Fingerprint Development Techniques 2018
DOI: 10.1002/9781119187400.ch4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ageing of fingermarks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…temperature, humidity, light), and the initial composition of the residue. 5,10,[14][15][16][17][18] As a result, depending on the above factors and the amount of time that has elapsed since deposition, fingermark detection may become more difficult, as the target compounds are transformed or removed, or the bulk residue no longer possesses physical properties compatible with the detection method (e.g. viscosity and adhesiveness).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…temperature, humidity, light), and the initial composition of the residue. 5,10,[14][15][16][17][18] As a result, depending on the above factors and the amount of time that has elapsed since deposition, fingermark detection may become more difficult, as the target compounds are transformed or removed, or the bulk residue no longer possesses physical properties compatible with the detection method (e.g. viscosity and adhesiveness).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the fingermarks were collected between December 2021 and April 2022 in colder weather conditions, it is expected that less eccrine sweat was deposited onto the substrates in the first instance, resulting in poor enhancement. It is also expected, based on previous work, that natural fingermarks will be more susceptible to the detrimental effects of water due to their higher content of eccrine sweat and consequently higher content of water‐soluble constituents [25]. Sebaceous fingermarks were of better quality with 81% of all control marks collected throughout this study considered identifiable and a further 18% considered detected but insufficient ( n = 216).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%