5

Initial examination and

the selection of fingermark
­enhancement processes
Stephen M. Bleay
Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology, Sandridge, UK

Key points
• A wide range of enhancement processes are available, targeting different
properties and constituents of fingermarks and suited for use on different
surfaces.
• An initial examination of the item should be conducted to obtain information
about the surface, environment and fingermark before selection of the most
appropriate enhancement process.
• The potential impact of the enhancement process on the surface should be
considered as part of the selection process.

5.1 Introduction
The next stage of fingermark recovery is the point at which the article or surface is
first examined by a person with an interest in locating fingermarks on it, generally
the crime scene investigator. An initial examination of the surface should be con-
ducted to obtain information that can assist in the selection of the most appropriate
fingermark enhancement process(es) and also to locate any marks that may already

Fingerprint Development Techniques: Theory and Application, First Edition.

Stephen M. Bleay, Ruth S. Croxton and Marcel de Puit.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
100 CH05  INITIAL EXAMINATION AND THE SELECTION OF FINGERMARK

(a) (b)

Figure 5.1  Examples of information that can be obtained during the initial examination of a
surface: (a) evidence of water damage on paper and (b) grease contamination on an aerosol can.
Reproduced courtesy of the Home Office.

be visible. The type of information that can be obtained in such an examination

includes the nature of the surface type, its texture and colour and evidence of any
exposure to particular environments (Figure 5.1). Building knowledge of any
­contaminants that may be present (e.g. grease or blood) will also impact upon the
subsequent decision‐making process.

5.2  Processing options

A basic knowledge of what situations individual enhancement processes may be
most effective in is a requirement for process selection. There are significant differ-
ences between the mechanisms that can be used to enhance marks (Bleay et  al.,
2012; Bandey, 2014), and this can have an impact on which process(es) are ulti-
mately selected. A summary of some of the commonly used fingermark enhance-
ment processes and the constituents, properties and types of marks that they target
is given in Table 5.1. The constituents are divided into the endogenous (eccrine and
sebaceous sweat) and the exogenous materials in a fingermark that may be exploited
for the visualisation of a fingermark.
How these differences in enhancement mode directly translate into differ-
ences in the effectiveness of the processes on eccrine, sebaceous and ‘natural’
marks can be observed directly in the examples illustrated in Figure 5.2. In this
case the natural marks are those obtained from donors who have not washed
their hands for at least 30 min and are likely to contain a mixture of eccrine and
sebaceous sweat and any exogenous compounds/contaminants picked up from
handled items.
Table 5.1 Some commonly used fingermark enhancement processes and the types of mark they can be used to enhance.

Process Constituent/property targeted Capable of developing marks of type

Eccrine Sebaceous Exogenous material

or contaminant

Protein stains (acid dyes) Proteins X X ✓ (blood)

Basic Violet 3 Lipids, epithelial cells X ✓ ✓ (grease)
Cyanoacrylate fuming Combinations of water, salts, amino acids, lactate ✓ (✓) X
DFO Amino acids, amine‐containing substances ✓ X ✓ (blood)
ESDA Electric charge, dielectric constant ✓ ✓ X
Fluorescence Fluorescent constituents (✓) (✓) ✓
examination
1,2‐Indandione Amino acids, amine‐containing substances ✓ X ✓ (blood)
Iodine fuming Squalene X ✓ ✓ (grease)
Ninhydrin Amino acids, amine‐containing substances ✓ X ✓ (blood)
Multi‐metal deposition Proteins, combinations of eccrine constituents in ✓ ✓ X
water‐insoluble matrix
Oil Red O Lipids X ✓ ✓ (grease)
Peroxidase reagents Haem X X ✓ (blood)
Physical developer Combinations of eccrine constituents in water‐ ✓ ✓ X
insoluble matrix
Powders Adhesive properties ✓ (water content) ✓ ✓(grease)
Powder suspensions Combinations of eccrine constituents in water‐ ✓ ✓ ✓ (blood)
insoluble matrix
Silver nitrate Chlorides ✓ X X
Small particle reagent Lipids X ✓ X
Solvent Black 3 Lipids X ✓ ✓ (grease)
Ultraviolet reflection Topography, UV absorption ✓ ✓ ✓
Visual examination Optical properties ✓ ✓ ✓
Vacuum metal Differences in surface properties ✓ ✓ ✓
deposition
 Processes targeting predominantly eccrine material
Type of mark
Process
Eccrine Sebaceous Natural
Ninhydrin

Silver nitrate

Black powder
suspension

Processes targeting predominantly sebaceous material

Type of mark
Process
Eccrine Sebaceous Natural
Solvent Black 3

Oil Red O

Small particle
reagent

Figure 5.2  A summary of various enhancement processes and their relative effectiveness on
marks of different types. Reproduced courtesy of the Home Office.
 5.3  Process selection 103

Processes capable of enhancing both types of material

Type of mark
Process
Eccrine Sebaceous Natural
Vacuum metal
deposition
(gold/zinc)

Vacuum metal
deposition
(silver)

Black granular
powder

Figure 5.2  (Continued)

5.3  Process selection

The triangle of interaction described in Chapter 4 is a useful tool to assist in under-
standing what may have occurred since deposition of the mark and to assist with the
identification of the optimum fingermark enhancement process(es) for a particular
scenario. When using the triangle of interaction to inform decision‐making about
process selection, as much information as possible should be obtained about each of
three elements of the triangle during initial examination, and the interactions
that  could progressively occur during the ageing interval should be taken into
consideration.
Some of the questions that should be posed during process selection associated
with the three elements of the triangle of interaction include the following.
104 CH05  INITIAL EXAMINATION AND THE SELECTION OF FINGERMARK

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5 15 25 35 45
10 20 30 40 50
Figure 5.3  A rough brick surface that appears too textured to retain fingermark ridge detail.
Reproduced courtesy of the Home Office.

5.3.1 Surface

How textured is the surface? Some surfaces may be too rough to make fingermark
recovery likely (Figure 5.3). The reasons for this have already been described in
Chapter 2.
Even in this situation, skin cells may be sloughed from the finger by the rough
surface, and the use of fingermark enhancement processes may enable the location
of an area where contact has occurred to target DNA swabbing.
What colour is the surface? It will be important to select an enhancement process
that produces an enhanced mark of contrasting colour to the surface; otherwise
some fingermarks present may not be located.

5.3.2 Fingermark

Have any fingermarks been located during the initial examination? Images of these
marks should be captured before proceeding with any further enhancement pro-
cesses, which may necessitate the use of more specialist lighting methods to obtain
the optimum image.
 5.4  The processing environment 105

Is there any evidence that the mark may be deposited in a contaminant? If

there is no evidence that contaminants are present, it is generally assumed that
the principal constituents are eccrine and sebaceous sweat and process selection
made on that basis. If the initial examination gives indications of contaminants
being present, then the selection can be modified to include processes targeting
these substances. This initial information may be supplemented with the results
of any presumptive testing carried out, for example, a Kastle–Meyer test con-
ducted on a red‐brown stain to indicate the presence of blood. Table 5.1 provides
a reference guide to which processes may be appropriate for different types of
contaminant.

5.3.3 Environment

Is there any evidence of exposure to particular environments? If it can be established

that the surface and fingermark have been exposed to water, or high temperature,
then the likely effect of these environments on fingermark and the surface (as ­outlined
in Chapter 4) should be assessed and fed back into process selection. For example, if
the article has been wetted, then it is extremely unlikely that p­ rocesses targeting
water‐soluble constituents such as amino acids and salts will continue to be effective
and should therefore be excluded from the process selection.

5.4  The processing environment

The triangle of interaction can also be utilised when considering the interactions that
can occur during application of the fingermark enhancement process. In this situation
the process itself becomes the ‘environment’ element of the triangle. The purpose of
applying the process is to produce an interaction with the fingermark that makes it
become sufficiently visible, but the potential interactions between the p­ rocess and the
surface also need to be carefully considered. This is because there are situations where
the nature of the surface may preclude the use of a particular process, examples being
as follows:

• The processing environment involves temperatures likely to cause damage to the

surface (melting, deformation, etc.).
• The surface texture may retain excessive amounts of the processing substance.
• Adverse reactions may occur between the surface and the chemicals used in the
enhancement process.

Particular cases where each of these may be a consideration are expanded upon
in the succeeding text.
106 CH05  INITIAL EXAMINATION AND THE SELECTION OF FINGERMARK

Figure 5.4  Polymer window of an envelope showing shrinkage and distortion caused by
excessive heating.

5.4.1  Excessive heating

Excessive heating can arise in more than one way. One example is where the glass
transition temperature or melting point of the surface is exceeded by the processing
environment. An example of this is where paper labels on plastic bottles or paper
envelopes with polymeric windows are processed using DFO, which requires heat-
ing in an oven at 100°C for 20 min. This combination of high temperature for an
extended period of time may cause significant shrinkage and deformation of the
polymers (Figure 5.4), and to avoid this from occurring, either the paper could be
separated from the polymer prior to processing or an alternative process that does
not require high temperatures could be selected instead.
Excessive heating may also occur in situations where the ambient temperature is
not obviously high enough to cause damage. An example of this is where high inten-
sity light sources such as lasers are used to examine dark surfaces containing fillers
that can absorb energy of the wavelengths used. The absorbed energy may result in the
surface being raised above its melting point or to a temperature where charring or
ignition may occur.

5.4.2  Retention by surface texture

On smooth surfaces there are few, if any, physical features to inhibit the functioning
of any enhancement processes. However, on textured surfaces the surface topogra-
phy can influence the way in which fingermark enhancement occurs. If, for ­example,
a fine ­powder (such as aluminium flake) is used to develop a fingermark on a rough
textured surface, the small particles in the powder may become trapped by the
 5.4  The processing environment 107

(a)
Fine particulates adhering Fine particulates trapped in
to fingermark ridges ‘troughs’

No discrimination of fingermark ridges

(b)
Large particulates adhering Fewer particulates trapped
to fingermark ridges in ‘troughs’

Better discrimination of fingermark ridges

(c)

Selective polymerisation on
fingermark ridges

Figure 5.5  Schematic diagrams and photographs of fingerprint enhancement on textured sur-
faces: (a) aluminium powder, (b) black magnetic powder and (c) cyanoacrylate fuming.
Photographs reproduced courtesy of the Home Office.

depressions in the surface, which can result in uniform deposition of powder over
the surface and poor discrimination of fingerprint ridges (Figure 5.5). This can be
addressed by using a powder with a larger particle size (e.g. black magnetic powder)
where the larger particles are not retained by the textured surface and ridge detail
can be discriminated. Alternatively, liquid or gas phase processes that selectively
deposit on fingermark residues (such as powder suspensions or cyanoacrylate
108 CH05  INITIAL EXAMINATION AND THE SELECTION OF FINGERMARK

fuming) may be used. More detailed descriptions of all of these development pro-
cesses will be given in Chapters 6–15.

5.4.3  Chemical incompatibility

Chemical incompatibility is most likely to be an issue when the surface is chemi-

cally reactive, as is the case for some types of metal, for example, brass. A theoreti-
cal example of where chemical incompatibility could occur is in the selection of a
process to enhance marks in the blood on a brass surface. Processes that could be
used in this scenario are the acid dyes, which stain the proteins present in the blood,
or the peroxidase reagents, which react with the haem constituent in the blood to
give a coloured reaction product. However, the peroxidase reagents utilise hydrogen
peroxide in their formulation to catalyse the reaction, which can also attack the
surface, producing gaseous products that can disrupt the ridge detail. The results of
using a peroxidase reagent (Leuco Crystal Violet) and an acid dye (Acid Black 1) to
develop a mark in the blood on a brass surface are illustrated in Figure 5.6.
If the nature of the surface is uncertain and it is unknown how it may interact with
the processing environment, preliminary ‘spot tests’ can occasionally be applied to
small areas away from the region of operational importance to evaluate how a sur-
face will respond to individual enhancement processes.

(a) (b)

Figure 5.6  Fingermarks in the blood enhanced on a brass surface using (a) Leuco Crystal
Violet and (b) Acid Black 1, showing the degradation to the ridge detail caused by the reaction
between hydrogen peroxide and the brass. Reproduced courtesy of the Home Office.
 References 109

References
Bandey H (ed.), Fingermark Visualisation Manual, Home Office, London, 2014, ISBN
978‐1‐78246‐234‐7.
Bleay S M, Sears V G, Bandey H L, Gibson A P, Bowman V J, Downham R, Fitzgerald L, Ciuksza
T, Ramadani J, Selway C, Home Office Fingerprint Source Book, 6 June 2012 (https://www.
gov.uk/government/publications/fingerprint‐source‐book, accessed 16 October 2017).