dnatrack is a work in progress — updates ship daily. Report a bug or request a feature →

The Effect of Common Fingerprint Detection Techniques on the DNA Typing of Fingerprints Deposited on Different Surfaces.

Journal of Forensic Identification, 2004

Study Design

Addressed Question

analysis of DNA profiles developed from different surfaces before and after latent print enhancement methods

Activity Context

Professional

Category

PersistencePrimary Deposit

Specifications

Persistence with Environmental ConditionsPersistence with IrradiationPersistence with Latent Print EnhancementSurface

Variables of Interest

primary substrateprint enhancement techniquepersistence conditions

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

2

Replicates per Individual and Condition

N/A

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (fingertips)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

1 male, 1 female

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

fingerprint deposit - 2 days drying time - (latent print enhancement/leaving outdoors for 3 weeks) - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

adhesive tape; aluminium foil; microscopic slide; paper sheet; plastic bags

Primary Substrate Material

AdhesiveAluminiumGlassPaperPlastic

Deposit

30s fingerprint deposit, 4 fingers

Delay

N/A

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

N/A

Secondary Substrate Material

N/A

Secondary Substrate Contact

N/A

Further Transfer

N/A

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Negative (Confirmed)

Sampling Time

direct, delayed

Persistence

latent print enhancement: UV light, DFO, Ninhydrin, Ninhydrin + zinc metal salt, white powder, black powder, magnetic powder, white light, cyanoacrylate, cyanoacrylate ü rhodamine 6 G, cyanoacrylate + VMC, sticky side powder, amido black, luminol, DAB; time and environmental conditions: 3 weeks outdoors (conditions n.s.)

Sampling Method

double swabbing (moistening agent: digestion buffer) from glass, direct extraction for all other surfaces

Sampling Area

approx. 8x5cm piece, 10cm lengths of adhesive tape

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

modified Chelex extraction method

DNA Quantification

assessed by multiplication of average peak area in a profile * number of peaks present

Input for Profiling

20 µl Chelex extract

Profiling

Profiler Plus system, LCN 34 cycles, ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer, GeneScan software version 3.1

Reference Samples

taken from all participants

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles to identify matching peaks (details n.s.)

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

prints on glass plastic and adhesive tape mostly successful; paper, aluminium foil and aged prints mostly not successful

Parameter Used for Comparison

profile completeness, presence of spurious alleles, DNA yield (=avg. Peak area * number of peaks)

Summary of Results

DNA typing largely surface-dependent and not so much dependent on latent print enhancement technique: glass, plastic, adhesive tape mostly successful for treated and untreated prints; paper mostly not successful (artefacts and dropout); aluminium foil not successful (no donor peaks detected, not even in positive control); Generally no complete removal of background DNA by ethanol wiping, extraneous alleles also amplified; aged samples show mostly spurious contamination/artefacts or no peaks at all; UV-light in the longwave range (350 nm) does not affect DNA in contrast to shortwave (250 nm) UV light;

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

too many variables assessed at once (fingerprint donor, enhancement techniques, sampling method, and primary substrate), the causal factors for the variability within the results cannot be assessed; number of replicates n.s.; differentiation between contamination and artifact peaks not made clear; acceptability of profiles in court questioned