Accepted Manuscript

Title: A Validation Study of the 1,2-Indandione Reagent for

Operational Use in the UK: Part 3—Laboratory Comparison
and Pseudo-Operational Trials on Porous Items

Authors: Aoife Luscombe, Vaughn Sears

PII: S0379-0738(18)30200-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.042
Reference: FSI 9281

To appear in: FSI

Received date: 15-12-2017

Revised date: 12-4-2018
Accepted date: 18-4-2018

Please cite this article as: Aoife Luscombe, Vaughn Sears, A Validation Study of
the 1,2-Indandione Reagent for Operational Use in the UK: Part 3—Laboratory
Comparison and Pseudo-Operational Trials on Porous Items, Forensic Science
International https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.042

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
A Validation Study of the 1,2-Indandione Reagent for Operational Use in
the UK: Part 3 – Laboratory Comparison and Pseudo-Operational Trials
on Porous Items

Aoife Luscombe 1
Vaughn Sears 2,#

1
University of Surrey, Guildford, England

T
2,#
Corresponding author: Vaughn.Sears@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

R IP
Abstract:

SC
Laboratory trials, followed by a comparative pseudo-operational trial of a 1,2-
indandione/zinc formulation and 1,8-diazafluoren-9-one (DFO) was carried out on a range
of realistically-handled papers, card and cardboard. In laboratory trials over 7,500 split

U
marks were assessed and in the pseudo-operational trial in excess of 400 samples were
treated with each of these processes before all the samples were then treated with
N
ninhydrin.
A
The results presented from both stages of the trials establish that 1,2-indandione was the
M

most effective single process and that 1,2-indanedione followed by ninhydrin the most
effective process sequence, with ninhydrin developing a significant number of new marks
after 1,2-indandione.
ED
PT

Keywords
1,2-indandione, IND, Zinc, 1,8-diazafluoren-9-one, DFO, Ninhydrin, Pseudo-Operational
E

Trial, Porous surfaces.

CC
A

1
Introduction
1,8-diazafluoren-9-one (DFO) reacts with amino acids in latent fingermarks to produce a
highly fluorescent product [1] and since its introduction into UK police service laboratories
in 1992 has been the most effective fingermark visualization process for porous surfaces
[2]. Previously ninhydrin was the process of choice for fingermark development on porous
surfaces, but rather than replace ninhydrin it was found that DFO could be used before
ninhydrin in sequence to visualize even more marks [2].

Ninhydrin and DFO are both applied in a solution containing a minimum amount of polar
solvents and a main carrier solvent. The main carrier solvent in non-flammable

T
formulations was first 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC113) [2,3] then later 1-
methoxynonafluorobutane [4,5,6] after CFC113 was banned under the terms of the

IP
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

R
1,2-indandione (IND) was one of a series of ninhydrin analogues being investigated at the
University of Pennsylvania in the mid-1990s and was observed to react with amino acids

SC
to a give a highly fluorescent bright pink product, now known as Joullié’s pink [7,8]. 1,2-
indandione was then extensively studied around the world as a fingermark visualization
method [9,10,11,12,13] with the result that several countries adopted it in favour of DFO.

U
However, in 2001 the UK found DFO to be more effective on operational material than 1,2-
indandione [14] so continued to use DFO. This finding was confirmed by an operational
N
trial in Canada which also demonstrated that DFO was more effective than 1,2-indandione
A
[15].

During early studies into the use of 1,2-indandione, it was noted that the intensity of the
M

fluorescence of developed fingerprints could be enhanced by subsequently toning 1,2-

indandione developed marks with metal salts [11]. It was then found that this post-
ED

treatment step could be eliminated by adding zinc salts directly to the treatment solution
[16,17]. This then lead to the development of other combined 1,2-indandione-zinc ion
formulations (1,2-indandione/zinc) each also confirming the increase in fluorescence over
1,2-indandione formulations that did not contain zinc ions [18,19].
PT

The UK Home Office looked at these formulations of 1,2-indandione/zinc and also

proposed another, which were then compared with DFO on planted marks, but again
E

found that on most paper types DFO gave more and brighter marks [20]. However, it was
CC

noted that on brown paper and cardboard the result was reversed.

Results of more recently reported comparisons have been consistent in showing the latest
1,2-indandione/zinc formulations to generally outperform DFO as a single process on most
A

types of paper studied. However, the issue of whether processing sequences incorporating
1,2 indandione outperform those incorporating DFO have been more variable. In one small
scale study conducted using single marks from a range of donors, the sequence DFO-
ninhydrin was found to develop more marks overall than the sequence 1,2 indandione-
ninhydrin [21]. A more comprehensive study using pseudo-operational material and more
extensive processing sequence (i.e. including physical developer followed by Nile Red)
found that the sequence incorporating 1,2-indandione/zinc recovered more marks overall

2
than the sequence incorporating DFO [22]. A recent study found the effectiveness of DFO
and 1,2-indandione formulations to be close but proposed the use of an 1,2-indandione
formulation over DFO [23] because of the additional cost of DFO and two other factors,
toxicity and flammability (although these assertions are inconsistent with the relevant
Safety Data Sheet [24]).

Other studies have investigated the use of sequences of processes from examining the
amounts of amino acids reacted by each of the reagents and have concluded that, in
addition to the known advantages of using ninhydrin after DFO, there is also a need to
follow 1,2-indandione/zinc with ninhydrin to maximise fingermark recovery [25,26,27].

T
Based on the results obtained from brown paper and cardboard [20], work has continued
in the UK to refine the 1,2-indandione/zinc formulation [28] and to identify the most

IP
appropriate processing conditions for operational implementation [29]. During this work the
modifications to the formulation were continuously compared to DFO across a range of

R
paper types and it became evident that the modified (CAST 2014) 1,2-indandione/zinc
formulation consistently outperformed DFO on most substrates evaluated. It was therefore

SC
decided that once formulation and processing conditions had been finalised, a final set of
laboratory trials would be conducted against DFO before proceeding to a pseudo-
operational trial investigating both DFO and CAST 2014 1,2-indandione/zinc in sequence
U
with ninhydrin. This would form the basis of a validation study to underpin operational
N
implementation of the process within the UK.
A
The work to optimise both formulation and processing conditions are reported in Parts 1
and 2 of this study [28,29], and this final element of the validation work reports the
M

outcomes of the laboratory trial and the pseudo-operational trial.

ED
E PT
CC
A

3
Experimental
Materials and Methods

Tables 1-4 contain the composition of reagents and the grade and suppliers of the
chemicals used.
Table 1: Formulation of 1, 2-indandione working solution [28]

Chemical Chemical Grade Quantity Supplier

1,2-indandione >99% 0.25g BVDA chemicals

T
Acetic Acid Analytical ≥99.7% 10 mL Sigma Aldrich

IP
Ethyl Acetate Analytical ≥99.7% 45 mL Sigma Aldrich

R
Methanol Analytical ≥99.7% 45 mL Sigma Aldrich

SC
HFE 7100 As supplied 1L 3M Novec

Zinc Chloride stock 1 mL Sigma Aldrich

U
N
Table 2: Formulation of Zinc Chloride stock solution [28]
A
Chemical Chemical Grade Quantity Supplier
M

Zinc Chloride Reagent grade ≥98% 0.1g Sigma Aldrich

ED

Acetic acid Analytical ≥99.7% 1 mL Sigma Aldrich

Ethyl Acetate Analytical ≥99.7% 4 mL Sigma Aldrich

PT

Table 3: Formulation of DFO working solution [30]

E

Chemical Chemical Grade Quantity Supplier

CC

1,8-Diazafluoren-9-one >99% 0.25g Sigma Aldrich

Acetic Acid Analytical ≥99.7% 20 mL Sigma Aldrich

A

Methanol Analytical ≥99.7% 30 mL Sigma Aldrich

HFE7100 As supplied 725 mL 3M Novec

HFE71DE As supplied 275 mL 3M Novec

4
 Table 4: Formulation of Ninhydrin working solution [30]

Chemical Chemical Grade Quantity Supplier

Ninhydrin >99% 5g Sigma Aldrich

Acetic Acid Analytical ≥99.7% 5 mL Sigma Aldrich

Ethyl Acetate Analytical ≥99.7% 2 mL Sigma Aldrich

Ethanol Analytical ≥99.7% 45 mL Hayman

T
HFE 7100 As supplied 1L 3M Novec

R IP
Stage 1: Laboratory trials

The laboratory trial utilised 9 different paper types, summarised in Table 5.

SC
Paper Description Colour Weight
Type (gsm)

U
N
1 Xerox Performer A4 (high quality) White 80
A
2 Wilkinsons Recycled A4 (low quality) White 80
M

3 Owl Brand manilla envelope A4 (high quality) Brown 115

4 Banner 100% recycled A4 White 80

ED

5 Amazon envelope (low quality) Brown 90

6 Thermal paper White 60

PT

7 Pukka Pad lined notepaper A4 White 80

E

8 Post-it note pad Yellow 70

CC

9 Card White 220

A

Table 5. Paper types used in the laboratory trials of 1,2-indandione/zinc against DFO

The techniques were compared using a split-depletion series methodology [31,32].

Fingermarks were obtained from a range of donors to ensure representation of gender,
age and ethnicity. 12 donors were asked to deposit 6 natural marks (i.e. not controlled or

5
deliberately groomed) down a column with the same finger as shown in Figure 1. Donors
were asked not to wash their hands or apply hand lotion 30mins before depositing marks.

T
R IP
SC
U
N
Figure 1: Sample layout used for deposition of split depletion series in laboratory trials in a
A
comparison of process A (e.g. 1,2 indandione) with process B (e.g. DFO)
M

Marks were aged for two different periods. One set of samples was processed after the
ED

marks had aged a week and the others after 3 weeks.

Samples were cut into strips before processing, being drawn through troughs of the
appropriate (DFO or 1,2-indandione/zinc) working solution using photographic print tongs
PT

then left to dry in a fume hood on tissue. Once dried the items were placed on cardboard
trays and heated in an oven at the selected conditions of time and temperature.
E

A Heraeus D-6450 oven was used for all processing. The oven temperature was allowed
to stabilise for 1 hour, and the oven door was opened for no more than 30 seconds when
CC

taking out/ putting in samples to ensure the temperature remained constant. Substrates
treated with Indandione were processed at 100°C for 10 minutes. Items treated with DFO
were processed at the standard operational conditions of 100°C for 20 minutes, with a
A

further set processed at a higher temperature of 140°C for 20 minutes as previous work on
processing conditions had indicated this may give improved results.

Marks were assessed under fluorescence examination, using a Coherent TracER

Compact 532 nm green laser with output power of 6W and scoring the quality of the
developed mark according to the grading scheme in Table 6.

6
 Grade Description of level of detail present

0 No evidence of fingermark

1 evidence of contact but no ridge detail observed

2 less than ⅓ clear ridge detail present across original contact area

3 ⅓ to ⅔ clear ridge detail present across original contact area

T
4 over ⅔ clear ridge detail present across original contact area

R IP
Table 6: The numerical grading scheme used to grade the level of detail in any chemically

SC
enhanced friction ridge [31,32]

U
A Foster and Freeman 80S green (500-550nm) Crimelite® clamped in a fixed geometry
with a Minolta LS-100 luminance meter [28] was also used to measure the intensity of
N
fluorescence from the developed fingermarks.
A
M

Stage 2: Pseudo-operational trial

A wide range (over 850 items) of discarded porous material was collected from a variety of
ED

sources, including waste bins, packaging from goods and surrendered by staff when no
longer required. This was done so that items were representative of those submitted to an
operational laboratory and includes substrates such as white and coloured papers, white
and brown envelopes, card and cardboard. It was not possible to include semi-porous
PT

items as this would have extended the trial beyond the resources that were available.
However, items with surface printing were not excluded and this may have had an effect
E

on the porosity of some items.

CC

Items were randomly divided into 2 lots, smaller items were kept whole and similar items
distributed equally between the two lots and larger items, such as cardboard boxes and
wrapping paper were halved and then a half was placed in each lot. The processing
A

sequence used is illustrated in Figure 2.

7
 T
R IP
SC
Figure 2 Processing sequence followed for the pseudo-operational trial

U
Items in each lot were treated with either 1,2-indandione/zinc or DFO then all items were
N
subsequently treated with ninhydrin. Thermal coated papers were first soaked in acetone
(supplied by Sigma Aldrich) to remove the thermal sensitive layer before treating with 1,2-
A
indandione or DFO [30].
M

Sequential processing of the items with a second process (ninhydrin) provides a measure
of the effectiveness of each single process and also whether there is added benefit in
applying processes in sequence to maximize fingermark recovery.
ED

Smaller items were treated by drawing through a dipping tray containing the appropriate
working solution and larger items were painted with the working solution using a soft
synthetic paint brush, then left to ‘dry’ before heating [30].
PT

1,2-indandione/zinc and DFO treated items were processed in an Hereaus drying oven at
100 °C, 1,2-indandione/zinc for 10 minutes and DFO for 20 minutes [30]. Items treated with
E

ninhydrin were heated and humidified in a Weiss-Gallenkamp humidity oven at 80°C and
CC

65% relative humidity for 5 minutes [30]. Plastic windows were removed from envelopes
prior to treatment as these were found to deform at the temperatures being used and
these non-porous surfaces were unimportant in the trial being conducted.
A

Marks developed using both 1,2-indandione/zinc and DFO were examined using a 6W
Coherent TracER Compact 532 nm green laser with a Schott glass OG570 long pass filter
and ninhydrin was examined under ‘white’ light. The 532 nm laser was used in preference
to other high intensity light sources, as it was most effective for both 1,2-indandione/zinc
and DFO. The green LED light sources available for this study tend to be more suited to
promoting the fluorescence of 1,2-indandione/zinc, and the use of a single green light
source suitable for both minimised this potential source of bias.

8
Samples treated with 1,2-indandione/zinc or DFO were stored in the dark after treatment
and were examined for fingermarks on the day of treatment or the following day as the
luminescence of both processes decrease over time [20]. Samples treated with ninhydrin
were examined the day following treatment and only once as subsequent development of
marks only proved significant on bank cheques [5] and none were included in this trial.

Visualized marks were counted by using an area criterion, such that any area of clear
ridge detail visualized was counted as “one mark” if the ridge detail was equal to or in
excess of 64 mm2. Examples of how this criterion is applied to a range of marks of good
quality are given in Figure 3 [31].

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
DFO Indandione Ninhydrin
M

Figure 3: Examples of fingermarks visualized with each process in the trial, where the area
of clear ridge detail comfortably exceeds 64 mm2.
ED

Results and Discussion

Stage 1: Laboratory trials
PT

The number of fingermarks given grades 3 or 4 on all paper types are summarised in
Figures 4 and 5, giving the results for 1 week old and 3 week old marks respectively. In
E

total 7,776 split marks were graded across all paper types. 144 fingermarks were
CC

processed on each paper type with each solution, so each bar represents the number of
marks from the total of 144 that were regarded as being potentially suitable for
identification.
A

9
 1,2-Indandione
DFO at 100 C
DFO at 140 C
120

100
Number of Marks Out of 144

80

60

40

T
20

IP
0
XEROX Wilkinsons Owl Brand HQ Recycled Amazon LQ Thermal Pukka pad Post-it notes White Card
Brown Banner Brown

R
Paper type

SC
Figure 4. Comparison of number of marks graded 3 or 4 after processing 1 week old
samples with 1,2-indandione/zinc, DFO at 140°C and DFO at 100°C.
1,2-Indandione

120 U DFO at 100 C

DFO at 140 C
N
100
A
Number of Marks Out of 144

80
M

60
ED

40

20
PT

0
XEROX Wilkinsons Owl Brand HQ Recycled Amazon LQ Thermal Pukka pad Post-it notes White Card
Brown Banner Brown
Paper type
E

Figure 5. Comparison of number of marks graded 3 or 4 after processing 3 weeks old

CC

samples with 1,2-indandione/zinc, DFO at 140°C and DFO at 100°C.

A

From Figures 4 and 5 it is clear that 1,2-indandione/zinc produced the highest number of
useful marks, and on most surfaces this was followed by DFO processed at 140°C and
then DFO at the standard processing temperature of 100°C.

There are differences observed between the recovery rates of high quality fingermarks
between the different substrates used, for example recovery rates tend to be highest on
white papers (e.g. Xerox and Pukka Pad) and are lowest on the brown envelopes and

10
thermal papers. However, the trends in recovery rates are similar for all three sets of
samples and there is no substrate for which DFO outperforms 1,2-indandione/zinc.

The overall number of useful marks recovered decreased on the aged samples, and while
the solution used was the same for both processing periods this was considered
unimportant as solution effectiveness changes little over this period of time [28]. Changes
in the fingermark or interactions between fingermark and substrate are more likely to be
the cause.

The brightness of the marks was analysed by plotting the average luminance of all split
marks for a particular processing route against each paper type as shown in Figures 6-7.

T
14

IP
12
Average luminance (cd/m2)

R
10

SC
8

6
U IND
DFO (140°C)
N
4
DFO (100°C)
A
2
M

0
ED

Paper type
PT

Figure 6. Average luminance of marks after processing 1 week old samples with 1,2-
indandione/zinc, DFO at 140°C and DFO at 100°C.
E
CC
A

11
 20
18
Average luminance (cd/m2)

16
14
12
10
8 IND

6 DFO (140°C)

T
DFO (100°C)
4

IP
2
0

R
SC
Paper type

U
Figure 7. Average luminance of marks after processing 3 weeks old samples with 1,2-
N
indandione/zinc, DFO at 140°C and DFO at 100°C.
A
M

The results show that 1,2-indandione/zinc consistently produced the brightest marks on all
paper types and ages of mark when compared with both DFO at 100°C and DFO at
140°C.
ED

The results of grading and luminance measurements confirmed that the CAST 2014 1,2-
indandione/zinc formulation and processing conditions produced more marks of higher
quality than DFO under laboratory conditions, and was therefore suitable for taking forward
PT

into the more comprehensive pseudo-operational trial outlined below.

E

Stage 2: Pseudo-operational trial

CC

In all, 861 items were processed in the pseudo-operational trial, which consisted of 430
items processed with the 1,2-indandione/zinc - ninhydrin sequence and 431 similar items
A

being processed with the DFO – ninhydrin sequence. The high number of items used
reflected the need to get as wide a range of porous items as possible; similar to what is
seen in operational environments, and to ensure that a few items with many marks would
not skew the result towards one sequence of processes.

The results across all substrates examined are summarised in Figure 8. 1,2-
indandione/zinc proved to be the single most effective process visualizing 405 marks with
DFO visualizing 236 marks. 1,2-indandione/zinc followed by ninhydrin was the most
12
effective sequence developing a total 479 marks. Therefore ninhydrin developed 74 extra
marks. The sequence of DFO followed by ninhydrin developed 323 marks in total.

It is interesting that ninhydrin visualized 183 marks after DFO and 187 marks after 1,2-
indandione indicating that if there are any effects on ninhydrin from the first process in the
sequence they are similar for both DFO and 1,2-indandione/zinc.

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
PT

Figure 8 Comparison of the number of marks found with each process and by sequential
E

treatment overall in the pseudo-operational trial.

CC

Tables 7 and 8 give the breakdown of the number of items treated and the number of
marks visualized by each process on each paper type.
A

13
 Table 7: Breakdown of numbers of DFO and ninhydrin marks on each paper type

Paper Type # Items DFO Marks Nin Marks New Nin DFO + Nin
Marks Marks

Card - Brown 4 6 8 4 10

Card – Coloured 13 11 9 3 14

Card – White 2 0 0 0 0

Cardboard -

T
Brown 13 1 2 2 3

IP
Cardboard -
White 4 4 2 1 5

R
Envelope -
Brown 8 8 9 5 13

SC
Envelopes -
Coloured 17 2 1 0 2

Envelope - U
N
White 75 86 59 17 103
A
General Paper -
Coloured 13 10 6 2 12
M

General Paper -
White 116 61 63 43 104
ED

Jiffy envelope 3 1 0 0 1

Newspaper 17 0 1 1 1
PT

Post-it Note 16 16 8 3 19
E

Thermal Paper 101 24 15 6 30

CC

Ticket 20 3 0 0 3

Tissue paper 2 0 0 0 0
A

LQ Wrapping
paper 5 0 0 0 0

HQ Wrapping
Paper 2 3 0 0 3

Totals 431 236 183 87 323

14
 Table 8: Breakdown of numbers of 1,2-indandione/zinc and ninhydrin marks on each paper type

Paper Type # Items IND Marks Nin Marks New Nin IND + Nin
Marks Marks

Card - Brown 4 5 5 2 7

Card – Coloured 14 4 2 1 5

Card – White 2 1 0 0 1

Cardboard -

T
Brown 14 7 3 1 8

IP
Cardboard -
White 4 5 3 3 8

R
Envelope -
Brown 12 36 16 10 46

SC
Envelopes -
Coloured 70 88 24 8 96

Envelope - U
N
White 16 16 2 0 16
A
General Paper -
Coloured 19 15 6 0 15
M

General Paper -
White 109 158 82 29 187
ED

Jiffy envelope 5 5 0 0 5

Newspaper 17 2 2 2 4
PT

Post-it Note 15 17 14 6 23
E

Thermal Paper 102 40 24 10 50

CC

Ticket 17 1 1 1 2

Tissue paper 3 0 0 0 0
A

LQ Wrapping
paper 5 0 0 0 0

HQ Wrapping
Paper 2 5 3 1 6

Totals 430 405 187 74 479

15
The descriptions used for most of the paper types are self explanatory, ‘General paper’
mainly consisted of printer paper, but most items in this category had some printing on
them. LQ denotes a paper type of low quality (‘budget’ consumer brands) and HQ high
quality.

It can be seen that 1,2-indandione/zinc was more effective than DFO on all the paper
types with 15 or more items in the batches processed. However an observation from the
trial was that traditionally DFO may be expected to visualize approximately 1.6 times as
many marks as ninhydrin [33] but in this trial the ratio was much lower. There could be
many reasons for this but a clear difference between when the original DFO research was

T
conducted, throughout the 1990’s, and into the present day is that the amount of paper

IP
that is recycled has increased enormously. It would appear this has more of an impact on
DFO effectiveness than it does on 1,2-indandione/zinc, especially as it has been reported

R
that DFO was less effective on lower paper quality items such as brown envelopes and
cardboard [20], a result that was repeated in this trial. Differences between how DFO and

SC
1,2-indandione interact with porous substrates have been noted by other researchers [25].

The fact that an appreciable number of additional marks were detected by ninhydrin after

U
1,2-indandione/zinc was in contrast to findings in early studies of the 1,2-indandione
formulation (which at that time did not contain zinc salts) [12]. In this work, very few
N
additional marks were detected by subsequent use of ninhydrin and it was proposed by
those researchers that performance in a sequence is controlled by the reactivity and
A
kinetics of the amino acid reagents involved. Ninhydrin is more reactive than DFO and in
M

theory, can react more effectively with any residual amino acids making the DFO-ninhydrin
sequence an effective one. Because 1,2-indandione and ninhydrin are very similar in
structure, it was believed that they probably reacted with the same amino acids, leaving
ED

little unreacted residual material which explained the fact that few additional marks were
observed.

More recently, the DFO-ninhydrin sequence has been studied in more detail by Mink et al.
PT

[26] who demonstrated that ninhydrin reacts with a larger percentage of available amino
acids than DFO using quantitative chromatography methods, confirming earlier theories
regarding its greater reactivity. An equivalent study by Mangle et al. on the 1,2 indandione-
E

ninhydrin sequence [27] confirmed both that 1,2-indandione had a slightly different
CC

reactivity towards amino acids than ninhydrin, and that unreacted amino acids did remain
after initial treatment with 1,2-indandione. In this respect, the development of additional
marks in this study by ninhydrin is unsurprising.
A

The findings of this study are also consistent with other recent research into processing
sequences on porous surfaces by Marriott et al. [22], who compared results obtained on
one type of paper (examination booklets from two universities) in two different locations in
Australia (Sydney and Canberra) and found the sequence incorporating 1,2-
indandione/zinc to slightly outperform that with DFO in both cases. They also noted that
ninhydrin developed a significant number of additional marks after 1,2-indandione/zinc,
and although the number was slightly reduced compared to those developed after DFO,
16
the total number of marks developed by the 1,2-indandione/zinc sequence was greater
overall.

The difference found between these results and early observations could be due to several
factors; changes in formulations of indandione (which now contain zinc and in some cases
methanol), formulations of ninhydrin, treatment conditions used for either process, and
properties of the papers used including acidity, fillers and cellulose content. It is not
possible to state which is the major contributor from the evidence in this study.

Conclusions

T
IP
The results of this pseudo-operational trial are very clear. The CAST 2014 formulation of
1,2-indandione/zinc used in this pseudo-operational trial was much more effective than
DFO. Also ninhydrin visualized a significant number of extra fingermarks not developed by

R
1,2-indandione/zinc or DFO and is recommended to be used in sequence to maximize

SC
evidence recovery.

However, it should be considered that this is a pseudo-operational trial and while the
authors have tried to ensure that the collection, division and processing of samples are as
U
fair as possible they have been handled in routine use and not during the execution of a
N
criminal act. It is reasonable to expect that the composition of marks deposited while
carrying out a crime are likely to be different to those generated through the everyday
A
handling of items for a number of reasons, including the increased stress level of the
perpetrator, and therefore a monitored operational trial should be carried out before
M

implementation of a new process.

The benefits of conducting monitored operational trials have been shown during the
ED

implementation of previous changes to amino acid reagent formulations, which

demonstrated up to a 14% difference between effectiveness in laboratory and pseudo-
operational trials and results obtained on evidence from crime [5,6]. A situation arose in
PT

the 1970s where failure to run an operational trial resulted in the DMAC solution dipping
process, which had been shown to be more effective than ninhydrin in laboratory trials,
having to be withdrawn soon after its introduction because it was ineffective on older
E

marks [34]. In the work reported here the performance of the CAST 2014 1,2-indandione
CC

formulation is so consistently superior to DFO in all scenarios studied that it can be

recommended for use with confidence, but monitoring of results is still recommended.

The use of recycled and part-recycled materials will change the surface physics and
A

chemistry and this expected to influence the effectiveness of some fingermark visualization
processes. There have been several instances reported where the surface appears to play
an active role in the chemistry and physics of fingermark visualization processes
[25,35,36] therefore the effectiveness of fingermark visualization processes need to be
monitored as finished materials continue to change. More research into the interactions of
fingermarks, fingermark visualization processes and surfaces will help understanding and
maximize evidence gathered.

17
Keeping up with changes in finished materials due to the continued growth in the amount
and type of raw materials being recycled as well new materials will present an operational
challenge to fingermark visualization in the future.

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

18
References

[1] Grigg R.; Mongkolaussavaratana T.; Pounds C A; Sivagnanam S, 1,8-

Diazafluorenone and Related Compounds A New Reagent for the Detection of
Amino Acids and Latent Fingerprints, Tetrahedron Letters 1990, 31 (49), 7215.

[2] Kent T, editor, Manual of Fingerprint Development Techniques, 1st edition 2 nd

Revision, British Home Office, Sandridge 1992 ISBN 0 86252 230 7.

[3] Morris, J.R.; Goode, G.C., "NFN - an improved ninhydrin reagent for the detection of

T
latent fingerprints", Police Research Bulletin, 24, 1974, p 45-53.

IP
[4] Kent T, editor, Manual of Fingerprint Development Techniques, 2nd edition, British
Home Office, Sandridge 2001, ISBN 1 85893 972 0.

R
[5] Hewlett D, Sears V. An Operational Trial of Two Non-ozone Depleting Ninhydrin
Formulations for Fingerprint Development, J Forensic Identification, 1999, V49,

SC
No4, p388.

[6] Hewlett D, Sears V, Gardner S, Merrick S. An Operational Trial of Ozone Friendly

U
DFO and 1,2-Indandione Formulations for Latent Fingerprint Detection, J Forensic
Identification, 2002, V52, No5, p595.
N
[7] Ramatowski, R.; Cantu, A. A.; Joullié, M. M.; Petrovskaia, O. 1,2-Indanediones: A
A
Preliminary Evaluation of a New Class of Amino Acid Visualising Compounds.
Fingerprint Whorld, 1997, 23 (90), 131-140.
M

[8] Petrovskaia, O., Taylor, B., Hauze, D., Carroll, P., and Joullie, M. (2001)
‘Investigations of the reaction mechanisms of 1,2-indanediones with amino acids’, J.
ED

Org. Chem., vol 66, pp. 7666–7675.

[9] Hauze, D. B.; Petrovskaia, O.; Taylor, B.; Joullié, M. M.; Ramatowski, R.; Cantu, A.
PT

A. 1,2-Indandiones: New Reagents for Visualizing the Amino Acid Components of

Latent Prints. J. For. Sci. 1998, 43 (4), 744-747.

[10] Almog, J., Springer, E., Wiesner, S., Frank, A., Khodzhaev, O., Lidor, R., Bahar, E.,
E

Varkony, H., Dayan, S. and Rozen, S. (1999) ‘Latent Fingerprint Visualization by

CC

1,2-Indandione and Related Compounds: Preliminary Results’, J. Forens. Sci., vol.

44 (1), pp 114-118

[11] Roux, C., Jones, N., Lennard, C. and Stoilovic, M. ‘Evaluation of 1,2-Indanedione
A

and 5,6-Dimethoxy-1,2-Indanedione for the detection of latent fingerprints on porous

surfaces’, J. Forens. Sci., 2000 v45 (4), pp 761–769.

[12] Wiesner, S., Springer, E., Sasson, Y. and Almog, J., Chemical development of
latent fingerprints: 1, 2-indanedione has come of age. Journal of Forensic Science,
2001 v46(5), pp.1082-1084.

19
[13] Gardner, S. J. and Hewlett, D. 'Optimisation and Initial Evaluation of 1,2-Indandione
as a reagent for fingermark detection', J. Forens. Sci, 2003 v48 (6), pp 1288-1292

[14] Merrick, S.; Gardner, S. J.; Sears, V. G.; Hewlett, D. F. An Operational Trial of
Ozone-Friendly DFO and 1,2-Indanedione Formulations for Latent Fingerprint
Detection. J. Forensic Ident. 2002, 52 (5), 595-605.

[15] Wilkinson, D., McKenzie, E., Leech, C., Mayowski, D., Bertrand, S. and Walker, T.
(2003) 'The results from a Canadian national field trial comparing two formulations
of 1,8-diazafluoren-9-one (DFO) with 1,2-Indanedione', Ident. Canada, vol. 26 (2),
pp8-18

T
[16] Wallace-Kunkel, C.; Lennard, C.; Stoilovic, M.; Roux, C. Optimisation and

IP
Evaluation of 1,2-Indanedione for use as a Fingerprint Reagent and its Application
to Real Samples. For. Sci. Int. 2007, 168 (1), 14-26.

R
[17] Stoilovic, M.; Lennard, C.; Wallace-Kunkel, C.; Roux, C. Evaluation of a 1,2-
indanedione Formulation Containing Zinc Chloride for Improved Fingermark

SC
Detection on Paper. J. For. Ident. 2007, 57 (1), 4-18.

[18] Bicknell, D. E.; Ramotowski, R. S. Use of an Optimized 1,2-Indanedione Process for

U
the Development of Latent Prints. J. For. Sci. 2008, 53 (5), 1108-1116.
N
[19] Russell, S. E.; John, G. L.; Naccarato, S. Modifications to the 1,2-Indanedione/Zinc
Chloride Formula for Development of Latent Print Development. J. For. Ident. 2008,
A
58 (2), 182-192.
M

[20] Sears, V.; Batham, R.; Bleay, S. The Effectiveness of 1,2-Indandione-Zinc

Formulations and Comparison with HFE-Based 1,8-diazafluoren-9-one for
Fingerprint Development. J. Forensic Ident. 2009, 59 (6), 654-678
ED

[21] Porpiglia, N., Bleay, S., Fitzgerald, L. and Barron, L; ‘An assessment of the
effectiveness of 5-methylthioninhydrin within dual action reagents for latent
fingerprint development on paper substrates’. Science and Justice. 2012 V 52(1),
PT

pp 42 – 48

[22] Marriott, C., Lee, R., Wilkes, Z., Comber, B., Spindler, X., Roux, C., and Lennard,
E

C., (2014), ‘Evaluation of fingermark detection sequences on paper substrates’,

CC

Forens. Sci. Int., vol 236, pp 30-7

[23] D’Elia V, Materazzi S, Iuliano G, Niola L; Evaluation and comparison of 1,2-

indanedione and 1,8-diazafluoren-9-one solutions for the enhancement of latent
A

fingerprints on porous surfaces; Forensic Sci Int 2015 V254 p205.

[24] Safety Data Sheet HFE71DE, Issued 28/3/17 Version 41.06, 3M Company
Electronics Materials Solutions Division 3M Center, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000, USA.

[25] Spindler, X.; Shimmon, R.; Roux, C.; Lennard, C. The effect of zinc chloride,
humidity and the substrate on the reaction of 1,2-indanedione-zinc with amino acids
in latent fingermark secretions. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 212 (1-3), 150-157.
20
[26] Mink, T., Voorhaar, A., Stoel, R. and de Puit, M. (2013) ‘Determination of efficacy of
fingermark enhancement reagents; the use of propyl chloroformate for the
derivatization of fingerprint amino acids extracted from paper’, Sci. and Just., vol 53
(3), pp 301-308

[27] Mangle MF, Xu X, de Puit M; Performance of 1,2-indanedione and the need for
sequential treatment of fingerprints; Science and Justice 2015 V55 p343.

[28] Nicolasora N, Downham R, Hussey L, Luscombe A, Mayse K, Sears V; A Validation

Study of the 1,2-Indandione Reagent for Operational Use in the UK: Part 1 –
Formulation Optimization; Submitted for publication in Forensic Science
International.

T
IP
[29] Nicolasora N, Downham R, Dyer R-M, Hussey L, Luscombe A, Sears V; A
Validation Study of the 1,2-Indandione Reagent for Operational Use in the UK: Part
2 – Optimisation of Processing Conditions; Submitted for publication in Forensic

R
Science International.

SC
[30] Bandey, H. et al. Fingermark Visualisation Manual, Home office UK (2014) ISBN:
978-1-78246-234-7.

[31]
U
Sears, V. G., Bleay, S. M., Bandey, H. L. and Bowman, V. J. (2012) ‘A methodology
for finger mark research’ ,Science and Justice, vol 52(3) pp 145-60.
N
[32] IFRG, ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Fingermark Detection Techniques’, J.
A
Forens. Ident., vol. 64 (2), 2014, p174-200
M

[33] Hardwick S, Kent T, Sears V, Winfield P. Improvements to the Formulation of DFO

and the Effects of Heat on the Reaction with Latent Fingerprints, Fingerprint Whorld,
1993, V19, No73, p65.
ED

[34] Goode G C, Morris J R. Latent Fingerprints: A Review of Their Origin, Composition

and Methods for Detection. AWRE Report No. O 22/83[35] Downham, R.;
PT

Mehmet, S.; Sears V. G. A pseudo-operational investigation into the development of

latent fingermarks on flexible plastic packaging films, J Forensic Identification,
Nov/Dec 2012, V62 (6), p661.
E

[35] Spindler X, Stoilovic M, Lennard C Lennard A; Spectral Variations for Reaction

CC

Products Formed Between Different Amino Acids and Latent Fingermark Detection
Reagents on a Range of Cellulose-Based Substrates; J Forensic Identification,
2009, V59, No3, p309.
A

[36] Bacon S, Ojeda J J, Downham R.; Sears V G, Jones B J;. The effects of polymer
pigmentation on fingermark development techniques, J Forensic Sci, 2013 V58 (6),
p1486.

21