to its salinity; this can be explained by the good quality of fingerprints recovered in freshwater versus seawater, as shown in the current study.
Conclusion
The current study concluded that it is possible to find latent prints immersed in water in different placesnon-porous dried surfaceswith the best visualization method using CA, both in freshwater and seawater. The duration of immersion also affects the quality of the fingerprints developed; the longer the duration, the poorer the quality. Furthermore, this research has shown that exposure to high salinity, i.e. seawater, has a more detrimental effect on the quality of detected fingerprints.
This study found that all evidence recovered underwater should be tested for prints, regardless of the time spent beneath the surface.
Financing
Nee.
Author contributions
Prof. SM and Prof As: practical part carried out under their supervision, writing assistance and final revision. Assistant Prof FBED: Revision of statistical analysis and final revision. Dr. YEW: supervised the practical part related to aquatic experiments due to his experience in oceanography and aquatic environments. AFTER: practical part of research and writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
We would like to confirm that this is the caseNeeknownconflict of interestassociated with this publication and there have beenno significant financial supportfor this work that could have influenced the result. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other individuals who met the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have paid due attention to the protection of intellectual property in connection with this work and that there are no obstacles to publication, including the time of publication, relating to intellectual property.
Editor's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor information
Somaya Madkour,E-mail:moc.liamg@ruokdamayamoS.
Abeer Sheta,E-mail:moc.liamg@0102tehsiba.
Fatma Badr El Dine,E-mail:moc.oohay@enidlerdabamtaf.
Yasser Elwakeel,E-mail:ten.ediupyge@ressayrd.
Nermine AbdAllah,Phone: 01004677609,E-mail:moc.oohay@22enimren_rd.
References
- Almog J, Azoury M, Elmaliah Y, Berenstein L, Zaban A. The third dimension of fingerprints: the depth and shape of fingerprint penetration into paper - cross-sectional study by fluorescence microscopy.J Forensic scientist.2004;49:981-985.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
- Almog J, Cantu AA, Champod C (2014). Guidelines for the Assessment of Fingerprint Detection Techniques, IFRG Version1.
- Archer N, Charles Y, Elliott J, Jickells S. Changes in the lipid composition of latent fingerprint residues with time after deposition on a surface.Forensic Scientific Int.2005;154:224-239. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.120.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Cadd S, Islam M, Manson P, Bleay S. Fingerprint composition and aging: a literature review.Scientific law.2015;55(4):219-238. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2015.02.004.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Castello'A, French F, Verdu'F. Solving underwater crimes: developing latent prints made on submerged objects.Scientific law.2013;53:328-331. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.04.002.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Croxton R, Baron M, Butler D, Kent T, Sears V. Variation in amino acid and lipid composition in latent fingerprints.Forensic Scientific Int.2010;199:93-102. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.019.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Cuce P, Polimeni G, Lazzaro AP, Fulvio GD. Small particle reagent techniques can help detect wet latent fingerprints.Forensische Sci Int (supplement)2004;146:S7–S8. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.005.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Dadmun M (2009) Cultivation of methods to improve the quality of ancient fingerprints developed by Cyanoacrylate Fuming. Bibliogov, USA.
- Devlin B (2011) Recovery of latent fingerprints after immersion in different water conditions. Fairfax, VA, George Mason University, Master's thesis.
- Dhall JK, Kapoor AK. Development of latent prints exposed to destructive crime scene conditions using wet powder suspensions.Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences.2016;6:396-404. doi:10.1016/j.ejfs.2016.06.003.[CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Girod A, Ramotowski R, Weyermann C. Composition of fingerprint residues: a qualitative and quantitative assessment.Forensic Scientific Int.2012;223:10–24. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.05.018.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Jasuja OP, Kumarb P, Singh G. Development of latent fingerprints on surfaces immersed in water: optimization studies for phase transfer catalyst (PTC) based reagents.Scientific law.2015;55:335-342. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2015.03.001.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Kapoor S, Sodhi G, Sanjiv K (2015) Visualization of latent fingerprints using Rhodamine B: a novel method. Int J Forensic Sci Pathol 3(11):199-201,http://scidoc.org/articlepdfs/IJFP/IJFP-2332-287X-03-1101.pdf
- Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC.A Simple Guide to IBM SPSS Statistics for Version 20.0 (Student Ed.)Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2003.[Google Scholar]
- Kotz S, Balakrishnan N, Lees CB, Vidakovic B.Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences.2. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience; 2006.[Google Scholar]
- Lee HC, Gaensslen RE. Methods for developing latent fingerprints. In: Lee HC, Gaensslen RE, editors.Advances in fingerprint technology.2. Boca Raton: CRC-pers; 2001.[Google Scholar]
- Mong G, Petersen C, Clauss T.Advanced Fingerprint Analysis Project Fingerprint Components, Technical Report 1999.1999.[Google Scholar]
- Olenik JH. Superglue, a modified technique for developing latent fingerprints.J Forensic scientist.1984;29(3):881-884. doi:10.1520/JFS11748J.[CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Paine M, Bandey HL, Bleay SM, Willson H. The effect of relative humidity on the effectiveness of the cyanoacrylate vapor process for developing fingerprints and on the microstructure of the developed marks.Forensic Scientific Int.2011;212:130-142. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.06.003.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Polimeni G, Feudale BF, Saravo L, Fulvio GD. A new approach to identify the presence of fingerprints on wet surfaces.Forensic Scientific Int.2004;146:S45–S46. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.016.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Popov KT, Sears VG, Jones BJ.Migration of latent fingerprints on non-porous surfaces: observation technique and nanoscale variations.2017. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
- Rohatgi R, Kapoor AK. Development of latent fingerprints on wet non-porous surfaces with basic fuchsin dye-based SPR.Egyptian Journal of Forensic Science.2016;6(2):179-184. doi:10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.05.007.[CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Soltyszewski I, Moszczynski J, Pepinski W, Jastrzebowska S, Makulec W, Janica J. Fingerprint detection and DNA typing on objects recovered from water.JFI2007;57(5):681-687. [Google Scholar]
- Trapecar M. Fingerprint recovery from wet transparent film.Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences.2012;2:126-130. doi:10.1016/j.ejfs.2012.08.001.[CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Trapecar M. Fingerprints on glass and metal surfaces recovered from standing water.Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences.2012;2:48-53. doi:10.1016/j.ejfs.2012.04.002.[CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Wargacki SP, Lewis LA, Dadmun MD. Improving the quality of aged latent fingerprints created by smoking super glue; loss and replenishment of the initiator.J Forensic scientist.2008;53:1138-1144. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00822.x.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Weyermann C, Roux C, Champod C. Preliminary results on fingerprint composition and its evolution as a function of time by GC⁄MS analysis.J Forensic scientist.2011;56:102-108. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01523.x.[PubMed] [CrossRef][Google Scholar]
- Yamash*ta B, Franse M. Latent print development. In: McRoberts A, McRoberts D, editors.The Fingerprint Sourcebook.Washington: National Institute of Justice; 2011.[Google Scholar]
Articles fromEgyptian Journal of Forensic Sciencesprovided here courtesy ofSpringer
