Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:29:15.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Detection of visible and latent fingerprints by micro-X-ray fluorescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2012

Christopher G. Worley
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop G740, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
Sara S. Wiltshire
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop G740, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
Thomasin C. Miller
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop G740, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
George J. Havrilla
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop G740, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
Vahid Majidi
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop G740, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

Abstract

Numerous methods are available to forensic scientists for detecting fingerprints in which the prints are treated with various agents to enhance the visual contrast between the print and the surface. In the present work, the spatial elemental imaging capabilities of micro-X-ray fluorescence (MXRF) were used to visualize fingerprint patterns based on inorganic elements present in the prints. A major advantage of using MXRF is that the prints are left unaltered for other analyses, such as deoxyribonucleic acid extraction or for archiving. Most of the fingerprints which were examined were imaged from the potassium and chlorine present in the print residue. Among the various prints studied, lower count rates were also observed in the elemental maps of Ca, Al, Na, Mg, Si, P, S, and the X-ray source scatter. A sebaceous oily fingerprint left by one subject was successfully imaged by MXRF, but sebaceous prints left by a different person were undetectable, indicating that print elemental composition may be person and/or diet dependent. Prints containing substances that might be found in real-world cases were also visualized including sweat, lotion, saliva, and sunscreen.

Type
X-Ray Fluorescence and Related Techniques
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buchanan, M. V., Asano, K., and Bohanon, A. (1996). In Proceedings of the Society of PhotoOptical Instrumentation Engineers, edited by Hicks, J., DeForest, P. R., and Baylor, V. M. (International Society for Optical Engineering, Boston), Vol. 2941, pp. 8995.Google Scholar
Coppock, C. A. (2001). Contrast: An Investigator’s Basic Reference Guide to Fingerprint Identification Concepts (Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Ill.).Google Scholar
Exline, D. L., Wallace, C., Roux, C., Lennard, C., Nelson, M. P., and Treado, P. J. (2003). J. Forensic Sci. JFSCAS 48, 10471053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havrilla, G. J. and Miller, T. (2004). Powder Diffr. PODIE2 10.1154/1.1752947 19, 119126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R., Manne, R., Robin, R., and Senemaud, C. (1991). X-Ray Spectrom. XRSPAX 20, 149155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, A. M. (1978). J. Phys. E JPSIAE 11, 713721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, M. C., Boehme, D. R., Ryon, R. W., Wherry, D., Cross, B., and Aden, G. (1987). Adv. X-ray Anal. AXRAAA 30, 4551.Google Scholar
Ninomiya, T., Nomura, S., Taniguchi, K., and Ikeda, S. (1995). Anal. Sci. ANSCEN 11, 489494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, G. L. (1978). J. Phys. E JPSIAE 11, 722731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincze, L., Vekemans, B., Brenker, F. E., Falkenberg, G., Rickers, K., Somogyi, A., Kersten, M., and Adams, F. (2004). Anal. Chem. ANCHAM 76, 67866791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. K., Schwartz, R. L., and Bartick, E. G. (2004). Appl. Spectrosc. APSPA4 10.1366/000370204322886663 58, 313316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar