J Forensic Sci, March 2015, Vol. 60, No.

2
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12661
TECHNICAL NOTE Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

CRIMINALISTICS

Sarah J. Fieldhouse,1 Ph.D.

An Investigation into the Effects of Force

Applied During Deposition on Latent
Fingermarks and Inked Fingerprints Using a
Variable Force Fingerprint Sampler*

ABSTRACT: Physical factors, including the magnitude of the force applied during fingermark deposition, may affect friction ridge surface
area and clarity, and the quantity of residue transferred. Consistency between fingermarks may be required; for example, in research projects,
yet differences between marks are likely to exist when physical factors are not controlled. Inked fingerprints and latent fingermarks were depos-
ited at 1–10 N at 1 N increments using a variable force fingerprint sampler to control the force, angle of friction ridge and surface contact, and
the duration of friction ridge and surface contact. Statistically significant differences existed between the length and width measurements of the
inked prints (p ≤ 0.05), particularly at lower forces. Scanning electron microscopy and surface plot analysis demonstrated how differences in
force applied during deposition affected ridge surface area, displacement of latent residue, and differences in the quantity of residue transferred.
Consistency between inked prints was demonstrated at equivalent forces.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, fingerprints, latent fingermarks, inked fingerprints, Cyanoacrylate fuming, scanning electron microscopy

Physical factors, including the magnitude of the force applied,
the angle of friction ridge and surface contact, and the duration of
friction ridge and surface contact, are all known to affect the
appearance of friction ridge skin marks (1). Differences in the mag-
nitude of the force applied during deposition can affect ridge width
(2,3), the quantity of friction ridge residue transfer (3), and the clar-
ity of the mark (1), which may affect mark identification (2).
Given the role of friction ridge skin in forensic investigations,
a considerable amount of research has been dedicated to this
area of study, where often many hundreds or thousands of marks
are deposited in any single project. Owing to the effects of phys-
ical factors on fingermark deposition, the deposition method
employed is sometimes described in published research, which
has been achieved by asking participants to carry out routine
tasks (4) or to apply a specific force during deposition, for
example, a “moderate” amount (5). These approaches obviously
have the potential to introduce subjective error. On some occa-
sions, different forces have been requested (6), some of which
have made attempts to introduce precise forces (6,7). This has
not just occurred in the area of friction ridge skin; methods of
standardizing footwear mark deposition have been reported (8).
1 desire a natural variation in fingermark deposition force applied
Forensic and Crime Science Department, Staffordshire University, The
Science Centre, Leek Road, Stoke on Trent, ST4 2DF, U.K.
*Presented at the 2012 Fingerprint Society Annual Conference, April 13–
15, 2012, in Swanwick, Derbyshire, U.K.
The variable force fingerprint sampler described in the paper was designed
by Philip Morton of SciChem, John Whitehead of Lascells Ltd and Sarah
Fieldhouse.
Received 13 June 2013; and in revised form 15 Mar. 2014; accepted 17
Mar. 2014.
Previous research has investigated different fingermark deposi-
tion methodologies and their effects on the resultant marks (1,9).
These have included no control over deposition (i.e., participants
were simply asked to deposit a mark onto a slide, without fur-
ther instruction), the use of a top pan balance to control the force
applied, and the use of a fingerprint sampler. Here, evidence
was provided to support the existence of significant variations in
deposition force, the duration of friction ridge and surface con-
tact, and the angle of friction ridge and surface contact between
consecutive depositions for methods involving no control and a
top pan balance. Significantly reduced variations of these factors
between marks and/or evidence of the effects of force distortion
were found when a fingerprint sampler was used (9). It is impor-
tant to note that some participants seem to have an increased
ability to be able to control fingermark deposition than others.
This might be because of their prior knowledge of fingermarks
and the factors which affect their structure during deposition, or
perhaps they regularly deposit fingermarks, for example, as part
of research projects. However, if a person would like to control
these physical factors associated with fingermark deposition,
then fingerprint samplers may offer them a means of being able
to achieve this. There may equally be instances where a person
does not wish to control fingermark deposition because they
within their sample of marks.
The effects of different force applications on the appearance
of latent marks developed using Ninhydrin have been reported
(7), which suggests how such factors might influence the results
of a research project.
The aim of this research project was to investigate the effects
of different forces applied during fingermark deposition on the

422 © 2014 American Academy of Forensic Sciences

 FIELDHOUSE
appearance of the resultant marks using a variable force finger-
print sampler to control fingermark deposition.
Methods
An Overview of the Variable Force Fingerprint Sampler
An overview of the variable force fingerprint sampler and its
component parts can be viewed in Figs 1a and 1b.
The variable force fingerprint sampler was composed of two
platforms, the upper fingerprint deposition platform and the
lower platform. They were connected at one end by a pivot,
which allowed vertical movement of these platforms. In between
the two platforms, a spring was positioned. The distance
between the two platforms was adjustable, which controlled the
compression of the spring during fingermark deposition. The
magnitude of the force applied was set by adjusting the com-
pression of the spring. Substrates were placed onto the deposi-
tion platform, and the finger was rested directly above.
Releasing the spring allowed contact between the finger and the
substrate and therefore deposition of the mark.
Spring Calibration
One end of the spring was secured to a vernier scale where
known masses between 100 g and 1 kg were applied to the
opposite end. The extension of the spring was recorded, and the
data were converted to force data (1 g = 101.97 N [2 dp]) and
(a)
(b)
FIG. 1––(a) Overview of the variable force fingerprint sampler (side view).
(b) Overview of the variable force fingerprint sampler (rear view).
. THE EFFECTS OF FORCE ON FINGERMARK DEPOSITION 423
plotted onto a calibration graph to determine the position of the
markers on the force scale. These distances were subsequently
verified using a digital Newton meter.
The Effects of Different Forces on the Appearance of Latent
Fingermarks and Inked Fingerprints
Five participants (recruited through opportunity sampling) were
asked to deposit three consecutive latent fingermarks from their
index fingers onto glass surfaces, followed by three consecutive
inked fingerprints onto photocopier paper at approximate forces
of between 1 and 10 N at 1 N increments using the variable force
fingerprint sampler according to the manufacturer’s instructions
(10). For latent fingermarks, participants were asked to refrain
from washing their hands for 1 h prior to deposition, and to
gently rub their hands together with distribute their skin surface
residue. Before the finger was used to deposit latent fingermarks
for a different force, it was cleaned using a laboratory tissue to
remove any excess residue, and then the finger was wiped against
an equivalently sized area of friction skin from the same palmar
surface in an attempt to gain consistency between the composi-
tions of the residue of the marks. All of the fingermarks from a
single participant were deposited on the same deposition date.
The latent fingermarks were then subjected to the following
analyses and treatments:
1 Examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
2 Developed using cyanoacrylate fuming in a Foster and Free-
man MVC3000 cabinet, following an autocycle within 2 h of
deposition (11). An auto cycle was used with approximately
2 g of liquid Cyanobloom (Foster and Freeman Ltd., Eve-
sham, England.).
3 Surface plot analysis using a Foster and Freeman fingerprint
digitiser (DCS121), which was used to provide a 3D repre-
sentation of the fingermark (12).
For the inked fingerprints, the fingers were rolled against
disposable inked strips (CSI Equipment Ltd., Milton Keynes, Eng-
land) to ensure that the maximum area of friction ridges available
was covered. It was not possible to produce rolled fingerprints
using the fingerprint sampler.
After the inked depletion series was created (between the depo-
sitions of each inked fingerprint), the finger was removed, cleaned
with soap and water, and re-inked in an attempt to gain consis-
tency in the quantity of ink present on the fingers. All of the fin-
germarks from a single participant were deposited on the same
deposition date. The duration of friction ridge and surface contact
was 2 sec (approximately) for each deposition using the sampler.
The inked fingerprints and latent fingermarks were visually
examined for differences in surface area between prints depos-
ited under the same force and then between prints deposited at
different forces.
The maximum length and width of each inked print were
measured in mm; mean values were calculated and plotted onto
line graphs (the dimensions were plotted against force) to aid
analysis. The distribution of the data was investigated using Kol-
mogorov–Smirnov tests (13). Repeated measures analysis of var-
iance (ANOVA) tests were then used to investigate the existence
of statistically significant differences between the data sets for
each participant. Homogeneity of variance was investigated
using Mauchly’s test of sphericity (13). Alpha levels of 0.05
were used for each test. The effect size was calculated using
guidelines proposed by Cohen (13). All statistical testing was
carried out using SPSS version 16 (IBM SPSS, New York).
424 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
Results and Discussion
Figure 2 illustrates a set of 10 inked fingerprints deposited by
the same finger between 1 and 10 N at 1 N increments.
Variation in the area of friction ridge and surface contact
according to the magnitude of the force applied during deposi-
tion was clear, which supports previously published research
(1,3). With this sample of marks at depositions of a lower force,
there appeared to be no distortion to the friction ridges on
account of excessive force applied during deposition, although
the intensity of the ridges changed with different force applica-
tions, and the ridge widths themselves increased with an increase
in force applied. This has been noted in previous studies, where
esthetic differences were also attributed to differences in the
chemical composition of the marks (3). Contrast between the
ridges and furrows generally increased in line with increasing
force, which improved the visibility of the ridge detail, particu-
larly from prints deposited at 1 and 2 N compared to those
deposited under forces exceeding 2 N. This might suggest that
the optimum force for depositing marks exceeds 2 N. It was
important to note that these images were of inked fingerprints,
FIG. 2––10 inked fingerprints deposited by the same finger between 1 and 10 N at 1 N increments.
which were highly likely to behave in a different manner to
latent fingermarks on account of their different compositions.
When the latent marks were considered, it also appeared that
marks deposited under smaller forces were more different to one
another in terms of surface area than those deposited at higher
forces, but also that the ridges themselves were affected by the
changes in force applied.
The analysis of the length and width measurements of the
inked fingerprints can be seen in Figs 4 and 5.
Generally, the length and width measurements increased as
the magnitude of the force applied to the finger increased. This
was expected because the friction ridge skin pad of the distal
phalanx is elastic, and therefore, during deposition, the raised
portion of the pad will contact the substrate first, and then as
the force increases, the pad will compress, allowing peripheral
friction ridges to contact the substrate.
The results of the repeated measures ANOVA test provided
evidence that statistically significant differences existed between
the length and width measurements, as shown in Table 1. The
eta-squared effect size reported very large effects, which
supported the reliability of the data.
 FIELDHOUSE
The results of the Bonferroni post hoc tests suggested that the
length measurements of fingerprints deposited under a force
≤4 N were statistically significantly different to one another
(p ≤ 0.05), but any fingerprints deposited under a force of ≥5 N
were not statistically significantly different to one another
(p > 0.05). The width measurements of fingerprints deposited
under a force ≤5 N were statistically significantly different to
one another (p ≤ 0.05), but any fingerprints deposited under a
force of ≥6 N were not statistically significantly different to one
another (p > 0.05). The standard error of the mean was only
0.5 mm. Any differences might have been caused by slight dif-
ferences in the ink quantity on the friction ridges, which was not
controlled. As the number of consecutive depositions increased,
it was logical to assume that the quantity of ink present on the
friction ridges would decrease.
FIG. 3––Three inked fingerprints deposited consecutively at 5 N.
FIG. 4––Length measurements of the inked fingerprints at different force
applications.
TABLE 1––ANOVA test results for length and width measurements
Fingermark Measurement N F p (2DP) Eta Squared
Length 15 72.485 0.00 0.838 (very large)
Width 15 99.622 0.00 0.877 (very large)
N: number of samples; F: ANOVA test statistic; p: probability; Eta
Squared: estimate of effect size.
. THE EFFECTS OF FORCE ON FINGERMARK DEPOSITION 425
Differences in the size and shape of the participating fingers,
particularly the raised area of the pad, are likely to contribute to
differences in the behavior of the friction ridges during compres-
sion and therefore the length and width measurements. It was
interesting to note that the length measurements generally
stopped increasing after 5 N, yet the width measurements contin-
ued to increase. The nonisotropic shape of the pad could perhaps
aid surface contact across the width of the finger more easily
compared to the length generally under increasing forces.
Figure 6 shows latent fingermarks from the same finger
deposited at 4 and 8 N and developed using cyanoacrylate fum-
ing. Minor differences in the surface area were present, particu-
larly at the top of the marks, but also the marks were affected
by differences in force applied, because the residue appears to
have been displaced at 8 N to the ridge peripheries (1,2). Efforts
were made to standardize the quantity of friction ridge residue
present, because it is known that the quantity of residue affects
the contact area (3). This was achieved by rubbing of the hands
together, and then once the mark was deposited, all remaining
residue was removed from that area using a tissue. Soap and
water were not used as it was anticipated that any cosmetic
product might contaminate the residue. The clean skin was then
replenished by rubbing it with a comparable area of the palmar
surface. It is acknowledged that the use of a fingerprint sampler
will not remove any requirement for a standard chemically con-
sistent fingermark. Further research in this area may look to
combine the use of a chemically controlled residue with the con-
trol of deposition factors, to build toward the construction of a
standard fingermark for research purposes. The use of inked fin-
gerprints as well as latent marks within this research project was
also used to standardize the chemical composition of the print,
thus removing this variable from the experiment as far as possi-
ble. The control of such a physical variable during deposition
might suggest that features present within a mark can be attrib-
uted to differences in the chemical composition of the marks
rather than differences in the force applied. It was possible that
the 8 N mark simply contained an increased quantity of residue,
but on account of the strategies employed to control residue
quantity, this feature was attributed to force. This was apparent
with other participants’ marks at higher deposition forces com-
pared to those deposited at lower forces.
FIG. 5––Width measurements of the inked fingerprints at different force
applications.
426 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
SEM Analysis
The results of the SEM analysis suggested that the appearance
of the fingermarks varied at different forces. An example of
these results can be viewed in Fig. 7.
As the force applied to the finger during fingermark deposi-
tion increased, the width of the ridges appeared to increase, as
did the quantity of the latent residue, supporting previous
research as discussed. The ridges appeared to be more complete
in nature and more densely packed with residue. Such differ-
ences may affect how the mark responds to its environment over
time and also how it reacts to any applied treatment (7). Differ-
ences in the appearance of friction ridges can affect the quantity
and quality of ridge detail available for analysis, which might
affect how the marks are assessed.
Surface Plot Analysis
The surface plot analysis images for three marks deposited at
1, 5, and 10 N can be seen in Fig. 8.
FIG. 6––Latent fingermarks from the same finger deposited at 4 and 8 N
and developed using cyanoacrylate fuming.
FIG. 7––Scanning electron microscopy images of fingermarks deposited at 1, 5, and 10 N.
FIG. 8––Surface plot analysis of fingermarks deposited at 1, 5, and 10 N.
The surface plots clearly demonstrate how the surface areas of
fingermarks change with different forces. They also illustrate
how the ridge profiles change with force applied; as the force
applied increased the ridge, depth also appeared to increase,
which was attributed to the fact that increased forces caused
increased quantities of residue to transfer (3). When a latent fin-
germark is deposited, the droplets of latent residue are sand-
wiched between the friction ridges and the substrate, which then
rupture to transfer the residue to the substrate (14). At light
forces, it was hypothesized that the droplets were transferred
independently of one another, whereas as the force increases, the
droplets were compressed with the deformation of the finger
pad, and therefore, they merged together into a continuous
stream of residue. This is known to be affected by the chemical
composition of the residue (14), although in this study, all of the
latent fingermarks were deposited consecutively; therefore,
although the composition was unknown, it should have been rel-
atively consistent. Residues from the elevated ridge peripheries
were able to contact the substrate at higher forces, providing
more residue available for transfer, which built upon the ridge
profiles, increasing their depth. It was anticipated that the shape
of the finger would affect the degree to which the finger pad
deformed, particularly toward the apex, and therefore, there
would be differences between fingers.
Consecutively deposited inked fingerprints demonstrated a
high level of consistency in terms of surface area, ridge width,
and structure. Examples of three inked fingerprints deposited
consecutively at 5 N are shown in Fig. 3. The fading intensity
of the marks was attributed to the reduction in the quantity of
ink of the finger following previous depositions.
Further research aims to investigate intra- and intervariations
in latent fingermark structure at several single forces, which may
have further implications for fingerprint research projects. For
example, it might be that at a single force, there is considerable
variation within donors’ marks on different dates, yet many
research projects employ a group of donors who they routinely
assume to deposit similar marks. On any one date, there is
clearly a limited amount of latent marks that a participant may
 FIELDHOUSE
produce, which highlights another issue with fingermark research
in general.
The range of forces studied was based on typical variations
observed during previous research, where participants were asked
to deposit fingermarks onto glass slides using a top pan balance
(9). Also, these forces represented those which were achievable
with the given spring and the device used. Future research may well
seek to extend this range, although as these results have shown, sig-
nificant effects have been found to exist within this range.
Conclusion
The aim of the research was met given that the variable force
fingerprint sampler facilitated the deposition of latent finger-
marks and inked fingerprints at different forces. A study of the
marks and prints demonstrated how different forces applied dur-
ing deposition affect their surface area, with statistically signifi-
cant differences in the lengths of the prints up to a deposition
force of 4 N and statistically significant differences in the widths
up to 5 N. Also demonstrated using SEM and surface plot analy-
sis were differences in the quantity of the residue deposited and
the ridge profiles, which were seen to generally increase as the
force applied to the finger during deposition also increased.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Philip Morton of SciChem and John
Whitehead of Lascells Ltd. for their collaborative efforts with the
design and production of the variable force fingerprint sampler.
References
1. Fieldhouse S. Consistency and reproducibility in fingermark deposition.
Forensic Sci Int 2011;3:96–100.
. THE EFFECTS OF FORCE ON FINGERMARK DEPOSITION 427
2. Ashbaugh DR. Quantitative-qualitative friction ridge analysis. An intro-
duction to basic and advanced ridgeology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,
1999.
3. Scruton B, Robins BW, Blott BH. The deposition of fingerprint films.
J Phys D: Appl Phys 1975;8:714–23.
4. Given BW. Latent fingerprints on cartridges and expended cartridge
cases. J Forensic Sci 1976;21:587–94.
5. Bohanan AM. Latent’s from pre-pubescent children versus latent’s from
adults. Journal of Forensic Identification 1998;48:570–3.
6. Langenburg G. Deposition of bloody friction ridge impressions. Journal
of Forensic Identification 2008;58:355–89.
7. Jasuja OP, Toofany MA, Singh G, Singh GS. Dynamics of latent finger-
prints: the effect of physical factors on quality of Ninhydrin developed
prints – a preliminary study. Sci Justice 2009;49(1):8–11.
8. Farrugia KJ, Riches P, Bandey H, Savage K, NicDa!eid N. Controlling
the variable of pressure in the production of test footwear impressions.
Sci Justice 2012;52(3):168–76.
9. Fieldhouse S. A comparison of fingermark deposition methodologies.
Fingerprint Whorld 2011;37:95–101.
10. Scientific and Chemical Supplies. Multi-force fingerprint sampler instruc-
tions. West Midlands, U.K.: SciChem, 2011.
11. Mason Vactron. MVC3000 Superglue fuming cabinet instruction manual
& user guide. Evesham, U.K.: Mason Vactron, publication date
unknown.
12. Media Cybernetics. Image-Pro Plus reference guide for WindowsTM.
Bethesda, MD: Media Cybernetics Inc., 1993.
13. Kinnear PR, Gray CD. SPSS 15 made simple. Hove, U.K.: Psychology
Press, 2008.
14. Thomas GL. The physics of fingerprints and their detection. J Phys D:
Appl Phys 1978;11:722–31.
Additional information and reprint requests:
Sarah J. Fieldhouse, Ph.D.
Forensic and Crime Science Department
Staffordshire University
The Science Centre
Leek Road
Stoke on Trent ST4 2DF
U.K.
E-mail: s.j.fieldhouse@staffs.ac.uk