The description of the materials and methods used for the tests addresses the general approach, the preparation and applications of the solutions, the visualization and recording of developed marks, a comparison of latent mark development, the optimization of spray reagents, the comparison of spray techniques with conventional techniques, and sequencing tests. The results show that neither the spray techniques nor powdering were suitable for all surfaces and ages of fingermark tests. On some surfaces, such as glass and treated wood, powdering was still the best technique; whereas, the spray techniques produced better development of fingermarks on wallpaper, vinyl, and brick. Sequencing work found that RTX was incompatible with powdering and cyanoacrylate (with a rhodamine 6G stain). Iodine-benzoflavone can be used effectively either before or after powdering in a sequence; it was incompatible, however, with cyanoacrylate. Two non-CFC formulations of iodine-benzoflavone using HFC4310mee and HFE7100 solvents were tested and shown to be less effective than the original Arklone (CFC-113) formulation. The HFC4310mee solvent is recommended as the most suitable replacement solvent. Because of the expense of the commercial RTX spray, the formulation of a more cost-effective version was done. The formulation developed was comparable to the commercial version in performance but was much cheaper, and it has a shelf life of up to 2 months. The paper specifies which techniques are suitable for various surfaces and ages of fingermarks. Powdering is the best technique on all ages of fingermarks on treated wood, glass, and fingermarks 3 days old and older on paint. Iodine-benzoflavone was best for fingermarks on wallpaper, vinyl, brick, and raw wood. RTX was the best technique for fresh fingermarks and those up to 1-day old on wallpaper and paint. 15 figures and 20 references