J Forensic Sci, 2019

doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14164
PAPER Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

CRIMINALISTICS

Anna Czech,1 Ph.D.; Nicole Gryszczyk,1 M.Sc.; Aleksandra Szabelak,1 M.Sc.; and Artur Sowi!nski,2 M.Sc.

Changes in Fingerprints and the Quantity of

Material Forming the Print Depending on Hand
Cleanliness, Gender, and Ambient Conditions*

ABSTRACT: Impressions of friction ridges left on a surface are important evidence for identifying an individual and can be used to confirm
his or her presence at the scene of an incident. Factors influencing the durability of fingerprints include the physiological characteristics and
cleanliness of the individual, environmental factors, and time. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of atmospheric factors, gender,
hand cleanliness and time on the width of friction ridge impressions and the amount of material forming the print. The research shows that fac-
tors such as gender, ambient conditions, and hand cleanliness affect the width of the ridge impressions and the quantity of material forming the
print. The passage of time significantly reduces both the width of the ridge impressions and the quantity of the material forming the print.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, fingerprints, dactyloscopy, development, ambient conditions, gender, hand cleanliness

The field of dactyloscopy is based on the unique and
unchanging structure of the friction ridges of each individual.
An individual can be identified by the distinguishing features
and unique arrangement of friction ridges (1,2). Therefore, fin-
gerprints can be used in court as incriminating evidence. The
condition of prints left at the site of an incident depends on
many factors, including the structure and properties of the sub-
strate on which the print is left, the ambient temperature and
humidity (2), the amount and type of substance forming the
print, mechanical factors, the dynamics of print formation, and
factors associated with the individual (3,4). These factors also
affect the durability of prints (4,5). As the print ages, we can see
that the substances forming it dry out and lose viscosity, while
the friction ridge impressions become narrower and their conti-
nuity is lost (3). Assuming that we are dealing with an average
amount of print-forming substance and typical, the print is a
replication of the friction ridges. However, when there is more
of the material forming the print and/or greater pressure has been
applied, the material can become packed between the ridges and
fill the valleys between them. In this case, the impression made
is of the valleys.
Therefore, when assessing an unknown print, we should take into
account the physicochemical conditions prevailing in the location
1
Faculty of Biology, Animal Sciences and Bioeconomy, Department of
Biochemistry and Toxicology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Aka-
demicka 13, 20-950, Lublin, Poland.
2
Forensic Laboratory of the Voivodeship Police Headquarters in Lublin,
Lublin, Poland.
Corresponding author: Aleksandra Szabelak, M.Sc. E-mail: szabelak.aleksan-
dra@gmail.com
*Financial support provided by the University of Life Sciences in Lublin,
Poland.
Received 30 May 2019; and in revised form 5 July 2019; accepted 24 July
2019.
of its disclosure in the last 2–3 months (4), but also physiological
factors, which are influenced by the individual’s emotional state,
skin type (dry, normal, or oily skin), BMI (body mass index), ill-
ness, physical exertion, and gender, as well as the cleanliness of the
hands when the print was left (3–5). However, it should be remem-
bered that the visual quality and chemical composition of prints
when they are left are virtually always unknown (6).
The overriding goal of the research will be to determine the
“age” of a fingerprint, as the time elapsed from the time it was
left at the scene of the event until the moment it is developed.
The possibility of precise determination of the age of a print
would have practical application in criminal investigations as
well as at the trial stage of the judicial process. In some cases,
individuals do not question the presence of their prints at the
scene, but their relationship with the incident. They may suggest
that the prints were made under different circumstances or at
another time, in an attempt to undermine the indisputable evi-
dence of positive identification of the prints. Therefore, it can be
useful to determine the age of prints that have been identified.
Previous studies by other authors are burdened with uncertainty
or are focused on analysis of changes in individual components
of the material forming the print over time (a very small amount
of material is a serious limitation) (4).
In connection with the above, we postulated that fingerprints
exposed to atmospheric conditions are less durable than prints in
room conditions. We further hypothesized that prints from hands
treated with hand cream are more durable than prints from dirty
or clean hands. In addition, we decided to verify the assumption
that prints left by people with clean hands and exposed to atmo-
spheric conditions would be the least durable. To verify the
research hypotheses, an experiment was carried out to determine
the effect of atmospheric factors, gender, hand cleanliness, and
time on the width of friction ridge impressions and the amount
of material forming the print.

© 2019 American Academy of Forensic Sciences 1

2 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

Material and Methods

The research was carried out from March to June 2017. The
study included 150 people (75 women—W and 75 men—M)
aged 20–25. None of the subjects performed any physical
work that could affect the properties of the friction ridges on
their hands. The subjects were asked not to wash their hands
for 4 h before providing the prints, in order to ensure unifor-
mity of factors potentially affecting the results of the study.
They also completed a short survey regarding treatment of
their hands on the day of the test (e.g., whether they had
washed their hands with detergent or applied n moisturizer in
the morning). The fingerprints were collected between 11.30 a.m. FIG. 1––Average air temperature outside the room (°C) during the experi-
ment I—day of first measurement of friction ridge impression width (day 1);
and 1 p.m. II—day of second measurement of friction ridge impression width (day 7);
Fingerprints were taken on degreased glass microscope slides. III—day of third measurement of friction ridge impression width (day 21);
The print was made by pressing the index and middle finger of IV—day of fourth measurement of friction ridge impression width (day 42);
the right and hand on the slide for 3-sec with equal pressure. V—day of fifth measurement of friction ridge impression width (day 56); VI
—day of sixth measurement of friction ridge impression width (day 84)
First, fingerprints from dirty hands, that is, hands that had not 1Evr!ee! MAX REPAIR hand cream was used for the study, with the follow-
been washed for at least 4 h (hand condition: “dirty hands”—D), ing ingredients: Aqua (Water), Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride*, Glycerin**,
were taken on two slides. Next, the subjects washed their hands Urea, Cetearyl Alcohol, Ceteareth-20, Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis (Sweet
with water and liquid soap, dried them with a paper towel, and Almond) Oil**, Glyceryl Stearate*, Aluminum Starch Octenylsuccinate, Cera
then made prints on two more slides (hand condition: “clean Alba (Beeswax), Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter**, Persea Gratissima
(Avocado) Oil*, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Oil*, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Ster-
hands”—C). In the final step, the subjects applied moisturizer to ols, Hexyl Laurate, Sodium Acrylate/Acryloyldimethyltaurate Copolymer, Ise-
their hands1, dried them lightly with a paper towel, waited about hexadecane, Polysorbate 80, Argania Spinosa Kernel (Argan) Oil**,
10 min until the cream was absorbed, and made two more prints Panthenol, Allantoin, Dimethicone, PEG-8, Tocopherol, Ascorbyl Palmitate,
(hand condition: “hands with cream”—Cr). In total, each person Ascorbic Acid, Citric Acid, Phenoxyethanol, Ethylhexylglycerin, Xanthan
Gum, Disodium EDTA, 2-Bromo-2-Nitropropane-1,3-Diol, Benzyl Salicylate,
provided six fingerprint samples. The prints were made with Hexyl Cinnamal, Butylphenyl Methylpropional, Limonene, Linalool, Parfum
equal pressure of about 18 ! 2N (KMM50 force sensor, WObit, (Fragrance). *material of vegetable origin.**certified by ECOCERT
Pniewy, Poland).
Three of the fingerprints (D, C, and Cr) were kept at room
temperature (about 20 ! 2°C) with humidity of 50 ! 5% and a
dust concentration of 0.11 mg/m3 (room conditions—R), and the
other three (D, C, and Cr) were kept in atmospheric conditions,
that is, outside the room on a loggia, a “semi-protected space”
with partial exposure to the environment (outside—O). In total,
900 samples were taken. The fingerprints (both indoors and out-
doors) were subjected to a 24-h cycle of light and dark.
The air temperature (°C) was recorded every day of the exper-
iment to determine the influence of atmospheric conditions
(BL30 climate data logger, Trotec, Heinsberg, Germany). Data
from the Department of Meteorology and Climatology of the
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin were used. The
temperature was recorded at 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 9 p.m., and the
average temperature each day was calculated (Fig. 1).
Friction ridge impressions and the amount of the substance form-
ing the print were examined within 5 h after collection (first mea-
surement) and then after 7 days of the experiment (2nd
measurement), 21 days (3rd measurement), 42 days (4th measure-
ment), 56 days (5th measurement), and 84 days (6th measurement).
FIG. 2––An example of friction ridge impressions left by a woman with
An Olympus CX-31 laboratory microscope was used in the
“dirty hands”—D (our own work).
study. Fingerprints were analyzed at 49 magnification. Three
friction ridges were selected (Fig. 2) and their widths (lm) were
calculated using the OptaView software.
The amount of material forming the print was analyzed as average width of three ridge measurements. StatSoft STATIS-
well, by comparing images of the print to the image obtained TICA software (StatSoft Polska Sp. z o.o., Krak!ow, Poland) was
after 1 day, assigned a value of 100% (this was a subjective used for statistical calculations.
assessment). The same parts of the fingerprints were examined The basic statistical method used to analyze the results was
each time. The ridges selected were in the center of the print. analysis of variance, to assess the significance of differences
between multiple means. The observations were described using
a model including the effect of sex (women and men); hand
Statistical Analysis
cleanliness (dirty hands, clean hands, and hands with cream);
The results of the data analysis were entered into a Microsoft ambient conditions (outside and room conditions); and time (day
Office Excel spreadsheet. The program was used to calculate the 1, after 7 days, after 21 days, after 42 days, after 56 days, after
 CZECH ET AL. . DACTYLOSCOPY 3

84 days), as well as interactions between factors. The following
formula was used:
yijkl = l + si + gj + hk + tl + eijklm
l, mean for feature
si, fixed factor—sex
gj, fixed factor—hand cleanliness
hk, fixed factor—ambient conditions
tl, fixed factor—time
eijklm, residual error
When a significant effect was revealed at the p < 0.05 proba-
bility level, the Tukey test was used to determine significant dif-
ferences between the factors.
Results and Discussion
As shown in our previous research, the width of friction
ridges and the rate of decomposition of the substance forming
the print are influenced by physiological factors such as body
mass index or sex (4). This was not clearly confirmed in the pre-
sent study. The results indicated that gender did not significantly
affect the width of the ridge impressions or quantity of the sub-
stance forming the print; the level of significance between
women and men was on average p = 0.057 and p = 0.074
(Table 1). Although women’s fingertips have a higher density of
friction ridges than men’s (7), and the ridges are finer (8), the
average width of the ridge impressions and the quantity of the
material forming the print was greater in women than in men at
each measurement time, which was consistent with previous
research (4). However, it should be noted that statistically signif-
icant differences were found only for the average width of the
ridge impressions when the print was made (Table 1). The lack
of significant differences in the prints between women and men
was due in part to the large standard deviations (Table 1), which
may indicate an individual rate of degradation of the substance
forming the print, as discussed by Pleika et al. (9).
The rate of decomposition of the substance forming the print
is closely linked to the quantity and quality of its components
(10). The substance includes both lipid substances and water,
and the content of these components depends on physiological
factors, that is, sex, physiological period (pregnancy, lactation,
menstruation, or hormonal changes occurring with age), diet,
and medical history. Research (10) shows that the amount and
quality of the substance forming the print significantly affects its
durability. An additional factor is contaminants found on the
skin, which together with natural substances constitute the actual
material forming the print. At the same time, it should be noted
that although all the subjects of the study stated that they had
not washed their hands for 4 h before the experiment, the
women may have previously used a hand cream, assuming that
it would be completely absorbed by the time the prints were
taken.
The width of the ridge impressions or/and the quantity of the
substance forming the prints are also influenced by factors such
as the cleanliness of the hands. Analysis of the prints left by
people who had not washed their hands for 4 h before their fin-
gerprints were taken (group D “dirty hands”) in comparison to
those who had clean hands (group C “clean hands”) and those
who had used hand cream (group Cr “hands with cream”)
showed that the cleanliness of the hands had a highly significant
effect on the width of the ridge impressions and the quantity of
the substance forming the prints (Table 1). At the first (I—the
day the prints were taken) and second (II—after 7 days) mea-
surement, the impressions left by people from group D “dirty
hands” and group Cr “hands with cream” were significantly
wider than in the case of group C “clean hands”. Between the
first and second measurements, the width of the ridge impres-
sions from “clean hands” had already decreased by about 82%.
After 21 days, it was no longer possible to determine the width
of the ridge impressions or the amount of the substance forming
the print in group C (“clean hands”), while those from group D

TABLE 1––Effect of gender, hand cleanliness, ambient conditions, and time on the width of friction ridge impressions (lm) and the quantity of the substance
forming the print.

Sex Hand cleanliness Atmospheric conditions

Day W M pvalue D C Cr O R pvalue

Width of friction ridge impressions

I 54.37 ! 24.33 49.61 ! 28.77 0.171 61.62a ! 15.48 29.26b ! 28.58 65.09a ! 17.54 48.94 ! 24.49 55.21 ! 28.58 0.071
II 41.22 ! 27.28 35.06 ! 28.36 0.09 51.63a ! 15.12 5.23b ! 15.25 57.56a ! 15.43 38.48 ! 25.93 37.78 ! 30.02 0.849
III 20.08 ! 27.93 18.67 ! 28.54 0.703 20.05a ! 24.48 0.00b ! 0.0 38.08c ! 32.69 15.99a ! 23.15 22.93b ! 32.38 0.048
IV 10.79 ! 21.67 8.53 ! 20.49 0.413 5.16a ! 15.00 0.00a ! 0.0 23.84 ! 28.10 8.39 ! 19.13 11.00 ! 22.95 0.349
V 5.74 ! 16.82 4.69 ! 15.62 0.594 0.31a ! 2.01 0.00a ! 0.0 15.89a ! 25.27 3.96 ! 13.77 6.44 ! 18.41 0.247
VI 3.77 ! 15.28 2.29 ! 10.01 0.375 0.47a ! 4.15 0.00a ! 0.0 8.63a ! 20.91 2.45 ! 13.15 3.64 ! 12.7268 0.48

"x 22.85 ! 29.79 19.54 ! 28.92 0.0345 23.44a ! 29.99 5.91b ! 17.54 34.95a ! 32.22 19.64 ! 27.44 22.83 ! 31.04 0.044

Amount of print-forming substance

I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0

II 53.72 ! 34.70 49.10 ! 37.89 0.332 69.04b ! 15.08 5.96c ! 17.36 79.23a ! 16.54 50.04 ! 34.49 52.85 ! 38.26 0.555
III 21.62 ! 29.94 17.52 ! 29.71 0.294 16.92b ! 24.44 0.0c ! 0.0 41.79a ! 34.50 17.25 ! 29.13 22.02 ! 30.48 0.222
IV 10.90 ! 22.32 9.32 ! 22.06 0.582 12.64b ! 0.0 0.0c ! 0.0 26.09a ! 30.66 9.57 ! 22.30 10.66 ! 22.10 0.709
V 5.43 ! 15.33 4.76 ! 15.71 0.743 0.92b ! 5.59 0.0b ! 0.0 14.36a ! 23.76 4.52 ! 14.65 5.70 ! 16.39 0.560
VI 3.03 ! 10.69 2.37 ! 10.23 0.626 0.54b ! 4.03 0.0b ! 0.0 7.56a ! 16.67 1.98 ! 8.52 3.43 ! 12.14 0.276

"x 30.63 ! 40.26 26.81 ! 39.67 0.074 31.97b ! 40.80 9.54c ! 28.65 44.67a ! 41.07 27.67 ! 39.58 29.82 ! 40.43 0.314
a, b, and c—values in rows (D, C, and Cr) with different letters differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
pvalue, statistical significance level; Gender: W, woman, M, man; Hand cleanliness; C, “clean hands”; D, “dirty hands”; and Cr, “hands with cream”.
Atmospheric conditions: O, fingerprints kept in atmospheric conditions (outside the room) and R, fingerprints kept at room conditions.
Day of examination: I—day print was taken (day 1); II—after 7 days; III—after 21 days; IV—after 42 days; V—after 56 days; and VI—after 84 days.
4 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

were nearly 70% degraded, and those from group Cr were about
40% degraded in comparison with the first day of the experi-
ment (Table 1). By day 84 of the experiment, the decrease in
the width of the ridge impressions in group D had reached
almost 100% and was significantly higher than in the prints
made by people with cream on their hands (group Cr) (Table 1).
A similar tendency was observed in the case of the amount of
substance forming the print. Degradation of the substance was
also significantly faster in group D than in group Cr, reaching
100% in the final period of the study. In group Cr, the degrada-
tion of fingerprints on the day of the final measurement was
only 70% (Table 1). This was in agreement with Mazurek (11),
who stated that prints from greasy hands are degraded much
more slowly than in the case of hands that are only “naturally”
soiled. According to Mazurek (11), the rate of aging of prints of
fingers containing mostly fatty substances differs significantly
from the aging rate of prints formed of sweat and sebum. Analy-
sis of the chemical composition of the secreted substance, which
was not carried out in our experiment, may be an interesting
subject for further research, aimed at analyzing changes in the
chemical composition of the substance forming prints as they
age.
The study showed that gender played a significant role in the
rate of degradation of prints depending on the condition of the
hands. In the prints made by women with “dirty hands”—WD
(W—women; D—”dirty hands”), “clean hands”—WC (W—
women; C—”clean hands”), and “hands with cream”—WCr (W
—women; Cr—”hands with cream”), the width of the ridge
impressions and the amount of material forming the print
decreased more slowly than in the prints from men (Table 2). In
the WD group, nearly 100% degradation was not observed until
the 84th day after the prints were taken, whereas in the MD
group (M—men, D—”dirty hands”) they were illegible by day
56. The use of cream (WCr and MCr) did not cause such signifi-
cant differences. Analysis of the decomposition of the material
forming the print revealed a significant difference between WD
and MD on the 21st day after the print was taken. The substance
forming the prints from men with “dirty hands” (MD) was 88%
degraded at that time, as compared to only 77% in women with
dirty hands (Table 2).
By the 21st day of the experiment, the width of the ridge
impressions from WCr and WD women was significantly
reduced relative to the WC group (W—women, C—”clean
hands”). By the end of the experiment, prints from women with
“hands with cream” (WCr) were significantly less degraded than
the WC and WD prints (p ≤ 0.05). The use of hand cream also
significantly slowed the loss of material forming the prints in
both women and men (Table 2).
In addition to physiological factors and the condition of the
hands, the durability of fingerprints is also significantly influ-
enced by environmental factors where the print is left. The ambi-
ent temperature affects the rate at which it dries out, while the
effect of moisture (rain or snow) depends on the chemical com-
position of the print. According to Bunter (12), a print consisting
of sweat and sebum can be revealed even after 7 days in water.
Prints left outdoors or in dusty rooms have a high risk of con-
tamination and degradation. Heavily soiled material is difficult
to measure and is often unsuitable for analysis, due to reduced
chemical groups (13). Therefore, identification of the individual
becomes impossible. The composition of the substance forming
the print does not affect its identification in either the numerical
or the holistic approach (14). The basis for identification of the
print is a comparative analysis of the print and comparative
material. In this case, the human eye and the simplest method,
that is, the microscopic method, can be helpful (2). Therefore,
analysis of the influence of the ambient conditions where the fin-
gerprint is left, as well as the relationship between these condi-
tions and the time elapsed, is very valuable in dactyloscopy.
According to (15), this is one of the main factors affecting the
durability of prints. In our study, fingerprints kept in room con-
ditions had slightly wider ridge impressions and slightly more of
the print-forming material than those left in atmospheric

TABLE 2––Effect of hand cleanliness and time on the width of friction ridge impressions (lm) and the quantity of the print-forming substance in prints from
women and men.

WD WC WCr MD MC MCr
Width of friction ridge impressions

I 64.08a ! 14.43 34.31b ! 26.85 64.72a ! 16.06 59.16x ! 16.27 24.19y ! 29.69 65.48x ! 19.10
II 56.08a ! 12.71 9.47b ! 19.88 58.10a ! 12.60 47.52y ! 16.15 1.00z ! 6.28 57.55x ! 17.68
III 22.61b ! 25.86 0.00c ! 0.00 37.63a ! 31.22 17.50y ! 23.08 0.00z ! 0.00 38.53x ! 34.51
IV 7.23b ! 16.71 0.00b ! 0.00 15.16a ! 28.46 3.18y ! 13.93 0.00y ! 0.00 22.52x ! 28.04
V 0.636b ! 2.83 0.00b ! 0.00 16.58a ! 25.99 0.00y ! 0.00 0.00y ! 0.00 13.83x ! 24.79
VI 0.840b ! 5.78 0.00b ! 0.00 10.39a ! 24.72 0.00y ! 0.00 0.00y ! 0.00 6.87x ! 16.56

"x 25.84b ! 30.63 7.30c ! 18.46 35.43a ! 31.33 20.39y ! 28.06 4.20z ! 15.19 34.04x ! 32.42

Amount of print-forming substance

I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

II 69.87b ! 11.33 10.90c ! 22.79 80.38a ! 12.21 68.21y ! 18.19 1.03z ! 6.41 78.08x ! 20.05
III 22.18b ! 25.98 0.00c ! 0.00 42.69a ! 33.56 11.67y ! 22.34 0.00y ! 0.00 40.90x ! 35.83
IV 6.79b ! 15.20 0.00b ! 0.00 26.29a ! 29.46 2.05y ! 9.01 0.00y ! 0.00 25.90x ! 31.29
V 1.67b ! 7.81 0.00b ! 0.00 14.62a ! 22.92 0.18y ! 1.14 0.00y ! 0.00 14.10x ! 24.86
VI 0.90b ! 5.60 0.00b ! 0.00 8.21a ! 16.60 0.18y ! 1.12 0.00y ! 0.00 6.92x ! 16.92

"x 33.57 ! 41.42 18.48 ! 40.17 45.37 ! 37.17 30.38 ! 43.02 16.84 ! 40.74 44.32 ! 37.16
a, b, and c—values in rows (WD, WC, and WCr) with different letters differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
x, y, and z—values in rows (MD, MC, and MCr) with different letters differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Day of examination: I—day print was taken (day 1); II—after 7 days; III—after 21 days; IV—after 42 days; V—after 56 days; and VI—after 84 days.
MC, prints left by men with “clean hands”; MCr, prints left by men with “hands with cream”; MD, prints left by men with “dirty hands”; WC, prints left by
women with “clean hands”; WCr, prints left by women with “hands with cream”; WD, prints left by women with “dirty hands”.
 CZECH ET AL. . DACTYLOSCOPY 5

conditions. This trend persisted on every measurement day, but
the differences were not shown to be statistically significant
(Table 1). Only on the third measurement day (after 21 days of
the experiment) were statistically significant differences noted
between the width of the ridge impressions in atmospheric vs
room conditions (p = 0.040) (Table 1). This may have been due
to the significant increase in the outside temperature during this
period (Fig. 1). This seems logical, because prints left outside
are exposed to many additional factors, such as sunlight, rain,
wind, or bacteria of the genera Staphylococcus, Streptococcus,
Propionibacterium, and Corynebacterium, which cause degra-
dation of biological components (16). The results from the
remaining measurement days did not show statistical signifi-
cance; however, the very lack of significant influence of such
factors as temperature, dust, or wind may be a valuable guide
during investigations. It should be noted, however, that numer-
ous factors must be taken into account in attempting to deter-
mine the age of a fingerprint (12,17), as confirmed by Popa
et al. (18).
The relationship between ambient conditions and hand condi-
tion (Table 3) were quite interesting, as prints from clean hands
kept inside the room (RC) were 100% degraded (the width of
the ridge impressions and the amount of material forming the
print could not be determined) after 7 days of the experiment
(second measurement day), whereas those kept outside in atmo-
spheric conditions (OC, O—outside, C—”clean hands”) were
not degraded until 14 days later, that is, after 21 days (Table 2).
This is a surprising result, because the available literature indi-
cates that atmospheric factors should accelerate the degradation
of fingerprints (12). This may be explained by the fact that they
were kept in a place shielded from factors such as wind, rain, or
snow. However, it may also have been due to the lower temper-
ature outside the room in the initial stage of the experiment
(Fig. 1) compared to the temperature inside the room.
Prints taken from people with dirty hands and kept in room
conditions (RD, R—room conditions, D—”dirty hands”) also
reached 100% degradation much faster (by day 56 of the experi-
ment) than those kept outside (OD; O—outside; D—”dirty
hands” (Table 3). The results for prints from people with cream
on their hands (OF vs RCr) were different (Table 3). Prints from
hands with cream kept indoors (RCr, R—room conditions, Cr
—”hands with cream”) were the most durable, and on the last
measurement day (after 84 days of the experiment) 10% of the
substance forming the print remained. Those kept in atmospheric
conditions (OF, O—outside, Cr—”hands with cream”) were less
stable, with only 5% of the substance remaining on day 84 of
the experiment (Table 3).
Analysis of the relationship between ambient conditions
and gender (Table 4) revealed that the width of the ridge
impressions as well as the amount of material forming the
prints obtained from men and kept under atmospheric condi-
tions (OM; O—outside; M—men) was reduced faster than in
the case of prints from women (OW; O—outside; W—
women). The reverse pattern was observed in the case of
prints kept in room conditions (RW vs RM). It should be
noted, however, that on the last day of the experiment
(84 days) all samples had undergone over 90% degradation
on average (Table 4).
Summary and Conclusions
Gender does not significantly affect the amount of material
forming fingerprints, but the width of friction ridge impressions
is greater in women than in men. The passage of time plays an
important role in the degradation of fingerprints, as well as on
the amount of the substance forming the print, with the greatest
degradation occurring between 7 and 21 days after the print is
left.

TABLE 3––Effect of hand cleanliness and time on the width of friction ridge impressions (lm) and the quantity of the print-forming substance (%) in prints
kept in atmospheric or room conditions.

OD OC OCr RD RC RCr
Width of friction ridge impressions

I 57.55a ! 12.19 27.82b ! 27.55 61.43a ! 15.12 65.90x ! 17.46 30.79y ! 29.91 68.95x ! 19.21
II 50.40a ! 14.45 10.20b ! 20.18 54.16a ! 13.99 52.91x ! 15.89 0.00y ! 0.00 60.42x ! 16.51
III 14.75b ! 14.01 0.00c ! 0.00 32.89a ! 30.10 25.27y ! 37.79 0.00z ! 0.00 43.53x ! 37.78
IV 1.80b ! 7.75 0.00b ! 0.00 11.75a ! 22.63 3.86y ! 14.14 0.00y ! 0.00 29.16x ! 30.23
V 0.678b ! 2.98 0.00b ! 0.0 11.56a ! 22.33 0.00y ! 0.00 0.00y ! 0.00 19.35x ! 27.91
VI 0.917 ! 5.80 0.00 ! 0.00 6.47 ! 21.69 0.00y ! 0.00 0.00y ! 0.00 10.92x ! 20.23

"x 21.59b ! 27.50 6.34c ! 17.24 31.00a ! 30.30 24.72y ! 31.38 5.13z ! 16.67 38.67x ! 32.93

Amount of print-forming substance

I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

II 64.75a ! 19.11 11.63b ! 22.97 73.75a ! 20.62 73.55y ! 6.87 0.00z ! 0.00 85.00x ! 7.35
III 12.38b ! 22.10 0.00b ! 0.00 39.38a ! 35.63 21.71y ! 26.52 0.00z ! 0.00 44.34x ! 33.55
IV 5.88b ! 14.58 0.00b ! 0.00 23.17a ! 31.72 2.89y ! 10.18 0.00y ! 0.00 29.08x ! 29.34
V 1.80b ! 7.75 0.00b ! 0.00 11.75a ! 22.63 0.00y ! 0.00 0.00y ! 0.00 17.11x ! 24.90
VI 1.08b ! 5.69 0.00b ! 0.00 5.00a ! 13.43 0.00y ! 0.00 0.00y ! 0.00 10.39x ! 19.40

"x 30.98 ! 41.53 18.61 ! 40.15 41.58 ! 37.85 33.03 ! 43.23 16.67 ! 40.82 47.65 ! 36.91
a, b, and c—values in rows (OD, OC, and OCr) with different letters differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
x, y, and z—values in rows (RD, RC, and RCr) with different letters differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Day of examination: I—day print was taken (day 1); II—after 7 days; III—after 21 days; IV—after 42 days; V—after 56 days; and VI—after 84 days.
OC, prints left by “clean hands” and kept in atmospheric conditions; OCr, prints left by “hands with cream” and kept in atmospheric conditions; OD, prints
left by “dirty hands” and kept in atmospheric conditions; pvalue, statistical significance level; RC, prints left by “clean hands” and kept in room conditions; RCr,
prints left by “hands with cream” and kept in room conditions; RD, prints left by “dirty hands” and kept in room conditions.
6 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 4––Effect of gender and time on the width of friction ridge impressions (lm) and the quantity of the print-forming substance (%) in prints kept in atmo-
spheric or room conditions.

OW OM pvalue RW RM pvalue
I 52.29 ! 28.62 45.79 ! 27.52 0.207 55.38 ! 26.06 42.24 ! 28.51 0.014
II 51.95 ! 23.69 35.07 ! 27.73 0.144 40.45 ! 30.81 22.47 ! 32.52 0.003
III 16.97 ! 22.29 15.06 ! 24.14 0.660 23.39 ! 32.70 10.88 ! 22.16 0.019
IV 10.07 ! 20.91 5.92 ! 16.98 0.158 12.22 ! 21.71 11.29 ! 23.48 0.826
V 3.59 ! 12.38 4.34 ! 15.14 0.768 3.73 ! 12.38 4.90 ! 16.25 0.684
VI 1.96 ! 7.85 1.62 ! 8.83 0.825 4.28 ! 14.10 3.00 ! 11.17 0.590

"x 21.83 ! 27.89 17.45 ! 27.13 0.033 23.94 ! 31.68 21.73 ! 30.59 0.354

I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

II 53.83 ! 30.51 46.25 ! 37.94 0.230 53.60 ! 38.91 52.11 ! 37.94 0.836
III 20.92 ! 29.72 13.58 ! 28.30 0.169 22.37 ! 30.42 21.67 ! 30.83 0.903
IV 11.15 ! 22.46 7.83 ! 22.04 0.416 10.44 ! 22.23 10.88 ! 22.16 0.916
V 4.33 ! 13.67 4.70 ! 15.68 0.892 6.58 ! 16.96 4.82 ! 15.89 0.570
VI 2.67 ! 10.19 1.28 ! 6.44 0.376 3.42 ! 11.27 3.51 ! 13.06 0.970

"x 32.15 ! 38.17 28.94 ! 38.43 0.888 32.74 ! 37.70 32.17 ! 37.77 0.980
Day of examination: I—day print was taken (day 1); II—after 7 days; III—after 21 days; IV—after 42 days; V—after 56 days; and VI—after 84 days.
OM, prints left by men and kept in atmospheric conditions; OW, prints left by women and kept in atmospheric conditions; pvalue, statistical significance level;
RM, prints left by men and kept in room conditions; RW, prints left by women and kept in room conditions.

Fingerprints from hands to which cream has been applied are
markedly more durable than prints from dirty hands, and far
more durable than prints from clean hands.
Fingerprints from clean hands kept in room conditions are
clearly the least durable, while those obtained from hands with
cream and kept in room conditions are the most durable. In addi-
tion, temperature had a significant impact on the durability of
the fingerprints, irrespective of where they were left (outside or
inside the room).
Summing up, there are measurable relationships between the
fingerprint and the time passed since it was left, depending on
the factors examined in the experiment.
Using the results of this study and subsequent research, it will
be possible to determine the time elapsed from the moment the
print is left to the time it is developed. The numerous factors
affecting the changes in fingerprints over time require further
research. When the relationships between them are understood,
knowledge of the circumstances in which a print was left, the
ambient conditions, and other parameters considered in this
experiment, as well as our previous study and subsequent
research, will enable us to precisely determine the time passed
after the print was left until it was developed and preserved.
Currently, dactyloscopy allows us to establish who has left a
print, but still lacks precise tools to answer the question “when?”
The techniques used to develop fingerprints (e.g., forensic pho-
tography, transfer to lifting tape, or a silicone mold) allow it to
be preserved. After that the image does not change with time,
and owing to the preservation process, it becomes a reliable
material for further analysis.
References
1. Xu LR, Zhang CZ, He YY, Su B. Advances in the development and
component recognition of latent fingerprints. Sci China Chem 2015;58
(7):1090–6.
2. Abidullah M, Naveen K, Kavita B. Cheiloscopy and dactyloscop: do they
dictate personality patterns? J Forensic Dental Sci 2015;7(2):114–20.
3. Girod A, Spyratou A, Holmes D, Weyermann C. Aging of target lipid
parameters in fingermark residue using GC/MS: effects of influence
factors and perspectives for dating purposes. Sci Justice 2016;56
(3):165–80.
4. De Alcaraz-Fossoul J, Mestres Patris C, Balaciart Muntaner A, Barrot
Feixat C, Gene Badia M. Determination of latent fingerprint degradation
patterns-a real fieldwork study. Int J Legal Med 2013;127(4):857–70.
5. Czech A, Szabelak A, Sowi! nski A. Changes in fingerprints depending
on physiological factors. J Forensic Sci 2019;64(3):711–6.
6. Gutierrez-Redomero E, Alonso-Rodr!ıguez C, Hernandez-Hurtado LE,
Rodr!ıguez-Villalba JL. Distribution of the minutiae in the fingerprints of
a sample of the Spanish population. Forensic Sci Int 2011;208(1–3):79–
90.
7. Kapoor N, Badiye A. Sex differences in the thumbprint ridge density in
a central Indian population. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2015;5(1):23–9.
8. Soanboon P, Nanakorn S, Kutanan W. Determination of sex difference
from fingerprint ridge density in northeastern Thai teenagers. Egypt J
Forensic Sci 2016;6(2):185–93.
9. Pleik S, Spengler B, Sch€afer T, Urbach D, Luhn S, Kirsch D. Fatty acid
structure and degradation analysis in fingerprint residues. J Am Soc
Mass Spectrom 2016;27(9):1565–74.
10. Pleik S, Spengler B, Bhandari DR, Luhn S, Sch€afer T, Urbach D, et al.
Ambient-air ozonolysis of triglycerides in aged fingerprint residues. Ana-
lyst 2018;143(5):1197–209.
11. Mazurek M. Starzenie siez !slad! ow daktyloskopijnych naniesionych tłuszc-
zami. Problemy Kryminalistyki 2010;268:55–8.
12. Bunter S. How long can an identifiable fingerprint persist on an exterior
surface. CSEye 2014;4:1–21.
13. De Paoli G, Lewis SA Sr, Schuette EL, Lewis LA, Connatser RM, Far-
kas T. Photo-and thermal-degradation studies of select eccrine fingerprint
constituents. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(4):962–9.
14. Mutalik VS, Menon A, Jayalakshmi N, Kamath A, Raghu AR. Utility of
cheiloscopy, rugoscopy, and dactyloscopy for human identification in a
defined cohort. J Forensic Dental Sci 2013;5(1):2–6.
15. Blotta E, Moler E. Fingerprint image enhancement by differential hys-
teresis processing. Forensic Sci Int 2004;141(2–3):109–13.
16. Swann LM, Forbes SL, Lewis SW. Analytical separations of mammalian
decomposition products for forensic science: a review. Anal Chim Acta
2010;682(1–2):9–22.
17. Szyma! nska I. Trwało!s!c !slad!
ow daktyloskopijnych w !srodowisku wod-
nym [Durability of fingerprints in aquatic environment]. Problemy
Kryminalistyki 2014;284(2):1–6.
18. Popa G, Potorac R, Preda N. Method for fingerprints age determination.
Rom J Leg Med 2010;2:149–54.