Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Latent fingerprint analysis remains a cornerstone of forensic identification. With the rise in hand sanitizer use and the growth of online delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have emerged regarding the potential impact of these substances on fingerprint recovery. This study evaluates the effect of four common hand sanitizers (water-based alcohol, gel-based alcohol, Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer, and a benzalkonium chloride (BAC) non-alcoholic solution) on latent fingerprints deposited on Metronic poly mailers. Additionally, the efficiency of three development techniques—magnetic powder, cyanoacrylate fuming, and a sequential combination of cyanoacrylate fuming followed by magnetic powder—was assessed. Fingerprints from 10 donors were analyzed using the Center for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) grading scale and an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). Results revealed that alcohol-based sanitizers significantly diminished fingerprint quality, while the Dettol and BAC formulations paradoxically appeared to enhance ridge clarity. The combined technique (cyanoacrylate fuming and magnetic powder) yielded the highest clarity across most conditions. These findings provide valuable data for forensic protocols when sanitizer contamination is suspected.

Keywords

Latent fingerprint hand sanitizer Metronic poly mailer magnetic powder cyanoacrylate fuming

Introduction

Fingerprint analysis is a fundamental aspect of forensic science, crucial for identifying suspects and exonerating the innocent.¹ Similar to other biological patterns utilized in forensic identification, such as lip prints,^2–3 fingerprints serve as a primary means of establishing identity in criminal investigations. Latent fingerprints, formed from sweat pore secretions, deposit unique chemical residues on surfaces. These secretions consist of a complex mixture of proteins, amino acids, lipids, and other organic compounds.⁴

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted daily life, leading to widespread use of hand sanitizers and increased reliance on online delivery services. While alcohol-based sanitizers (60%–95% alcohol) are effective in inactivating viruses,^5–8 concerns have emerged regarding their potential impact on fingerprint recovery. Furthermore, the integrity of latent prints is crucial not only for pattern analysis but also because they can serve as potential sources for touch deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling, a capability increasingly highlighted in forensic investigations.⁹ Recently, benzalkonium chloride (BAC) has emerged as a prominent non-alcoholic substitute, favored for being less irritating than traditional alcohol-based options and serving as an alternative active ingredient during supply shortages.^{5, 10, 11}

In the context of delivery services, Metronic poly mailers have emerged as a popular packaging choice due to their lightweight and cost-effectiveness. These mailers present a non-porous surface, which is generally well-suited for fingerprint detection.⁴ However, as they do not absorb residues, latent prints are susceptible to degradation, necessitating appropriate detection methods. Two common techniques are magnetic powder and cyanoacrylate fuming. Magnetic powder adheres to moisture and oily components, using a magnetic applicator to minimize ridge damage.^12–14 While various herbal and non-conventional powder formulations have been explored for latent print development on different surfaces,¹⁵ standard magnetic powder remains particularly effective on non-porous surfaces.

Cyanoacrylate fuming utilizes ethyl cyanoacrylate vapor, which polymerizes on fingerprint residues to form a white deposit. While effective on non-porous surfaces, it often requires post-treatment (e.g., magnetic powder or fluorescent dye) to enhance contrast on light-colored backgrounds.^16–18 Previous studies indicate that alcohol-based sanitizers may not significantly affect print clarity, whereas non-alcoholic variants might enhance visibility with certain chemical treatments.¹⁹ Additionally, sanitizers have shown varied effects on digital fingerprint scanners.²⁰

Building upon this research, the present study investigates the impact of four hand sanitizers (water-based alcohol, gel alcohol, Dettol Instant, and a BAC solution) on latent fingerprints deposited on Metronic poly mailers. The aim is to assess the effectiveness of enhancement techniques and identify the optimal approach for detecting latent fingerprints on this packaging material when exposed to sanitizer residues.

Materials and Methods

Sample Preparation

Types of Hand Sanitizers and Materials

Four types of hand sanitizers were chosen for this research: Water-based alcohol hand sanitizer (W), gel-based alcohol hand sanitizer (G), BAC non-alcohol hand sanitizer (B) (Besuto Twelve, Thailand), and Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer (D) (Dettol, Thailand) (Table 1). These were selected for their ease of purchase and common availability. A white Metronic poly mailer (two layers of LDPE, inside matte black and outside glossy white, thickness 100 microns) was chosen to represent a typical non-porous delivery service package.

Table 1.

Composition of Four Hand Sanitizer Products According to Their Package Inserts.

Water-based Alcohol Hand Sanitizer (W)	Gel-based Alcohol Hand Sanitizer	Benzalkonium Chloride Non-alcohol Hand Sanitizer (B)	Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer (D)
Water Ethyl Alcohol 70% v/v	Alcohol 95% Propylene glycol Purified water Carbopol Triethanolamine	Benzalkonium chloride Green tea extract Grape seed extract Cucumber extract Menthol Hydroxyethyl cellulose Polyvinylpyrrolidone Water	Alcohol denatured Water Propylene glycol Tetrahydroxypropyl Ethylenediamine Aloe barbadensis Leaf juice Fragrance

Preparation of Latent Fingerprints on Metronic Poly Mailers

Ten donors (five males, five females; aged >18 years; no dermatitis or scars) participated in the study. A standardized protocol was established for all groups. First, each donor washed their hands with soap, air-dried them, and subsequently “loaded” their right index fingers by touching them to their necks (a sebaceous-rich area) for 10 seconds. Following this baseline preparation, donors in the experimental groups applied one squirt (approximately 1 mL) of one of four hand sanitizer types: Water-based alcohol, gel-based alcohol, BAC (non-alcohol), and Dettol Instant. The sanitizer was rubbed thoroughly over the entire hand, including fingertips, until fully evaporated (approximately 15–30 seconds). In contrast, donors in the control group (C) omitted this application step and proceeded directly from the baseline protocol to the deposition phase.

Immediately following their assigned procedure (with or without sanitizer), all donors deposited triplicate fingerprints onto designated 5 × 5 cm squares of a white Metronic poly mailer. The deposition process was performed in triplicate (three repetitions) for each donor to ensure consistency. A medium deposition pressure (300–700 g) was applied, as verified by a digital scale. All samples were then stored in darkness at room temperature for a minimum of 24 hours before development to simulate real-world conditions.

Preparation of Reference Minutiae from Donors by Black Ink

After depositing all fingerprints treated with hand sanitizer, the donors washed their hands with soap and allowed them to air dry completely. Subsequently, each donor impressed their right index finger on a black ink pad (Policemate, Japan) until the entire fingerprint area was evenly coated with ink. The inked fingertips were then impressed onto 80-g white paper to create a reference print set for the PrintQuest® Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) (Edison, USA) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Reference Minutiae from 10 Donors (F = Female and M = Male).

Doner	Minutiae (Points)
F1	29
F2	53
F3	46
F4	41
F5	47
M1	48
M2	37
M3	41
M4	40
M5	54

Latent Fingerprint Enhancement, Photography, and AFIS Analysis

Samples were analyzed using three fingerprint enhancement techniques: Magnetic powder (dust), cyanoacrylate fuming (cyano), and a combination of cyanoacrylate fuming followed by magnetic powder (CD). For both the cyanoacrylate fuming (cyano) and the combined technique (CD), samples were treated with 1 g of superglue (Diago, Thailand), which contains 99.5% ethyl cyanoacrylate, comparable to commercial fingerprint fuming glue.²¹ The samples were placed in a cyanoacrylate fuming chamber (Sirchie: CA48T) for a fuming process that lasted 40 minutes. For the combined technique (CD), after the samples were fumed, magnetic powder (Hangzhou, China) was applied to the prints to further enhance the visualization of the latent fingerprints.

All fingerprints were photographed in a laboratory using a Canon PowerShot G7X Mark II camera with a 20.1-megapixel resolution, f/4 aperture, 1/125 s shutter speed, and ISO 400. The photographs were taken under ambient laboratory lighting and subsequently analyzed using AFIS to detect the minutiae.

Quality Assessment

The visual quality of developed fingerprints was evaluated using the Center for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) grading scale (Table 3).²²

Table 3.

The CAST Grading Scale.¹⁸

Grade	Detail Visualized
0	No development
1	Signs of contact but <1/3 of mark with continuous ridges
2	1/3–2/3 of mark with continuous ridges
3	>2/3 of mark with continuous ridges, but not quite a perfect mark
4	Full development–whole mark clear with continuous ridges

Statistical Analysis

The percentage of minutiae was calculated using the formula: (Minutiae of each factor × 100)/Reference minutiae from each donor. Before analysis, the assumptions for parametric testing were evaluated. Data normality was assessed using histograms and frequency curves. Due to non-normal distribution, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to compare differences across groups. All analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8.3.0.

Result

The Effect of Hand Sanitizers

The fingerprint enhancement results for the four different hand sanitizers using the magnetic powder (dust) technique are illustrated in Figure 1. Beginning with the control sample (C-dust), which was not treated with any alcohol-based sanitizer, it displays clear ridge details with minimal background interference, indicating effective enhancement. In contrast, the water alcohol hand sanitizer (W-dust) reveals partial ridge clarity, although it presents some background noise and granulation. This suggests that water-based sanitizers may cause slight interference when magnetic powder is applied. Similarly, the gel alcohol hand sanitizer (G-dust) produces moderate ridge definition; however, gaps in ridge detail and background granulation indicate that gel-based sanitizers may leave residues that hinder the effectiveness of the magnetic powder. On the other hand, the BAC non-alcohol hand sanitizer (B-dust) exhibits good ridge detail with relatively minimal background interference, implying that this type of sanitizer may be less disruptive to the enhancement process compared to alcohol-based sanitizers. Furthermore, the fingerprint treated with Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer (D-dust) shows clear ridge details comparable to the control sample, exhibiting sharp and well-defined ridges with minimal background noise.

Figure 1.

Fingerprint Enhancement Results Using Magnetic Powder (Dust) Following Treatment with Various Hand Sanitizers (C: Control, W: Water Alcohol Hand Sanitizer, G: Gel Alcohol Hand Sanitizer, B: Benzalkonium Chloride Non-alcohol Hand Sanitizer, and D: Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer).

The fingerprint enhancement results using two different techniques, cyanoacrylate fuming (cyano) on the left side of each fingerprint and a combination of cyanoacrylate fuming followed by magnetic powder (CD) on the right side, are compared across all samples (Figure 2). In the control sample (C), the cyanoacrylate fuming technique produces faint ridge details with some background noise, offering limited clarity, whereas the combined technique (CD) significantly improves ridge definition and minimizes background interference, demonstrating the effectiveness of using both techniques together. Similarly, for the water alcohol hand sanitizer sample (W), cyanoacrylate fuming yields moderately visible ridges with some blurring, while the CD technique provides sharper ridge details and reduces background noise, suggesting enhanced visibility even with alcohol-based sanitizers. This trend continues with the gel alcohol hand sanitizer sample (G), where cyanoacrylate fuming resulted in largely non-visible ridge patterns, but the CD technique still generated clearer, more defined ridges, indicating that the combined approach mitigates interference from gel-based sanitizers. In the BAC non-alcohol hand sanitizer sample (B), the cyanoacrylate fuming method delivers reasonably clear ridge details, although some background noise is present, while the CD technique further refines the clarity and reduces interference, offering a more defined fingerprint pattern. Final, in the Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer sample (D), while cyanoacrylate fuming produces moderate clarity, the CD technique leads to a substantial improvement in ridge sharpness and detail.

Figure 2.

Fingerprint Enhancement Results Using Two Different Techniques—Cyanoacrylate Fuming (Cyano) on the Left Side and a Combination of Cyanoacrylate Fuming Followed by Magnetic Powder (CD) on the Right Side (C: Control, W: Water-based Alcohol Hand Sanitizer, G: Gel-based Alcohol Hand Sanitizer, B: Benzalkonium Chloride Non-alcohol Hand Sanitizer, D: Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer).

Latent fingerprints developed using different techniques (Figure 3)—cyanoacrylate fuming (A) and the combination of cyanoacrylate fuming with magnetic powder (CD) (B)—were subsequently analyzed by the AFIS. While the raw photographs of the developed prints (A1 and B1) contained background noise and unclear details, processing through AFIS (A2 and B2) automatically enhanced image clarity and emphasized minutiae points. AFIS processing reduced noise and sharpened the ridge patterns, which allowed for better identification of the latent fingerprints. For the latent fingerprint developed with cyanoacrylate fuming (A2), although some background noise remained, AFIS effectively enhanced the image, making several minutiae points visible. In comparison, the fingerprint developed using the CD technique (B2) exhibited even greater clarity after AFIS processing, with significantly reduced noise and more clearly defined minutiae points.

Figure 3.

Latent Fingerprints After Being Analyzed by AFIS. Legend: A = Latent Fingerprint Developed by Cyano; B = Latent Fingerprint Developed by CD, 1 = Raw Photograph Before Processing, 2 = Image After Analysis by AFIS.

The Quality of Latent Fingerprints

The quality of the developed fingerprints was evaluated using the CAST grading scale (Table 3), with the results for each hand sanitizer presented in Figures 4 and 5. The CAST grading scale evaluates fingerprint quality by assigning grades from zero (poor quality, unsuitable for identification) to four (excellent quality, suitable for identification). The results (Figure 5) demonstrate the varying effectiveness of fingerprint development techniques across different hand sanitizers compared to the control (C). The analysis focuses on latent fingerprint quality, highlighting the differences in outcomes when using magnetic powder (dust), cyanoacrylate fuming (cyano), and a combination of cyanoacrylate fuming followed by magnetic powder (CD).

Figure 4.

Quality Distribution of Latent Fingerprints According to the CAST Grading Scale.

Figure 5.

Summary of CAST Grading Scale Results for Each Hand Sanitizer, Broken Down by Development Technique: (A) = Latent Fingerprints Developed by Magnetic Powder (Dust); (B) = Latent Fingerprints Developed by Cyanoacrylate Fuming (Cyano); (C) = Latent Fingerprints Developed by a Combination of Cyanoacrylate Fuming Followed by Magnetic Powder (CD). (Abbreviations: C = Control, W = Water-based Alcohol Hand Sanitizer, G = Gel-based Alcohol Hand Sanitizer, B = Benzalkonium Chloride Non-alcohol Hand Sanitizer, D = Dettol Instant Hand Sanitizer).

For fingerprints enhanced with magnetic powder (Dust) (Figure 5A), the control sample (C-dust) showed a reasonably even distribution across the quality spectrum, with 30% of latent fingerprints achieving grade two and another 30% in grade three. However, only 16.67% reached the highest quality (grade 4), reflecting moderate effectiveness. When hand sanitizers were introduced, significant differences arose. For instance, fingerprints treated with water alcohol (W-dust) and gel alcohol (G-dust) showed a substantial reduction in quality. For both sanitizers, the majority of fingerprints clustered around grades two and three, with minimal representation in grade four (13.33%). These results suggest that alcohol-based hand sanitizers hinder the magnetic powder’s ability to develop latent fingerprints effectively. Conversely, BAC (B-dust) resulted in a higher proportion of high-quality fingerprints, with 56.67% of latent prints achieving grade four. This indicates that non-alcohol-based sanitizers have less detrimental impact on the magnetic powder technique.

Enhancement with cyanoacrylate fuming (Figure 5B) demonstrated moderate effectiveness for the control sample (C-cyano), with a significant portion of the fingerprints (56.67%) achieving grade two, but only 10% reaching grade four. When sanitizers were introduced, water alcohol (W-cyano) drastically reduced fingerprint quality, with 70% of prints falling into grade two and only 6.67% in grade four. Gel alcohol (G-cyano) showed similar results but with a slightly higher distribution of prints in grades three and four (23.33% and 10%, respectively). The use of BAC (B-cyano), however, allowed better results, with 66.67% fingerprints in grade three and a small portion (3.33%) in grade four. This indicates that while cyanoacrylate fuming is moderately effective, its performance is notably impacted by alcohol-based sanitizers, although less so with non-alcohol-based alternatives.

However, the combination technique (CD) (Figure 5C) proved to be the most effective across all samples, consistently producing higher quality fingerprints. For the control sample (C-CD), the combined technique significantly improved fingerprint quality, with 43.33% of fingerprints in grade three and 10% in grade four. When alcohol-based sanitizers were used, such as water alcohol (W-CD) and gel alcohol (G-CD), the CD technique still demonstrated superior performance compared to the individual dust or cyano methods. In the W-CD sample, 53.33% of fingerprints were in grade three, and 13.33% reached grade four. Similarly, G-CD results showed a strong distribution of prints in grades three and four, with 46.67% and 10%, respectively. The results for BAC (B-CD) further emphasized the effectiveness of the CD technique, with 43.33% fingerprints in grade three and 36.67% in grade four, marking this combination technique as the most reliable and least affected by sanitizers.

Ranking of Alcohol-based Fingerprint Detection Techniques

A Kruskal–Wallis test comparing the minutiae counts for each technique across all sanitizer types (Table 4) revealed statistically significant differences.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistical Results and Mean Rank Comparison of Development Techniques. Alues Represent the Percentage of Minutiae Recovered from Hand Sanitizer-treated Samples, Calculated Relative to the Reference Minutiae from Each Donor. C = Control Group (Samples not Treated with Hand Sanitizer) (p ≤ .05, p ≤ .01, p ≤ .001).

Hand Sanitizer	Techniques	N	Min(%)	Max(%)	Mean(%)	Mean Rank	Ranking	p Value	p Value Control-techniques	p Value Dust-CD
W	Control	90	0.00	95.65	12.67	97.16		.003**		.999
	Dust	30	0.00	28.26	6.90	92.92	2		.999
	Cyano	30	0.00	4.35	0.36	63.22	3		.002**
	CD	30	0.00	66.04	19.51	95.40	1		.999
G	Control	90	0.00	95.65	12.67	93.66		.000***		.999
	Dust	30	0.00	53.66	13.50	103.7	2		.999
	Cyano	30	0.00	0.00	0.00	54.50	3		.001***
	CD	30	0.00	69.81	12.34	103.9	1		.999
B	Control	90	0.00	95.65	12.67	78.99		.000***		.002**
	Dust	30	2.13	100.00	62.89	151.7	1		.000***
	Cyano	30	0.00	17.39	0.58	47.98	3		.015*
	CD	30	0.00	83.02	27.38	106.3	2		.047*
D	Control	90	0.00	95.65	12.67	88.78		.000***		.999
	Dust	30	0.00	82.61	27.67	114.1	1		.064
	Cyano	30	0.00	0.00	0.00	52.00	3		.001**
	CD	30	0.00	73.58	19.01	110.6	2		.165

Specifically, the cyanoacrylate fuming (cyano) technique showed a significant negative impact from most sanitizers (p < .05) when compared to the control. The mean minutiae counts for the sanitizer-treated samples (W, G, B, D) when developed with cyano were exceptionally low (ranging from 0.00 to 0.58), in stark contrast to the control (C-Cyano), which had a mean count of approximately 12.67.

Conversely, statistically significant differences (p < .05) were also found for the magnetic powder (dust) technique, but these indicated an improvement. Fingerprints treated with BAC (B-dust) and Dettol (D-dust) yielded mean minutiae counts (27.67 and 62.89, respectively) that were significantly higher than the control (C-Dust).

Ranking the most suitable techniques for use with each hand sanitizer, it was found that for water alcohol (W) and gel alcohol (G), the best technique was cyanoacrylate fuming combined with magnetic powder (CD), followed by magnetic powder (dust). For BAC (B) and Dettol (D), the best technique was magnetic powder (dust), followed by cyanoacrylate fuming combined with magnetic powder (CD). However, when these top two techniques were compared directly for these samples, no statistically significant differences (p > .05) were found. These two techniques were therefore selected for use in the mockup study phase.

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of four hand sanitizers on latent fingerprint quality on Metronic poly mailers using three visualization techniques. As described by Yamashita and French, the adhesion of magnetic powder primarily depends on moisture from skin oils, sweat, and sanitizer residues.⁴ While various herbal and non-conventional powder formulations have been explored for latent print development on different surfaces,¹⁵ our study confirms that standard magnetic powder remains highly efficient on white Metronic poly mailers due to the excellent contrast provided by the background.

Cyanoacrylate fuming alone (cyano) showed limitations on the white substrate due to the lack of contrast from the white polymer. However, the sequential CD technique (fuming followed by magnetic powder) effectively compensated for this, significantly enhancing ridge definition.¹⁶ Consequently, techniques utilizing magnetic powder (dust and CD) demonstrated superior performance for fingerprint recovery in this experiment.

Analyzing the chemical effects, alcohol-based sanitizers (W and G) resulted in latent prints with fewer visible minutiae compared to non-alcohol or control groups. The cleansing properties of alcohol likely contribute to this by stripping the skin of natural moisture and oils, which are critical for latent fingerprint formation and development.^{5, 23} The presence of propylene glycol in the gel sanitizer (G) acted as a humectant, retaining some moisture and mitigating the adverse effects of alcohol.⁵

Conversely, the non-alcohol-based sanitizer (B) and the alcohol-based Dettol Instant (D) enhanced fingerprint clarity. This suggests that moisturizing additives influence quality more than the alcohol base itself. The cucumber extract in sanitizer (B)²⁴ and aloe vera in sanitizer (D)¹⁰ help regulate sebum and hydrate the skin. These properties facilitate better residue deposition, allowing for effective recovery using dust and CD techniques.

Alcohol-based sanitizers degraded fingerprint quality when using the dust technique by removing the moisture necessary for powder adhesion.⁵ Similarly, the cyano technique was severely affected by the moisture-stripping effect. However, the sequential CD technique proved robust, yielding high-quality prints even when the initial polymerization was weak. This aligns with prior research indicating that alcohol-based sanitizers reduce latent print clarity on digital scanners.²⁰ Overall, formulations containing moisturizing additives (B and D) performed best, underscoring the critical impact of skin hydration on latent print visibility.

Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of selecting appropriate fingerprint development techniques based on the type of hand sanitizer present. Magnetic powder and cyanoacrylate fuming combined with magnetic powder (CD method) proved most effective on white Metronic poly mailers, especially when moisturizing additives were present in the sanitizer formulation. Formulations containing moisturizing agents, such as the cucumber extract in the BAC solution and the aloe vera in the Dettol sanitizer, helped preserve latent prints by maintaining moisture and mimicking natural skin secretions. These findings offer practical guidance for forensic professionals in adapting effective development methods to potential hand sanitizer residues at crime scenes.

Limitations

It is important to acknowledge some limitations of this study. The sample size of donors was relatively small, and the materials used (Metronic poly mailers) might not represent the diversity of surfaces encountered in real-world forensic scenarios. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that real-world conditions introduce significant variability from uncontrolled environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity, which can influence the persistence and subsequent development of latent prints. Additionally, this study focused on fingerprint development techniques and did not explore the impact of hand sanitizers on fingerprint identification accuracy using AFISs.

Future research could address these limitations by expanding the study to include a larger and more diverse sample population and testing fingerprint recovery on various surfaces commonly found at crime scenes. This should also include investigations into the effects of diverse environmental stressors (e.g., temperature cycles, UV exposure, and varying humidity) on the efficacy of the development techniques. Furthermore, investigating the compatibility of different hand sanitizers with AFIS technology would provide valuable insights for forensic practitioners.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Nakhon Sawan Provincial Police Forensic Science for their support in fingerprint analysis.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request from the authors

Declarations

We certify that the information given is true and complete to the best of our knowledge. We confirmed that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

Declaration of Conflict of Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Study protocols were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand, in accordance with the compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, the council for international organizations of medical sciences (CIOMS) guidelines, and the international practice (ICH-GCP) (COA No. 135/2564).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sunisa Aobaom

Punika Kongkraisin

Pratthana Phanthong

References

Yamini

, Barman

and Ganesh

A study on the pattern of fingerprint ridges for determination of gender in an ethnic Tamil population in Thiruporur Taluk of Tamilnadu. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2023; 45(2): 171–174.

Murkey

, Sutay

, Khandekar

, . Cheiloscopy-everything in nature is unique. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2008; 30(3): 194–197.

Srilekha

, Anuradha

, Vijay Srinivas

, . A study of efficacy of lip prints as an identification tool among the people of Karnataka in India. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2011; 33(3): 200–202.

Yamashita

and French

Chapter 7: Latent print development. In: The fingerprint sourcebook . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2010. pp.155–222.

Jing

JLJ

, Pei Yi

, Bose

RJC

, . Hand sanitizers: A review on formulation aspects, adverse effects, and regulations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(9): 3326.

Munoz-Figueroa

and Ojo

The effectiveness of alcohol-based gel for hand sanitising in infection control. Br J Nurs 2018; 27(7): 382–388.

Mal

and Mukherjee

Educational motivation and legislative approaches for safe and effective hand washes and hand rubs in hand health care during COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Pac J Public Health 2020; 32(8): 495–496.

Neufeld

, Lachenmeier

, Ferreira-Borges

, . Is alcohol an “Essential Good” during COVID-19? Yes, but only as a disinfectant! Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2020; 44(9): 1906–1909.

Sinha

, Yadav

and Singh Bumbrah

Potential utility of touch DNA in forensic investigations. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2021; 43(2): 180–184.

10.

Bondurant

, McKinney

, Bondurant

, . Evaluation of a benzalkonium chloride hand sanitizer in reducing transient staphylococcus aureus bacterial skin contamination in health care workers. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48(5): 522–526.

11.

Moadab

, Rupley

and Wadhams

Effectiveness of a nonrinse, alcohol-free antiseptic hand wash. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2001; 91(6): 288–293.

12.

Sodhi

and Kaur

Powder method for detecting latent fingerprints: A review. Forensic Sci Int 2001; 120(3): 172–176.

13.

Wilshire

Advances in fingerprint detection. Endeavour 1996; 20(1): 12–15.

14.

Thonglon

and Chaikum

Magnetic fingerprint powder from a mineral indigenous to Thailand. J Forensic Sci 2010; 55(5): 1343–1346.

15.

Kaur

and Kaur

Ashtagandha powder: A herbal formulation for deciphering latent fingerprints. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2017; 39(2): 136–140.

16.

Bumbrah

GS.

Cyanoacrylate fuming method for detection of latent fingermarks: A review. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2017; 7(1): 4.

17.

Wargacki

, Lewis

and Dadmun

MD.

Understanding the chemistry of the development of latent fingerprints by superglue fuming. J Forensic Sci 2007; 52(5): 1057–1062.

18.

Miller

MT.

Crime scene investigation laboratory manual . New York: Academic Press, 2018.

19.

Chadwick

, Neskoski

, Spindler

, . Effect of hand sanitizer on the performance of fingermark detection techniques. Forensic Sci Int 2017; 273: 153–160.

20.

Kumari

, Thakar

, Mondal

, . Effects of oils, lotions, hand sanitizers, and mehendi on fingerprints captured through digital fingerprint scanner. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2021; 11(1): 1–7.

21.

Phanthong

, Praihirunkit

, Jirasirisuk

, . Comparison of general cyanoacrylate and Sirchie cyanoacrylate for latent fingerprint on non-porous surfaces by cyanosafe fuming chamber with Airsafe controller. J Appl Sci 2021; 20(1): 104–117.

22.

International Fingerprint Research Group. Guidelines for the assessment of fingermark detection techniques. J Forensic Identif 2014; 64(2): 174–200.

23.

Park

and Hong

Development of latent fingerprints contaminated with ethanol on paper surfaces. Anal Sci Technol 2019; 32(3): 105–112.

24.

Akhtar

, Mehmood

, Khan

, . Exploring cucumber extract for skin rejuvenation. Afr J Biotechnol 2011; 10(7): 1206–1216.