- P-ISSN 1225-0163
- E-ISSN 2288-8985
Due to the difficulty of grading visualized fingerprints with previously known evaluation methods for the comparison of split fingerprints, a preliminary study was performed with the densitometric image analysis (DIA) method as a potential quantitative and supplementary evaluation method. Each image of inked split fingerprints was divided into 4 zones for analysis. Weekly intra- and inter- analysis by two analysts with three whole fingerprints that were constructed by combining inked split fingerprints showed that the average area values and the ranges of difference fluctuation were not significantly different between strong fingerprints and strong-weak pairs, while they were different in weak fingerprints and weak-weak pairs. In the case of weak fingerprints, the exact acquisition of ridges was difficult and this seemed to influence the results. An additional study is needed for the improved reliability using DIA method with weak fingerprints such as 8 zones division rather than 4 zones. In addition, the analysis results performed by several analysts at different times should be used to improve the reliability of the analysis method further. Based on the above result, it can be judged that utilizing the DIA method as a secondary evaluation method of the existing scoring system would be effective with the additional studies especially on weak fingerprints.
1. M. Wang, M. Li, A. Yu, Y. Zhu, M. Yang and C. Mao, Adv. Funct. Mater., 27(14), 1606243 (2017).
2. C. Champod, C. J. Lennard, P. Margot and M. Stoilovic, ‘Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions’, 2nd Ed., CRC press, Florida, 2016.
3. C. Huynh and J. Halámek, Trends Anal. Chem., 82, 328-336 (2016).
4. M. Y. Omar and L. Ellsworth, Sains. Malays., 41(4), 499-504 (2012).
5. A. Knowles, J. Phys. Educ., 11(8), 713-721 (1978).
6. T. A. Trozzi, R. L. Schwartz, M. L. Hollars, L. D. Leighton, Y. E. Trozzi and C. Wade, ‘Processing guide for developing latent prints’, FBI, USA, 2001.
7. B. T. Ulery, R. A. Hicklin, J. Buscaglia and M. A. Roberts, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108(19), 7733-7738 (2011).
8. J. Almog and H. Glasner, J. Forensic Sci., 55(1), 215-220 (2010).
9. C. McLaren, C. Lennard and M. Stoilovic, J. Forensic Indentif., 60(2), 199-222 (2010).
10. C. Fairley, S. M. Bleay, V. G. Sears and N. Nic Daéid, Forensic Sci. Int., 217(1-3), 5-18 (2012).
11. H. L. Bandey and A. P. Gibson, ‘The Powders Process, Study 2: Evaluation of Fingerprint Powders on Smooth Surfaces’, Home Office Scientific Development Branch, 2006.
12. A. Becue, S. Moret, C. Champod and P. Margot, Forensic Sci. Int., 191(1-3), 36-41 (2009).
13. P. Fritz, A. Frick, W. Van Bronswijk, S. Lewis, A. Beaudoin, S. Bleay and C. Lennard, J. Forensic Indentif., 65(5), 851-867 (2015)
14. L. van Oeffelen, E. Peeters, P. N. Le Minh and D. Chariler, PLOS ONE, 9(1), e85146 (2014).
15. D. Boros, A. Hunyadi, K. Veres and J. Hohmannm, J. Planar Chromatogr.-Mod. TLC, 25(6), 571-574 (2012).
16. N. Popovic and J. Sherma, Trends Chromatogr., 9, 21-28 (2014).
17. E. J. Kim, S. K. Kim, K. S. Seo and S. W. Choi, Anal. Sci. Technol., 33(4), 197-207 (2020).
18. Song, M. ‘A Preliminary Study of the Densitometric Image Analysis as a Potential Comparison and Evaluation Method for Split Fingerprints’ Masters Dissertation, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2021.
19. http://en.bio-soft.net/draw/cpatlas.html inaccessible by 2021 April, access GelAnalyzer 19.1 (www.gelanalyzer. com) by Istvan Lazar Jr., PhD and Istvan Lazar Sr., PhD, CSc., for similar and improved version.