skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 203735 Find in a Library
Title: Effect of Common Fingerprint Detection Techniques on the DNA Typing of Fingerprints Deposited on Different Surfaces
Journal: Journal of Forensic Identification  Volume:54  Issue:1  Dated:January/February 2004  Pages:22-44
Author(s): Jennifer J. Raymond; Claude Roux; Eric Du Pasquier; Julie Sutton; Chris Lennard
Date Published: January 2004
Page Count: 23
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article discusses the effect of common fingerprint detection techniques on the recovery of DNA from fingerprints.
Abstract: DNA and fingerprints can often permit individualization and are valuable forms of evidence at crime scenes. It is in the interest of examiners to be able to exploit both forms of evidence on the one object. Fingerprints were placed on different surfaces in order to test the extent of variation in the recoverability of DNA, according to the surface. Five different surfaces were selected to reflect those commonly encountered at crime scenes. These surfaces were aluminum foil, polyethylene bags, paper, clear glass, and adhesive side of cellulose adhesive tape. After placement, the fingerprints were left for 2 days, then were processed using techniques routinely used for that particular surface. The results show that the recoverability of DNA from fingerprints is largely dependent on the surface upon which the fingerprints were placed. The enhancement techniques employed on the plastic surfaces did not significantly affect the DNA profiles achieved. Although the adhesive tape samples were largely successful, the profiles of one untreated control and one of the white light samples were incomplete. The powdering treatment did not prevent the recovery of DNA from the glass surfaces. The results indicated that negligible DNA was recovered from the paper surface and did not support the hypothesis that fingerprints on paper would be more likely to return DNA profiles than the smoother surfaces of plastic, foil, and glass. The aluminum foil was expected to attract and retain fewer skin cells than the paper surface, which was confirmed by the results. 13 figures, 16 references
Main Term(s): DNA fingerprinting; Fingerprint detection techniques
Index Term(s): Evidence identification; Fingerprint image quality; Fingerprints; Latent fingerprints; Mobile crime laboratories; Tissue analysis
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.