Research paper (Fingerprint Analysis)

GLOVE ANALYSIS FOR THE DETECTION OF LATENT FINGERPRINTS
by
Duriel M. Mason
A Research Project
Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty
of
George Mason University
in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Science
Forensic Science
Committee:
_________________________________________ Brittany Graham, Research Project
Director
_________________________________________ Professor Dizinno, GMU Research
Coordinator
_________________________________________ Professor William Whildin, Department
Chairperson
Date: ___________________________________ Spring Semester 2014
Fairfax, VA

Glove Analysis for the Detection of Latent Fingerprints
A research project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science at George Mason University
by
Duriel M. Mason
Master of Science
George Mason University, 2014
Director: Brittany Graham
Forensic Science Program
Spring Semester 2014
Fairfax, VA

ii
Copyright 2014 Duriel M. Mason
All Rights Reserved

iii
DEDICATION
I am dedicating this thesis to my grandfather Wilmer Mason who always explained to me the
importance of education, my mother Wendy Mason, and my grandmother Lucille Mason for
being supportive. I also would like to dedicate this to my son Marcus Tucker, for being so patient
while his daddy betters himself.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor Brittany Graham for all of her helpful insight, ideas, and taking
the opportunity to advise me on this project. I would also like to extend my gratitude to, all of
my professors for their knowledge in forensic, my friends, relatives, and supporters who have
made this happen. I would like to give special thanks to Suzy Hill, Jennifer Norris, and Kristen
Brinkley for assisting me with editing and formatting.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ x
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….….1
1.1 Research Question................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives and Goals............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Importance of Research......................................................................................... 2
1.4 Research Background Overview ........................................................................... 3
1.5 History on Fingerprint Identification..................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................... 10
2.1 The Anatomy of Friction Ridge Skin .................................................................. 10
2.2 Eccrine vs Sebaceous Sweat Glands ................................................................... 11
2.3 Types of Dusting and Chemical Processing Techniques used on Different
Substrates............................................................................................................. 14
2.4 Glove Evidence.................................................................................................... 22
2.5 Previous Research on Glove Evidence and Analysis .......................................... 24
2.6 Case Study........................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 3: LABORATORY ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 36
3.1 Materials.............................................................................................................. 36
3.2 Methodology........................................................................................................ 36
3.3 Results and Discussion........................................................................................ 46
Chapter 4: CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 69
4.1 Limitations............................................................................................................... 71
4.2 Future direction…………………………………………………………………….71
References………………………………………………………………………………..74

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
Table 1: Amino acids and abundance in eccrine sweat. .............................................................. 12
Table 2: Lipid percentages in sebaceous secretion....................................................................... 14
Table 3: Phase 1: Gloves worn and processed the same day with CA/dusting powders.............. 51
Table 4: Phase 2: Gloves worn and analyzed the same day with CA/florescent dye stains ......... 56
Table 5: Phase 3: Gloves worn and processed the following day with CA/dusting powders and
Ninhydrin ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 6: Phase 4: Gloves worn, placed outdoors for 13 days in inclement weather and processed
with CA/powders and RAM florescent stain mixture................................................................... 64
Table 7: Phase 5: Fingerprints deposited on exterior of leather gloves and processed with
cyanoacrylate fuming and Ninhydrin............................................................................................ 68

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
Figure 1: Three skin layers: epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis. ................................................ 10
Figure 2: Cyanoacrylate polymer formed on ridge of eccrine sweat latent fingerprint................ 17
Figure 3: Cyanoacrylate polymer formed on ridge of latent fingerprint that has touched oily,
sebaceous region of the body........................................................................................................ 17
Figure 4: Glove evidence survey results from crime scene investigators from the Oakland,
Atlanta, Birmingham, ST. Louis, Memphis, Tallahassee, San Diego, Minneapolis, Kansas City
and Baltimore police department.................................................................................................. 24
Figure 5: Powdered-latex glove treated with Ninhydrin and lifted with a black gel lifter ........... 27
Figure 6: Powdered-latex glove treated with cyanoacrylate fuming followed by fluorescent dye
stain Rhodamine 6 g...................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 7: Powdered-latex glove treated only with cyanoacrylate fuming.................................... 29
Figure 8: No chemical process used on a latex glove and prints were lifted with a gel lifter. ..... 29
Figure 9: Powder-free latex glove treated with cyanoacrylate fuming followed by rhodamine 6
g…………………………………………………………………………………………………..30
Figure 10: No chemical processing technique used on a powder-free disposable latex glove..... 31
Figure 11: No chemical processing technique used on a vinyl glove and prints were lifted with a
black gelatin lifter ......................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 12: Powdered latex glove was stained with gentian violet................................................ 32
Figure 13: Left loop fingerprint deposited on Control Sample #1................................................ 37
Figure 14: Left loop fingerprint deposited on Control Sample #2................................................ 38
Figure 15: Latex glove filled with air ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 16: Fuming chamber.......................................................................................................... 39
Figure 17: Whorl double loop print with ridge detail on thumb of powdered latex glove A.1 .... 47
Figure 18: Whorl print with ridge detail on thumb of powdered latex glove A.2 ........................ 47
Figure 19: Left loop print with ridge detail on little finger of non-powdered latex glove B.2..... 48
Figure 20: Left loop print with ridge detail on little finger of powdered nitrile glove C.2 .......... 49
Figure 21: Left loop print with ridge detail on little finger of powdered nitrile glove C.4 .......... 49
Figure 22: Right loop print with ridge detail on middle finger of household rubber glove E.1... 50
Figure 23: Bar graph results in phase 1 ........................................................................................ 52
Figure 24: Loop print with ridge detail on non-powdered latex glove B.6 .................................. 53
Figure 25: Whorl print with ridge detail on non-powdered latex glove B.7................................. 53
Figure 26: Loop print with ridge detail on non-powdered latex glove B.8 .................................. 54
Figure 27: Left loop print on powdered nitrile glove C.5............................................................. 55
Figure 28: Whorl print on powdered nitrile glove C.6 ................................................................. 55
Figure 30: Whorl print with ridge detail on nitrile glove C.11..................................................... 58
Figure 31: Ridge detail on household rubber glove E.10 ............................................................. 59
Figure 32: Whorl double loop print on household rubber glove E.12.......................................... 60
Figure 34: Loop print with ridge detail on powdered latex glove A.13, placed outdoors in
inclement weather for 13 days ...................................................................................................... 63

viii
Figure 35: Bar graph results in Phase 4 ........................................................................................ 65
Figure 36: Loop print with ridge detail on leather glove F.1........................................................ 66
Figure 37: Ridge detail on leather glove F.4................................................................................. 67

ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA Cyanoacrylate
RAM Rhodamine 6 G, Ardrox, MBD florescent stain mixture
NACl Sodium chloride
ECA Ethyl cyanoacrylate
VMD Vacuum metal deposition

ABSTRACT
GLOVE ANALYSIS FOR THE DETECTION OF LATENT FINGERPRINTS
Duriel M. Mason, M.S.
George Mason University, 2014
Dissertation Director: Joseph Dizinno
Can criminals be identified from the detection of latent fingerprints on gloves, which they have
used to commit crimes? In this research project, the following gloves were processed for latent
fingerprints: leather, household rubber, powdered and non-powdered latex and nitrile gloves. A
total of 86 gloves were worn for three minutes by the researcher during this testing process.
These gloves were processed for fingerprints on the same day, the following day, and on the
fourteenth day. Gloves processed on the fourteenth day were placed outdoors for thirteenth days
in inclement weather. All gloves were processed in 5 phases with 3 dusting powders and 6
chemical reagents.
Ultra-blue florescent powder revealed strong and very strong fingerprint development on
powdered latex gloves in phases 1, 3, and 4. In phase 1, cyanoacrylate fuming alone revealed
very strong fingerprint development on rubber household gloves. In phase 2, Rhodamine 6 g and
MBD florescent dye stain mixture revealed strong and very strong fingerprint development on
non-powdered latex and powdered nitrile gloves. In phase 3, Hi-fi volcano white powder
revealed strong fingerprint development on powdered nitrile gloves and Ninhydrin revealed very
strong development on household rubber gloves. In phase 4, cyanoacrylate fuming alone

revealed very strong development on non-powdered latex and powdered nitrile gloves. In phase
5, Ninhydrin revealed very strong development on leather gloves and strong development with
cyanoacrylate fuming alone.
In conclusion, the Ultra-blue 2000 magnetic florescent powder was one of the most
successful in detecting prints on latex gloves on different days and while placed outdoors in
inclement weather.

1
CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Question
Can criminals be identified from the detection of latent fingerprints deposited on gloves,
which they have used to avoid leaving their fingerprints behind at crime scenes?
1.2 Objectives and Goals
The objective of this research project is to detect strong or very strong latent fingerprint
development on the interior and exterior of different colored powdered and non-powdered latex
and nitrile gloves, rubber household gloves and leather gloves. The following chemicals and
powders will be used to process for latent fingerprints: Ninhydrin, Rhodamine 6 g, Ardrox, MBD
florescent dye stain mixture, RAM florescent mixture, cyanoacrylate, Ultra-blue 2000 florescent
magnetic powder, Hi-fi volcano white powder, and Lighting black powder.
In this research project, I the researcher, wore these gloves to deposit latent fingerprints on
the interior and exterior of the gloves while doing exercises in place to produce sweat inside the
gloves. Latent fingerprints detected after each dusting powder or chemical process were
preserved by being photographed with the DCS-4 camera system or lifted with tape.
The first goal in this research project was to determine the best powder or chemical
processing technique to detect latent fingerprints deposited on the interior and exterior of these
gloves worn on the same day, following day, and fourteenth day after the gloves have been
placed outdoors in inclement weather for thirteen days. The second goal was to identify a strong
or very strong development fingermark with each chemical and powder used in this project.

2
1.3 Importance of Research
This research project will benefit crime scene scientists, fingerprint scientists and law
enforcement officers for a couple of reasons. Some criminals prefer to use certain types of
gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints while committing robberies, burglaries, homicides, or motor
vehicle thefts. If fingerprint scientists have knowledge on what types of florescent dye stains and
dusting powder processes to use on a particular glove, and preservation methods to retrieve latent
fingerprints from gloves, their analysis can be effortless. The best latent print dusting powder or
chemical reagent process used on a particle glove to detect, classify, and identify a strong or very
strong development of fingermarks can increase a fingerprint scientist chances in identifying the
perpetrator. Fingerprint scientists can also eliminate using a certain fluorescent dye stain or
dusting powder process on particular gloves, which may fail to yield positive results from this
research.
This research project will also prevent fingerprint scientists from destroying fingerprints
and glove evidence. For example, if fingerprint scientists know what type of florescent dye stain
or dusting powder to use in order to detect latent fingerprint from the interior of a latex glove,
then they can increase their chances of getting positive results. It will also help fingerprint
scientists master one processing technique instead of destroying the glove or fingerprint by
trying numerous processing techniques with other chemical reagents or dusting powders.
Gloves used in this research project for the detection of latent fingerprints will be worn
for duration of 3 minutes and analyzed in the laboratory on the same day, following day, and
fourteenth day while gloves were placed outdoors in inclement weather. The purpose for

3
analyzing the gloves for fingerprints during these days is because crime scene scientists may get
called out to a crime scene on the same day or days after the crime has been committed to collect
glove evidence.
1.4 Research Background Overview
The detection of latent fingerprints from gloves dates back to the 1960’s, when Howard
Speaks shared his experience with the use of Ninhydrin. According to Speaks (2003), Ninhydrin
is a chemical used to detect latent fingerprints on rubber gloves that were used in burglaries.
Speaks was successful in the detection of identifiable fingerprints with 10 points of minutia on
the interior of a pair of rubber gloves (Speaks, 2003).
In the past years, there were police detectives, crime scene officers, and technicians that
conducted experiments with the use of chemicals and powders to detect latent fingerprints on
rubber, latex, vinyl, and nitrile gloves. Rinehart (2000) of the Harris County Sheriff’s
Department stated that, he failed to detect latent fingerprints on a pair of rubber gloves that were
used in a criminal case involving a police officer, with the use of cyanoacrylate fuming alone.
Rinehart decided to experiment with the use of Ninhydrin-Heptane to detect latent fingerprints
on the exterior of a yellow rubber glove and was successful (Developing latent prints on
household rubber gloves using Ninhydrin heptane carrier after superglue fuming, 2000, para. 5).
According to Smith (2008) of the Alexandria Police Department, he experimented with the
use of chemicals and powders to detect latent fingerprints on latex gloves. The powders used in
his experiment were traditional, magnetic and fluorescent powders. The chemicals used in his
experiment were small particle reagent, and cyanoacrylate fuming followed by florescent dye

4
stain Rhodamine 6 g. Smith concluded that the fluorescent powders showed the best results in
detecting latent fingerprints on the interior of latex gloves (Latent fingerprints on latex gloves
section, para. 3-7).
Velders (2008) a crime scene officer of the Netherlands stated that, he experimented with
9 chemicals to detect latent fingerprints on the interior of latex and vinyl gloves which were:
Ninhydrin, cyanoacrylate fuming followed by dye stain Rhodamine 6g, Gentian violet, Sticky-
side powder, and iodine. Velders concluded the following: Ninhydrin revealed some ridge detail
on latex and vinyl gloves, cyanoacrylate fuming followed by dye stain Rhodamine 6 g revealed
fingerprints with clarity after the fifth process on powdered latex gloves, cyanoacrylate fuming
alone reveal visible fingerprints, and visible fingerprint lifted from a powdered free latex and
vinyl glove with a black gelatin lifter with no chemical or powder process. Velders also
concluded that latex and vinyl gloves that weren’t processed with chemicals gave the best results
detecting latent fingerprints (Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex gloves
using gel lifters, para. 4-25).
1.5 History on Fingerprint Identification
According to Barnes (2011) for thousands of years several cultures around the world have
used friction ridge skin impressions of individuals for identification. “Friction ridge skin
impressions were used as proof of a person’s identity in China perhaps as early as 300 B.C, in
Japan as early as A.D. 703, and in the United States since 1902” (p. 7-1).
Barnes (2011) reported that in Northwest China, pottery was found at an archaeological
site that was calculated to be 6000 years old. Friction ridge impressions were found on some

5
pottery that was estimated as being the oldest impressions found as of today. It’s still not known
if these friction ridge impressions were deposited on pottery on purpose or by accident (as cited
in Xiang-Xin and Chun-Ge, 1988, p. 277). In this era, friction ridge impressions were also found
in other materials that were left by builders (as cited in Ashbaugh, 1999, pp 12-13). Today you
may find friction ridge impressions in cement and in the Neolithic Era friction ridge impressions
were found in clay that builders used to make bricks (as cited in Berry and Stoney, 2001, pp 8-9)
(Barnes, 2011).
According to Barnes (2011) the Chinese was the first culture in the world to use friction ridge
impressions to identify individuals. “The earliest example comes from a Chinese document
entitled “The Volume of Crime Scene Investigation-Burglary”, from the Qin Dynasty (221 to
B.C). The document contains a description of how handprints were used as a type of evidence”
(as cited in Xiang-Xin and Chun-Ge, 1988, p 283). From 221 B.C. to 220 A.D. the Chinese used
clay seals to show authenticity of important documents that belong to a particular person. The
author would intentionally impress his name in the clay and on the other side he would impress
his fingerprint (Barnes, 2011).
According to Barnes (2011) at the end of the seventeenth century scientist from Europe
begun publishing their studies on human skin. “Friction ridge skin was first described in detail by
Dr. Nehemiah Grew in the 1684 paper Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Dr. Grew’s description marked the beginning in the Western Hemisphere of friction
ridge skin observations and characterizations” (as cited in Ashbaugh, 1999, p 38; Lambourne,
1984, p 25) (1-9).

6
Barnes (2011) stated that in 1687, Marcello Malpighi of Italy explained why people have
friction ridges. Malpighi stated that, friction ridges were made to create traction to grasp objects
and provide traction for walking (as cited in New Scotland Yard, 1990; Ashbaugh, 1999, p 40)
(Barnes, 2011).
In 1788, a German doctor studied and concluded that friction ridge skin is unique. Barnes
(2011) stated the following on uniqueness of friction ridge skin:
Although friction ridge skin had been studied for a number of years, it would be
1788 before the uniqueness of this skin was recognized in Europe. J.C.A. Mayer,
a German doctor and anatomist, wrote a book entitled Anatomical Copper-plates
with appropriate explanations, which contained detailed drawings of friction ridge
skin patterns. Mayer wrote, “Although the arrangement of skin ridges is never
duplicated in two persons, nevertheless the similarities are closer among some
individuals. In others the differences are marked, yet in spite of their peculiarities
of arrangement all have a certain likeness” (as cited in Cummins and Midlo, 1943,
pp 12-13). (p. 1-10).
Barnes (2011) reported that in 1823, Dr. Purkinje a German professor classified fingerprints
by putting them in nine categories and gave each fingerprint a name (as cited in Lambourne,
1984, p 26; Galton, 1892). The nine categories of fingerprints were: transverse curves, central
longitudinal stria, oblique stria, oblique sinus, almond, spiral, ellipse or elliptical whorl, circle or
circular whorl, and double whorl. Dr. Purkinje idea of naming fingerprints and putting them into

7
nine categories was later used in the Henry fingerprint classification system (as cited in Herschel,
1916, pp 34-35; Galton, 1892, pp 67, 119) (Barnes, 2011).
Sir William James Herschel of England was known to be the first person to conduct research
on the persistence of friction ridge skin. According to Barnes (2011) in 1858, Herschel
experimented with using hand printing as a signature by using a volunteer to place a stamp on his
right hand, in which he used to stamp on a contract. This stamp proved that the document was
valid. Hershel was successful with using hand printing for a signature, so he decided to further
his study on friction ridge skin by collecting fingerprints from himself, friends, members of his
family, and his coworkers. In Bengal, Hershel was honored for being successful for developing
identification possibilities by examining friction ridge skin to fight and prevent fraud. In 1877,
Hershel used friction ridge skin to control and identify individuals that were involved in the
criminal courts, the registration of deeds, payment of government pensions, and prisons (Barnes,
2011).
According to Barnes (2011) in 1877, microscopist, Thomas Taylor who was employed at the
United States Department of Agriculture gave a lecture on fingerprints and crime. Thomas
presented the idea that examining bloody fingerprints found at crime scenes can aid in
identifying the suspect (Barnes, 2011).
Barnes (2011) reported that Henry Faulds worked in the medical field and worked in Japan
from 1873 to 1885, in which he studied friction ridges by collecting prints from monkeys and
humans. In his study, he concluded that friction ridges are unique and classifiable (as cited in
Lambourne, 1984, pp 34-35).

8
Barnes (2011) stated the following on Fauld’s article to the Journal Nature:
In October 1880, Faulds submitted an article for publication to the journal Nature
in order to inform researchers of his findings. In that article, Faulds proposed
using friction ridge individualization at crime scenes and gave two practical
examples. In one example, a greasy print on a drinking glass revealed who had
been drinking some distilled spirits. In the other, sooty fingermarks on a white
wall exonerated an accused individual (as cited in Faulds, 1880, p 605) (p. 1-11,
12).
According to Artone (2011) since the twentieth century fingerprint identification has been an
important method for law enforcement in positively identifying an individual. Law enforcement
main force was analyzing friction ridge details in the fingerprint for comparison. Fingerprint
identification was known as a more reliable method in identifying individuals, than the Bertillon
system of identification, which uses measurements of body parts to identify individuals.
Fingerprint identification is a more reliable method for positively identifying individuals because
no two individuals have the exact same fingerprints, and fingerprint identification has been
accepted within the scientific community for many years (Artone, 2011).
Artone (2011) stated that, in the year 1891, Juan Vucetich who was once a member of the
Argentinean Police Department was the first person to develop a fingerprint file for criminal
identification. Vucetich developed a fingerprint identification system on the different types of
fingerprint ridge patterns from the idea of Sir Francis Galton. Vucetich fingerprint identification
system was used along with the Bertillon system for individual identification, until the Vucetich

9
fingerprint identification system eliminated the Bertillon system as being a method of
identification. Vucetich was recognized as being the first person to identify a perpetrator from
the fingerprints he or she left behind at a crime scene (Artone, 2011).
According to Artone (2011) in 1901, processing individual’s fingerprints for identification
purposes became into existence in England and Wales in the United Kingdom. Sir Edward
Richard Henry who was once the Inspector-General of police in Bengal, Asia became the
Commissioner at the London’s Metropolitan Police Department. Henry improved Vucetich’s
fingerprint identification system by putting fingerprints in three different classifications (Artone,
2011).
According to Becker (2005) fingerprint patterns are classified as a loop, whorl, or arch
(Becker, 2005). Artone (2011) stated that, Henry later developed a simple method for
fingerprinting individuals, so that their fingerprints can be kept on file. He created the ten-finger
fingerprint identification system to ink all ten fingerprints of an individual and place them on a
card. The ten-finger fingerprint identification system became available for police departments for
identification (Artone, 2011).
According to Artone (2011) in 1902, Dr. Henry P. Deforest who practiced Fingerprint
Science put the finger identification system to use in the United States. The first known
systematic use of fingerprints in the United States began in the New York Civil Service
Commission. The system was used to avoid individuals from using other qualified applicants
take their test for them to pass (Artone, 2011).

10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Anatomy of Friction Ridge Skin
According to Maceo (2011) the ridges and sweat pores of friction ridge skin is designed to
allow the hands and feet to grab different types of surfaces firmly. The skin is composed of three
layers which are: epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis (as cited in Tortora and Grabowski, 1993,
p. 127). The epidermis is the outer layer of skin which has several functions. The epidermis
layer can aid in the prevention of water loss through evaporation, act as a sensor receptor, and as
a protective for the other layers of skin beneath (as cited in Freinkel and Woodley, 2001, p. 120).
The major function of the dermis layer is to support the epidermis. The dermis is composed of
cells, fibers, blood vessels, and gelatinous materials which provide support and nourishes the
epidermis layer. The dermis also acts as a blood reserve, sensory receptor, and regulates body
temperature. The hypodermis layer contains fatty tissue and act as an energy reserve (as cited in
Freinkel and Woodley, 2001, p. 49). Figure 1 is an image of the three skin layers.
Figure 1: Three skin layers: epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis.
Teng, A. (2014). 5 Fun Facts About Your Skin. Retrieved online from
porcelainfacespa.com/blog/?p=857

11
According to Maceo (2011) sweat glands are the only structure that is associated with friction
ridge skin, and they are located on almost the entire skin surface with its primary function to
keep the body temperature within certain boundaries. Maceo stated, “the only skin appendage of
the friction ridge skin is the eccrine sweat gland. Although sweat glands are distributed over
almost the entire skin surface, the friction ridge skin has the highest concentration of eccrine
glands, 2500-3000/2.5 cm2” (as cited in Freinkel and Woodley, 2001, p. 49) (p. 2-4).
2.2 Eccrine vs Sebaceous Sweat Glands
According to Yamashita and French (2011) there are three glands that produce sweat, which
are eccrine, apocrine and sebaceous glands. Each gland has a different chemical compound,
which is either secreted from the pores to the friction ridges or transferred to the friction ridges
from touching other body parts (Yamashita & French, 2011).
Yamashita and French (2011) stated that, one of the functions of eccrine glands is for
sweat production. There are millions of eccrine glands all over the body, but they are most
commonly found on the soles of the feet and palms of the hands (as cited in Anderson et al.
1998, p. 1561). The eccrine glands produce mainly water and other compounds in little quantities
(as cited in Brusilow and Gorder, 1968, pp 513-517; Mitchell and Hamilton, 1949, p 360; Sato,
1979, pp 52-131; Bayford, 1976, pp 42-43; Olsen, 1972, p 4) (Yamashita & French, 2011).
Yamashita and French (2011) found the following on the average quantity of sweat
production:
The average quantity of secretions produced during a typical 24-hour period
varies between 700 and 900 grams. The pH of sweat has been reported to vary

12
from 7.2 (extracted directly from the gland), to 5.0 (recovered from the skin
surface at a low sweat rate), to between 6.5 and 7.0 (recovered from the skin
surface at a high sweat rate) (as cited in Kaiser and Drack, 1974, pp 261-265).
(p.7-7).
According to Yamashita and French (2011) amino acids are also secreted by the eccrine
gland, which is important for a fingerprint examiner to identify latent fingerprint ridge detail.
Table 1 lists the average values of amino acids found in eccrine sweat and abundance (as cited in
Hadorn et al., 1967, pp 416-417; Hadorn et al., 1967, pp 416-417; Hamilton, 1965, pp 284-285;
Oro and Skewes, 1965, pp 1042-1045) (Yamashita & French, 2011).
Table 1: Amino acids and abundance in eccrine sweat.
Amino acids Abundance
Serine 100
Ornithine-Lysine 45
Alanine 30
Threonine 15
Valine 10
Glutamic acid 8
Phenylalanine 6
Tyrosine 5
Table 1: Yamashita, B., & French, M. (2011). Latent print development. [PDF document].
(Chapter 7). Retrieved from Fingerprint sourcebook online website: http://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/
nij/22

13
According to Yamashita and French (2011) lipids are also found in eccrine sweat, but the
amount of lipids found can’t be accurately determined, because when eccrine sweat leaves the
pours it mixes with compounds in sebaceous sweat that is on the skin. There is research that
reported detecting sterol compounds and fatty acids in detectable amounts in eccrine sweat and
miscellaneous compounds, such as drugs (as cited in Boysen et al., 1984, pp 1302-1307)
(Yamashita & French, 2011).
According to Yamashita and French (2011) sebaceous glands are small saclike organs
that are located in the dermis layer of the skin. Sebaceous glands are located throughout the
body, which is associated with hair on the face, scalp, mouth, nose, anus, and ear (as cited in
Anderson et al., 1998, p 1464). Sebaceous glands aren’t found on the soles of the feet or on the
palms of the hand. “ The secretions from the sebaceous gland typically empty into a hair follicle
before reaching the skin’s surface, although in some regions they do reach the skin’s surface
directly (e.g., lips)” (p. 7-8). The reason for sebaceous secretions is to help retain body heat by
preventing sweat evaporation. Sebaceous secretion also lubricates hair follicles and skin. Lipids
are the primary compounds found in sebaceous secretion. Table 2 contains a list of percentages
of lipids found in sebaceous secretion (as cited in Goode and Morris, 1983) (Yamashita &
French, 2011).

14
Table 2: Lipid percentages in sebaceous secretion
Table 2: Yamashita, B., & French, M. (2011). Latent print development. [PDF document].
(Chapter 7). Retrieved from Fingerprint sourcebook online website:
http://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/22
2.3 Types of Dusting and Chemical Processing Techniques used on Different Substrates
According to Yamashita and French (2011) latent fingerprints can either be hidden or unseen
by the naked eye, but can be detected with the use of powders and chemicals. The chemical or
powder used to detect latent fingerprints depends on the type of surface that the fingerprint is
deposit on, which can either be a porous or nonporous surface. On porous surfaces chemical
techniques are used to detect latent prints because porous surfaces are absorbent, which may
include wood, cardboard, paper or other types of cellulose (as cited in Almog, 2001, p. 178).
Nonporous surfaces are metal, wood, rubber, plastic, glass, or any other type of surface that repel
moisture. The chemical or powder techniques used to detect latent prints on nonporous surfaces
are: cyanoacrylate fuming followed by fluorescent dye stains, fingerprint dusting powders, and
vacuum metal deposition (Yamashita & French, 2011).
Lipid Percentage
Glycerides 33
Fatty acids 30
Wax esters 22
Cholesterol esters 2
Cholesterol 2
Squalene 10

15
Thornton (2008) stated the following on the sensitivity of powders and chemicals:
Techniques that develop latent fingerprints focus on creating a reaction between a
chemical and one or more components in fingerprint residues. Sensitivity is an
important aspect of a fingerprint-development technique. Fingerprint powders are
the least sensitive technique, requiring 500 to 1,000 ng (1 ng = 0.000000001 g) of
residue material to develop a print, while Ninhydrin needs 100 to 200 ng.
Ninhydrin’s analog, 1, 8-diazafluoren-9-one, or DFO, requires only 1 to 10 ng
(Modus operandi: The way something operates or works, para 2.)
According to Fish, Miller, and Braswell (2011) an individual will create latent fingerprints
when he or she places their fingers on a surface or substrate. Their fingerprints will deposit oils
or sweat on the surface or substrate that is sometimes invisible by the naked eye. Latent
fingerprints deposited on surfaces by children will disappear within a short period of time
because the components in children’s sweat are composed of free fatty acids, which can easily
evaporate between four to six hours. Latent fingerprints deposited on a surface or substrate by an
adult, will survive at a much longer duration than children’s latent prints, which maybe days or
weeks (Fish, Miller, & Braswell, 2011).
Cyanoacrylate Fuming
According to Wargacki, Lewis, and Dadmun (2007) the chemical composition of latent
fingerprints play an important role for the development of these prints with cyanoacrylate
fuming. The adult fingerprints consist mainly of eccrine sweat, but an individual’s lifestyle
could change the composition of eccrine sweat, depending on their diet. Wargacki et al. (2007)

16
stated, “The primary components of eccrine sweat are NaCl, lactate, and various amino acids.
These three most abundant components then become preliminary suspects as initiators of ECA
polymerization.” (p. 1058). Eccrine sweat can become contaminated with sebaceous secretion,
which contains mostly oils when in individual come in contact with other areas of the body
(Wargacki et al., 2007).
Cyanoacrylate fuming takes place in a fuming chamber, in which non-porous evidence is
placed to detect latent fingerprint from the vapors generated from heated super glue. These
vapors will adhere to fingerprint residue. According to Wargacki et al. (2007) the vapors from
cyanoacrylate fuming will form a white polymer on the ridges of fingerprints, which will usually
occur around 2 minutes. Under a microscope the ECA polymers will appear to be shaped as
white blobs or noodles, which had formed on the ridges of the fingerprint. These white blobs or
noodle shapes will allow the latent print to be visualized. In figure 2 photograph (A), a
cyanoacrylate polymer had formed on the ridge residue of a latent fingerprint, which consisted
mostly of eccrine sweat. In photograph (B) of figure 2, a cyanoacrylate polymer formed on the
ridges of a latent fingerprint that was contaminated with sebaceous sweat, which consisted
mainly of oils. If cyanoacrylate fuming is used on white surfaces, then other techniques may be
used for better contrast (Wargacki et al., 2007).

17
A
Figure 2: Cyanoacrylate polymer formed on ridge of eccrine sweat latent fingerprint.
Figure retrieved from Journal of forensic science, 52(5), 1057-1062. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com.mutex.gmu. Edu/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00527.x/pdf
B
Figure 3: Cyanoacrylate polymer formed on ridge of latent fingerprint that has touched oily,
sebaceous region of the body. Figure retrieved from Journal of forensic science, 52(5), 1057-
1062. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com.mutex.gmu. Edu/doi/10.1111/j.1556-
4029.2007.00527.x/pdf
According to Yamashita and French (2011) fingerprints that are fully developed from the
vapors of cyanoacrylate fuming will appear as a white three-dimensional matrix to the naked
eye. These fingerprints are sturdier than fingerprints that are left untreated without being process

18
by other chemicals or powders. Due to the durability of cyanoacrylate fuming on fingerprints,
some authorities believe that evidence at crime scenes should be treated with cyanoacrylate
fuming before being packaged and stored (as cited in Perkins and Thomas, 1991, p. 157-162)
(Yamashita & French, 2011).
Yamashita and French (2011) reported that after a surface has been treated with
cyanoacrylate fuming to detect latent fingerprints, fluorescent dye stains can be used to enhance
the print while being examined with a laser or alternate light source. Polymerized fingerprints
produced by cyanoacrylate fuming has its limitations in which, it doesn’t accept all fluorescent
dye stains. After cyanoacrylate fuming is completed fluorescent dye stains can be sprayed on the
surface or substrate that contains latent fingerprints, or the substrate can be dipped into the
fluorescent dye stain solution. The fluorescent dye stain will enhance latent fingerprints after
cyanoacrylate fuming from molecules in the dye stain that adheres to the polymers in
cyanoacrylate, by filling in the empty spaces (as cited in Menzel, 1999, p.162) (Yamashita &
French, 2011).
Fluorescent Powders and Dye stain Reagents
According to Yamashita and French (2011) fluorescent processing techniques used on
nonporous surfaces to detect latent fingerprints have been developed to aid fingerprint examiners
along with an alternate light source.
Yamashita and French (2011) stated the following on different types of dye stains:
Dye stains such as MBD [7-(p-methoxybenzylamino)-4-nitrobenz-2-oxa-1,3-
diazole], Rhodamine 6G (R6G), Ardrox, Basic yellow, and Basic red can be

19
prepared in the lab and are extremely effective for enhancing fingerprints
developed with cyanoacrylate. Some of these dye stains can be combined to
produce a stain that will fluoresce across a broad spectrum. One such stain is
RAM, a combination of R6G, Ardrox, and MBD. Because RAM can be used at
various wavelengths, the practitioner can often “tune out” problematic
background by selecting a wavelength that maximizes fingerprint fluorescence
and suppresses background fluorescence. Treatments for paper are equally
effective as those use on nonporous surfaces and include Ninhydrin toned with
zinc chloride and the Ninhydrin analogues; DFO, 1, 2-indane-dione, and 5-MTN
(5-methylthioninhydrin). (p. 7-31).
According to Yamashita and French (2011) a fingerprint examiner may use background
fluorescence to have better visualization of a fingerprint that is absorbing light and not
fluorescing. Background fluorescence will aid the examiner by increasing the contrast of the
fingerprint when the background is brightened. This will allow a dark fingerprint to be
visualized. Background fluorescence can sometimes be a hindrance, because it competes with a
fluorescing fingerprint for visualization. This problem can be solved with time-resolved imaging
(Yamashita & French, 2011). Yamashita and French (2011) stated,” this technique take
advantage of the difference between the time of emission of the substrate and the fluorescing
fingerprint” (as cited in Menzel, 1999, p 126) (p. 7-32).
Latent fingerprint dusting powders

20
According to Yamashita and French (2011) dusting with fingerprint powders allows the
examiner to visualize latent fingerprints from the powder adhering to the oily components in the
residue of latent fingerprints, that were deposited on nonporous surfaces (as cited in Sodhi and
Kaur, 2001, pp 172-176). Dusting latent fingerprints with powders is one of the oldest and most
common techniques used to visualize latent fingerprints, which been used by examiners since
1891 (as cited in Forgeot, 1891, pp 387-404). Fingerprint powders can be applied on nonporous
surfaces with the following brushes: feather, fiberglass, and animal hair. These brushes are soft
to prevent destroying the latent fingerprint residue (as cited in Bandey, 2004) (Yamashita &
French, 2011).
Yamashita and French (2011) stated the following on visualization of prints dusted with
powders:
Visualization will occur via reflected light (light powders), absorbed light (dark
powders), and luminescence (fluorescent powders). Sometimes powders are
combined for effectiveness on both light and dark substrates. This is the case with
bichromatic powder, which uses highly reflective aluminum powder mixed with
black powder to achieve visualization on both light and dark surfaces. A
disadvantage of mixing different types of pigment particles is that extremely faint
impressions, with few particles adhering to the print, may suffer from having only
a fraction of the necessary pigment needed for visualization. This problem can be
overcome by tagging a single type of pigment particle with a fluorescent dye

21
stain, thus creating a particle with dual uses rather than combining different types
of particles. (p. 7-11)
Yamashita and French (2011) stated that, the most common latent fingerprint powder
used by examiners is Carbon black. Carbon black can be mixed with other powders to be
effective on different types of nonporous surfaces (as cited in Cowger, 1983, pp 79-80). The
carbon black mixture can be dusted on different colored surfaces, which will produce a gray-
black image. On a glossy black surface the fingerprint will appear light in color (as cited in
Cowger, 1983, pp 79-80) (Yamashita & French, 2011).
According to Yamashita and French (2011) magnetic powders are applied to nonporous
surfaces with a magna brush. Magnetic powders come in three forms: dark, light, and
fluorescent. The magna brush is placed in the powder, which lifts particle mixture and iron to
form a ball. This ball on the end of the magna brush is swept back and forth over the substrate to
detect latent impressions. The magna brush causes less damage to latent fingerprints compared to
filament brushes (as cited in MacDonell, 1961, pp 7-15). Magnetic powders aren’t recommended
to be used on steel or nickel substrates, because the magnet on the brush may cause the brush to
come in contact with the substrate which may damage the fingerprint (Yamashita et al., 2011).
According to Fish, Miller, and Braswell (2011) latent fingerprints can be detected on the
adhesive side of tape. Sticky-side powder is brushed on the adhesive side of tape and rinsed off
with water. This process can be repeated to enhance contrast. The powder adheres to the latent
fingerprint residue, which will allow the examiner to reveal latent fingerprints. This process can
also be used after cyanoacrylate fuming (Fish et al., 2011).

22
2.4 Glove Evidence
Surveys were given to crime scene investigators online at the following ten police
departments in the United States: Oakland, Atlanta, Birmingham, ST. Louis, Memphis,
Baltimore, Tallahassee, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Diego; to determine what types of
gloves are typically left behind by the perpetrator at robbery, burglary, homicide, and motor
vehicle theft crime scenes. An anonymous crime scene investigator of the Baltimore Police
Department stated that, latex gloves are typically found at robbery, burglary, homicide, and
motor vehicle theft crime scenes because they are inexpensive. The perpetrator will take off the
gloves after committing the crime and toss them somewhere at the crime scene. A perpetrator
that uses fabric gloves to commit a crime will usually keep the gloves on after committing the
crime instead of taking them off and leaving them at the crime scene (personal communication,
December 23, 2013).
Every glove found at a crime scene may not be from the perpetrator. Amy George, a Senior
Crime Laboratory Analyst at the Tallahassee, Florida Department of Law Enforce stated that,
most gloves that are found at crime scenes are from EMS/first responders. She also stated that, if
the perpetrator is going to wear gloves they are usually going to take them with them (personal
communication, January 21, 2014). Denys Williams, a Senior Forensic Evidence Technician of
the San Diego Police Department stated that, he and other forensic evidence technicians don’t
typically find any gloves at crime scenes, but when they do they are usually latex (personal
communication, January 21, 2014).

23
Video surveillance can play an important role in determining what type of glove the
perpetrator used to commit a crime, and fabric impressions can give investigators clues that
gloves were worn to commit the crime.
Crime Scene Investigator, Pamela Zimmerle of the Kansas City Police Department stated the
following on glove evidence and fabric impressions:
We typically do not find gloves at scenes left by the suspect. Through video
evidence, I’ve seen bank robbery suspects wear latex gloves & fabric winter
gloves. Also, after processing for latent prints at robbery/burglary scenes, I’ve
seen fabric impressions left by gloves that could possibly be leather or fabric.
Occasionally, when processing stolen autos, fabric work gloves are found, but it
usually not known at the time if they belong to the suspect or the vehicle.
(personal communication, February 10, 2014).
In figure 4 survey results showed that latex, rubber, nitrile, fabric, and leather gloves are
typically found at robbery, burglary, homicide, and motor vehicle theft crime scenes according to
sources requested for this research.

24
Figure 4: Glove evidence survey results from crime scene investigators from the Oakland,
Atlanta, Birmingham, ST. Louis, Memphis, Tallahassee, San Diego, Minneapolis, Kansas City
and Baltimore police department, 2013-2014 personal communication
Survey results concluded that, gloves typically found at robbery, burglary, homicide and
motor vehicle theft crime scenes are powdered or non-powdered latex, nitrile, household rubber,
fabric and leather gloves.
2.5 Previous Research on Glove Evidence and Analysis
Howard Speaks joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1947 as a deputy, and later
specialized in fingerprints. Speaks had experience with the use of Ninhydrin to detect latent
fingerprints on rubber gloves and discussed this experience with others. Speaks (2003) stated
that, a burglar that wears gloves could be very frustrating to a latent fingerprint officer, because
no latent fingerprints may not be left at the crime scene for the examiner to analyze. Criminals
may choose to use rubber gloves to commit crimes, because they are thin, flexible, and the
26%
7%
17%
33%
17%
Gloves typically found at robbery,
burglary, homicide, and motor
vehicle theft crime scenes
Latex
Rubber
Nitrile
Fabric
Leather

25
gloves will allow them to have a better sense of touch. This may be the reason why not too many
criminals wear thick gloves, which may prevent them from grasping things. Criminals that wear
rubber gloves to commit burglaries may leave their fingerprints on the interior of the gloves
(Speaks, 2003).
According to Speaks (2003) people believed that when a criminal wear rubber gloves to
commit a crime, no latent fingerprints would be left at the crime scene and no latent fingerprints
could be detected on gloves that were left at the crime scene by the perpetrator. Speaks wanted to
prove that latent fingerprints can be detected on rubber gloves with the use of Ninhydrin. Speaks
was successful in detecting latent fingerprints on the interior of a pair of rubber gloves that were
used in a burglary, by developing the prints with Ninhydrin (Speaks, 2003).
Michael Smith (2008) of the Alexandria Police Department in Alexandria, Virginia
conducted an experiment to detect, develop and photograph latent fingerprints on latex gloves.
Smith experimented with using chemicals and powders to detect fingerprints on non-porous latex
gloves. He treated the gloves with traditional, magnetic and fluorescent powders. The gloves
were also treated with the following three chemicals: small particle reagent, cyanoacrylate
fuming, and Rhodamine 6 g. At the completion of his experiment he concluded that the
fluorescent powder showed the best results. Gloves examined two hours after being deposited
with latent fingerprints showed good results while only being dusted with powders. Gloves
examined the previous day after being deposit with latent fingerprints showed good results with
the use of cyanoacrylate fuming followed by different types of fluorescent powders (Latent
fingerprints on latex gloves section, para. 3-7).

26
Former Crime Scene Officer, Theo Velders of the Netherlands had success in detecting
latent fingerprints from latex and vinyl gloves without the use of powders or chemicals. His
experiment consisted of three phases while using numerous chemical processing techniques.
Velders (2004) stated that, fingerprint dusting powders and sweat deposited inside of gloves was
the reason that latent fingerprints are destroyed, and the chemical methods used to detect latent
fingerprints inside these gloves aren’t successful. In his 30 years as a crime scene officer, he
detected latent fingerprints inside a latex glove only once after many unsuccessful tries. In 2001,
a co-worker gave Velders four latex gloves that were recovered from a burglary crime scene.
Velders treated two of the gloves with Ninhydrin and the other two latex gloves were treated
with cyanoacrylate fuming. Both methods failed to detect latent fingerprints from the inside of
the four latex gloves (Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex gloves using gel
lifters, para. 4-5).
Velders (2004) stated that, he didn’t have success in detecting fingerprints from four latex
gloves left at a burglary crime scene with the use of chemicals, so he decided to conduct an
experiment in detecting latent fingerprints from powdered and powder-free latex gloves and
vinyl gloves in three phases.
Phase 1
Phase one consisted of eight tests with a variety of chemical processing techniques while
a volunteer placed their fingerprints on the palm area of a powdered and powdered-free latex and
vinyl glove. Phase one consisted of eight tests while experimenting with chemical processing
techniques:

27
 Test 1: Figure 5 consisted of a powdered latex glove, which was dipped in
Ninhydrin. The Ninhydrin changed the color of the glove and reveal some ridge
detail, which was lifted with a black gelatin lifter.
Figure 5: Powdered-latex glove treated with Ninhydrin and lifted with a black gel lifter.
Adapted from “Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex gloves using
gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.com/
EN/prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html
 Test 2: In figure 6 a powered latex glove was treated with cyanoacrylate fuming
followed by fluorescent dye stain Rhodamine 6 g. The surface of the latex glove
fluoresced, but not the fingerprints. The latex gloves were processed five times
with cyanoacrylate fuming followed by fluorescent dye stain Rhodamine 6 g,
which resulted in the fingerprints becoming more visible with clarity after being
processed five times.

28
Figure 6: Powdered-latex glove treated with cyanoacrylate fuming followed by fluorescent dye
stain Rhodamine 6 g. Adapted from “Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex
gloves using gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.c
om/EN/prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html
 Test 3: In figure 7 a powdered latex glove was treated only with cyanoacrylate
fuming. Fingerprints became visible from the cyanoacrylate fuming alone and
were lifted with a black gelatin lifter.

29
Figure 7: Powdered-latex glove treated only with cyanoacrylate fuming. Adapted from
“Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex gloves using gellifters,” by M.J.M.
(Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.com/EN/prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.
html
 Test 4: In figure 8 a latex glove was treated with no chemical process and visible
fingerprints were lifted with a black gel lifter on the first lift.
Figure 8: No chemical process used on a latex glove and prints were lifted with a gel lifter.
gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.com/EN/
prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html

30
 Test 5: Figure 9 shows a powder-free latex glove processed with cyanoacrylate
fuming followed by fluorescent dye stain Rhodamine 6 g. The first fingerprint
lifted was of good quality, but the remaining lifts showed poor quality.
Figure 9: Powder-free latex glove treated with cyanoacrylate fuming followed by rhodamine 6
g. Adapted from “Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex gloves using
gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.com/EN/prd
ctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html
 Test 6: Figure 10 show a powder-free disposable latex glove that wasn’t treated
with a chemical processing technique. Fingerprints were visible and lifted with a
black gelatin lifter.

31
Figure 10: No chemical processing technique used on a powder-free disposable latex glove.
gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.com/EN/
prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html
 Test 7: In figure 11 a powdered vinyl glove wasn’t processed with chemicals.
Fingerprints were visible and lifted with a black gelatin lifter.
Figure 11: No chemical processing technique used on a vinyl glove and prints were lifted with a
black gelatin lifter. Adapted from “Visualization of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex
gloves using gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders, 2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.
com/EN/prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html

32
 Test 8: In figure 12 a powdered latex glove was stained with Gentian violet. After
being stained with Gentian violet the glove was left out to dry and revealed some
fingerprint ridges on the index and middle finger, but the fingerprint classification
couldn’t be identified.
Figure 12: Powdered latex glove was stained with gentian violet. Adapted from “Visualization
of latent fingerprints on used vinyl and latex gloves using gellifters,” by M.J.M. (Theo) Velders,
2004, Retrieved online at http://www.bvda.com/EN/prdctinf/fp_latex_gloves.html
Velders concluded that in the 6th
test the latex gloves weren’t treated with chemicals and
lifted with a black gel lifter, which showed the best results. On the 7th
test vinyl gloves weren’t
processed with chemicals and also lifted with a black gel lifter, which also gave the best results
detecting latent fingerprints.
Phase 2
Phase two of Velder’s experiment involved nine different volunteers who wore gloves
while at work for duration of 15 to 70 minutes. The gloves were stored for six days before being
analyzed for the detection of latent fingerprints. No chemical processing techniques were used in
this phase and 59 out of 90 fingerprints were identifiable.

33
Phase 3
In phase three, 12 latex gloves were retrieved from a trash receptacle. The gloves
appeared to be at least 10 days old. The five chemical processing technique used on these gloves
were: superglue, DFO (1, 8-Diazafluoren-9-one), iodine, Sticky-side powder, and Gentian violet,
which resulted in poor results for the detection of latent fingerprints. The Sticky-side powder
destroyed the latent fingerprints on the latex and vinyl gloves (Visualization of latent fingerprints
on used vinyl and latex gloves using gel lifters, para. 13, 17-25).
Detective, Mark Ianni of the Edison Township, New Jersey Police Department was
encourage by colleague Michael Burzinski to experiment with rubber latex gloves to detect latent
fingerprints. Ianni (2002) stated, it’s sometimes impossible to detect latent fingerprints from a
rubber latex glove that can be beneficial in identifying a suspect. Ianni conducted four tests to
detect latent fingerprints from rubber latex gloves with the following chemicals and powders:
iodine crystals, cyanoacrylate fuming, standard Silk black latent print powder, standard Gray
latent print powder, and fluorescent powder. Ianni stated that, before testing the gloves with
different chemicals and powders, he wore the powdered rubber latex gloves for approximately
five minutes to allow his latent fingerprints to be deposit in the inside of the gloves. Ianni’s
experiment included the following 4 test:
 Test 1: A powdered rubber latex glove was placed inside a bag which was fumed
with iodine crystals for approximately 10 minutes. Latent fingerprints weren’t
detected during this first test.

34
 Test 2: Consisted of placing gloves in a fume chamber for cyanoacrylate fuming
before being dusted with a standard Silk black latent fingerprint powder. This
method tested negative for latent fingerprints.
 Test 3: Test consisted of placing gloves in a fume chamber for cyanoacrylate
fuming before being dusted with standard Gray latent fingerprint powder. This
method tested negative for latent fingerprints.
 Test 4: After the glove was dusted with a fluorescent powder, it was viewed with
an alternate light source which detected latent fingerprints with enough ridge
detail that would be useful in comparison (Ianni, 2002).
Daniel Rinehart of the Harris County Sheriff’s Department conducted an experiment to
detect latent fingerprints on rubber gloves. Rinehart (2000) reported that there is limited research
for the detection of latent fingerprints on rubber gloves with the use of Ninhydrin-heptane; so he
decided to use Ninhydrin-heptane to detect latent fingerprints from the exterior of rubber gloves;
after superglue fuming alone fail to detect any fingerprints (Developing latent prints on
household rubber gloves using Ninhydrin heptane carrier after superglue fuming, 2000, para. 5).
Rinehart (2000) stated that, he was asked to detect latent fingerprints from a pair of
yellow rubber gloves that were used in a case involving a fellow police officer. The pair of
gloves were first treated with superglue fuming and analyzed with three different light sources
which were: luma lite, two light bulbs of 750 watts, and an alternate light source. Rinehart failed
to detect any ridge detail with the three different light sources on the pair of rubber gloves.
Rinehart decided to use Ninhydrin-heptane to detect latent fingerprints on the rubber gloves,

35
after having negative results with superglue fuming alone. The interior and exterior of the gloves
were dipped into a Ninhydrin solution and placed in a vent hood to dry. Visible identifiable
fingerprint ridge detail was detected on the right hand glove within 55 minutes and showed the
best results in 3 hours and 10 minutes (Developing latent prints on household rubber gloves
using Ninhydrin heptane carrier after superglue fuming, 2000, para. 6-8).
2.6 Case Study
According to Speaks (2003) a burglar in the Los Angeles, California area burglarized an
office and wore a pair of rubber gloves to prevent leaving fingerprints at the crime scene. The
burglar entered the office at night and turned on an extra light that’s not normally on at that time
of day. A police officer on patrol noticed the extra light turned on at the office and went to
investigate. The burglar noticed the arrival of the officers, took off his rubber gloves, left them at
the office and fled. The pair of rubber gloves were collected by officers and taking to the
laboratory to be analyzed for the detection of latent fingerprints. Speaks analyzed the pair of
rubber gloves in the laboratory for the detection of latent fingerprints, by first turning the gloves
inside out to have access to the portion of the gloves where the fingerprints made contact. These
gloves were dipped into a Ninhydrin solution and then set out to dry. In a short period of time
fingerprint friction ridges became visible on the interior of the gloves (Speaks, 2003).

36
CHAPTER 3. LABORATORY ANALYSIS
3.1 Materials
1. Grey red bull can (control sample
1.)
2. Glass bottle (control sample 2.)
3. Powder latex gloves (A.1,
A.2,A.3,A.4,A.5,A.6,A.7,A.8,
A.9, A.10, A.11, A.12, A.13,
A.14, A.15, A.16)
4. Non-powder latex gloves
(B.1,B.2,B.3,B.4,B.5,B.6,B.7,B.8
, B.9, B.10, B.11, B.12)
5. Nitrile powder gloves
(C.1,C.2,C.3,C.4,C.5,C.6,C.7,C.8
, C.9, C.10, C.11, C.12, C.13,
C.14, C.15, C.16)
6. Non-powder nitrile gloves (D.1,
D.2, D.3, D.4, D.5, D.6, D.7,
D.8, D.9, D.10, D.11, D.12,
D.13, D.14, D.15, D.16, D.17.
D.18, D.19, D.20)
7. Household rubber gloves
(E.1,E.2,E.3,E.4,E.5,E.6,E.7,E.8,
E.9, E.10, E.11, E.12, E.13, E.14,
E.15, E.16)
8. Leather gloves (F.1, F.2, F.3,
F.4,F.5,F.6)
9. Large glass dish
10. Fiberglass dusting powder brush
11. Magnetic dusting powder wand
12. Fuming chamber
13. Warming plate
14. Superglue
15. Aluminum cup
16. Small beaker
17. Large beaker
18. Lifting tape
19. Gel lifter
20. DCS 4 camera
21. Canon camera
22. Lab coat
23. Safety glasses
24. Mask
25. Ninhydrin
26. Rhodamine 6G
27. MBD florescent dye stain
mixture
28. Ardrox
29. RAM florescent stain mixture
30. Hi-fi white volcano latent print
dusting powder
31. Black lighting dusting powder
32. Ultra blue 2000 florescent
magnetic powder
3.2 Methodology:
I, the researcher, am a 36 year old male and the only human subject used in this research
project. Two control samples were used to determine if I was a good contributor of latent
fingerprints. The two control samples were a grey red bull aluminum can and a glass bottle.
Fingerprints were deposited on both samples and a fiberglass brush was used to dust both

37
samples with Lighting black dusting powder. Figure 13 shows control sample #1 (grey red bull
can) a left loop fingerprint with ridge detail. Figure 14 shows control sample #2 (glass bottle) a
left loop fingerprint with ridge detail. In this research project, powdered and non-powdered latex,
powdered and non-powdered nitrile, rubber household, and leather gloves were chosen to detect
fingermarks on the interior or exterior of these gloves, because these gloves are typically found
at crime scenes that were left by the perpetrator.
Figure 13: Left loop fingerprint deposited on Control Sample #1

38
Figure 14: Left loop fingerprint deposited on Control Sample #2
Phase 1: Gloves worn and processed the same day with CA/dusting powders
The following gloves were worn for 3 minutes while walking and doing exercises in
place: powered latex gloves (A.1,A.2,A.3,A.4), non-powered latex gloves (B.1,B.2,B.3,B.4),
powered nitrile gloves (C.1,C.2,C.3,C.4), non-powered nitrile gloves (D.1,D.2,D.3,D.4), and
rubber gloves (E.1,E.2,E.3,E.4). These gloves were packaged in a cardboard box and taken to the
laboratory to be analyzed for latent fingerprints 2 hours and 10 minutes after use.
In this project, each glove was turned inside out expect for leather gloves, air was blown
into the gloves and clipped at the ends to prevent the air from escaping before being hung in the
fuming chamber. This prevented the gloves from flatting out during the fuming process. A latex
glove filled with air in figure 15 also eliminated crevices in the gloves, which allowed the
dusting powder to adhere on the entire surface and to create space between the fingers to be able
to dust in between the fingers to enhance ridge detail.

39
Figure 15: Latex glove filled with air
White latex powdered gloves A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4 were hung in the fuming chamber
figure 16 with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue and beaker of water filled to 250
ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 10 minutes. All 4 gloves
were dusted with an Ultra blue 2000 florescent magnetic dusting powder.
Figure 16: Fuming chamber
Dark blue non-powdered latex gloves B.1, B.2, B.3, and B.4 were hung in the fuming
chamber with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue and beaker of water filled to 250

40
were dusted with Hi-fi white volcano dusting powder.
Light blue nitrile powdered gloves C.1, C.2, C.3, and C.4 were hung in the fuming
were dusted with Lighting powder black.
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.1, D.2, D.3, and D.4 were hung in the fuming
were dusted with Lighting powder black.
Blue household rubber gloves E.1, E.2, E.3, and E.4 were hung in the fuming chamber
with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue and beaker of water filled to 250 ml. Air
was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 14 minutes. The gloves were not
dusted with any dusting powders.
Phase 2: Gloves worn and processed the same day with CA/fluorescent dye stains
The following gloves were worn for 3 minutes while walking and doing exercises in
place: powered latex gloves (A.5,A.6,A.7,A.8), non-powered latex gloves (B.5,.B.6,B.7,B.8),
powered nitrile gloves (C.5,C.6,C.7,C.8), non-powered nitrile gloves (D.5,D.6,D.7,D.8), and
household rubber gloves (E.5,E.6,E.7,E.8). These gloves were packaged in a cardboard box and
taken to the laboratory to be analyzed for latent fingerprints 2 hours after use. The best latent
prints developed from each glove were cut out and photographed with a DCS 4 camera equipped
with a Nikon D700 digital camera with various wavelength options and filters.

41
White latex powdered gloves A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.8 were placed in the fuming chamber with
a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue and beaker of water filled to 250 ml. Air was
blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 15 minutes. There was development
of white fingerprints on some gloves. The finger portion of the interior of the gloves where the
fingerprints made contact turned a light brownish color. Each glove was dipped on both sides in
a large glass dish of florescent dye stain Rhodamine 6g and hung to dry in the fuming chamber.
The following day all gloves were dry of Rhodamine 6g and turned a pinkish color. The finger
portions of some gloves were stuck together and were pulled apart.
Dark blue non-powdered latex gloves B.5, B.6, B.7, and B.8 were placed in the fuming
ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 12 minutes. White
fingerprints were detected on the interior of the finger portion of the gloves with ridge detail and
classification. Each glove was dipped on both sides in a large glass dish of florescent dye stain
Rhodamine 6 g and hung to dry in the fuming chamber. The following day all gloves were dry of
Rhodamine 6 g which had circular dark red dried stains all over. The finger portions of some
gloves were stuck together and were pulled apart.
Light blue powdered nitrile gloves C.5, C.6, C.7, and C.8 were placed in the fuming chamber
was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 12 minutes. White fingerprints
were detected on the interior of the finger portion of the gloves with ridge detail and
classification. Each glove was dipped on both sides in a large glass dish of MBD florescent stain
mixture, rinsed off with water and hung to dry in the fuming chamber. The following day all

42
gloves were dry of MBD florescent stain mixture. Some of the finger portions of the gloves were
stuck together and pulled apart.
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.5, D.6, D.7, and D.8 were placed in the fuming
chamber with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water filled to 250
ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 14 minutes. White
fingerprints were detected on the interior of the finger portion of the gloves with ridge detail.
Each glove was dipped on both sides in a large glass dish of MBD florescent stain mixture,
rinsed off with water and hung to dry in the fuming chamber. The following day all gloves were
dry of MBD florescent stain mixture.
Blue household rubber gloves E.5, E.6, E.7, and E.8 were placed in the fuming chamber with
a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water filled to 250 ml. Air was
blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 12 minutes. White fingerprints were
detected on the interior of the finger portion of the gloves with ridge detail and classification.
Each glove was dipped on both sides in a large glass dish of florescent dye stain Ardrox, rinsed
off with water and hung to dry in the fuming chamber. The following day all gloves were dry of
the florescent dye stain Ardrox.
Phase 3: Gloves worn and processed the following day with CA/dusting powders and
Ninhydrin
The following gloves were worn for 3 minutes while walking and doing exercises in place:
powered latex gloves (A.9,A.10,A.11,A.12), powered nitrile gloves (C.9,C.10,C.11,C.12), non-
powered nitrile gloves (D.9,D.10,D.11,D.12, D.13, D.14, D.15, D.16), and household rubber
gloves (E.9,E.10,E.11,E.12). Non-powdered latex gloves represented by B weren’t processed in

43
this phase. These gloves were packaged in a cardboard box and taken to the laboratory to be
analyzed for latent fingerprints on the following day (50 hours) after use.
White latex powdered gloves A.9, A.10, A.11, and A.12 were placed in the fuming chamber
was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 10 minutes. There was
development of white fingerprints on the interior finger portion of the gloves. All gloves were
dusted with Ultra blue 2000 florescent magnetic powder with a fiberglass brush.
Light blue powdered nitrile glove C.9, C.10, C.11, C.12 were placed in the fuming chamber
with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water filled to 600 ml. Air
was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 13 minutes. There were white
fingerprints detected on the interior of the finger portion of some gloves. All gloves were dusted
with Hi-fi white volcano dusting powder.
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.9, D.10, D.11, and D.12 were placed in the fuming
ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for approximately 14
minutes. All 4 gloves were dusted with Lighting powder black.
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.13, D.14, D.15, and D.16 were placed in the
fuming chamber with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water filled
to 600 ml. All 4 gloves were dusted with 2000 Ultra blue florescent magnetic powder.
Blue household rubber gloves E.9, E.10, E.11, and E.12 were placed in the fuming chamber
with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water filled to 600 ml. Air
was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 16 minutes. There was no white

44
fingerprint development. Ninhydrin was poured into a large dish and each glove was dipped on
both sides into the Ninhydrin. The gloves were hung to dry in the fuming chamber. The
following day the gloves were dry from being saturated in Ninhydrin. The gloves were inspected
for fingerprints with oblique lighting.
Phase 4: Gloves worn, placed outdoors for 13 days in various temperatures and processed
with CA/powders and RAM florescent stain mixture
Gloves were worn for 3 minutes while walking and doing exercises in place and placed
outdoors for 13 days in average temperatures of 56 degrees. During those 13 days it snowed for
three days and rained for three days. The following gloves were powdered latex gloves A.13,
A.14, A.15, A.16 non-powdered latex gloves B.9, B.10, B.11, B.12, powdered nitrile gloves
C.13, C.14, C.15, C.16, non-powdered nitrile gloves D.17, D.18, D.19, D.20, and household
rubber gloves E.13, E.13, E.15, and E.16. On the 14 day the gloves were collected, packaged in a
cardboard box and taken to the laboratory to be analyzed for latent fingerprints. All gloves
collected had dirt debris and water on the interior and exterior of the gloves.
White powdered latex gloves A.13, A.14, A.15, and A.16 were placed in the fuming
ml. Air was blown into the gloves, but the air escaped due to tiny holes in the gloves and hung in
the fuming chamber for 10 minutes. There were white fingerprints detected on the interior finger
portion of the gloves. Each glove was dusted with Ultra blue 2000 florescent magnetic powder.
Dark blue non-powdered latex gloves B.9, B.10, B.11, and B.12 were placed in the
fuming chamber with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue and beaker of water filled
to 600 ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 10 minutes.

45
Gloves B.9, B.11, and B.12 were dusted with Ultra blue 2000 florescent magnetic powder. Glove
B.10 was dusted with lighting black dusting powder.
Light blue powdered nitrile gloves C.13, C.14, C.15, and C.16 were placed in the fuming
ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 14 minutes. All gloves
were dusted with Lighting black dusting powder.
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.17, D.18, D.19, and D.20 were placed in the
fuming chamber with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water filled
to 600 ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 11 minutes. Each
glove was dusted with Lighting black dusting powder.
Blue household rubber gloves E.13, E.14, E.15 and E.16 were placed in the fuming
ml. Air was blown into the gloves and hung in the fuming chamber for 10 minutes. RAM
florescent stain mixture was poured into a large dish. Each glove was dipped on both sides into
the florescent stain mixture twice. The gloves were hung to dry for 15 minutes in the fume hood.
Oblique lighting was used to detect latent fingerprints on each glove. The gloves were placed
under the DCS 4 camera and scanned for fingerprints with the alternate light source and orange
filter.
Phase 5: Prints deposited on leather gloves and processed with cyanoacrylate fuming and
Ninhydrin
Fingerprints were deposited on the exterior of black leather gloves F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5,
and F.6 for 5 seconds. Ninhydrin was poured into a large dish and gloves F.1, F.2, and F.3 were

46
dipped on both sides into the Ninhydrin. The gloves were hung to dry in the fume hood for one
day. The following day each glove was scanned for fingerprints with oblique lighting. Leather
gloves F.4, F.5, and F.6 were only processed with cyanoacrylate fuming. The gloves were placed
in the fuming chamber with a warming plate, aluminum cup with superglue, and beaker of water
filled to 600 ml. The gloves were hung in the fuming chamber for 18 minutes. The gloves were
scanned with oblique light and some white ridge detail was detected on some gloves.
3.3 Results and Discussion
Phase 1. Experimental measures and analysis
White powdered latex gloves A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4 showed some white fingerprint ridge
detail, but no classification on the interior finger portion of the gloves after being fumed in the
fuming chamber for 10 minutes. All 4 gloves were dusted with Ultra blue 2000 florescent
magnetic powder. A latent fingerprint was detected on the thumb of glove A.1 figure 17, which
was a whorl double loop print with ridge detail. A whorl print with ridge detail was detected on
the thumb of glove A.2 figure 18.

47
Figure 17: Whorl double loop print with ridge detail on thumb of powdered latex glove A.1
Figure 18: Whorl print with ridge detail on thumb of powdered latex glove A.2
Dark blue non-powdered latex gloves B.1, B.2, B.3, and B.4 showed some white
smudges on the interior finger portion of the gloves after being fumed in the fuming chamber for
10 minutes. All 4 gloves were dusted with Hi-fi white volcano powder. A latent print was
detected on the little finger of glove B.2 figure 19, which was a right loop with ridge detail that

48
was photographed with a Canon powder shot camera, lifted with tape and placed on an index
card.
Figure 19: Left loop print with ridge detail on little finger of non-powdered latex glove B.2
Light blue powdered nitrile gloves C.1, C.2, C.3, and C.4 showed some white smudges
and ridge detail on the interior finger portion of the gloves after being fumed in the fuming
chamber for 16 minutes. All 4 gloves were dusted with Lighting black powder. Fingerprints
were detected on the little finger of glove C.2 and C.4 which was lifted with tape, placed on an
index card and photographed with a Canon power camera. The little finger of glove C.2 figure
20, was a left loop with ridge detail. Ridge detail was detected on glove C.3, but no classification
was identified. A left loop print with ridge detail was detected on glove C.4 figure 21.

49
Figure 20: Left loop print with ridge detail on little finger of powdered nitrile glove C.2
Figure 21: Left loop print with ridge detail on little finger of powdered nitrile glove C.4

50
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.1, D.2, D.3, and D.4 showed very little white
ridge detail on the interior finger portion of the gloves after being fumed in the fuming chamber
for 14 minutes. All 4 gloves were dusted with Lighting black powder. No discernable prints were
detected on all 4 gloves.
Blue household rubber gloves E.1, E.2, E.3, and E.4 showed excellent white prints with
ridge detail and classification on the interior finger portion of the gloves after being fumed in the
fuming chamber for 14 minutes. The gloves weren’t dusted with powders. A right loop with
ridge detail was detected on the middle finger of glove E.1 figure 22, which was photographed
with a Canon power shot camera.
Figure 22: Right loop print with ridge detail on middle finger of household rubber glove E.1
Latent fingerprints were classified by a scoring scale as followed: 1-no evidence of a
fingermark, 2-weak development; evidence of contact but no ridge details, 3-strong
development; between 1/3 and 2/3 of ridge details, and 4-very strong development; full ridge

51
details; identifiable fingermark. Table 3 represents gloves worn and processed the same day for
latent fingerprints with CA/dusting powders.
Table 3: Phase 1: Gloves worn and processed the same day with CA/dusting powders
CA/Ultra Blue
2000 Magnetic
Powder
CA/Volcano
White Powder
CA/Lighting
Black Powder
Cyanoacrylate
Alone
Powdered Latex
A.1
4
Powdered Latex
A.2
4
Powdered Latex
A.3
3
Powdered Latex
A.4
3
Non-Powdered
Latex B.1
3
Non-Powdered
Latex B.2
4
Non-Powdered
Latex B.3
3
Non-Powdered
Latex B.4
3
Powdered Nitrile
C.1
3
Powdered Nitrile
C.2
4
Powdered Nitrile
C.3
3
Powdered Nitrile
C.4
4
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.1
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.2
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.3
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.4
1
Household Rubber
E.1
4
Household Rubber
E.2
4
Household Rubber
E.3
4

52
CA/Ultra Blue
2000 Magnetic
Powder
CA/Volcano
White Powder
CA/Lighting
Black Powder
Cyanoacrylate
Alone
Household Rubber
E.4
3
Figure 23: Bar graph results in phase 1
White powdered latex gloves A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.8 turned a pink color from the
Rhodamine 6 g florescent dye stain. There were no fingerprints or ridge detail detected on the
gloves.
Dark blue non-powdered latex gloves B.5, B.6, B.7, and B.8 were processed with Rhodamine
6 g. The three best fingerprints were detected on gloves B.6, B.7 and B.8, which were cut out of
the gloves with scissors and photographed with the DCS 4 camera with the following settings:
blue alternate light source, orange filter, wavelength 448 nm (B.6, B.7), 480 nm (B.8), 1600 ISO,
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Powdered
latex
Non-
powdered
latex
Powdered
nitrile
Non-
powdered
nitrile
Household
rubber gloves
Phase 1: Gloves worn and processed the same
day with CA/dusting powders
CA/Ultra Blue 200 Magnetic Powder CA/Volcano White Powder
CA/Lighting Black Powder Cyanoacrylate Alone

53
1/8 shutter speed and medium resolution. Glove B.5 had ridge detail, but no fingerprint
classification was detected. A loop print with ridge detail was detected on glove B.6 figure 24.
The best fingerprint was detected on the thumb of glove B.7 figure 25, which was a whorl print
with ridge detail. A loop print with ridge detail was detected on the glove B.8 figure 26.
Figure 24: Loop print with ridge detail on non-powdered latex glove B.6
Figure 25: Whorl print with ridge detail on non-powdered latex glove B.7

54
Figure 26: Loop print with ridge detail on non-powdered latex glove B.8
Light blue powdered nitrile gloves C.5, C.6, C.7, and C.8 were processed with MBD
florescent stain mixture and fingerprint classification and ridge detail was detected after a visual
inspection. A fingerprint detected on one of the finger portions of glove C.5 figure 27 was cut
out with scissors and photographed with the DCS 4 camera with the following settings: blue
alternate light source, orange filter, wavelength 410 nm, 1600 ISO, 1/8 shutter speed and
medium resolution. The following fingerprints were detected on glove C.6: loop with ridge detail
on the little finger, whorl with ridge detail on the ring finger figure 28, ridge detail on the middle,
and a white smudge print on the index. There were white smudged prints on all fingers of glove
C.7 with no ridge detail or print classification. The following fingerprints were detected on glove
C.8: ridges on little finger, whorl with ridge detail on ring, smudged print on index, and whorl
with ridge detail on the thumb.

55
Figure 27: Left loop print on powdered nitrile glove C.5
Figure 28: Whorl print on powdered nitrile glove C.6

56
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.5, D.6, D.7, and D.8 were processed with MBD
florescent stain mixture. There was partial ridge detail on the index finger of glove D.7. There
were no discernible fingerprints that were cut out and photographed from these gloves.
Blue household rubber gloves E.5, E.6, E.7, and E.8 were processed with florescent dye
stain Ardrox. There were no discernible fingerprints that were cut out and photographed from
these gloves.
details; identifiable fingermark. Table 4 represents gloves worn and processed the same day with
CA/florescent dye stains.
Table 4: Phase 2: Gloves worn and analyzed the same day with CA/florescent dye stains
CA/Rhodamine 6 G CA/MBD
florescent
dye stain
mixture
CA/Ardrox
Powdered Latex
A.5
1
Powdered Latex
A.6
1
Powdered Latex
A.7
1
Powdered Latex
A.8
1
Non-Powdered
Latex B.5
3
Non-Powdered
Latex B.6
4
Non-Powdered
Latex B.7
4
Non-Powdered
Latex B.8
4
Powdered Nitrile
C.5
1
Powdered Nitrile
C.6
4

57
CA/Rhodamine 6 G CA/MBD
florescent
dye stain
mixture
CA/Ardrox
Powdered Nitrile
C.7
1
Powdered Nitrile
C.8
4
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.5
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.6
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.7
3
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.8
1
Household
Rubber E.5
1
Household
Rubber E.6
1
Household
Rubber E.7
1
Household
Rubber E.8
1
0
5
10
15
20
CA/Rhodamine 6 g CA/Mbd florescent dye stain mixture CA/Ardrox
Phase 2: Gloves worn and processed the same
day with CA/florescent dye stains
Powdered latex Non-powdered latex Powdered nitrile
Non-powdered nitrile Rubber household

58
White powdered latex gloves A.9, A.10, A.11, and A.12 were processed with Ultra blue 2000
florescent magnetic powder after superglue fuming. Three prints from glove A.10 was lifted with
tape, but became discernable after being placed on an index card. A gel lifter was used to retrieve
a print from glove A.11, but made the print discernable. A thumb print was lifted with tape from
glove A.12 and placed on an index card. There were no prints detected on powdered latex glove
A.9. The following prints were detected from glove A.10: loop on middle finger with ridge
detail, whorl on thumb with ridge detail and loop with ridge detail on an unknown finger. A
fingerprint was detected on glove A.11 with classification and ridge detail. A whorl thumb print
with ridge detail was detected on glove A.12.
Powdered nitrile gloves C.9, C.10, C.11, and C.12 were processed with Hi-fi volcano white
powder after superglue fuming. Fingerprints with classification and ridge detail were detected on
gloves C.9, C.10, and C.11. Glove C.9 and C.10 were retrieved with a gel lifter, but made the
prints discernable. A thumb print was lifted from glove C.11 figure 30, placed on an index card
and photographed with a Canon power shot camera.
Figure 30: Whorl print with ridge detail on nitrile glove C.11

59
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.9, D.10, D.11, and D.12 were dusted with
Lighting black powder and D.13, D.14, D.15 and D.16 were processed with Ultra-blue 2000
florescent dye stain after superglue fuming. No fingerprints were detected on the gloves.
Blue household rubber gloves E.9, E.10, E.11, and E.12 were processed with Ninhydrin.
There were many fingerprints detected with oblique lighting on all 4 gloves. A print detected
from glove E.10 and E.12 was cut out with scissors. Photographs were taken of the prints with
the DCS 4 camera. A loop print with ridge detail was detected on glove E.9. A print with ridge
detail and no print classification was located on the bottom portion of the interior of glove E.10
figure 31. There were prints detected with ridge detail on glove E.11. A whorl double loop print
with ridge detail was detected on the interior of glove E.12 figure 32.
Figure 31: Ridge detail on household rubber glove E.10

60
Figure 32: Whorl double loop print on household rubber glove E.12
details; identifiable fingermark. Table 5 represents gloves worn and processed the following day
(50 hours) for latent fingerprints with CA/dusting powders and Ninhydrin.
Table 5: Phase 3: Gloves worn and processed the following day with CA/dusting powders and
Ninhydrin
CA/Ultra Blue
2000 Magnetic
Powder
CA/Volcano
White Powder
CA/Lighting
Black Powder
Ninhydrin
Powdered Latex
A.9
1
Powdered Latex
A.10
4
Powdered Latex
A.11
4
Powdered Latex
A.12
4
Powdered Nitrile
C.9
4

61
CA/Ultra Blue
2000 Magnetic
Powder
CA/Volcano
White Powder
CA/Lighting
Black Powder
Ninhydrin
Powdered Nitrile
C.10
4
Powdered Nitrile
C.11
4
Powdered Nitrile
C.12
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.9
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.10
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.11
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.12
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.13
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.14
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.15
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.16
1
Household
Rubber E.9
4
Household
Rubber E.10
4
Household
Rubber E.11
4
Household
Rubber E.12
4

62
White powdered latex gloves A.13, A.14, A.15, and A.16 were processed with Ultra blue
2000 florescent dye stain after superglue fuming. Ridge detail and fingerprint classification was
detected on some gloves. A loop print with ridge detail was detected on A.13 figure 34. Ridge
detail was detected on the thumb and palm area of glove A.14 and ridge detail was detected on
gloves A.15 and A.16.
0
5
10
15
20
CA/Ultra blue 2000
florescent magnetic
powder
CA/Volcano white
powder
CA/Lighting black powder Ninhydrin
Phase 3: Gloves worn and processed the
following day with CA/dusting powders and
ninhydrin
Powdered latex Powdered nitrile Non-powdered nitrile Rubber household

63
Figure 34: Loop print with ridge detail on powdered latex glove A.13, placed outdoors in
inclement weather for 13 days
Dark blue non-powdered latex glove B.9 and B.12 were processed with Ultra blue 2000
florescent magnetic powder after superglue fuming, glove B.10 was processed with Lighting
black powder after superglue fuming, and glove B.11 was processed with cyanoacrylate fuming
alone. Ridge detail was detected on the palm area of glove B.9 and a whorl print with ridge detail
was detected on the ring finger of glove B.11, which were photographed with the DCS 4 camera.
Ridge detail was detected on the palm area of non-powdered latex glove B.9. No prints were
detected on glove B.10 and B.12.
Light blue powdered nitrile gloves C.13, C.14, and C.15 were processed with Lighting
black powder after cyanoacrylate fuming and glove C.16 was processed with cyanoacrylate
fuming alone. No fingerprints were detected on powdered nitrile gloves C.13, C.14, and C.15.
Ridge detail and a print classification were detected on the index and middle finger of glove
C.16.

64
Light blue non-powdered nitrile gloves D.17, D.18, D.19, and D.20 were processed with
Lighting black powder after superglue fuming. No fingerprints were detected on the gloves.
Blue household rubber gloves E.13, E.14, E.15, and E.16 were processed with RAM
florescent stain mixture after cyanoacrylate fuming. No fingerprints were detected on the gloves.
details; identifiable fingermark. Table 6 represents gloves worn, placed outdoors for 13 days in
various temperatures and inclement weather and processed with CA/powders and RAM
florescent stain mixture.
Table 6: Phase 4: Gloves worn, placed outdoors for 13 days in inclement weather and processed
with CA/powders and RAM florescent stain mixture.
CA/Ultra Blue
2000
Magnetic
Powder
CA/Lighting
Black Powder
Cyanoacrylate
Alone
RAM
florescent
stain mixture
Powdered
Latex A.13
3
Powdered
Latex A.14
4
Powdered
Latex A.15
3
Powdered
Latex A.16
3
Non-powdered
Latex B.9
3
Non-powdered
Latex B.10
1
Non-powdered
Latex B.11
4
Non-powdered
Latex B.12
1
Powdered
Nitrile C.13
1
Powdered
Nitrile C.14
1

65
CA/Ultra Blue
2000
Magnetic
Powder
CA/Lighting
Black Powder
Cyanoacrylate
Alone
RAM
florescent
stain mixture
Powdered
Nitrile C.15
1
Powdered
Nitrile C.16
4
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.17
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.18
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.19
1
Non-Powdered
Nitrile D.20
1
Household
Rubber E.13
1
Household
Rubber E.14
1
Household
Rubber E.15
1
Household
Rubber E.16
1
Figure 35: Bar graph results in Phase 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
CA/Ultra blue 2000 magnetic
powder
CA/Lighting Black Powder Cyanoacrylate Alone Ram
Phase 4: Gloves worn, placed outdoors for 13 days in
inclement weather and processed with CA/powders and
RAM florescent stain mixture
Powdered latex Non-powdered latex Powdered nitrile
Non-powdered nitrile Household rubber gloves

66
Black leather gloves F.1, F.2, and F.3 were processed with Ninhydrin and gloves F.4, F.5,
and F.6 were processed with cyanoacrylate fuming alone. A print was detected on leather glove
F.1 figure 36, which was photographed with the DCS 4 camera with the following settings:
polarizer filter, alternate light source, shutter speed 1/8, and 800 ISO. No prints were detected on
gloves F.2, F.3, and F.6. Ridge detail was detected on leather glove F.4 in figure 37, and a
photographed was taken with a Canon power shot camera.
Figure 36: Loop print with ridge detail on leather glove F.1

67
Figure 37: Ridge detail on leather glove F.4
details; identifiable fingermark. Table 7 represents fingerprints deposited on the exterior of
leather gloves and processed with cyanoacrylate fuming and Ninhydrin.

68
Table 7: Phase 5: Fingerprints deposited on exterior of leather gloves and processed with
cyanoacrylate fuming and Ninhydrin
Ninhydrin Cyanoacrylate Fuming Alone
Leather glove F.1 4
Leather glove F.2 1
Leather glove F.3 1
Leather glove F.4 3
Leather glove F.5 1
Leather glove F.6 1
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
Ninhydrin Cyanoacrylate
Alone
Phase 5: Fingerprints deposited on the exterior of leather
gloves and processed with cyanoacrylate fuming and
Ninhydrin
Leather Leather

69
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
A criminal that used gloves to commit a crime and left those gloves at the crime scene
can be identified from latent fingerprints, which they may have deposited on the interior or
exterior of those gloves. These prints can be detected with the proper dusting powders or
chemical processing technique. The proper dusting powder or chemical processing technique
used on a particular glove can reduce destroying the glove, fingerprint evidence on the glove and
increase the examiners chances of detecting a strong latent print for identification.
In previous research, the following gloves were analyzed for fingerprints: powdered and
powdered free latex, vinyl gloves, and rubber. Researchers were successful in detecting latent
fingerprint from these gloves with fluorescent powders, cyanoacrylate fuming alone, Rhodamine
6 g, Gentian violet, and Ninhydrin. These gloves were worn by the researchers or volunteers at
duration of 5, 15, and 70 minutes before being analyzed for the detection of latent fingerprints.
They were also analyzed for latent fingerprints after 2 hours of use and after 6 days.
This research project went a step further by analyzing gloves that are commonly used by
criminals that commit burglary, homicide, robbery or motor vehicle theft which are: powdered
and non-powdered latex, powdered and non-powdered nitrile, rubber household and leather
gloves. These gloves were worn for duration of 3 minutes, which was a shorter duration than
previous research. This duration was ideal to the length of time that criminals would wear gloves
to commit a crime. Leather gloves went through a different process, in which prints were
deliberately deposited on the exterior of the gloves. All gloves were analyzed for the detection of
latent fingerprints on the following days and condition: gloves placed outdoors for 13 days and
analyzed on the 14th day, analyzed the same day and the following day after use.

Research paper (Fingerprint Analysis)

Research paper (Fingerprint Analysis)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Research paper (Fingerprint Analysis)

Similar to Research paper (Fingerprint Analysis) (20)

Research paper (Fingerprint Analysis)