MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414963025 · doi:10.1186/s11671-025-04317-4

Surface-specific performance of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in latent fingerprint visualisation

2025· review· en· W4414963025 on OpenAlexaff
Anuj S. Sharma, Mahipal Singh Sankhla, Anugya Agrawal, Shivani Tyagi

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Nano · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsGoogle (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanoparticleSurface modificationZincOxideSubstrate (aquarium)MetalTitaniumTitanium dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latent fingerprint (LFP) visualisation remains a cornerstone method in forensic science, with ongoing developments aimed at enhancing clarity, sensitivity, and substrate compatibility. Due to their ability to tailor surface chemistry and optical properties, nanoparticles present a promising avenue for fingerprint development, especially on various types of surfaces. However, there has been a lack of understanding regarding the comparative behaviour of nanoparticles across different substrates. This review aims to address this gap by critically comparing the surface-specific performance of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles. In which we consider common nanoparticles for LFP development, such as Gold, Silver, silica, zinc oxide, Titanium dioxide, iron oxide, Copper oxide, and Aluminium oxide. Our review examines how various nanoparticles influence fingerprint residue on porous and non-porous surfaces and assesses their effectiveness in terms of clarity, durability using these nanoparticles. Our key finding of comparative analysis highlights that gold nanoparticles yield promising outcomes even on historically challenging porous substrates due to their affinity for sweat and amino acids. Conversely, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide exhibit superior fluorescence-based contrast on non-porous surfaces such as glass and plastics, as well as some porous surfaces. The rest of the nanoparticles were able to achieve their success on porous and non-porous surfaces with some limitations. We also outline diverse methods employed by various researchers, including dusting, brushing, spraying, and fluorescence imaging, while emphasising the role of substrate texture and the functionalization of nanoparticles. The review provides insights using comparative tables on selecting effective nanoparticle-based methods for specific forensic contexts to achieve more stable and universal fingerprint recovery in criminal investigations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover NanoSame topicForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207