A pseudo-operational trial: An investigation into the use of longwave reflected UV imaging of cyanoacrylate developed fingermarks

Technical note: A preliminary assessment of UV-C imaging using the Full Spectrum Imaging System (FSIS-II) for the detection of latent fingermarks

The Full Spectrum Imaging System (FSIS-II) was assessed for the detection of latent fingermarks on a variety of substrates, specifically focusing on UV-C imaging for untreated marks and those that have been treated with cyanoacrylate (CA). The use of UV-C was effective at the detection of latent fingermarks on a variety of substrates and UV-C imaging may be effective when UV-A does not provide any fingermark detections on thermal paper. A Phase 2 and a small Phase 3 trials on aluminium cans were carried out with a detection sequence of UV-C imaging, CA fuming, UV-C imaging, UV-A imaging and BY40. For Phase 2 laboratory trials, the use of initial UV-C reflection was effective at removing the background and was a useful tool for initial screening. The use of UV-C was superior to UV-A after CA fuming and provided the highest overall number of high-quality marks. For phase 3 trials, the results showed that BY40 fluorescence was marginally more effective than UV-C imaging of CA-treated marks. This preliminary study shows that the FSIS-II and UV-C imaging can complement other methods for the detection of latent fingermarks.

Fingermark quality assessment, a transversal study of subjective quality scales

Fingermark detection research aims to improve the quantity and quality of fingermarks detected through the development of novel techniques. Subsequently, there is a need to evaluate these methods to determine the quality of the developed mark. Since the 1980's there has been a significant number of publications, which utilise a variety of different quality assessment methods. The introduction of common practice methods from the International Fingerprint Research Group (IFRG) aimed to implement a more standardised approach. Although these schemes are recommended as common practice, they are only guidelines. Consequentially, there is currently no universally accepted method to evaluate the enhancement techniques implemented in research. Therefore, this study aimed to collate and analyse the published protocols being used within fingermark detection research in order to better understand their application and how research is currently analysing and interpreting fingermark quality. This study comprised of manual and automatic searches of over 2000 published papers within the fingermark detection area. After thorough analysis of the articles, 396 published papers were found to have used a scale within the years spanning 1998-2022. The number of publications that report the use of a scale to assess quality for fingermark detection research has considerably increased over the last decade. However, whilst the number of publications utilising scales has increased, it is not proportional to the number of papers using the IFRG scales. The choice of scale is often institution specific and even more specific to their location. There are also numerous different adaptations of the IFRG recommended scales, as well as novel scales, which do not associate with the IFRG recommended versions being introduced the more research continues to grow. One such reason for this is investigated here, as different quality parameters are utilised within each individual scale. There is underrepresentation of these quality parameters within some of the IFRG scales, in particular the Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) scale. This correlates to the considerable number of tailored approaches as authors are forced to add these parameters within the descriptions. Until there is an introduction of clear guidelines surrounding all areas of fingermark quality, from definition to parameters chosen within phases, the research area will continue to face such issues. This article recommends areas of potential study, whilst also recommending procedures that may be employed to alleviate some of the issues seen with fingermark quality evaluation.