Recently, a process developed by Penn State professors can reveal hard- to develop fingerprints on complicated surfaces without altering the chemistry of the print. This conflict occurs due to the techniques beign used for developing fingerprints, not the chemistry of the prints. Infrared and x-ray imaging also aim towards the chemicals behind the outer layer of the skin. Researchers believe that even after the fingerprints are created, forensic specialists could test the fingerprint material to determine specifics about the person's prints. The researchers used a type of vapor deposition which is a method that uses a vacuum and allows vaporized materials to condense on the surface creating a thin film. The deposition process would usually require exceptionally clean surfaces because any unnecessary items would create a problem in the fingerprint results when the results would be seen. One benefit of this approach would be the ability to retrieve fingerprints off fragments from incendiary ir explosive devices and still able to analyze the chemicals used in the device.
Monday, October 4, 2010
New Method Developed to Capture Fingerprints on Difficult Surfaces
Penn State. "New Method Developed to Capture Fingerprints on Difficult Surfaces." ScienceDaily 11 May 2010. 4 October 2010 .
Recently, a process developed by Penn State professors can reveal hard- to develop fingerprints on complicated surfaces without altering the chemistry of the print. This conflict occurs due to the techniques beign used for developing fingerprints, not the chemistry of the prints. Infrared and x-ray imaging also aim towards the chemicals behind the outer layer of the skin. Researchers believe that even after the fingerprints are created, forensic specialists could test the fingerprint material to determine specifics about the person's prints. The researchers used a type of vapor deposition which is a method that uses a vacuum and allows vaporized materials to condense on the surface creating a thin film. The deposition process would usually require exceptionally clean surfaces because any unnecessary items would create a problem in the fingerprint results when the results would be seen. One benefit of this approach would be the ability to retrieve fingerprints off fragments from incendiary ir explosive devices and still able to analyze the chemicals used in the device.
I think that this article is important to society because research has been done to have this problem not be a prominent problem for crime scene investigation. This process may be effective than the original way of creating fingerprints because the method would not take as long as the old way. This development would affect society becuase there will be less unidentified issues in a crime scene due to this procedure. I chose this article because there are so many advances in technology in science. I thought that this article was very interesting becuase I did not realize that this issue would be so prominent in crime scene investigations.
I thought that this article was written well, but I think that the article went too much in depth about the writers and not enough on this new development. Also, I think that this article went into too much detail about fingerprints in general and not enough on the acutal procedure about the new ways to capture fingerprints.
Recently, a process developed by Penn State professors can reveal hard- to develop fingerprints on complicated surfaces without altering the chemistry of the print. This conflict occurs due to the techniques beign used for developing fingerprints, not the chemistry of the prints. Infrared and x-ray imaging also aim towards the chemicals behind the outer layer of the skin. Researchers believe that even after the fingerprints are created, forensic specialists could test the fingerprint material to determine specifics about the person's prints. The researchers used a type of vapor deposition which is a method that uses a vacuum and allows vaporized materials to condense on the surface creating a thin film. The deposition process would usually require exceptionally clean surfaces because any unnecessary items would create a problem in the fingerprint results when the results would be seen. One benefit of this approach would be the ability to retrieve fingerprints off fragments from incendiary ir explosive devices and still able to analyze the chemicals used in the device.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
“New Method Developed to Capture Fingerprints on Difficult Surfaces”
(Alexandra King wrote a summary of this.)
I was very impressed by Alexandra’s summary for three reasons. First of all, she specifically describes the fascinating information of real crime-scene investigations in depth and detail. Also, I particularly liked the part when she discussed the use of technology to aid the study of DNA, such as infrared and X-ray imaging to detect DNA markings on the outer layer of skin. In addition, I am relieved to know that this will contribute to justice in our society, because the forensic techniques of today are more effective and accurate than the techniques used in previous years. That means it is harder for modern criminals to get away with wrongdoing.
Despite the good things Alexandra wrote in her summary of the article, I happened to notice other things she wrote that were… say, not so good. First of all, she could have provided a specific example of fingerprint analysis that happened in the real world. For example, I think she should have told about a trial that used fingerprints as evidence. It doesn’t have to be a Supreme Court case, but it still has to be significant and relevant to the “fingerprint” topic. Another issue of concern for me was that she didn’t provide the link to the real article. I couldn’t exactly tell where the article came from. Was the source of the article a website, magazine, or newspaper? I wish she had been more specific.
In conclusion, I like Alexandra’s style of writing, because she writes in vivid detail and makes me feel like I’m a part of the action. Her explanations were easy for me to follow along with, and I didn’t find much vagueness in this summary. In closing, I appreciate the effort she put into writing this, and I look forward to reading another article review from her.
I thought that Alex gave a very though Summary of the article. She explain the processes that were used to get the fingerprints off surfaces and I understand much better how exactly they collect the prints. She also did a good job explaining why the article is relevant to society. With each technical advance it becomes easier to process crime scenes and more criminals are caught. I agree that this is very important to victims of any crime and to society at large. I also liked the way she told the pros and cons of the new method. Overall it was a very comprehensive review and gave a clear picture of the article she read.
I did, however think that she could have had a better critic of the article. She mentioned a few things they could have done better but did not elaborate as much as she could have. For example I didn’t know whom she was referring to when she talked about writers. Were they the writers of the article? The study? The other thing I thought was not as good as it could have been was when she explained why she found the article interesting that lacked any real substance or personal feeling. I was especially impressed by the fact that this will now allow them to get fingerprints off explosives. I didn’t realize how hard it was to get finger prints and fingerprints on explosives would be very important to tracking terrorists.
This was a very interesting article. It was interesting to learn that there was a new way developed to gather fingerprints. Normally I would gather that getting fingerprints off unusual items would be hard to do. It also interesting to learn that it is the chemistry of the fingerprint that makes it identifiable, not the fingerprint itself. It was very interesting to learn that when fingerprints are being gathered, one of the most important things to gather is the chemicals that are under the outer layer of skin. I was very interested to learn how the fingerprints are being collected. I did not know that a vapor was being used to create a sort of film over the print. I found this review very well written and there was a lot of information given, but there was not examples. To make this review better, I would find an example of when this was used. I would also add some more information about how it works. I did learn something new from this article. It was nice to learn that new way to gather fingerprints were being developed which can help with investigations in the future.
I thought Alexandra gave an excellent summary of the article. She made it clear the process of getting fingerprints off surfaces. It was interesting to learn that there is a new way to collect fingerprints. Normally it would be very hard to collect fingerprints complicated surfaces. It was also very interesting to learn that researches use a type of vapor deposition where a vacuum is used that allows vaporized materials to condense on the surface creating a thin film. I thought she did a very good job in telling the positive an negative effects of this method. Overall, I thought it was a very detailed and appealing summary. I thought that she could have included how common this method is in the US and provide an example. I would also explain more how the method works. I learned a lot from this article. There is now a new way to aid forensic scientist in their investigations by this new way of collecting fingerprints.
I think this article presents a few good points, firstly that new discoveries likes these seem to be made every day and it blows my mind that ideas such as these have been discovered. I find it interesting that the concept of a “vacuum” that can retract fingerprints onto a film while maintaining the chemicals of the other materials is a fascinating technique. Another bit of information I like is how they are now using an x-ray to detect the remains of fingerprints even when there is such a minuscule amount left over. However, the one fault that is more than obvious is the difficulty to obtain the fingerprints unless the surface is completely clean. This would cause problems due to the limited times an investigator would be able to use this new technology efficiently.
Two things I would have liked to see would have been more information on the actual fingerprint collecting process. Maybe giving more information on what parts of the procedure are inefficient now and why this invention would be more useful than other methods. Also, she says in her review that the writer spoke a lot about the actual people, so more information on who they were besides just U Penn students. I was very curious as to who came up with the idea and how the product started and what has gone into the invention.
I wish we had had class time to have presentations for this because having a verbal response always seems to lead to more opinionated reasoning and ideas that pop up on the spot, otherwise I think the review has a whole was great.
I liked this summary for three reasons. First, it describes real crime-scene investigations in depth and gives us a good background of it. Also, It was interesting how researchers believe that even after the fingerprints are created, forensic specialists could test the fingerprint material to determine specifics about the person's prints and how researchers used a type of vapor deposition which is a method that uses a vacuum and allows vaporized materials to condense on the surface creating a thin film.
Alexandra wrote a good summary but there were a couple of flaws. First, she could have given an example of a fingerprint analysis that was used in practice before like fingerprints used as evidence. Also, she did not provide us with a source of the article.
It was an interesting read and i learned that there are new ways to gather fingerprints and methods being developed which can help crime investigations in time.
I thought Alexandra did a good job when she explained why the researchers believe that forensic specialists could test the fingerprint material to determine specifics about the person's prints even after the fingerprint was created. Instead of just stating she told us the reasoning behind it. She also did a very good job at describing vapor deposition to the reader. It was important for her to do this because we have not learned about vapor deposition. Also, I liked how she said that this research was important to the society. This review would have been better if we heard more of the cons of the new process. It was mainly on the pros and maybe one sentence on the cons. I also think that she should have included who specifically is doing this research. She mentioned that they are Penn state professors but I thought it would have been better if it included names.
Post a Comment