Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37402011›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2023

Effects of solvent-based adhesive removal on the subsequent dual analysis of fingerprint and DNA.

Christian Gausterer, Gerald Birnbaumer, Wolfgang Ondrovics, Christina Stein

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of fingermark composition and visualization 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christian GaustererFDZ-Forensisches DNA Zentrallabor GmbH, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2, 1090, Vienna, Austria. christian.gausterer@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4875-5459
Gerald BirnbaumerCriminal Intelligence Service Austria, Department II/BK/6 Forensics, Unit II/BK/6.3.1 - Dactyloscopic Reference Laboratory, Josef-Holaubek-Platz 1, 1090, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8127-9004
Wolfgang OndrovicsCriminal Intelligence Service Austria, Department II/BK/6 Forensics, Sub Department II/BK/6.3 - Crime Scene, Roßauer Lände 5, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Christina SteinFDZ-Forensisches DNA Zentrallabor GmbH, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATFederal Ministry of Education, Science and Research · ATGovernment of Lower Austria · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The combined approach of classical fingerprinting and DNA profiling is a powerful tool in forensic investigations of latent "touch" traces. However, little attention has been paid to the organic solvents frequently used in dactyloscopic laboratories to facilitate the separation of adhesive evidence prior to fingerprint development and downstream effects on subsequent DNA profiling. In the present study, we tested a selection of adhesive removers (n = 9) and assessed their potential impact on DNA recovery and amplification by PCR. Thereby, we identified and characterized novel PCR inhibitors. All investigated chemicals contain volatile organic compounds that evaporate under normal indoor atmospheric conditions. Exposure to certain solvents resulted in increased DNA degradation, but only if evaporation was prevented. A series of adhesive-removal experiments were conducted with prepared mock evidence (self-adhesive postage stamps affixed to paper envelope) to investigate the impact of treatment time and the location of applied traces on DNA recovery and dactyloscopy, respectively. Due to the early onset of print decomposition, we found that only a short treatment time was compatible with the development of fingerprints on the adhesive side of a stamp. Solvents also removed DNA from the adhesive surface, thus resulting in a marked shift in the substrate distribution of recovered DNA from the stamp to the envelope, but not in the reverse direction. Furthermore, we observed that treatment with conventional fingerprint reagents lead to a significant reduction in the amounts of DNA recovered from stamps, while the additional use of adhesive removers did not significantly enhance this effect.

Indexed as

AdhesivesDermatoglyphicsDNADNA FingerprintingHumansSolventsAdhesivesDNASolventsAdhesive surfaceDNA recoveryDNA transferLatent fingerprint developmentPCR inhibitionSolvent-based adhesive removal

Identifiers

PMID37402011
PMCPMC10421768
OpenAlexW4383059290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.