Over the past few months scientists at Penn State University have been working on developing a coat that would clear up fingerprints. Sometimes scientists are not always able to retrieve fingerprints from certain objects. A group of scientists at Penn State have recently developed a “conformal coating process” that can reveal hard-to-develop fingerprints on nonporous surfaces without altering the chemistry of the print. Scientists Shaler and Ahklesh Lakhtakia, Charles Godfrey Binder “used a form of physical vapor deposition a method that uses a vacuum and allows vaporized materials to condense on a surface creating a thin film” This new process is very beneficial because it gives forensics scientists the ability to collect fingerprints from fragments of incendiary or explosive devices and still be able to analyze the chemicals that were used in the device. The coating material is heated in a vacuum, while the artifact to be coated is rotated fairly quickly to allow deposition over the entire surface. This process is very quick and efficient. It takes 15 minutes to produce the coating. These scientists are currently trying to develop “a portable device that could be brought to a crime scene and produce readable fingerprints on site.”
This article is very important to society because it gives forensics scientists the ability to identify and collect fingerprints that they wouldn’t be able to do before. This process should be used because it will make the process of collecting hard to obtain fingerprint samples much easier.
I chose this article because I was unaware of this new method. I was very interested in the advances forensic scientists have made in their field. This new method could be greatly beneficial for the law enforcement. I thought this article was pretty well written, but I thought it could have included more details regarding the topic.
White, James. "Coating Clears Up Fingerprints." Forensic Magazine. Web. 22 May 2011. <http://www.forensicmag.com/news/coating-clears-fingerprints>.
Posted for R.Minetti
5 comments:
The first thing I am impressed by with this review is how Russell actually followed the review set-up. I cannot tell you how many times I have read a review which did not follow the 3-2-1 format. Also, I like how Russell put a thoughtful connection on how this new method would help society and in law enforcement. Lastly, I like how he put in quotes from the article. Quotes, to me, make it seem like the person really read the article and has solid proof to back up what they’re saying.
Two things I would change are I would have included at least a sentence about how they actually tested this method. Also, he could then compare the process with other former processes.
This article presents a cool new method, which will help investigators determine fingerprints, however I didn’t find it the most interesting article overall. It was kind of bland for me.
I thought that this article review was well done. I liked how he discussed the ideas of haler and Ahklesh Lakhtakia as well as Charles Godfrey Binder. I also liked how he described how this process uses a form of vapor and uses a vacuum in order to vaporize materials. I also liked how Russell said that this new process is beneficial to forensic fingerprinting.
One way that this article review could have been better is if Russell could have compared other methods uses prior to this new process.
I thought that this article was interesting because it shows another way in which fingerprints can be detected.
I like the way he described the process. It was clear and interesting. He explained it in a way that I understood and made me interested in the process. I also liked that he gave the names of people who had worked on the project. It’s important to give credit to the scientist who worked so hard on creating this new and important process. I also liked how he quoted the article when he was explaining the new process. The quotes gave a clearer understanding of the process and made the summary more interesting and accurate.
One thing he could have added an explanation of the quotes. It would have been better if he had not just put the quotes in to aid his description but also explain their meaning. He also could have given current examples of the process in use. Like an example of a real crime where it helped to catch the murder. There was a lot about the technique but very little on the practical application.
I was impressed by the fact that fingerprints could be recovered so easily. It doesn’t seem likely that fingerprints could be recovered after an explosion. But this article shows that the fingerprints can be restored.
One aspect of this review that I found interesting was the fact that this new technology is being developed so close to us. It was interesting to learn that breakthroughs in the forensic world are happening all the time, al around us. Another aspect of this review that I found interesting was the technology itself. It was nice to learn that new ways are being developed to detect and collect fingerprints. The last thing that I found interesting was that they are also trying to further develop this new technology to make it portable.
One way that this review could have been better was if there were examples of when this had been used in a case or in trials. Another way this review could have been better is if there was a more descriptive part on how it actually works.
I found this review very interesting and I learned about a technology that I had no idea about.
Reasons I liked about this review was that it was properly formatted as it should be, including both a well thought out summary of the article, along with its significance to society and opinion of the reviewer.
I also liked how direct quotes were put into the summary. What I thought could have been done better is to include maybe how this method was discovered and/or compare this method to similar prior methods.
I learned that scientists are currently trying to put together a portable device of some sort that can be easily carried to and operated at a crime scene to produce readable fingerprints on site.
Post a Comment