OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

OSAC 2022-N-0033

Standard for Processing 

Evidence for the Detection of 

Friction Ridge Impressions

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

Physics/Pattern Scientific Area Committee

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

Draft OSAC Proposed Standard

OSAC 2022-N-0033

Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of

Friction Ridge Impressions

Prepared by 

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

Organization for Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science

Version: 1.0

April 2022

Disclaimer:

This OSAC Proposed Standard was written by the (subcommittee) of the Organization of 

Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science following a process that includes an 

open comment period. This Proposed Standard will be submitted to a standards developing 

organization and is subject to change.

There may be references in an OSAC Proposed Standard to other publications under 

development by OSAC. The information in the Proposed Standard, and underlying concepts and 

methodologies, may be used by the forensic-science community before the completion of such 

companion publications.

Any identification of commercial equipment, instruments, or materials in the Proposed Standard 

is not a recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Government and does not imply that the 

equipment, instruments, or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

1 Table of Contents

2

3 1. Introduction 1

4 2. Scope 1

5 3. Terms and Definitions 1

6 4. Special Considerations 2

7 5. Processing Sequences 3

8 6. Appendix A: Change Log 4

9

10
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

11 Introduction

12 1.1. This document has been developed to improve the quality and consistency of friction 

13 ridge examination practices.

14

15 1.2. This document is the recommended broad class processing techniques to be applied 

16 when processing evidence for the detection of friction ridge impressions. The specific 

17 processing techniques applied are determined by the FSP based on the specific processes

18 that are appropriate for each particular substrate and matrix combination. 

19

20 1.2.1. The processes applied by each FSP shall be based on the efficiency and 

21 limitations of the process, availability of resources, the circumstances of the case, 

22 and the type and condition of the evidence. 

23

24 1.3. In this document, the following verbal forms are used: “shall” indicates a requirement, 

25 “should” indicates a recommendation; “may” indicates permission; and “can” indicates a 

26 possibility or capability. 

27

28 2. Scope

29 2.1. This document provides the standard requirements for the processing of evidence for the 

30 detection of friction ridge impressions.

31

32 2.2. This document does not address the photography or digital enhancement of friction ridge 

33 impressions or the validation of the various processing techniques, necessary equipment, 

34 or storage requirements. 

35

36 3. Terms and Definitions

37 For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

38

39 3.1. Forensic Light Source: A filtered light source that may be fixed or tunable to a variety 

40 of spectral ranges.

41

42 3.2. Forensic Service Provider (FSP): A forensic science entity or forensic science 

43 practitioner providing forensic science services.

44

45 3.3. Sequential Processing: the application of chemical and/or physical friction ridge 

46 development techniques in a specific order to target specific constituents of friction 

47 ridge impressions which may be visualized for examination and to maximize the 

48 preservation of the friction ridge detail during each process. FSP policy and 

49 capabilities dictate the full spectrum of sequential processes available to examiners and 

50 a minimum standard for their application.

51

52

53
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

54

55 4. Processing Considerations

56 4.1 The FSP shall apply processing techniques in the sequences (i.e., sequential processing)

57 prescribed in this document, from least destructive to most destructive, for the detection 

58 of friction ridge impressions. 

59

60 4.1.1 The FSP may supplement and/or deviate from the sequences for the detection of 

61 friction ridge impressions in certain situations. Some examples of when the FSP 

62 may supplement and/or deviate from the sequences are:

63

64 ● The item does not react to a processing technique as expected (i.e., dry 

65 plastic vs soft plastic, thermal paper).

66 ● The item of evidence has an obvious known contaminant such as blood or 

67 grease.

68 ● The processing technique has not been validated to perform sufficiently in 

69 certain environmental conditions.

70 ● The size of the item does not allow for a specific processing technique that 

71 aligns to the required sequence.

72 ● The FSP has evaluated the efficacy and limitations of the processing 

73 technique, availability of resources, the circumstances of the case, and the 

74 type and condition of the evidence. 

75

76 4.1.2 The FSP shall document deviations from the sequences.

77

78 4.2 Prior to applying specific processing techniques to evidence, the FSP shall assess the 

79 potential for negative implication to other types of examinations. Some potential 

80 negative implications to consider are:

81

82 ● Forensic Light Source(s), such as short-wave ultraviolet (UV) light source, 

83 and the potential negative impact on DNA examinations.

84 ● Cyanoacrylate Dye Stains and the potential negative impact on adhesive side 

85 processing, Questioned Documents, Drug Chemistry, and Trace Evidence 

86 examinations.

87 ● Porous Chemical Processing and the potential negative impact on thermal 

88 paper and Questioned Documents examinations.

89 ● Powder and the potential negative impact on electronic evidence 

90 examinations.

91

92 4.3 The FSP shall preserve detected friction ridge impressions prior to applying the next 

93 processing techniques within the processing sequence.

94

95 4.4 The FSP shall establish appropriate health and safety practices, along with universal 

96 precautions to ensure the safety of personnel while maintaining the integrity of the 

97 evidence.

98
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

99 5. Processing Sequences

100

101 Many items of evidence consist of more than one physical property (e.g., a porous envelope with 

102 a glassine window). In those situations, the FSP shall apply the processing techniques using 

103 sequences appropriate for the relevant areas in a manner that does not negatively impact other 

104 areas of the evidence.

105

106 NOTE: Guidance related to application, formulation, and optimization of specific 

107 processing techniques can be found in the UK Home Office Fingerprint Source Book.

108

109 5.1 Non-Porous

110

111 5.1.1 Visual

112

113 5.1.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

114

115 5.1.3 Cyanoacrylate Fuming

116

117 5.1.4 Contrast, such as Dye Stain, Forensic Light Source(s), and/or Powder

118

119 5.2 Porous

120

121 5.2.1 Visual

122

123 5.2.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

124

125 5.2.3 Amino Acid Stain: 1,2-Indanedione

126

127 5.2.3.1 If 1,2-Indanedione is not practical, other options include 

128 1,8-Diazafluoren-9-one and Ninhydrin

129

130 5.2.4 Sebaceous Stain: Physical Developer

131

132 5.2.4.1 If Physical Developer is not practical, another option is Oil Red O

133

134 5.3 Semi-Porous

135

136 5.3.1 Visual

137

138 5.3.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

139

140 5.3.3 Cyanoacrylate Fuming

141

142 5.3.4 Powder

143
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

144 5.3.5 Amino Acid Stain: 1,2-Indanedione

145

146 5.3.5.1 If 1,2-Indanedione is not practical, other options include 

147 1,8-Diazafluoren-9-one and Ninhydrin

148

149 5.3.6 Contrast, such as Dye Stain, Forensic Light Source(s), and/or Powder

150

151 5.4 Adhesive

152

153 5.4.1 Visual

154

155 5.4.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

156

157 5.4.3 Adhesive Side Powder

158

159 6. References

160

161 Fingerprint Sourcebook v2 (second edition). United Kingdom: Home Office Centre for Applied Science and 

162 Technology. 2018.

163

164 The Fingerprint Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

165 Institute of Justice. 2011.

166

167 D’Elia, V., Materazzi, S., Iuliano, G., and Niola, L. (2015), “Evaluation and comparison of 1,2-indanedione and 1,8-

168 diazafluoren-9-one solutions for the enhancement of latent fingerprints on porous surfaces”, Forensic Science 

169 International (254), pp 205-214.

170

171 Levin-Elad, M., Liptz, Y., Bar-Or, K. L., and Almog, J. (2017), “1,2-Indanedione - A winning ticket for developing 

172 fingermarks: A validation study”, Forensic Science International (271), pp 8-12. 

173

174 Rawji, A. and Beaudoin, A. (2006), “Oil Red O Versus Physical Developer on Wet Paper: A Comparative Study,” 

175 Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol 56 (1), pp 33-52.

176

177 Salama, J., Aumeer-Donovan, S., Lennard, C. and Roux, C. (2008), “Evaluation of the Fingermark Reagent Oil Red 

178 O as a Possible Replacement for Physical Developer”, Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol 58 (2), pp 203-237.

179

180 Simmons, R. K., Deacon, P. and Farrugia, K. J. (2014), “Water-Soaked Porous Evidence: A Comparison of 

181 Processing Methods”, Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol 64 (2), pp 157-173.

182

183 Wallace-Kunkel, C., Lennard, C., Stoilovic, M., and Roux, C. (2007), “Optimisation and evaluation of 1,2-

184 indanedione of use as a fingermark reagent and its application to real samples”, Forensic Science International 

185 (168), pp 14-26.

186

187 7. Appendix A: Change Log

188

Version Date Change

189