ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Effects of chemical and biological warfare agent decontaminants on trace survival: Impact on fingermarks deposited on paper.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemical and biological events present a challenging environment for forensic scientists to perform their work. This research is the follow-up of the previous article that investigated the impact of decontaminants on fingermarks deposited on glass. In the present study, the focus shifted to paper, a porous and sensitive substrate where fingermark residues are absorbed and cannot be optically seen, making their detection more difficult. Paper is also highly relevant in forensic casework, as demonstrated by the anthrax letter events. Here the impact of 16 decontaminants on fingermarks deposited on paper and on the subsequent development with Ninhydrin, Indanedione-zinc, Physical Developer and Oil Red O was evaluated (by visual examination) by four evaluators. The results of the study demonstrated that the outcome of the development technique is influenced by the persistence of fingermarks compounds targeted by the development technique. As expected, the enhancement and detection methods that target amino acids, that is, Ninhydrin and Indanedione-Zinc had little success when liquid decontaminants were applied to the traces. Although the Physical Developer method revealed more promising results, this technique is generally less reliable compared to others. Therefore, results obtained using this method should be interpreted with greater caution but showed a good chance of success for many decontaminants. Additional tests were conducted using the Oil Red O development technique to evaluate the impact of decontaminants on the lipidic components of fingermarks. Similar to the findings with Physical Developer, the results obtained with Oil Red O showed promising recovery potential and should be further explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.