- P-ISSN 1225-0163
- E-ISSN 2288-8985
Cyanoacrylate fuming mehod is effective for latent fingerprints developing on non-porous surfaces. In this study, we investigated optimal conditions for latent fingerprint development using cyanoacrylate fuming method in vacuum chamber. The effects of temperature, relative humidity, fuming method and processing time were checked throughly. The amount of evaporated cyanoacrylate was increased at higher temperature, but cyanoacrylate polymerization on the fingerprint ridge was best at 30 oC. With a relative humidity of 40% to 50% conditions, good quality of fingerprints were developed. If a relative humidity is lower than 30% or higher than 60%, polymerization rate of cyanoacrylate monomers on the fingerprint ridge was decreased. It was identified that application of OMEGA-PRINTTM dispersal pad or cotton ball with sodium hydroxide fuming method in vacuum chamber was more effective than natural fuming method. We found that cyanoacrylate processing time in vacuum chamber did not have more significant than relative humidity.
1. C. Lennard, 13th INTERPOL Forensic Science Symposium, Lyon, France, 86-93 (2001).
2. H. C. Lee and R. E. Gaensslen, ‘Advances in Fingerprint Technology’, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Ration, 2001.
3. J. Siegel, P. Saukko and G. Knupfer, ‘Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences’, Academic press, Oxford, 2000.
4. M. J. Choi, Y. S. Sun, C. S. Kim, M. S. Choi, N. D. Sung and S. W. Park, Anal. Sci. Technol., 20(2), 147-154 (2007).
5. M. J. Choi, J. H. Ha and S. W. Park, Anal. Sci. Technol., 21(3), 212-221 (2008).
6. O. P. Jasuja, M. A. Toofany, G. Singh and G. S. Sodhi, Science and Justice, 49, 8-11 (2009).
7. G. S. Sodhi and J. Kaur, Forensic science International, 120, 172-176 (2001).
8. A. Rawji and A. Beaudoin, J. Forensic Ident., 56(1), 33-54 (2005).
9. R. J. Jelly, E. L. T. Patton, C. Lennard, S. W. Lewis and K. F. Lim, Analytica Chimica Acta, 652, 128-142 (2009).
10. A. Misner, D. Wilkinson and J. Watkin, J. Forensic Ident., 43(2), 154-165 (1993).
11. A. Czubak, Problems of Forensic Sci., vol. LII, 87-99 (2002).
12. C. W. Bessman, E. Nelson, R. J. Lipert and S. Coldiron, J. Forensic Ident., 55(1), 10-27 (2005).
13. E. R. Menzel, J. A. Burt, T. W. Sinor, W. B. T. Ley and K. J. Jordan, J. Forensic Sci., 28(2), 307-317 (1983).
14. J. Almog and A. Gabay, J. Forensic Sci., 31(1), 250-253 (1986).
15. M. D. Dadmun, Final Project Report to the Department of Justice, 1-27 (2009).
16. P. Czekanski, M. Fasola and J. Allison, J. Forensic Sci., 51(6), 1323-1328 (2006).
17. S. P. Wargacki, L. A. Lewis and M. D. Dadmun, J. Forensic Sci., 52(5), 1057-1062 (2007).
18. L. A. Lewis, R. W. Smithwick, G. L. Devault, B. Bolinger and S. A. Lewis, J. Forensic Sci., 46(2), 241-246 (2001).
19. A. B. Yamashita, J. Forensic Ident., 44(2), 149-158 (1994).
20. J. E. Watkin, D. A. Wilkinson and A. B. Yamashita, 44(5), 545-556 (1994).