4.7 Review

Nanomaterials for latent fingerprint detection: a review

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY-JMR&T
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages 1856-1885

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.03.110

Keywords

Nanotechnology; Nanomaterials; Fluorescence nanomaterials; Latent fingerprint detection

Funding

  1. PDRFs, University of Johannesburg and Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
  2. Center for Nanomaterials Research, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review paper critically discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using various nanomaterials for latent fingerprint detection, highlighting the need for further studies to improve the detection capabilities of nanomaterials.
This review paper focuses on the application of forensic science in latent fingerprint detection by the usage of distinct nanomaterials and their benefits with respect to the quality of fingerprint images. The advantages and important results of studies conducted on latent fingerprint detection with various nanomaterials which include metal nano particles, metallic oxide nanoparticles, semiconductor quantum dots, carbon dots, polymer dots, fluorescent silica nanoparticles, fluorescent mesoporous silica nanoparticles, fluorescent silica nanoparticles, conjugated-polyelectrolyte dots, aggregation-induced emission luminogens molecule incorporated nanomaterials and uncommon earth fluorescence nanoparticles are critically discussed. Some of the nanomaterials employed for latent fingerprint detection did not result in good quality fingerprint images and these disadvantages are highlighted. More studies are therefore needed to improve the latent fingerprint detection abilities of nanomaterials. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC. BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available