Abstract

The recovery of fingermarks and DNA from the same location at a crime scene can be problematic because of
contamination issues associated with powdering or laboratory-based visualisation processes and/or the perceived
destructive impact of commonly employed ‘swabbing’ approaches to DNA recovery. Previous research in a
controlled environment demonstrated that it was possible to recover DNA and latent fingermarks from the same
location on various substrates when an adhesive approach to DNA recovery was used. The aim of this research
was to conduct a pseudo-operational trial into the dual recovery of DNA and fingermarks using gel lifters for
DNA recovery. Participants were asked to voluntarily and anonymously donate a wide variety of porous and
non-porous substrates post handling. No instruction as to fingermark deposition nor environmental storage was
provided. BVDA gel lifters were applied to the substrates to replicate DNA recovery followed by the
application of fingermark visualisation processes. The number and quality of the fingermarks was established
using a grading approach. Application factors were also investigated to consider the effects of user variation.
The results demonstrated that it was possible to recover DNA and fingermarks considered to be capable of
supporting an identification. Fingermark quality post lifting was dependant on the substrates used. The weight
applied to the gel during its application was a lesser contributing factor than the duration of its contact with the
surface. There was a greater chance of leaving the fingermarks unaltered with the application of a low weight
and instantaneous retraction.

Keywords: Evidence: DNA: Fingermarks: Crime Scene: Contamination: Innovation

Introduction

The recovery of fingermarks and DNA are widely used and important pieces of forensic evidence as they can
assist in the differentiation of individuals and therefore help to identify perpetrators of crime. The recovery of
both evidence types from the same location at a crime scene or evidential item can be problematic given that the
recovery of either evidence type can affect the recovery of the other. The approach at present often involves the
investigator making a choice as to which evidence type to recover, or to recover DNA and fingermarks from
alternative areas of the substrate. Fingermark visualisation methods, such as dusting, which is frequently
deployed at scenes of crime owing to its simple, portable, and relatively inexpensive nature can easily
contaminate or remove potential sources of DNA [1] [2] [3]. Precautions, such as disposable brushes and single
use powder samples may alleviate contamination issues, although they do not address DNA source displacement
arising from the physical action of brushing. The use of magnetic powders may mitigate DNA displacement, as
they have no direct contact with the surface during application [4]. It has been demonstrated however, that some
magnetic powders can negatively impact DNA recovery and cause inhibition during DNA extraction for
methodologies which utilise paramagnetic beads [5] [6] [7]. Compared to dusting methods, laboratory
development of marks offers increased versatility and sensitivity as the approaches target specific components
of latent fingermark residue. Problematically, many of these approaches involve immersion of the evidential
item into various solutions, which have also demonstrated to result in cross-contamination and DNA
destruction, requiring omittance of certain techniques and freshly prepared solutions [3]. The impact of any
fingermark visualisation process on DNA recovery is likely to be linked to laboratory practices with respect to
DNA decontamination protocols for reagents and environments, should dual recovery be considered. The extent
to which these precautions are taken are likely to vary according to the nature of the investigation and police
force policy, including the financial and time implications for the user.

It is possible to recover DNA using a variety of mediums. Cotton swabs are routinely deployed for DNA
recovery from persons or evidential items given their relatively cost-effective and user friendly approach.
Depending on the area for recovery the swab may be moistened with water or solvents, including extraction
buffer, which is designed to facilitate effective recovery and subsequent DNA analysis [8]. Alternative swab
types are available, such as flocked and foam. Alternative published research by the authors has demonstrated
that it is possible to recover DNA from non-porous and porous substrates using gel lifters [9]. This approach has
also been reported as effective in research projects by alternative research teams, providing evidence of a proof
of concept in its design [5] [10]. Different recovery mediums are used for different substrates and
circumstances, such as the use of cotton swabs for the recovery of DNA from humans and DNA recovery from
clothing with tape [11]. The effectiveness of these approaches, including complementary extraction has been
extensively reviewed in the literature because variance can affect the quality and quantity of DNA recovered
[12] [13].

The recovery of DNA and fingermarks from the same location or evidential item may offer clear benefits to an
investigation given the increased quantity of evidence available, both of which can potentially support an
identification. In this instance there are several possible scenarios. The DNA and the fingermark may be from
the same donor where the source of the DNA is the fingermark. Alternatively, the DNA and the fingermark may
be from different donors but both evidence types originate from the fingermark. The DNA and fingermark may
be from the same donor but the source of the DNA or fingermark are from different biological materials, or the
DNA and the fingermark may be from different donors and the source of the DNA or fingermark are from
different biological materials. It may also mean that some of the evidential material may be latent and other
material patent. These scenarios may produce complexities for the forensic scientist, but this is typical of
casework material.

In some circumstances it may be possible to locate the fingermark prior to any contact of DNA recovery or
visualisation process such as powder. Location may be assisted with the use of oblique lighting and high
intensity light sources, although in practice there is limited assurance that the use of light sources for fingermark
detection effective, given that there is often insufficient material or fluorescent contamination in a fingermark to
make them visible [14]. In instances where detection is possible, an assessment of the identification potential of
the mark may be considered, which would offer a huge benefit to the investigator in their development of a
forensic strategy. The reality for many cases however is that the quality and identification potential of any
existing marks is unknown until the visualisation process has been applied, and the quality of any marks are
significantly affected by the substrate itself, deposition factors such as force applied [15], the chemical
composition of the latent mark residue, and their environment(s) to which there are exposed post-deposition, as
summarised by Girod et al [16]. Additionally, the quality of the resultant marks is likely to be related to the
competency of the person applying the technique and/or efficacy of the equipment being used. This means that
despite best efforts, fingermarks that are recovered from evidential items will not necessarily support an
identification, and in routine processing of the item for fingermark evidence there are no further opportunities to
recover DNA evidence.

Likewise, the quality and quantity of DNA recovered from a substrate is unknown at the time of recovery and it
is logical to assume that the recovery of DNA prior to fingermark recovery using typical dry and wet swabbing
would affect the appearance of any fingermarks deposited at the same location, thus removing the opportunity
for dual recovery. Earlier research by the research team supports this, but also found that less adhesive
approaches to DNA recovery and the use of dry flocked swabs were far less destructive to latent fingermark
quality generally than wet or dry cotton swabs or adhesive tape [17]. The effects of DNA recovery and
extraction has also been investigated with respect to alternative evidence types, such as fibres when processing
clothing, for both biological and trace evidence [18].

This piece of work has provided a useful starting point research in this subject area. In line with the
International Fingerprint Research Group Guidelines [19] and guidance from the Centre for Applied Science
and Technology [20], a pseudo-operational investigation has been conducted which has significantly enhanced
this research area, facilitating an investigation in a less controlled environment, using samples of fingermarks
and DNA from a broader range of donors, substrates and environmental exposure.

Method

Collection of Latent Fingermark Samples for the Pseudo operational trial

The pseudo-operational trial was split into two parts. The first part consisted of an uncontrolled element in
which amnesty boxes were placed in public spaces to allow for voluntary and anonymous donation of items for
people to contribute items consisting of ; 15cm high ball smooth glasses, textured plastic knife handles, white
photocopier paper, aluminium drinks cans, and plastic drinks bottles. Glasses and knife handles were provided
by the research team as clean, ready to use items, which were left beside the amnesty boxes for participants
could use and return. No instruction was given to any participant regarding mark deposition, the quantity of
surface contact, the duration of ownership, or the number of people who were likely to have been in contact with
the donated items, although it was explained to the participants that the recovery of fingermark and DNA
samples was to be attempted from the substrates. A limit of twenty items of each substrate type were collected
over the course of the study, with no prior knowledge of who may have, or how frequently an individual may
have donated or handled an item.

One of the difficulties with conducting a pseudo-operational trial is the researcher's assurance that a sample of
fingermarks representative of those encountered in casework has been acquired. In traditional, laboratory-based
trials, a common approach is to recruit donors according to their observed ability to deposit fingermarks of a
respective mass [13]. In response to this, six participants, consisting of 2 x ‘heavy’ latent fingermark donors, 2
x ‘medium’ latent fingermark donors, and 2 x ‘light’ latent fingermark donors were recruited for participation, a
strategy designed to strengthen the experimental approach by providing some assurance of sample
representativeness. Donor type was established as part of a pilot study, where consistency of latent fingermark
depositions was accepted as far as practically possible (fingermarks were donated on three previous occasions,
and the marks were visually examined to determine the consistency of the donor’s marks). Each participant was
provided with 3 of each of the previously described items in a clean condition following washing with mild

detergent and warm water and was asked to handle and/or use the items and to return them once finished, as
with the instruction to the anonymous donors.

Once retuned, items from both the controlled and uncontrolled elements were stored openly in a laboratory at 20
degrees Celsius for 24 hours prior to further treatment.

All items from the pseudo operational trial were subjected to DNA recovery using BVDA gel lifters per the
following method. Using nitrile gloved hands, the acetate covering of 30 x 40 mm sections of gel was removed
and the adhesive layer of the gel was applied to the donated items and consecutively applied, in overlapping
sections until the entirety of the substrate had been exposed to a single gel. This method was employed to mimic
the application of tape for the recovery of DNA [21] [22]. The authors recognise that DNA decontamination of
the gel would be required prior to usage in an operational setting. Although this was not implemented in this
study, ideas for decontamination using ethylene oxide and UV irradiation have been discussed and may form
part of the team’s future research.

Post DNA recovery the donated items were processed for latent fingermark development, using recommended
practice from the Fingermark Visualisation Manual [2014]. White photocopier paper was submerged in a 0.5%
solution of ninhydrin, containing acetic acid, ethyl acetate, ethanol and HFE7100. The paper was air dried in a
fume cupboard and transferred to a humidity cabinet at 80ºC and 65% relative humidity for 5 minutes.
Fingermarks on glass were enhanced by aluminium powder, which was applied with a Zephyr fibre glass brush
until any fingermarks were visible. Aluminium cans, smooth and textured plastic items were developed using
cyanoacrylate fuming in a Mason Vactron, MVC 3000 cabinet using 2 g of liquid cyanoacrylate as part of an
autocycle. Once fumed, the items were submerged in Basic Yellow 40 (2 g in 1 L ethanol) for 1 minute, rinsed
under slow running tap water and allowed to air dry in the laboratory. All fingermarks were photographed using
a Foster and Freeman DCS5 system.

All fingermarks were graded using the following four criteria; 1). The estimated quantity of the fingermark
available for analysis, 2). The quantity of the fingermark that was occupied by friction ridges, 3). Friction ridge
continuity within the fingermark, 4). The level of contrast between the ridges and the background. Each criterion
was graded out of 5, with a total score being out of 20 [23]. This is summarised in Figure 1.

Fig 1 The grading methodology used for the pseudo operational trial

Areas of palm were graded as a 5 for surface area. The grading system used was specific to each technique used
to take account of visualisation effects. For example, the Ninhydrin grading scale took into account marks
affected by ridge ‘dotting’ (discontinuous development primarily concentrated around the pore openings), as
expected within marks visualised using this process, and therefore the authors feel that this helped to normalise
the assessment.

The total number of fingermarks recovered from each of the substrates was calculated.

Simulated user variation in the application of force to gel and its effects on latent fingermarks

Latent fingermarks were deposited on to each of the substrate types used for the pseudo-operational trial with
acetate sheets being used to represent smooth plastic. Ten consecutively deposited split fingermarks were
placed on to two adjacent substrates of the same type as a depletion series. One of the two split marks was
subjected to DNA recovery using gel lifters applied at 400 g, 700 g, and 1200 g weights, referred to as ‘low’,
‘medium’ and ‘high’. Conical flasks were filled with water until the above weights were reached. These were
then applied over the gel lifters. The first, fifth and tenth marks of the depletion series were used to provide
fingermarks of sufficient mass variation, with a total of 540 fingermarks. The split fingermarks were graded as
described in figure 2 [24] [19].
Fig 2 Grading system used in the user variation [24].

User variation in DNA recovery according to gel contact time with substrate during DNA recovery

Latent fingermarks were deposited on to each of the substrate types used for the pseudo-operational trial. Ten
consecutively deposited split fingermarks were placed on to two adjacent substrates of the same type as a
depletion series, again with the first, fifth and tenth depletion being targeted. One of the two split marks for
each depletion was subjected to DNA recovery using gel lifters with an instant gel retraction. This was repeated
but with the gel left to contact the substrate for two minutes prior to recovery.

The weight variations and contact time were combined to replicate real life application as far as possible.

Results and discussion

The total number of fingermarks recovered from each of the substrates post DNA recovery can be viewed in
table 1.

Substrate Total number of fingermarks recovered

Smooth plastic 1147
Aluminium 1245
Textured plastic 319
Paper 1528
Glass 1357
Table 1 The total number of fingermarks recovered from each substrate

These results demonstrate that it was possible to visualise friction ridge skin marks on each of the substrates
post DNA recovery. The number of fingermarks on the surfaces encountered depended on the number of
contacts made by the person handling the item, and the quality and quantity of the residue transferred during
deposition, which was not controlled given the pseudo-operational approach.

This project has not focussed on the quantification of DNA from the samples but has examined the effects of
this DNA recovery approach on the quality and quantity of the latent fingermark samples. This is because
alternative research has provided evidence of a proof of concept of the use of gel lifters for DNA recovery,
therefore demonstrating its potential and how it could be applied in this context. Conversely, the literature has
yet to report upon the effects of adhesive gel DNA recovery on the subsequent visualisation of latent
fingermarks in a pseudo-operational context, which is equally part of the dual approach.

There was a significant variation in the number of marks recovered between some of the substrates. For
example, 1528 marks were recovered from the paper samples, yet only 319 were recovered from the textured
plastic knife handles. This was attributed to differences in surface area, as it was logical to expect fewer marks
to be recovered from the smaller knife handle. Increased numbers of overlapping marks on the knife handles
compared to larger surface areas such as paper were also expected, where the opportunity for handling the item
was increased, and large sections of the area were often untouched. Textured substrates are notoriously more
difficult to obtain friction ridge skin marks from, which may have contributed to the reduced frequency of
marks, which will be considered later in the discussion.

The application of grading systems to assess the quality of fingermarks is common, owing to their ability to
quantify qualitative descriptions of the fingermark in a reasonably succinct, time efficient manner, which
frequently facilitates simple data analysis. The grading system used to assess the marks utilised four criteria,
designed as part of a proficiency test for assessors of fingermark quality, to provide evidence of ability and
consistency between users. Fingermark grades from table 1 along with the associated variance is illustrated in
figure 3. Median values were used as the central measure to reflect the non-parametric data.

Fig 3 The quality of the marks according to the total grade /20 on each substrate (combined data from the
uncontrolled and controlled pseudo-operational trials).
The results show that fingermarks recovered from the glass surface produced marks with the highest median
values than the remaining substrates, followed by aluminium, smooth plastic, paper and textured plastic. When
the upper and lower quartile range of values was considered, there was considerable overlap between grades,
although the relative proportion of grades in the quartiles suggested a trend for quality, which aligned with the
median values. Smoother surfaces are likely to produce marks of an increased quality to rougher substrates
given that there is less substrate interference on the latent ridge structure. To summarise, if fingermarks of
identical composition and structure were deposited on to a textured plastic and smooth glass substrate, one
would expect the smooth substrate to produce a mark of better quality.

The visualisation techniques applied to each of the substrates were considered appropriate for use according to
the porosity and colour of the substrate. The authors accept that the quality and number of the marks may have
been different had additional treatments have been used because of the opportunity for the techniques to react
with different constituents within the mark.

Most grades were below a grade of 15. The significance of this finding is difficult to quantify because we have
no way of establishing how these results might compare to operational trial data. Fingermarks are exceptionally
variable sample types and are affected by numerous physical and chemical factors which makes consistency and
reproducibility in sampling and therefore accurate study of them very difficult. Compared to a controlled study,
pseudo-operational samples are subjected to additional factors, such as overlapping marks, heterogenous
samples and surface contaminants, which will be discussed in due course.

It was very encouraging to see that all of the substrates had retained marks that were capable of achieving the
highest of all grades, although the authors recognise that for the textured plastic substrate, these values were
listed as outliers. This was encouraging because it supported the idea that for some marks the application of a
low adhesive DNA recovery method, such as gelatine had still permitted the recovery of a high quality
fingermark, that could support an identification. The textured plastic substrate displayed more consistent
grades, albeit lower, which was attributed to the substrate topography and the associated issues encountered
within fingermark visualisation on this substrate type, and the likely presence of more overlapping marks.
Marks on this surface type were frequently absent, incomplete (displaying an outline mark), or with limited and
generally fragmented ridge detail. This was attributed to the fact that the friction ridges may only have
contacted the topmost ‘peaks’ of the surface texture and therefore latent material only transferred at these points.
To help establish whether the grades were attributable to the substrate or the DNA recovery, additional handles
were subjected to fingermark visualisation using the same approaches, but without any prior DNA recovery.
Analysis of these results suggested that the resulting marks displayed similar characteristics to those subjected to
DNA recovery using gelatine lifters, suggesting that the substrate was contributing to the quality of the marks,
and that the gelatine lifting process was having a minimal effect on fingermark quality.

When the data was compared to the results from a previously published controlled laboratory study it was found
that fingermarks deposited on the smoother glass and metal substrates were more affected by adhesive DNA
recovery methods than rougher substrates [17]. This was attributed to the fragility of the marks. It could be that
despite their exposure on smoother substrates, the substrates themselves initially retain higher quantities of
higher quality fingermarks, but the DNA recovery process can very destructive to weaker marks where most of
the material present is removed by the adhesive lifter. On marks of an increased mass the resilience of the
samples are significantly increased, offering greater scope for dual recovery. It is essential to consider the pre
and post design of the laboratory study, which examined the effects of recovery on mark quality. In controlled
studies, useful strategies for effective comparative analysis are also possible, such as the use of split marks. In
the pseudo-operational study only post DNA recovered substrates were examined. The team did consider
‘controlled’ non-DNA recovered items but felt that on account of the experimental design of anonymous
donation, the allocation of a truly representative independent samples design to the experimental groups would
have been exceptionally difficult to establish, and that this approach would also reflect operational work.

Also, in the previous laboratory study [17], fingermarks that were ‘eccrine rich’, ‘sebaceous rich’, and ‘natural’
were used. The former two strategies had the intention of biasing the residue composition and consisted of
strategies commonly reported in fingermark related studies, and yet it is likely (and was commented in the
publication) that this alteration to the natural composition of friction ridge residue will have affected the fragility
of the marks. Eccrine rich marks may be more prone to degradation with or without DNA recovery on non-
porous surfaces because of the reduction in water insoluble constituents, which may provide a resilient layer and
increased mass to the marks. If we consider sebaceous contamination to increase mark mass and to incubate
alternative reactive components then it would be logical to assume that any attempt to remove part of the mark
would affect the mark to a lesser extent, which would also support observations recorded in the laboratory
study. On this basis the authors would stress the need to review strategies to obtain representative samples of
fingermarks for research, particularly those generated through strategies used to bias the composition because of
the possibility of distorting the data, supporting the recommendations of International Fingerprint Research
Group [20].

In addition to the chemical composition of the fingermark, the substrate itself was highly likely to have affected
mark quality. This is because the substrates utilised as part of controlled experimental trials are intentionally
likely to be mark and contaminant free, and isolated in terms of their deposition. In this trial the substrates were
frequently saturated with marks, many of which overlapped. Contaminants and environmental exposure were
unknown but considered likely to contribute to mark quality and certainly affected the visualisation processes by
inhibiting or negatively enhancing some of the visualisation techniques such as excessive superglue
polymerisation. In future work, it might be of interest to take multiple lifts from the same substrate to see
whether it is possible to remove successive layers of fingermark deposits, which might infer something about
the order of deposition. The researcher had no prior knowledge of the history of the aluminium and smooth
plastic surfaces. Participants would have purchased them from a variety of sources, and these items are likely to
have been stored and handled by various individuals prior to donation. This was a huge benefit to the study,
given that it was considered that such samples were more likely to align with samples encountered in casework.
The authors do recognise that sub-types of these materials may well behave in a different manner to those
encountered in this study with the gel lifter, evidence of which was found in this study. For example, the
number of different plastic materials which might be encountered in casework undoubtedly exceeds these
samples, and of those encountered in this study it was apparent that the level of adhesion between the gelatine
and the plastic varied from highly adhesive to limited adhesion, causing slippage during application. This action
may have affected the quality of any underlying marks. The composition of the residue of the mark is likely to
simultaneously affect its retention and DNA recovery. For example, difficulties in gel adhesion may have been
similarly indicative of poor interaction between the residue and the substrate.

All substrates also produced marks with poor quality grades after development. Numerous factors are known to
contribute to the quality of friction ridge skin marks, including physical deposition, substrate contamination and
residue composition, which contribute to mark resilience. The authors also accept that in some instances the
recovery of DNA prior to fingermark visualisation is highly likely to have contributed to the poorer quality of
the marks by removing part of the mark.

Fig 4 The quality of the marks according to each criterion of the grading approach /5 for each substrate
(combined data from the uncontrolled and controlled pseudo-operational trials).

Figure 4 presents the mean grade data for each criterion on each substrate and error bars illustrating the standard
deviation. When the data was considered by criterion, a similar trend was found in that glass and aluminium
substrates retained fingermarks that were more complete, had increased quantities of ridge detail and improved
ridge continuity and contrast compared to smooth plastic, textured plastic and paper.

Differences in the quantity of ridge detail was less apparent between substrates (criterion 1), which simply
confirmed the presence of latent residue post DNA recovery. When this criterion was compared to the
remaining criteria, it suggested that the substrate itself was significantly contributing to the quality of
fingermark ridge detail retained post DNA recovery. For instance, the relatively poor overall grades for textured
plastic are clearly attributable to the proportionately and consistently low grades for the criteria relating to ridge
detail, continuity and contrast (criteria 2-4), with a standard deviation rarely exceeding a grade of 2. The mean
grades for glass were also consistent but proportionately higher, and the standard deviation suggested that the
highest of all grades were awarded to this substrate.

The effects of DNA recovery on the identification potential of the fingermarks

The grading method used multiple criteria, which helped to consider how different properties of the fingermarks
had contributed to their overall quality. However, this grading system focused upon the quality of the
fingermarks rather than their value for identification, which is an obvious consideration for casework. It is
common practise for fingerprint examiners working within numeric and non-numeric standards to use ridge
detail to estimate the mark’s value for identification, and therefore to investigate the proportion of marks
suitable for casework identification the percentage scores for criterion 2 (the quantity of the fingermark
occupied by usable ridge detail) were examined. Grades of 3-5 were classed as ‘suitable for identification’, as
they represented marks with an estimated 41% or above of the surface area of the mark occupied by usable ridge
detail. The results of this analysis can be seen in figure 5. From the earlier analysis it was evident that the
results obtained were linked to substrate types therefore the results were similarly examined according to
substrate.

Fig 5 Percentage distribution of fingermarks ‘suitable for identification’ according to substrate for pseudo -
operational trial marks

As far as the authors are aware there is no accepted data available to suggest the likely proportion of usable
fingermarks retrieved from these substrates as part of casework, and therefore it is not possible to state if this
data falls within an accepted casework standard. An accepted casework standard would be extremely difficult to
estimate given that internationally and nationally different laboratories are likely to encounter a different mix of
exhibits depending on the crimes committed in that region. Different laboratories may work towards different
submission policies, which will also influence success rates. As described in the methods section, a difficulty
associated with the design of a pseudo-operational trial is the assumption that a representative sample (i.e. of
casework marks) has been obtained. In response to this issue, the control group was used, containing items
handled by fingermark donors considered to donate ‘heavy’, ‘medium’ and ‘light’ fingermarks. Figure 6
illustrates the percentage distribution of fingermarks classed as ‘suitable for identification’ for the control group
marks.

Fig 6 Percentage distribution of fingermarks ‘suitable for identification’ according to substrate for the control
group marks

The trend for the pseudo-operational group and the control group were very similar, suggesting that a good
range of fingermarks had been deposited within the pseudo-operational sample group. The strategy used to
recruit donors in the control group is routinely used within fingermark research projects to obtain marks that are
representative of casework.

The data demonstrated that it was possible to recover fingermarks that were ‘suitable for identification’ post
DNA recovery using gel lifters for DNA recovery prior to mark visualisation on those substrates utilised as part
of the study and on smoother substrates the user is seemingly more likely to retrieve a mark that could support
an identification. If we consider these results in combination with the earlier controlled study, smoother
substrates were those where the quality of the fingermarks was most affected, so these results could imply that
where the fingermark is of sufficient initial quality, these substrates receive and retain the residue in such an
effective manner as to permit partial removal and post visualisation. It also highlights the sensitivity of the
reagents used to visualise the marks. Recovery of the marks was attempted following 24 hours of storage. In
the future the team would like to examine the effects of a longer pre DNA recovery period. The team are also
considering alternative, novel DNA recovery techniques that continue to facilitate the recovery of DNA and
fingermarks with minimal destructive impact on either evidence type. Included in this work is consideration of
the requirement for sterility of the DNA recovery process. During examination of the items, it was sometimes
apparent where the gelatine lifter had been used due to an outline of residue being observed post development.
This has been reported with alternative research [25]. This reduced as the number of DNA recovery
applications increased and was attributed to a reduction in the adhesiveness of the gel. Within this outline
fingermarks were still present, yet in some instances the gelatine lifter was only laid over some of the ridge
detail and not all. The difference between the two parts of the fingermark varied in quality, with occasional
observations of lower contrast but clearer ridge detail being in the parts exposed to the gelatine lifter. An
example of this can be seen in figure 6.

This was beneficial to those marks with a heavy mass residue due to reducing film thickness whilst also
removing potential interferences from the surface resulting in more defined ridge detail [26]. A similar effect
has been reported by Hemmell et al, who used gelatine lifters as a way of pre-treatment before chemically
enhancing 2-dimensional footwear impressions, as they removed contaminates [27].

Fig 7 Fingermarks from a drinking glass illustrating the area where the gelatine lifter was applied.

One of the perceived benefits of using an adhesive medium to recover DNA is the increased uniformity in
application between users and the interaction with the surface. The application of other recovery methods such
as swabs, can be difficult to standardise between users when ensuring consistency, due to inter-user variation
being demonstrated [28]. However, as far as the authors are aware the extent of this variation has not been fully
explored. The perceived benefit of the gelatine layer is that it allows for even distribution of weight over a small
area minimising the usage variations.

The scores for all weight variations were averaged over all surfaces used. The scores resulted in +0.16, +0.32
and +0.36 for the low medium and heavy weight respectively. As all the average scores were positive it
indicated that there was some alteration to the fingermark when compared to the control half, with the lower
weight having a lesser effect than the medium and heavy weight. As expected, the heavy weight had a greater
impact due to the higher level of force, facilitating more of an interaction of the of the adhesive forces with the
fingermark residue, although the difference with the medium weight was minimal. It should be noted that there
was a total of 25 fingermarks which displayed no ridge detail on either side of the split surface resulting possibly
from deposition variables that were left uncontrolled. These were spread evenly across depletion series and
surfaces and were not considered further. There were instances where -2 grades were awarded due to the lack of
a control half, possibly resulting from deposition variables such as uneven distribution of force and residue
across the friction ridge skin during contact and were usually evident within a depletion series. The overall
percentage of grades awarded over all surfaces are displayed in figure 7.

Fig 8 Percentages scores for weight distributions over all surfaces.

Most of the scores for surfaces were graded as 0 indicating there was no noticeable difference between the
control half and that which was exposed to the gelatine lifter, with the exception of the glass surface. When
comparing the percentage grade allocations with the combined means for each surface, variation was apparent
as the usage of the gelatine lifter displayed some benefit for enhancement as seen in figure 8. Negative averages
were seen for the low weight on paper and aluminium, and for the heavy weight on textured plastic indicating
that the quality of the half exposed to the gelatine lifter was usually better. Due to the inconsistency with the
results for the weight variations, it suggested that the type of substrate had a greater effect than the weight
applied.

Fig 9 Average scores for each weight variation over all surfaces.

The glass surface displayed a clear trend with the low weight having comparable scores with other surfaces and
may account for why fingermarks were still observable during the pseudo- operational trial. The medium and
heavy weight applications displaying more positive scores, indicating more effect on the ridge detail, which is
also demonstrated in the score averages which increases as heavier weight are applied. This could have been due
to the glass surface itself, which extremely smooth and has a proclivity for fingermarks yet, leaves them more
vulnerable to alteration from extrinsic factors. It is interesting to note that -1 scores were awarded with the
medium and heavy applications. This could be attributed to a transference of adhesive residue, or slight
rehydration of the fingermark residue [29] allowing for greater uptake of the aluminium powder increasing
contrast and ridge definition, due instances where the enhancement was greater for that half exposed to the
gelatine lifter.

A similar trend was also seen with the smooth plastic and the aluminium, both of which are smooth substrates.
Despite over 50% of the fingermarks displaying no alteration, positive grades were still allocated, possibly due
the removal of residue and initiators for the fuming process. This may also have prevented overdevelopment of
such areas as these surfaces also have negatively scores and a negative average for the low weight application
on aluminium. This suggests that the use of a gelatine lifter may have limited beneficial effects supporting the
observations reported in the pseudo-operational trial. A similar observation was also displayed on the textured
plastic with some areas of the control half having limited ridge definition whilst the half exposed to the gelatine
lifter were clearer, although this was more prevalent with the heavy weight. The least affected surface was the
paper as over 85% of the fingermarks were awarded a score of 0 for all weight variations, whilst also having the
lowest averages for all weights used. This may be due to the amino acids within the fingermark residue having
an affinity for the cellulose in paper and remaining unaltered due to the gelatine lifters adhesion being unable to
penetrate into the paper’s matrix [16].

Regarding contact time, the average grade for the instantaneous use was +0.11 (Standard Deviation (SD) 0.59),
of the -2 to +2 range, and a grade of +0.46 (SD 0.81) for the 2-minute application period, indicating that contact
time had an impact on fingermark quality and is displayed in figure 10. As there is overlap between the standard
deviations, it suggests that the difference may not be statistically significant.

Fig 10 Percentage score for contact time over all surfaces.

Similar to the weight variation there were a substantial amount of 0 grades awarded, with over 45% of
fingermarks over all surface displaying not alteration, again, with the exception of glass. For the 2-minute
application, there was an increase in positive scores mainly +2 due to the partial/complete removal of the ridge
detail from the surface via the gelatine lifter. This was sometimes apparent before enhancement as the ridge
detail was clearly visible on the gelatine lifter upon removal. This was unsurprising due to the 2-minute period
being a recommendation to rehydrate residue to facilitate uptake to recover and visualise the fingermark.

Contradictory to weight, contact time appears to be a greater variable to fingermark quality, although the
substrate was still a contributing factor, as the fingermarks on smoother surfaces were affected more. Positive
grades were still awarded and were mainly seen with the instantaneous retraction of the gel. There was still a
beneficial aspect with the 2-minute contact period over the smooth and textured plastic, and the aluminium.

It should be noted that the identifiability of the fingermarks was not considered during the user variation aspect.
Some of the +1 grades were given due to there being greater ridge continuity and/or contrast with the substrate
rather than the removal of ridges or minutiae. As with the pseudo-operational trial, it is unclear how this would
translate in conjunction with fingermark quality observed within casework.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of gelatine lifters as a means of DNA recovery on the
quality of latent fingermarks via pseudo-operational use and user variation during application. From the pseudo-
operational trial, many friction ridge skin marks could still be visualised post DNA recovery. The quality of the
fingermark scores were substrate dependant, with smoother surfaces resulting in higher grades deemed to be
‘suitable for identification’ in accordance with the used grading system. In regard to usage variation, the weight
applied during application was a lesser contributing factor than the amount of time the gelatine lifter was left in
contact with the surface. There is a greater chance of leaving the friction ridge skin marks unaltered with the
application of a low weight instantaneous usage. Again, the fingermark quality post lifting was dependant on the
substrates used. In both trials there also appeared to be some limited beneficial use to a pre-treatment before
enhancing and was mostly evident for surfaces enhanced with cyanoacrylate fuming.

Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with
the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Van Oorschot RAH, Treadwell S, Beaurepaire J, Holding NL, Mitchell RJ (2005) Beware of the possibility
of fingerprinting techniques transferring DNA. J Forensic Sci 50(6):1-6.

[2] Proff C, Schmitt C, Schneider PM, Foerster G, Rothschild MA (2006) Experiments on the DNA
contamincation risk via latent fingerprint brushes. International Congress Series 1288: 601-603.
doi:10.1016/j.ics.2005.10.053

[3] Bhoelai B, de Jong BJ, de Puit M, Sijen T (2011) Effect of common fingerprint detection techniques on
subsequent STR profiling. Forensic Sci Int: Genetic Supplement Series 3: 429-430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2011.09.076

[4] Van Hoofstat D, Deforce D, De Pauw I H, Van Den Eeckhout E (1999) DNA typing of fingerprints using
capillary electrophoresis: Effect of dactyloscopic powders. Electrophoresis 20:2870-2876.

[5] Norlin S, Nilsson M, Heden P, Allen M (2013) Evaluation of the impact of different visualization
techniques on DNA in Fingerprints. Journal of Forensic Identif 63:189-204.
[6] Laurin N, Célestin F, Clark M, Wilkinson D, Yamashita B, Frégeau C (2015) New incompatibilities
uncovered using the Promega DNA IQTM chemistry. Forensic Sci Int 257:134-141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.07.029

[7] Lin SW, Ip S, Lam TT, Tan TF, Yeung WL, Tam WM (2017) Compatibility of DNA IQTM, QIAamp® DNA
Investigator, and QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator® with various fingerprint treatments. Int J Legal Med
131:293-301. DOI 10.1007/s00414-016-1447-8

[8] Aloraer D, Hassan NH, Albarzinji B, Goodwin W (2017) Improving recovery and stability of touch DNA.
Forensic Sci Int: Genetic Supplement Series 6: 390-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.166

[9] Parsons R, Bates L, Walton-Williams L, Fieldhouse S, Gwinnett C (2016) DNA from fingerprints:
Attempting duel recovery. CSEye. October.

[10] Zieger M, Schneider C, Utz S (2019) DNA recovery from gelatin fingerprint lifters by direct proteolytic
digestion. Forensic Sci Int 295:145-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.12.006

[11] Van Oorschot RAH, Ballantyne KN, Mitchell JR (2010) Forensic trace DNA: a review Investig Genet 1
(14). doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-1-14

[12] Hansson O, Finnebraaten M, Heitmann IK, Ramse M, Bouzga M (2009) Trace DNA collection –
Performance of minitape and three different swabs. Forensic Sci Int: Genetic Supplement Series 2: 189-190.
doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.08.098

[13] May R, Thomson J. (2009) Optimisation of cellular DNA recovery from tape-lifts. Forensic Sci Int:
Genetic Supplement Series 2: 191-192. doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.08.115

[14] Fieldhouse S, Oravcova E, Walton-Williams, L (2016) The effect of DNA recovery on the subsequent
quality of latent fingermarks. Forensic Sci Int 267:78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.003

[15] Samlal-Soedhoe R, Willemstein LM, Baiker M, Van der Weerd J (2017) Combined recovery of biological
and fibre traces. Sci Justice 57(3): 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.02.001

[16]International Fingerprint Research Group (2014) Guidelines for the assessment of fingermark detection
techniques. Journal of Forensic Identification 64(2):174-201.

[17] Sears VG, Bleay SM, Bandey HL, Bowman VJ (2012) A methodology for fingermark research. Sci Justice
52: 145-240. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.10.006

[18] Daly DJ, Murphy C, McDermott SD, The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood.
Forensic Sci Int Genet 6:41-46. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016

[19] Stoop B, Defaux PM, Utz S, Zieger M, (2017) Touch DNA sampling with SceneSafe FastTM minitapes.
Legal Medicine 20:68-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2017.10.006

[20] Fieldhouse S, Gwinnett C (2016) The design and implementation of a proficiency test for assessors of
fingermark quality, to facilitate collaborative practise in fingermark research. Sci Justice 56(4):231-240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.03.001

[21] McLaren C , Lennard C, Stoilvoic M (2010) Methylamine pretreatment of dry latent fingermarks on
polyethlene for enhanced detection by cyanacylate fuming. Journal of Forensic Identification 60(2):199-223.

[22] Bleay S, Bandey HM, Black M, Sears VG (2011) The gelatin lifting process: An evaluation of its
effectiveness in the recovery of latent fingerprints. Journal of Forensic Identification 61(6):581-606.
doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.10.006

[23] Czekanksi P, Fasola M, Allison J (2006) A mechanistic model for superglue fuming of latent fingerprints. J
Forensic Sci 51(6):1323-1328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00258.x
[24] Hammell L, Deacon P, Farrugia KJ (2014) Chemical enhancement of soil-based marks on nonporous
surfaces following gelatin lifting. Journal of Forensic Identification 64(6):583-607.

[25] Wood I,Park S, Tooke J, Smith O, Morgan RM, Meaking GE (2017) Efficiencies of recovery and
extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces. Forensic Sci Int: Genetic Supplement Series 6;153-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.022

[26] BVDA International (date unknown) Gelatin Lifters product information

[27] Girod A, Ramotowski R Weyermann C (2012) Composition of fingermark residue: A qualitative and
quantative review Forensic Sci Int 223:10-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.05.018