Comparative Study of Conventional and Fluorescent Fingerprint Powders in Forensic Science

Abstract

Traditional fingerprint development techniques utilizing conventional powders such as black powder, red oxide, and aluminum powder often fail to perform consistently across various surface types. This inconsistency presents a considerable obstacle in forensic investigations, as latent fingerprints (LFPs) represent a critical form of biometric evidence. Detecting LFPs those unintentionally left at crime scenes and not visible to the naked eye is critical in associating individuals with criminal activity. This article presents a comparative analysis between two main categories of powders used in fingerprint development: Conventional fingerprint powders (CFPs), which are visible under ambient lighting, and Fluorescent Fingerprint Powders (FFPs), which fluoresce under Alternate Light Sources (ALS). This article adopted a qualitative research approach, utilizing an empirical design to gain in-depth insights into how crime scene officials in South African Police Service experience, perceive, and evaluate the use of conventional versus fluorescent fingerprint powders during latent fingerprint development. The purpose of this article is to compare the efficacy of fluorescent and conventional fingerprint powders (FFPs and CFPs) in the development of latent fingerprints (LFPs) at crime scenes. Some of the findings in this article indicates that FFPs reveal more ridge detail and higher clarity on multi-coloured, patterned, or dark surfaces due to fluorescence under UV or alternate light sources. CPFs may be less effective on such surfaces but work adequately on light, non-reflective surfaces. It is recommended that crime scene examiners should use CFPs for rapid field processing on smooth, non-complex surfaces. FFPs typically reveal more ridge detail and higher clarity on multi-coloured, patterned, or dark surfaces due to fluorescence under UV or alternate light sources. Findings stated that CPFs may be less effective on such surfaces but work adequately on light, non-reflective surfaces. CPFs do not perform better on porous surfaces (e.g., paper, unglazed wood). FFPs show superior results on non-porous nor porous surface (e.g., glass, plastic, metal), especially when viewed under proper lighting.