“…A large number of papers have dealt with fingermark composition and their variability factors such as, the age or the gender of the donor, among other (Antoine, Mortazavi, Miller, & Miller, ; Asano, Bayne, Horsman, & Buchanan, ; Bohanan, ; Buchanan, Asano, & Bohanon, ; Cadd et al, ; Croxton, Baron, Butler, Kent, & Sears, , ; Frick, Chidlow, Lewis, & van Bronswijk, ; Fritz et al, ; Girod et al, ; Girod & Weyermann, ; Huynh, Brunelle, Halámková, Agudelo, & Halámek, ). New analytical techniques such as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) (Croxton et al, ; Girod & Weyermann, ; Richmond‐Aylor, Bell, Callery, & Morris, ; Weyermann, Roux, & Champod, ) or Fourier‐transform infrared spectroscopy (Fritz et al, ; Johnston & Rogers, , ) allow even more compounds to be detected and their interactions analyzed. However, this variability remains an important factor that must be taken into account when treating a latent fingermark with a particular detection technique since an unsatisfactory detection can be due to the intrinsic composition of the mark (i.e., a lack of certain compounds targeted by a specific technique) and not necessarily to a bad formulation or an ineffective working solution.…”