J Forensic Sci, May 2015, Vol. 60, No.

3
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12719
TECHNICAL NOTE Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

CRIMINALISTICS

Serkan G€
urb€uz,1 M.Sc; Bahar Ozmen
€ Monkul,1 Ph.D.; Tu"gba Ipeksac
_ !,1 M.Eng.;
Merve G€urtekin Seden,1 Ph.D.; and Melek Erol,1 Ph.D.

A Systematic Study to Understand the Effects

of Particle Size Distribution of Magnetic
Fingerprint Powders on Surfaces with Various
Porosities*

ABSTRACT: This study intends to design magnetite (Fe3O4)-based magnetic fingerprint powders with different particle size distributions.
It also investigates the influence of particle size distribution on the visualization of latent fingermarks with as little background staining as pos-
sible on the surfaces with various porosities in a systematic way. Two strategies were used to prepare the magnetic fingerprint formulations for
this study: milling of coarse magnetite particles for different durations, and mixing of sieved fine particles with different size ranges with coarse
particles. Particle size analyses of the prepared magnetic powders, optical microscopy-based roughness analysis of the surfaces and SEM mea-
surements of the visualized fingerprints and representative powders were performed. Mag2 of the formulations prepared through milling and
Mag5 and Mag6 of the formulations prepared through sieving and mixing were more successful in the development of latent prints than the rest
of the solutions.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, fingerprint development, magnetic powdering, magnetite, powder processing, surface porosity

Latent or invisible fingerprint development has been used for
criminal investigation for more than 100 years. Latent fingerprints
have been visualized by various chemical or physical techniques
such as powdering, fuming with cyanoacrylate esters (1,2),
spraying with iodine/benzoflavone solution (3,4), vacuum metal
deposition (5), and treatment with amino acid active reagents such
as ninhydrin (6), 1,2-indanedione (7), DFO (7,8), and several
naphthoquinone derivatives (9). However, the most widely used
method at a crime scene is the fingerprint powdering (10,11).
Many different types of fingerprint powders are present today
such as black, white, fluorescent, or magnetic fingerprint pow-
ders, which are used to make latent fingerprints visible. They are
used in various compositions and colors depending on the type
and the color of the surface on which the latent prints were left.
Fingerprint powders should provide a sufficient color contrast
with the surface being powdered. Particle size and shape of the
fingerprint powders are other critical factors for the ridge detail
development. Generally, the finer particles adhere to the ridges
of the latent prints more than the coarser ones. Therefore, the
regular fingerprint powders are usually composed of fine
powders with diameter of 1–10 lm (10).
Selection of regular or magnetic fingerprint powders mostly
depends on the type and the porosity of the surface where the
1
TUBITAK Marmara Research Center, Chemistry Institute, 41470, Gebze,
Kocaeli, Turkey.
*Supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Tur-
key (TUBITAK) KAMAG 1007 Program (Project no: 110G085).
Received 29 Aug. 2013; and in revised form 10 Feb. 2014; accepted 13
May 2014.
fingerprint is left. For example, regular fingerprint powders are
mostly used on nonporous surfaces with a fingerprint brush.
However, their usage on porous surfaces as well as on many
plastics and textured surfaces is more challenging. For such dif-
ficult surfaces, magnetic flake powders are more effective to
make latent fingerprints visible than the conventional powders
(11). This is because they have a larger optimum diameter than
the conventional powders and they generate a lower “back-
ground staining” as the excess powder particles could be
removed by a strong magnetic applicator without touching the
surface. Magnetic fingerprint powders are suitable to use on non-
magnetic surfaces, and they work well on surfaces such as vinyl
imitation leather, lightly textured automobile dashboards, and
door panels compared to regular powders (12). However, for
porous surfaces such as paper, they are only good to use for
newly deposited fingerprints. For the development of latent
prints aged more than one day on such surfaces, chemical
processing techniques are necessary (11).
There are several papers on the preparation of magnetic fin-
gerprint powders (13–17). Magna flake powders composed of
milled iron particles were intensely studied by Wilshire and
coworkers (13–15). In their first work in 1991, they produced
various metallic flakes with controlled particle size and stearic
acid content including iron flakes with average flake diameters
of 3, 10, 25, and 50 lm and a flake thickness of c. 0.5 lm (13).
They studied the effectiveness of these iron flakes as a magnetic
fingerprint powder. They claimed that the iron flakes with 3 lm
size resulted in a high background staining, whereas the flakes
with particle sizes of 10 and 25 lm and a stearic acid weight
percent of 3 to 5 were more successful in the development of

© 2015 American Academy of Forensic Sciences 727

728 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
1-day-old latent prints on glass plates. The second work of Wil-
shire and coworkers, in 1993, concentrated on the production of
magnetic flake powders for the bright latent print development
on dark surfaces (14). For this purpose, they prepared flakes of
carbonyl iron, austenitic stainless steel, ferritic stainless steel,
cobalt, nickel, and pure iron through high-energy ball milling in
the presence of stearic acid. Compared to commercial aluminum
fingerprint powders, the magnetic flake powders obtained from
carbonyl iron and austenitic stainless steel were almost equally
successful on the development of fingerprints on nonporous sur-
faces and they were even better on rough surfaces. In their third
work, in 1995, a size study of iron flakes through sieving to
obtain size ranges of below 20 lm, 20–32 lm, 32–38 lm, and
above 38 lm was conducted (15). They claimed that the magna
flakes in the 20 to 32 lm size range were more successful to
obtain good ridge details with negligible surface staining on var-
ious types of papers. Use of coarse particles was omitted in the
works of Wilshire and coworkers, which generally resulted in
more background staining on rough surfaces and a more power-
ful magnet was required to remove the excess of fine powder
particles.
Magnetic iron flake particles with 25–30 lm size range and
below 10 lm were also prepared through dry milling by Nag
et al. (16) for the purpose of production of magnetic fingerprint
powder for light-colored surfaces with a wide range of textures.
Both powders were successful in the development of latent
prints on white paper with a darker background formation with
the magnetic powder of finer iron flakes. Thonglon and Chai-
kum prepared a magnetic fingerprint powder by mixing c. 5-lm
magnetite and c. 120-lm nickel in a mass ratio of 1:100 and
applied it to develop 1-day-old to 28-day-old latent prints on a
variety of nonporous surfaces such as plastic bag, aluminum
plate, ceramic tile, and glass plate (17).
Many commercial black magnetic powders are composed of
milled magnetic particles of iron or iron oxide. They generally
have a very heterogeneous size distribution where the coarse par-
ticles form a brushlike assembly when applied with a magnetic
Fig. 1––Schematic of the preparation of magnetic fingerprint powder formulations.
applicator and carry the finer particles onto the latent prints. The
size distribution and the ratio of coarse-to-fine particles in a
magnetic fingerprint powder are very important parameters to
get a high performance for visualization of latent prints on the
surfaces with different porosities. A size optimization is neces-
sary to obtain clear fingerprints with as little background color-
ing as possible on a broad range of surfaces.
To our knowledge, there is no systematic study present that
explains the influence of particle size distribution on the effec-
tiveness of magnetic fingerprint powders applied to the surfaces
with various porosities. To understand these effects, more
research is necessary. In this study, in an effort to better under-
stand the effects of particle size distribution and the ratio of
coarse-to-fine particles for nonflake, magnetite-based magnetic
fingerprint powders on the development of latent prints and the
background staining, various fingerprint powder formulations
were prepared by milling and sieving techniques. Then, these
formulations were applied on a broad range of porous surfaces
for the development of latent prints to evaluate the influence of
particle size distribution for the achievement of clear and visible
fingerprints with low background stainings.
Materials and Methods
Magnetic Fe3O4 particles were generously supplied by AMR
Madencilik A.S ! ., Turkey. Powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) data
of the as-obtained Fe3O4 particles were measured with a Rigaku
Miniflex600 desktop X-ray diffractometer using Cu-Ka radiation
(1.54 !
A) operating at 40 kV and 15 mA. A Fritsch Planetary
Mono Mill Pulverisette 6 ball mill was used for the milling
of magnetite at 400 rpm and in the presence of 50 pieces of
10-mm stainless steel balls for 5, 15, and 60 min, respectively.
A 250-mL stainless steel grinding bowl was used during the
grinding processes. A high-energy ball mill, Spex SamplePrep
8000D Dual Mixer/Mill (clamp speed of 1060 rpm for 115 V/
60 Hz operation), was used for the mixing of fine and coarse
magnetite particles without using any grinding balls. Particle size
 € UZ
GURB € ET AL.
Fig. 2––Optical microscope images of a) smooth glass slide, b) smooth porcelain dish, c) A4 copier paper, d) Whatman black filter paper, e) raw wood sur-
face, and f) bare filter paper (Close-up photographs of porous surfaces are given as insets).
measurement of each magnetic powder was performed by a
Mastersizer 2000 Particle Size Analyzer. Optical microscope
images of the surfaces used for latent print development studies
were taken by a Nikon Eclipse (lv100 pol) optical microscope
attached with a CCD camera. Close-up photographs of the repre-
sentative surfaces were taken by a Nikon D-90 camera with a
Sigma 17–70 mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM lens. SEM
images of the representative fingerprint powders and the finger-
prints developed with these powders on glass surfaces were
taken using a JEOL 6335F scanning electron microscope.
Fingerprint Powder Preparation
A brief summary of the preparation of the fingerprint powder
formulations studied in this work is schematically shown in
Fig. 1. First of all, Fe3O4 powder was sieved through 40- and
150-lm-pore-sized sieves. The powder with particles in the
40–150 lm size range, as shown in Fig. 1, was named as coarse
particles. This powder was also used directly as one of the fin-
gerprint powder formulations with a code of Mag8. These coarse
particles were used in the magnetic fingerprint powder formula-
tions to form a brushlike assembly when applied with a mag-
netic applicator. Two strategies were used to prepare the
magnetic fingerprint formulations for this study. As the first
strategy, some of the coarse particles were milled in a ball mill
at 400 rpm and in the presence of 50 pieces of 10-mm stainless
steel balls for varying times to produce formulations with differ-
ent particle size distributions. The magnetic fingerprint powder
. MAGNETIC FINGERPRINT POWDER PARTICLE SIZE EFFECTS 729
formulations obtained by milling for 5, 15, and 60 min were
called as Mag1, Mag2, and Mag3, respectively. As the second
strategy, Fe3O4 particles with particle size of below 40 lm were
sieved through a series of sieves having pore sizes of 32, 25,
and 20 lm to obtain fine magnetite particles in the size ranges
of <20, 20–25, 25–32, and 32–40 lm. Then, the magnetic fin-
gerprint powder formulations of Mag4–Mag7 were prepared by
mixing the coarse particles (70% by weight) and fine particles
(30% by weight) as shown in Fig. 1. Fine particles in the mag-
netic fingerprint powders were thought to adhere to the latent
fingerprints and make them visible (18).
Fingerprint Development on Various Surfaces
All prepared magnetic fingerprint powders were applied to
develop fingerprints left on several surfaces with different poros-
ities in order to evaluate their effectiveness. The representative
surfaces of various porosity were chosen as raw wood, bare filter
paper, Whatman black filter paper, A4 copier paper, smooth
porcelain dish, and glass microscope slide. To analyze the sur-
face roughness, optical images and close-up photographs of the
surfaces were taken.
For latent print collection on these surfaces, one male donor
intentionally left fingerprints on each surface with his exact same
finger. The donor was asked not to wash his hands at least
30 min prior to fingermark deposition. He was also asked not to
touch to his face or hair and any object that can change the color
or other properties of the fingermarks. The donor was asked to
730 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

rub his hands to each other before the fingermark deposition in

order to have a homogeneous distribution of the secretions of 10 (a) Mag1
Mag2
his hands and to wait for a couple of minutes between subse- Mag3
quent fingerprint depositions. Each magnetic powder formulation 8
was applied to the latent fingerprints left on the surfaces men-
tioned above with a commercial magnetic applicator. Splitting

Volume, %
6
technique was used for the evaluation of the powders. For this
purpose, one magnetic powder from each magnetic fingerprint
powder set was chosen as the reference. Later, the developed 4

prints were either photographed or transferred onto the photo-

graph paper using latent fingerprint tapes and then scanned. 2

Results and Discussion 0

To study the influence of particle size distribution on the 1 10 100 1000

effectiveness of magnetic fingerprint powders for the detection
Particle size, μm
of latent prints, surfaces with various roughnesses were used.
For example, several paper surfaces (11,15,16) such as bare filter 12 Mag4
paper, Whatman black filter paper, and A4 copier paper as well (b) Mag5
as raw wood were chosen as the porous surfaces, and porcelain 10
Mag6
dish and microscope slide were chosen as the nonporous sur- Mag7
faces. The surfaces used for this study can be listed according to Mag8
8
the decreasing porosity as follows: bare filter paper, raw wood,
Volume, %

Whatman black filter paper, A4 copier paper, smooth porcelain

6
dish, and glass microscope slide. The surface roughness of each
surface was evaluated by the close-up photographs and the opti-
4
cal microscope images shown in Fig. 2. The morphology of the
object/surface has a strong influence on the performance of opti-
2
cal microscope imaging. Even within one field of view, the
objects might lie in different z-planes. Higher resolution can be
obtained with 2D objects compared to 3D objects at defocused 0

positions. As the real-life samples examined via microscopy gen-

1 10 100 1000
erally have 3D structures, one can focus on only one detail at a
time. Focusing on one detail leaves the other details at different Particle size, μm
z-planes defocused (19). Therefore, the blurriness in the optical
microscope images indicates the roughness of the surfaces. As
clearly observed from Fig. 2, porcelain dish and glass micro-
scope slide have very clear images with no blurring. The blurri-
ness of the optical microscope images increases with increasing Fig. 3––Particle size distribution graphs of magnetic fingerprint powders
porosity and surface roughness. The surface porosity and the of a) Mag1–Mag3 and b) Mag4–Mag8.
roughness of the representative surfaces are also clearly observed
by their close-up photographs in the insets of Fig. 2. Raw wood TABLE 1––Percent of fine particles below 5, 10, and 20 lm in the Mag1–
Mag8 magnetic fingerprint powder formulations as calculated from Master-
and bare filter paper have similar blurring in their optical micro- sizer data
scope images.
According to the PXRD analysis (not shown here) of the mag- % of % of % of Average
netite obtained for this study, it was pure magnetite without particles particles particles particle
other iron oxide phases or impurities within the detection limits. Sample <5 lm <10 lm† <20 lm* size (lm)
The size of the as-supplied magnetite was below 300 lm. For Formulations Mag1 1.85 4.44 8.68 78
the preparation of magnetic fingerprint powder formulations through Mag2 3.03 7.07 14.28 67
according to the milling strategy, Mag1–Mag3 formulations were milling Mag3 2.14 15.30 38.96 33
prepared through milling of coarse particles at different time Formulations Mag4 4.77 10.90 28.90 55
through Mag5 5.26 11.23 25.65 57
intervals (for 5, 15, and 60 min, respectively). Particle size dis- sieving Mag6 4.77 12.83 25.19 61
tribution graphs of these formulations are given in Fig. 3a. As and mixing Mag7 1.78 7.95 17.38 71
the milling time increased, a decrease in the number of large Mag8 0.8 2.24 2.71 82
particles and an increase in the amount of finer particles were *The percent of particles below 20 lm includes the particles below 5
observed. As shown in Table 1, the amount of particles of below and 10 lm as well.
20 lm was 8.68% in 5-min milled powder (Mag1) and it †
The percent of particles below 10 lm includes the particles below
increased to 14.28% and 38.96% for 15-min milled (Mag2) and 5 lm as well.
60-min milled (Mag3) powder formulations, respectively. The
amount of particles of below 10 lm increased similarly. How- Particle size distribution graphs of formulations of Mag4–
ever, the amount of fine particles of below 5 lm did not Mag8, which were prepared through mixing of fine particles at
increase significantly with the increased milling time; it was different size ranges with coarse particles, are given in Fig. 3b.
similar in all three formulations. Mag8, which was 100% composed of coarse particles, had a
 € UZ
GURB € ET AL. . MAGNETIC FINGERPRINT POWDER PARTICLE SIZE EFFECTS
large peak with a maximum at c. 100 lm and a tiny peak with a
maximum at c. 8 lm. Mag7, which was composed of 70% of
coarse particles and 30% of 32- to 40-lm-sized fine particles,
had similarly a large peak with a maximum at c. 100 lm and a
very small peak with a maximum at c. 9 lm. For Mag6, which
was composed of 70% of coarse particles and 30% of 25- to 32-
lm-sized fine particles, a shoulder growth at c. 30 lm was
observed. For Mag5 and Mag4, which had 30% of 20- to 25-lm
and below 20-lm-sized fine particles, a separate peak growth
with a maximum at c. 20 lm and c. 15 lm was observed,
respectively. As shown in Table 1, the amount of particles of
below 20 lm was very little (2.71%) with Mag8, but with the
addition of finer particles into the formulation, the amount of
particles of below 20 lm increased to 17.38% for Mag7 and to
28.90% for Mag4. The amount of particles of below 10 lm was
c. 2.24% for Mag8 (coarse particles), increased to 7.95% for
Mag7, and was almost constant for Mag4–Mag6 (c. 11–12%).
The amount of fine particles of below 5 lm showed a similar
trend; it was almost negligible for the coarse particles, Mag8 (c.
0.8%), increased to 1.78% for Mag7, and was almost constant
for Mag4–Mag6 (c. 5%).
To compare all formulations prepared for this study, the average par-
ticle sizes were in the following order
Mag3 < Mag4 < Mag5 < Mag6 < Mag2 < Mag7 < Mag1 < Mag8.
Mag3 had the smallest average particle size of c. 33 lm, and Mag8
had the largest average particle size of c. 82 lm.
Magnetic fingerprint powders are generally composed of het-
erogeneously distributed magnetic particles or flakes (10). The
formulations produced for this study also possess similar particle
size heterogeneity and particle morphology. Surface morphologi-
cal studies based on SEM analyses (Fig. 4) showed irregular
shape distribution with sharp edges in the magnetic powders
Fig. 4––SEM images of a) Mag8 and b) Mag3 powders with 9250 magnification.
Fig. 5––SEM images of fresh fingerprints developed with a) Mag8, b) Mag2, and c) Mag7 powders on the glass surfaces with 950 magnification.
731
prepared for this study. According to Fig. 4a, the coarse parti-
cles (Mag8 formulation) are mostly composed of larger particles
with a particle size of c. 100 lm (edge-to-edge distance). Mag3
formulation was obtained through milling of Mag8 for 60 min,
and it has both large particles with particle sizes of less than
100 lm and a large number of fine particles, mostly attached on
their surfaces as shown in Fig. 4b. Fine particles even in the
submicron level were present in both formulations.
In order to understand which portion of the fingerprint powder
has major contribution to visualize the ridge details, latent prints
were left on microscope slides and developed with the prepared
fingerprint powders of Mag2, Mag7, and Mag8 via a magnetic
applicator. SEM images of the developed fingerprints are shown
in Fig. 5. As shown in the insets, the magnetite particles
adsorbed on the fingerprint residues for all formulations are gen-
erally below 10 lm. This proves that the fine particles in the
magnetic fingerprint powder formulations are responsible to
make the latent prints visible. The coarse particles, on the other
hand, form a brushlike structure under the magnetic field and
carry the fine particles onto the fingerprint residue (20). Accord-
ing to Fig. 5a, the width of the fingerprint ridge is about
250 lm when the latent print was developed with Mag8. How-
ever, the widths of the fingerprint ridges were between 250 and
500 lm for the latent prints developed with Mag2 (Fig. 5b) and
Mag7 (Fig. 5c). This is due to the presence of higher amount of
fine particles in these formulations that adhere on the fingerprint
residues and results in better development of the ridge details.
The prepared magnetic powder formulations were used to
develop freshly deposited latent fingerprints (within 10–30 min
after deposition) as well as 1-day- and 1-week-aged fingerprints
on a variety of surfaces with different porosities. Splitting tech-
nique was used for the application of magnetic powders. Table 2
732 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 2––Fingerprints developed with Mag1–Mag3 formulations on a variety of surfaces

Fresh latent prints 1-day-old latent print 1-week-old latent prints

Surface Mag1/Mag2 Mag3/Mag2 Mag1/Mag2 Mag3/Mag2 Mag1/Mag2 Mag3/Mag2

Porcelain

Glass

A4 copier
paper

Whatman black
filter paper

– –

Bare filter
paper

– –

Raw wood
 € UZ
GURB € ET AL. . MAGNETIC FINGERPRINT POWDER PARTICLE SIZE EFFECTS 733

TABLE 3––Fingerprints developed with Mag4–Mag8 formulations on a variety of surfaces

Surface Mag4/Mag6 Mag5/Mag6 Mag7/Mag6 Mag8/Mag6

Porcelain fresh prints

Porcelain 1-day-old prints

Porcelain 1-week-old prints

Glass fresh prints

Glass 1-day-old prints

Glass 1-week-old prints

734 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 3—Continued.

Surface Mag4/Mag6 Mag5/Mag6 Mag7/Mag6 Mag8/Mag6

A4 copier paper
fresh prints

A4 copier paper
1-day-old prints

A4 copier paper
1-week-old prints

Whatman filter
paper fresh prints

Whatman filter paper

1-day-old prints

Bare filter paper

fresh prints
 € UZ
GURB € ET AL. . MAGNETIC FINGERPRINT POWDER PARTICLE SIZE EFFECTS
TABLE 3—Continued.
Surface Mag4/Mag6
Bare filter paper
1-day-old prints
Raw wood
resh prints
Raw wood
1-day-old prints
Raw wood
1-week-old prints
shows the images of fingerprints developed with Mag1–Mag3
where Mag2 was chosen as the reference. These fingerprint images
show that Mag3, which had the highest amount of fine particles
and the average particle size of 33 lm, resulted in the highest
amount of background staining especially on the surfaces with
higher porosity due to the entrapment of fine particles in the pores
of the surfaces. The color contrast between the fingerprint and the
background was fairly low for raw wood, bare filter paper, and
Whatman black filter paper, and the fingerprint quality was not
good enough for identification even with the fresh latent prints.
Fresh fingerprints developed with Mag1–3 on A4 copier paper,
smooth porcelain, and glass surfaces had good color contrast, and
they were fair enough for identification with almost complete ridge
details. 1-day- and 1-week-aged latent prints developed with these
formulations on nonporous porcelain and glass surfaces were also
very high quality, whereas on paper surfaces, the quality of the
developed fingerprints decreased with the age of the prints due to
the absorption of the fingerprint secretions by the paper surfaces.
735
Mag5/Mag6 Mag7/Mag6 Mag8/Mag6
Although the raw wood has a similar roughness with bare filter
paper, identifiable fingerprints were obtained even with 1-week-
aged prints when developed with Mag2 or Mag1 formulations.
This is due to the much lower absorption of the fingermark resi-
dues by the wood surface. Mag2 among the three formulations
produced by milling showed the best performance of these three
formulations on most of the surfaces studied.
Table 3 shows the images of fingerprints developed with
Mag4–Mag8 where Mag6 was chosen as the reference in the split
fingerprints. Mag8, which contained 100% of coarse particles,
had the lowest background staining among all the formulations in
this set. However, it also had the lowest color contrast (least visi-
ble fingerprint) even with the fresh latent prints, as it did not con-
tain enough fine particles for the development of fingerprint
ridges. Fingerprint qualities were not good enough for identifica-
tion with Mag7, containing 30% of 32- to 40-lm-sized fine parti-
cles, and Mag8 on porous surfaces even with the fresh latent
fingerprints. Mag4–Mag6 had similar performance on A4 copier
736 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
paper; however, Mag5 and Mag6 had better performance with
very little background coloring on porcelain and glass surfaces.
From Tables 2 and 3, it can be noticed that after a critical amount
of fine particles in the powder mixture, the area between the fin-
gerprint ridges as well as the background becomes darker in color
even on the surface with lowest porosity. Almost all the magnetic
fingerprint formulations produced detectable fingerprints on the
nonporous porcelain and glass surfaces. Clear and detectable fin-
gerprints could not be obtained on the porous filter paper surfaces
with any formulations for the aged latent prints. Fingerprints were
partly developed with Mag1–2 and Mag4–7 for the 1-day-aged
latent prints on the raw wood surface due to less absorption of
the fingerprint secretions compared to paper surfaces.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates the significance of the particle size
distribution of fingerprint powders as well as the porosity of the
surfaces for the development of latent fingerprints via powdering
method. Two strategies were used to prepare magnetic finger-
print formulations: (i) milling of the coarse particles for 5 min
(Mag1), 15 min (Mag2) and 60 min (Mag3) and (ii) preparation
of fine particles in the size ranges of <20 lm, 20–25 lm, 25–
32 lm, and 32–40 lm through sieving and then mixing them
with coarse particles (Mag4 to Mag7, respectively). Fingerprints
developed on the surfaces with different porosities showed that
as the amount of fine particles increases, the background staining
increases as well due to the easy trapping of fine particles in the
pores of the surfaces, and after a critical point, the color contrast
between the fingerprint and the background was lost. In addition,
depending on the porosity of the surfaces applied, the same fin-
gerprint powder exhibits different performances in the develop-
ment of the latent prints. Mag2 of the formulations prepared
through milling (average particle size of 67 lm) and Mag5
(average particle size of 57 lm) and Mag6 (average particle size
of 61 lm) of the formulations prepared through sieving and
mixing were more successful in the development of latent prints
on most of the surfaces studied than the other formulations.
Mag8 with negligible amount of fine particles, on the other
hand, was the worst formulation for the visualization of finger-
prints. Higher absorption properties of the paper surfaces toward
fingermark residues resulted in poorer performance with the aged
latent prints for all magnetic powder formulations. Nonporous
glass and porcelain surfaces showed comparable fingerprint
development qualities for both fresh and aged fingermarks with
all magnetic powder formulations.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Turgay Balci, Osman Kurulu and Ahmet
Celikkol for the technical support.
References
1. Keating DM, Miller JJ. A technique for developing and photographing
ridge impressions on decomposed water-soaked fingers. J Forensic Sci
1993;38:197–202.
2. Lewis LA, Smithwick RW III, Devault GL, Bolinger B, Lewis SA Sr.
Processes involved in the development of latent fingerprints using the
cyanoacrylate fuming method. J Forensic Sci 2001;46:241–6.
3. Bijl LJ, Theeuwen AB. Making latent fingerprints visible on porous and
nonporous material using an iodine-benzoflavone spray. Arch Kriminol
1983;172:93–8.
4. Flynn K, Maynard P, du Pasquier E, Lennard C, Stoilovic M, Roux C.
Evaluation of iodine-benzoflavone and ruthenium tetroxide spray
reagents for the detection of latent fingermarks at the crime scene. J
Forensic Sci 2004;49:707–15.
5. Kent T, Thomas GL, Reynoldson TE, East HW. A vacuum coating tech-
nique for the development of latent fingerprints on polythene. J Forensic
Sci Soc 1976;16:93–101.
6. Oden S, Von Hofsten B. Detection of fingerprints by the ninhydrin reac-
tion. Nature 1954;173:449–50.
7. Bicknell DE, Ramotowski RS. Use of optimized 1,2-indanedione pro-
cess for the development of latent prints. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:1108–
16.
8. Grigg R, Mongkolaussavaratana T, Pounds CA, Sivagnanam S. 1,8-Di-
azafluorenone and related compounds. A new reagent for the detection
of a-amino acids and latent fingerprints. Tetrahedron Lett 1990;31:7215–
8.
9. Jelly R, Lewis SW, Lennard C, Lim KF, Almog J. Substituted naphtho-
quinones as novel amino acid sensitive reagents for the detection of
latent fingermarks on paper surfaces. Talanta 2010;82:1717–24.
10. Sodhi GS, Kaur J. Powder method for detecting latent fingerprints: a
review. Forensic Sci Int 2001;120:172–6.
11. Wilshire B. Advances in fingerprint detection. Endeavour 1996;20:12–5.
12. Wertheim PA. Magnetic powder. Minutiae, The Lightning Powder Co.
Newsletter 1997;July-Aug:43.
13. James JD, Pounds CA, Wilshire B. Flake metal powders for revealing
latent fingerprints. J Forensic Sci 1991;36:1368–75.
14. James JD, Pounds CA, Wilshire B. Magnetic flake powders for finger-
print development. J Forensic Sci 1993;38:391–401.
15. Wilshire B, Hurley N. Development of latent fingerprints on paper using
magnetic flakes. J Forensic Sci 1995;40:838–42.
16. Nag K, Liu X, Scott A, Chen YK. High energy milling of micro mag-
netic powder for fingerprint development. Proceedings of the 6th Interna-
tional Conference on Manufacturing Research; 2008 Sept 9-11; London,
U.K.: Brunel University, 2008.
17. Thonglon T, Chaikum N. Magnetic fingerprint powder from a mineral
indigenous to Thailand. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(5):1343–6.
18. James JD, Wilshire B. New powder metallurgy techniques for fingerprint
detection. Key Eng Mater 1993;86–87:11–6.
19. Ellenberger SL. Influence of defocus on measurements in microscope
images [dissertation]. Stuttgart, Germany: University of Stuttgart, 2000.
20. Ramotowski RS, editor. Lee and Gaensslen’s advances in fingerprint
technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2013.
Additional information and reprint requests:
Melek Erol, Ph.D.
TUBITAK Marmara Research Center
Chemistry Institute
41470, Gebze
Kocaeli
Turkey
E-mail: melek.erol@tubitak.gov.tr