OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence 

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

1

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

2

OSAC Proposed Standard

Standard for Processing Evidence for 

the Detection of Friction Ridge

Impressions

Prepared by 

Friction Ridge Subcommittee 

Version: 2.0 

July 2022 

This OSAC Proposed Standard was written by 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

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Scope 4

3. Terms and Definitions 4

4. Processing Considerations 5

5. Processing Sequences 6

6. References 7

7. Appendix A: Change Log 7
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence 

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

4

Introduction

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

ridge examination practices.

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

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

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

that are appropriate for each particular substrate and matrix combination. 

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

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

and the type and condition of the evidence. 

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

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

possibility or capability. 

2. Scope

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

detection of friction ridge impressions.

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

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

or storage requirements. 

3. Terms and Definitions

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

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

of spectral ranges.

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

practitioner providing forensic science services.

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

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

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

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

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

a minimum standard for their application.
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence 

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

5

4. Processing Considerations

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

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

of friction ridge impressions. 

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

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

may supplement and/or deviate from the sequences are:

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

plastic vs soft plastic, thermal paper).

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

grease.

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

certain environmental conditions.

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

aligns to the required sequence.

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

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

type and condition of the evidence. 

4.1.2 The FSP shall document deviations from the sequences.

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

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

negative implications to consider are:

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

and the potential negative impact on DNA examinations.

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

processing, Questioned Documents, Drug Chemistry, and Trace Evidence 

examinations.

● Porous Chemical Processing and the potential negative impact on thermal 

paper and Questioned Documents examinations.

● Powder and the potential negative impact on electronic evidence 

examinations.

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

processing techniques within the processing sequence.

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

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

evidence.
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence 

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

6

5. Processing Sequences

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

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

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

areas of the evidence.

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

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

5.1 Non-Porous

5.1.1 Visual

5.1.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

5.1.3 Cyanoacrylate Fuming

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

5.2 Porous

5.2.1 Visual

5.2.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

5.2.3 Amino Acid Stain: 1,2-Indanedione

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

1,8-Diazafluoren-9-one and Ninhydrin

5.2.4 Sebaceous Stain: Physical Developer

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

5.3 Semi-Porous

5.3.1 Visual

5.3.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

5.3.3 Cyanoacrylate Fuming

5.3.4 Powder

5.3.5 Amino Acid Stain: 1,2-Indanedione
OSAC 2022-N-0033 Standard for Processing Evidence 

for the Detection of Friction Ridge Impressions

7

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

1,8-Diazafluoren-9-one and Ninhydrin

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

5.4 Adhesive

5.4.1 Visual

5.4.2 Forensic Light Source(s)

5.4.3 Adhesive Side Powder

6. References

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

Technology. 2018.

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

Institute of Justice. 2011.

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

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

International (254), pp 205-214.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(168), pp 14-26.

7. Appendix A: Change Log

Version Date Change