Vol. 16 | No.

4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

ISSN: 0974-1496 | e-ISSN: 0976-0083 | CODEN: RJCABP
http://www.rasayanjournal.com
http://www.rasayanjournal.co.in

FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT

SUBSTANCES: A SHORT REVIEW
Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
Department of Science, Alliance University, Bengaluru-562106, India

Corresponding Author: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Forensic chemistry plays a pivotal role in modern criminal investigations, providing invaluable insights into a diverse
array of evidentiary materials. This review article offers a general exploration of a few key facets within the realm of
forensic chemistry, encompassing fingerprint analysis, and biological fluid assessment. Each of these domains
contributes to the intricate puzzle of forensic investigations. In this review, fingerprint analysis serves as a cornerstone
in identifying individuals, with advancements in fingerprint development techniques enhancing the accuracy and
reliability of identification. The analysis of seized drug samples offers crucial insights into the crime scene and gives
vital clues as to which drug of abuse is responsible for the crime, in essence, this review amalgamates the multifaceted
contributions of forensic chemistry, showcasing its pivotal role in unraveling complex criminal scenarios.
Keywords: Forensic chemistry, Latent fingerprint, Abusive drugs, Detection, Analysis.
RASĀYAN J. Chem., Vol. 16, No. 4, 2023

INTRODUCTION
Forensic chemistry (FC), is a specialist discipline of forensic science. To advance in the 21st century,
forensic chemistry must move beyond its basic analytical foundations and adopt a wider range of chemical
sciences. By going beyond drug analysis and into areas like combustion chemistry, pattern analysis, and
materials science, it responds to the challenges of contemporary crime. This change demonstrates its
flexible reaction to sophisticated criminal tactics while keeping its vital position at the nexus of science and
law.1,2 FC is at the forefront of this pursuit, utilizing principles and methodologies from chemistry to analyze
evidence and provide crucial insights into criminal activities.3 In the age of digital technology, cyber crimes
have joined more traditional crimes like theft, robbery, and murder. These internet crimes, which include
hacking, identity theft, and fraud, pose significant challenges for law enforcement. These hybrid crimes
frequently transcend geographical boundaries and are extremely sophisticated, making investigation and
prosecution of these crimes noticeably difficult. In order to properly handle these issues, it is becoming
increasingly necessary to merge chemical research with digital technologies.4,5 Furthermore, the widespread
use of drugs and narcotics has given rise to drug-related crimes, 6 including trafficking, manufacturing, and
distribution. Environmental crimes, such as illegal dumping7 and hazardous waste disposal, have also
become more prevalent due to growing concerns about ecological sustainability. In the face of these
evolving criminal activities, forensic chemistry has emerged as an indispensable tool for law enforcement
and the justice system.8 Here are some real cases that highlight the importance of forensic chemistry in
solving complex criminal investigations and identifying hazardous substances in various contexts.
The Tylenol Murders (1982): Seven people in Chicago died after taking cyanide-laced Extra-Strength
Tylenol tablets.9
The Ricin Letters (2013): In 2013, letters laced with ricin, a highly toxic substance, were sent to then-
President Barack Obama and other government officials.10
The Tokyo Subway Sarin Gas Attack (1995): In one of the most infamous cases of domestic terrorism,
which resulted in 13 people died by sarin gas.11,12
The Casey Anthony Trial (2011): The high-profile trial of Casey Anthony involved the death of her two-
year-old daughter.13 The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984): An enormous gas leak at a Union Carbide pesticide
plant in Bhopal, India, caused thousands of fatalities and injuries. 14
The scope of forensic chemistry covers a wide range of topics, including DNA profiling, explosive analysis,
gunshot residue examination, fingerprint analysis, quantification and identification of illegal substances,

Rasayan J. Chem., 16(4), 2218-2228(2023)

http://doi.org/10.31788/RJC.2023.1648651 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license.
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

evaluation of bodily fluids, and many other related areas. We have undertaken a review of the chemical
factors involved in the analysis of drugs and fingerprints.
Drug Analysis
Forensic chemists can identify and quantify15 illicit substances found in the possession of suspects or
recovered from crime scenes. Accurate analysis helps law enforcement understand the nature and origin of
drugs, aiding in drug trafficking investigations and legal proceedings. As given by the United Nations,
World Drug Report 2023 cited a number of reported drug-related offenses and alarmingly there is a large
number of juveniles also involved in this type of drug trafficking/ crime.16 Illicit substances (IS) spoil
fruitful human resources into useless entities. Psychotropic drugs of all kinds are today's equivalent of
terrorism, posing a serious threat to humans. According to the WHO report, 31 million people suffer from
drug use problems. Addressing the severity of drug addiction and drug-related crime, chemistry offers a
comprehensive set of tools that play a crucial role in detection, analysis, and quantification, leading to
effective justice for offenders. These tools encompass qualitative and quantitative 17 methods, as well as
instrumentation and spot tests,18 which collectively serve as powerful means of tackling the challenges
posed by drug-induced offenses. By employing these diverse approaches, 19 authorities can accurately
identify illicit substances, assess their concentrations, and subsequently bring those responsible to justice.
Some of the well-known IS that is used in many parts of the world are Cocaine, LSD (lysergic acid
diethylamide), MDMA (Molly/Ecstasy), Methamphetamine, Heroine, Marijuana (in some parts of the
world it is decriminalized), synthetic cannabinoids, Ketamine, etc. Several instances of drug-related
criminal activities and drug lords, such as Pablo Escobar20 and the Cali Cartel21 in Colombia, stand out.
These cases involved highly influential drug-trafficking entities on a global scale. Additionally, the heroin
trade22,23 in Southeast Asia's golden triangle and the Mexican drug war24 have further highlighted the
significance of forensic chemistry techniques. In the above cases, forensic chemists played a critical role in
the identification of illicit substances and furnishing crucial evidence used in legal proceedings against
individuals involved in drug trafficking. Table-1 provides an overview of the diverse methods for detecting
and quantifying illicit substances recovered from crime scenes. These approaches encompass both
instrumental and non-instrumental techniques, each accessible to individuals possessing intermediate,
advanced, or expert proficiency. In instances of heightened complexity, the involvement of a domain expert
may be necessary.
Table-1: Summary of Qualitative & Quantitative Methods of Drugs of Abuse 25,26

Method Equipment Substance Qualitative Quantitative Duration

Chemical MS, GC, UV, Several Yes Yes A few
Instrumentation FTIR, Raman seconds to
spectroscopy, X- minutes
ray
diffractometry,
Ultraviolet
spectroscopy
Chemical TLC Several Yes No Few minutes
Instrumentation
Spot test Chemicals Most Yes No Few minutes
common
drugs of
abuse
Immunoassay Enzyme-linked Various drug Yes No Few minutes
immunosorbent metabolites
assays
Microcrystalline Specialized Several Yes No Few minutes
test microscopic
equipment
Urine dipstick test Disposable testing Drugs or Yes No Few seconds
strip metabolites
2219
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

Drugs of abuse are detectable in various bodily fluids, such as blood, hair, urine, and saliva. The choice of
fluid for testing depends on factors like the drug being screened, time elapsed since drug use, and testing
purpose. Blood is the common biological body fluid for drug testing, detecting a wide range of drugs. The
hair detection method gaining popularity due to its ability to detect past drug use, even over weeks or
months. But less sensitive than blood, influenced by hair traits. Urine can be easily collected and can be
used to test crime related to parties, schools, and sports. Various tests can detect recent drug use, with
detection windows varying by drug (a few days to a week) (Table-2). Vomit is less frequent than other
methods, used in overdose cases where drug presence is crucial. The choice of fluid depends on urgency
and sensitivity. Urine suits quick results rather than blood or hair for sensitivity.
Table-2: Gives Literature for the Few Well-Known Drugs of Abuse Detection Time

Drugs Biological fluid/ other for Detecting analyte Detecting time* Ref
detection (hour)
Heroin Blood Morphine 20 hours 27
MDMA MDMA 02 hours 28
Cannabis THC 22 hours 29
GHB GHB 05 hours 30
Amphetamine Amphetamine 7 hours 31
Heroin Urine Morphine 11-54 hours 32
MDMA MDMA 04 hours 28
Cannabis THC 24-120 hours 33
GHB GHB 12 hours 34
Amphetamine Amphetamine 120 hours 35
Heroin Oral fluid Morphine 8 hours 36
MDMA MDMA 24 hours 37
Cannabis THC 34 hours 38
GHB GHB 360 hours 39
Amphetamine Amphetamine 192 hours 40
Marijuana Hair (1.5 inch) THC 90 days 41
Cocaine Hair (1 cm) Cocaine & its 4 months 42
metabolite
MDMA Hair (1-2 cm) MDMA 20 days 43
Cannabis Toenail THC 1 Week 44
MDMA Nail MDMA 20 days 43
Cocaine Nail Cocaine 24 hours 45
*Detection time depends on how much dose is administered to the body.
The review article by Dagar et al. (2022) gave insight into advancements in electrochemical and optical
sensors in the detection of drugs of abuse such as opioids, amphetamine, methamphetamine, THC, and
cocaine.46 Broséus et al. (2016) by considering an example of a Swiss laboratory that analyzed extensive
cocaine and heroin samples reported that forensic drug analysis is moving beyond its traditional role of
supporting the judicial process to a more strategic role of providing insights into drug markets. 47 Merone et
al. (2022) reported a rapid screening method for the qualitative evaluation of different illicit drugs in
biological samples (blood, post-mortem blood, and urine) using liquid chromatography coupled with
tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).48
Lucena et al. (2010) findings suggested that cocaine use is a significant risk factor for sudden death,
especially in young men.49 Yee Neoh et al. (2023) studied limited research on the long-term effects of novel
psychoactive substance use. They also found that there is a need for an interdisciplinary approach to
research novel psychoactive substances, as they can affect a variety of systems in the body. 50
Lee et al. demonstrated the use of GC – IRD in the identification of new novel psychoactive substances. 51
Table-3 summarizes some of the most common methods used for the detection and quantification of
unlawful substances.

2220
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

Table-3: Literature Review of Some Illicit Substances

Test type Illicit substance Summary Ref
Fluorescence LSD 120 and 30 ng/mL of LSD were detected at 20 52
spectroscopy and 60 min, respectively, after ingestion of
the doses to test animal
Differential fluorimeter LSD Detection Of LSD in Confiscated Material 53
Gas chromatographic- LSD LSD was detected in the rat hair following the 54
mass spectrometric (GC lowest dose (0.05 mg/kg).
MS)
Spot and microcrystal Cocaine The combination of two tests enabled the 55
test differentiation of cocaine from other tested
compounds.
Electrochemical Cocaine The mentioned method is portable and 56
affordable in the detection of cocaine
Immunoassays Cocaine In this method, a substrate-recycling 57
biosensor is used as a detector. Cocaine as
low as 380 pM detections were achieved
Chemiluminescence Heroin Rapid and sensitive screening test for street 58
Heroin using chemiluminescence response
Mass spectrometry Heroin Here source seized Heroin in China was 59
found using direct and spectrometry
examination followed by a multivariate
statistical study
NIR spectroscopy Heroin, MDMA Here a NIR spectroscopy based (1300- 60
2600 nm) detection of Heroin and MDMA in
brown powders and ecstasy tablets using a
portable analyzer is presented
HPLC-DAD Cannabis 110 Cannabis samples seized by Swiss police 61
characterized
IRMS Marijuana The method used to identify the main region 62
seized material of production
UPLC-MS Marijuana Successfully detected marijuana from 19 63
tested dog serum
Chemiluminescence MDMA Detection and quantification of MDMA by 64
tris(2,2’-bipyridine) ruthenium (II)
chemiluminescence. The detection limit was
0.48 μM
Fluorogenic MDMA Mesoporous silica nanoparticles loaded with 65
fluorescein were used for the fluorogenic
detection of MDMA. The limit of detection in
water was 4.9 mM
LC-MS Amphetamine, Simultaneous determination of illicit 66
methamphetamine, substance. Limit of detection (0.2 ng/mL for
MDA, MDMA, MDMA, MDEA, and MBDB; 0.5 ng/mL for
MDEA, MBDB and A, MA, and PMA; 1 ng/mL for MDA)
PMA
Fluorescent Emission γ-Hydroxy Butyric A fluorescence probe was developed for the 67
Acid detection of a sedative γ- Hydroxy Butyric
Acid
Colorimetric γ-Hydroxy Butyric A kit for detection of Date- rape drug GHB 68
Acid fabricated. Can detect GHB in alcoholic
beverages
GC γ-Hydroxy Butyric GC technique used to estimate GHB 69
Acid

2221
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

Forensic Chemistry in Fingerprint Analysis

One of the greatest essential pieces of evidence in a criminal investigation is a fingerprint (FP). The
distinctive nature of these FP lies in the fact that no two people, not even identical twins, will have the same
pattern. To identify the offender, many research groups are investigating latent and patent FP detection and
analysis. Different chemical components present in human finger sweat include salt, amino acids, fat, and
oil, among others.70 Hadorn, Burke, et al. claimed that human perspiration included amino acids.71,72
Therefore, a specific pattern of finger ridge can be generated by reacting sweat components with the right
chemical reagent. One of the traditional techniques for obtaining a latent fingerprint impression is the silver
nitrate test.73 When silver nitrate reacts with chloride that exists in sweat, a blackish pattern of the finger
ridge emerges. With the use of a nanosilver particle solution, Prasad et al. improved the image of the latent
fingerprint.74 An overview of a variety of amino acid-sensitive reagents that are widely used by law
enforcement organizations globally was provided by Jelly et al.75 Incorporating nanoparticles into the
modified cyanoacrylate test for latent FP was described by Chen et al. in detail.76 Finger ridge which is
believed to have started forming at the 10th week of pregnancy has been divided into whorl, loop, and arch
categories (Fig.-1). It includes more than twenty-plus minutiae characteristic patterns, which makes these
designs distinct and impossible to imitate.77

Fig.-1: Illustrative Image of Fingerprint Development

Some of the historic developments in FP forensic chemistry are mentioned below:
Juan Vucetich (1892) pioneered the first use of fingerprint classification and identification systems to solve
murder crimes.78 1911 fingerprint was agreed as admissible evidence in a court of law in the US.79 William
Herschel explored the use of fingerprints for individual identification and published a book titled ‘The
Origin of Fingerprinting’ (in 1916).80 In 1999 FBI launched the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS)81 for quick comparison of patterns. Huynh et al reported the possibility of
gender determination with the composition of the sweat left behind by a fingertip. 82 Ronny and his research
group examined 2D &3D topography images of the fingerprints to determine the age of the individual. 83
Involvement of some relevant research output with a chemical science background in the forensic research
of fingerprints detailed in Table-4.
Table-4: Research Work Summary of the Fingerprint Forensic Chemistry
Technique Summary of the work Ref
LC-MS Identified the presence of methamphetamine and its metabolite from 84
fingerprint residue
Magnetic nanomaterials The use of P-MNP@Ag showed superior development results 85
compared to commercially available gold powder, silver powder, and
bare magnetic powder, it demonstrated distinct advantages such as
minimal background interference, heightened sensitivity, and clear
secondary details in the process of LFP development.
Nanoparticle Fluorescent silica nanoparticles are used to enhance latent fingerprint 86
detection on hydrophilic and hydrophobic substrates for individual
identification.

2222
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

Electrochemiluminescence Easy and safe method to obtain latent fingerprint using modified 87
luminol on ITO electrode
GC-MS The aging period of squalene was studied. It was that reported loss is 88
more in light than dark. Able to detect lipid residue after 33 days stored
in dark
Chemical method Iron oxide suspension and Wetwop are found superior for the 89
identifiability of fingerprints exposed to sea spray aerosol
Cyanoacrylate fuming Latent prints developed using cyanoacrylate exhibited the highest mean 90
visibility score when submerged in both fresh and seawater for 1, 2, and
10 days.
Superglue fuming Without disturbing the integrity of the original print structure, a 91
methodology developed for the ability of aged latent fingerprints to
polymerize ethyl cyanoacrylate is recovered.
DFO A more stable, more shelf-life DFO working solution formulated for 92
latent fingerprint development
SPR Report the possibility of identification of fingerprints on wet surfaces. 93
Powder brushing method A novel composite of functionalized zinc oxide nanoparticles with 94
carbon dot as a potential fingerprint detector using the powder brushing
method
Chemical method Clear fingerprint developed within 1-3 seconds on the non-porous 95
surface using highly fluorescent water-soluble cadmium telluride
quantum dots capped with dimercaptosuccinic acid
Immunological multimetal The antigen of fingerprint residue is made to interact with nanoparticle 96
deposition conjugate antibodies to give rapid fingerprint visualization.
Nanoparticle - MS An integrated method for visualization and molecular imaging of the 97
latent fingerprint
Some promising future perspectives of chemical science application in fingerprint analysis are:
Advanced chemical enhancements: Ongoing research aims to develop more accurate, sensitive, selective, 98
and cost-effective99 chemical enhancements for visualizing latent fingerprints on a broader range of
surfaces.100,101
Nanotechnology and Nanoparticles: The use of nanoparticles102 could enable highly targeted interactions
with fingerprint residues, resulting in enhanced contrast and visualization of latent prints.
Portable and on-site analysis: Miniaturized chemical analysis tools would empower law enforcement to
swiftly analyze latent prints directly at crime scenes,103,104 leading to faster and more efficient suspect
identification.
Data integration and AI:105,106 The integration of chemical data with AI is the future of fingerprint analysis.
Machine learning algorithms could automate fingerprint comparisons, rendering the process more
objective, consistent, and time efficient.
Identification of Lifestyle107,108 and environmental traces:109 Advancements in chemical science may allow
for the identification of lifestyle and environmental traces present in fingerprints. This additional
information could offer valuable insights into an individual's habits, diet, or geographical location, thereby
supporting investigations.
Forensic databases and cross-matching: The improvement of chemical science in fingerprint analysis will
necessitate the expansion of comprehensive forensic databases. These databases, incorporating both
chemical and fingerprint data,110 will facilitate extensive cross-matching, helping link suspects to multiple
crime scenes.
CONCLUSION
The future of chemical science application in forensic investigation of fingerprints and illicit substance
analysis holds great promise. Continued research and collaboration among chemists, forensic scientists, and
technologists will propel these innovations, ultimately strengthening the field of forensic science and its
indispensable role in solving criminal cases.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
2223
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All the authors contributed significantly to this manuscript, participated in reviewing/editing, and approved
the final draft for publication. The research profile of the authors can be verified from their ORCID IDs,
given below:
Chitrakara Hegde https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1267-4240
Chandni Pathak https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6379-2576
Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
REFERENCES
1. D. A. Stoney, P. L. Stoney, Forensic Science International, 251, 159 (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.03.022
2. G. Georgios, P. Dimitrios, D. Konstantinos, Digital,2,143(2022),
https://doi.org/10.3390/digital2020009
3. A. van Asten, Chapter 8 - From data to forensic insight using chemometrics. In: Arian van Asten Editor.
Chemical Analysis for Forensic Evidence, Elsevier, 2023, pp.289-350, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-820715-4.00012-2.
4. A. C. van Asten, Science and Justice, 54, 170(2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.09.003
5. A. Kloosterman, A. Mapes, Z. Geradts, E. van Eijk, C. Koper, J. van den Berg, S. Verheij, M. van der
Steen, A. van Asten, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370,
20140264 (2015)
6. S. Hasan, D. Bromfield-Lee, M. T. Oliver-Hoyo and J. A. Cintron-Maldonado, Journal of Chemical
Education, 85, 813 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p813
7. M. F. Ibrahim, R. Hod, H. R. Toha, A. Mohammed Nawi, I. B. Idris, H. Mohd Yusoff, and M. Sahani,
International Journal of Environmental Research and. Public Health, 18, 2221(2021),
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052221
8. C. Roux, S. Willis, C. Weyermann, Science & Justice, 61,
678(2021),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.08.005.
9. M. J. S. Oliveira, Safety Science, 165, 106190 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106190.
10. S. Olsnes, Toxicon, 15, 361(2004), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.003
11. T. Okumura, N. Takasu, S. Ishimatsu, S. Miyanoki, A. Mitsuhashi, K. Kumada, K. Tanaka, S.
Hinohara, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 28, 129(1996), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-
0644(96)70052-5
12. E. Climent, M. Biyikal, K. Gawlitza, T. Dropa, M. Urban, A. M. Costero, R. Martínez-Máñez, K.
Rurack, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 246, 1056
(2017),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2017.02.115.
13. J. Ensiminger, M. A. Ferguson, L. E. Papet, Science and Technology Law Review, 19,
275(2017),https://scholar.smu.edu/scitech/vol19/iss3/3
14. S. Saraf, M. Karanjikar, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 18, 274(2005),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.023.
15. L. Harper, J. Powell, E. M. Pijl, Harm Reductoion Journal, 14, 52(2017),
https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12954-017-0179-5
16. United Nations report on drug offences, World Drug Report 2023 - Statistical Annex (unodc.org)
17. S.P. Sharma, B.C. Purkait, S.C. Lahiri, Forensic Science International, 152,
235(2005),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.114.
18. K. M. Elkins, A.C. Weghorst, A. A. Quinn, S. Acharya, Drug Testing and Analysis, 9, 306 (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.1949
19. C.M. Selavka, and I. S. Krull, Journal of Liquid Chromatography & Related Technologies, 10, 345
(1987), https://doi.org/10.1080/01483918708066723

2224
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

20. P. Naef, Journal of Anthropological Research, 74, 485 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1086/699941

21. K.C. Brouwer, P. Case, R. Ramos, C. Magis-Rodríguez, J. Bucardo, T.L. Patterson, S.A. Strathdee,
Substance Use Misuse., 41(5), 707 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080500411478.
22. V. Poshyachinda, Forensic science international, 62,15 (1993), https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-
0738%2893%2990040-H
23. P. Chalk, Studies in Conflict \& Terrorism, 23, 89 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1080/105761000265548
24. S. Basu, S. Pearlman, IZA Journal of Development and Migration, 7, 18 (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-017-0102-6
25. P. Lillsunde, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 30(2), 181 (2008),
https://doi.org/10.1097/ftd.0b013e3181685088
26. R. Z. Roberson, J. V. Goodpaster, Talanta. 222, 121461(2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121461.
27. A. J. Jenkins, R. M. Keenan, J. E. Henningfield, E. J. Cone, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 18,
317(1994), https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/18.6.317
28. S. Valtier, C. F. Phelix, J. T. Cody, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 31, 138(2007),
https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/31.3.138
29. R. Vandrey, E. S. Herrmann, J. M. Mitchell, G. E. Bigelow, R. Flegel, C. LoDico E. J. Cone, Journal
of Analytical Toxicology, 41,83 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjat%2Fbkx012
30. P. Kintz, J. P. Goulle, V. Cirimele, B. Ludes, Clinical Chemistry, 47,
2033(2001),https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/47.11.2033
31. J.S. Noonan, P. W. Murdick, R. S. Ray, R.S. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics, 168 (1), 205 (1969)
32. M. L. Smith, E. T. Shimomura, J. Summers, B. D. Paul, A. J. Jenkins, W. D. Darwin, E. J. Cone,
Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 25, 504(2001), https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/25.7.504
33. M. A. Huestis, J. M. Mitchell, E. J. Cone, Journal of Analytical Toxicology 19(6), 443(1995),
https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/19.6.443
34. M. J. Hoes, T. B. Vree, P. J. Guelen, Encephale, 6, 93(1980)
35. M. Vandevenne, H. Vandenbussche, A. Verstraete, Acta Clinica Belgica, 55, 323 (2000),
https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2000.11754319
36. A. G. Verstraete, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 26(2), 200 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1097/00007691-
200404000-00020
37. M. Navarro, S. Pichini, M. Farre, J. Ortuno, P. N. Roset, J. Segura, R. de la Torre, Clinical Chemistry,
47, 1788 (2001)
38. R. S. Niedbala, K. W. Kardos, D. F. Fritch, S. Kardos, T. Fries, J. Waga, J. Robb, E. J. Cone, Journal
of Analytical Toxicology, 25(5), 289(2001), https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/25.5.289
39. R. Brenneisen, M. A. Elsohly, T. P. Murphy, J. Passarelli, S. Russmann, S. J. Salamone, D. E. Watson,
Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 28 (8), 625 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1093/JAT/28.8.625
40. H. T. Andas, A. Enger, A. M. Øiestad, V. Vindenes, A. S. Christophersen, M. A. Huestis, E. L. Øiestad,
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 38(1), 114(2016), https://doi.org/10.1097/ftd.0000000000000248
41. J. Gryczynski, R. P. Schwartz, S. G. Mitchell, K. E. O'Grady, S. J. Ondersma, Drug Alcohol
Dependence, 141, 44 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.drugalcdep.2014.05.001
42. A. SuArez-Garcia, I. Alvarez-Freire, A.M. Bermejo-Barrera, P. Cabarcos-Fernandez, M.J. Tabernero-
Duque, Microchemical Journal, 153, 104335(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.104335.
43. M. M. Madry, A. E. Steuer, C. M. Hysek, M. E. Liechti, M. R. Baumgartner, T. Kraemer, Analytical
Bioanalytical Chemistry, 408, 545(2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-015-9130-3
44. M. Cobo-Golpe, A. de-Castro-Rios, A. Cruz, M. Lopez-Rivadulla, E. Lendoiro, Journal of Analytical
Toxicology, 45, 969(2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaa164
45. D. A. Engelhart, E. S. Lavins, C.A. Sutheimer, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 22, 314 (1998),
https://doi.org/10.1093/JAT/22.4.314
46. M. Dagar, S. Yadav, V.V.R. Sai, J. Satija H. Bhatia, Talanta, 38, 123048
(2022),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2021.123048

2225
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

47. J. Broséus, S. Baechler, N. Gentile, P. Esseiva, Forensic Science International, 266, 18 (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.008.
48. G.M. Merone, A. Tartaglia, S. Rossi, F. Santavenere, E. Bassotti, C. D'Ovidio, E. Rosato, U. de Grazia,
M. Locatelli, P. Del Boccio, F. Savini, Talanta Open, 5, 100105 (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talo.2022.100105
49. J. Lucena, M. Blanco, C. Jurado, A. Rico, M. Salguero, R. Vazquez, G. Thiene, C. Basso, European
Heart Journal, 31, 318 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp557
50. M. J. Yee Neoh, A. Carollo, M. Lim, O. Corazza, A. Coppola G. Esposito, Addiction Neuroscience, 5,
100060 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addicn.2022.100060
51. H.Z.S. Lee, H. B. Koh, S. Tan, B. J. Goh, R. Lim, J. L.W. Lim, T. W. A. Yap, Forensic Science
International, 299, 21(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.025
52. C. Y. Fang, J. Liu, S. Chou, C. Lin, Electrophoresis, 24, 1031
(2003),https://doi.org/10.1002/ELPS.200390119
53. P. Baudot, J. C. Andre, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 7 (2), 69
(1983),https://doi.org/10.1093/JAT/7.2.69
54. Y. Nakahara, R. Kikura, K. Takahashi, R.L. Foltz, T. Mieczkowski, Journal of Analytical Toxicology,
20 (5), 323(1996), https://doi.org/10.1093/JAT/20.5.323
55. J. W. Swiatko, P. R. De Forest, M. S. ZedeZedeck, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48 (3), 581 (2003),
https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2002149
56. S. Bilge, B.Dogan-Topal, M.M. Gürbüz, A. Yucel, A. Sınag, S. A. Ozkan, TrAC Trends in Analytical
Chemistry, 157, 117668 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2022.116768.
57. C. G. Bauer, A. V. Eremenko, A. Kühn, K. Kürzinger, A. Makower, F. W. Scheller, Analytical
Chemistry, 70, 4624 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1021/AC971388S
58. J.M. Terry, Z.M. Smith, J.J. Learey, R. A. Shalliker, N. W. Barnett, P. S. Francis, Talanta, 116, 619
(2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2013.07.051
59. X. Cui, R. Lian, J. Chen, C. Ni, C. Liang, G. Chen, Y. Zhang, Microchemical Journal, 147, 121(2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.03.014
60. R. F. Kranenburg, H. Ramaker, A. C. van Asten, Drug Testing and Analysis, 14, 1762 (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3356
61. M. Hadener, S. Konig, W. Weinmann, Forensic Science International, 299, 142
(2019),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.046
62. E.K. Shibuya, J.E. Souza Sarkis, O.N Neto, M.Z. Moreira, R. L. Victoria, Forensic Science
International, 160, 35(2006), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORSCIINT.2005.08.011
63. A. H. Fitzgerald, Y. Zhang, S. Fritz, W.H. Whitehouse, T. Brabson, L. Pohlman N. Cernicchiaro, C.
Tonozzi S. Ensley, Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 33(5), 1002(2021),
https://doi.org/10.1177/10406387211027227
64. A.G. Theakstone, Z.M. Smith, J. M. Terry, N.W. Barnett, P. S. Francis, Drug Testing and Analysis, 7,
428 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.1780
65. B. Lozano-Torres, L. Pascual, A. Bernardos, M.D. Marcos, J. O. Jeppesen, Y. Salinas, R. Martínez‐
Manez, F. Sancenon, Chemical Communications, 53 (25), 3559
(2017),https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cc00186j
66. M. Concheiro, S. S. Simoes, O. Quintela, A. de Castro, M. J. Dias, A. Cruz, M. Lopez-Rivadulla,
Forensic Science International, 171 (1), 44 (2007),https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORSCIINT.2006.10.004
67. R. Dahiwadkar, H. Kumar, S. Kanvah, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 427,
113844 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2022.113844
68. S. Son, S. Jang, B. Kang, J. Kim, J. Lim, S. Seo, T. Kang, J. Jung, K. Lee, H. Kim, E. Lim, Sensors
and Actuators B: Chemical, 347, 130598 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2021.130598
69. N. J. Giarman, R. H. Roth, Science, 145, 583 (1964), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.145.3632.583
70. J. Broseus, S. Baechler, N. Gentile, P. Esseiva, Forensic Science International, 266, 18 (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.008.
71. B. Hadorn, F. Hanimann, P. Anders, H.C. Curtius, R. Halverson, Nature, 215, 5099
(1967)https://doi.org/10.1038/215416a0
2226
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

72. R.C. Burke, T. H. Lee, V. Buettner‐Janusch, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 38, 355 (1966)
73. G.S. Sodhi, J. Kaur, Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 6, 44
(2016),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.05.001
74. V. Prasad, L. Prasad, S. Lukose, P. Agarwal, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66, 1065 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14664
75. R. Jelly, E. L. Patton, C. Lennard, S. W. Lewis, K. F. Lim, Analytica Chimica Acta, 652, 128 (2009),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2009.06.023
76. H. Chen, R. Ma, Z. Fan, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, L. Fan, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 528, 200
(2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.05.079
77. A. A. Ross, J. Shah, A. K. Jain, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29,
544 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2007.1018
78. M. A. Souza, A. S. Santos, S. W. da Silva, J. W. B. Braga, M. H. Sousa, Forensic Chemistry, 27,
100395 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forc.2021.100395
79. S.A. Cole, American Criminal Law Review, 41 (3), 1189 (2004)
80. W.J. Herschel, Nature, 23 (578), 76 (1880), https://doi.org/10.1038/023076b0
81. S. Sun, Y. Gu, L. Wang, P. Gu, Y. Li, Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 5, 57 (2019),
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_36_18
82. C. Huynh, E. Brunelle, L. Halamkova, J. Agudelo, J. Halamek, Analytical Chemistry, 87, 11531(2015),
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b03323
83. M. Ronny, G. Stefan, D. Jana, V. Claus, B. Anja, Forensic Science International, 222 (1-3), 52 (2012),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.05.001
84. T. Zhang, X. Chen, R. Yang, Y. Xu, Forensic Science International, 248, 10
(2015),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.12.013
85. J. Wan, L. Chen, W. Li, S. Cui, B. Yuan, ACS Omega, 7 (2), 1712
(2022),https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c04208
86. Y. Kim, H. Jung, J. Lim, S. Ryu, J. Lee, Langmuir, 32 (32) 8077
(2016),https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b01977
87. S. Hu, Z. Cao, L. Zhou, R. Ma, B. Su, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 870, 114238 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2020.114238
88. N. E. Archer, Y. Charles, J. A. Elliott, S. Jickells, Forensic Science International, 154 (2-3), 224 (2005),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.120
89. S.L. Goldstone, S.C. Francis, S.J. Gardner, Forensic Science International, 252, 33
(2015),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.04.012
90. S. Madkour, A. sheta, F. B. El Dine, Y. Elwakeel, N. Abdallah, Egyptian Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 7, 3 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-017-0008-8
91. S. P. Wargacki, L. A. Lewis, M. D. Dadmun, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 1138
(2008),https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00822.x
92. M. Stoilovic, Forensic Science International, 60, 141 (1993), https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-
0738(93)90233-Z
93. P. Cuce, G. Polimeni, A.P. Lazzaro, G. De Fulvio, Forensic Science International, 146, 57 (2004),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.005
94. E. Prabakaran, K. Pillay, Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 13, 3817 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2019.01.004
95. K. Cai, R. Yang, Y. Wang, X. Yu, J. Liu, Forensic Science International, 226, 240
(2013),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.01.035
96. Y. He, L. Xu, Y., Zhu, Q. Wei, M. Zhang, B. Su, Angewandte Chemie, 53(46), 12609 (2014),
https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201404416
97. H. W. Tang, W. Lu, C.M. Che, K.M. Ng, Analytical Chemistry, 82(5), 1589 (2010),
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac9026077
98. H. S. Jung, J. Cho, K. C. Neuman, Analytica Chimica Acta, 1181, 338850 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2021.338850

2227
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak
 Vol. 16 | No. 4 |2218-2228| October - December | 2023

99. S. Lohar, V. Aseri, V. Godara, P. Kumari, V. Nagar, P. P. Pandit, R. L. Chopade, A. Singh, K.K.
Awasthi, M. S. Sankhla, N. Kaur, G. K. Singh, Materials Today: Proceedings, 68, 848(2022),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.262
100. L. Rae, D. Gentles, K. J. Farrugia, Science & Justice,53, 321 (2013),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.05.002
101. R. Richa, A. Kapoor, Egyptian journal of Forensic Sciences, 6, 179
(2016),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.05.007
102. W. Meng, L. Ming, Y. Aoyang, Z. Ye, Y. Mingying, M. Chuanbin, Advanced Functional Material,
27, 1616 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201606243
103. R. Dhaneshwar, M. Kaur, M. Kaur, Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 11, 33 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-021-00252-
104. P. Hazarika, D. A. Russell, Angewandte Chemie, 51, 3524 (2012),
https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201104313
105. Z. J. Baum, X. Yu, P. Y. Ayala, Y. Zhao, S. P. Watkins, Q. Zhou, J. Chemical Information
Model, 61, 3197 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00619
106. N. Choudhary, R. Bhart, R. Sharma, Materials Today: Proceedings, 48 (5), 1527 (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.428
107. P. Hinners, K. O’Neill, Y. J. Lee, Scientific Reports, 8, 5149 (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23544-7
108. Z. Zhou, R. N. Zare, Analytical Chemistry., 89, 1369 (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04498
109. M. Jang, H. Yang, H. Lee, K. S. Lee, J. Y. Oh, H. Jeon, Y. S. Ok, S. Y. Hwang, J. Park, D. X. Oh,
Journal of Hazardous Materials,424, 127410 (2022),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127410
110. A. K. Jain, J. Feng, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 33, 88
(2011), https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2010.59
[RJC-8651/2023]

2228
FORENSIC CHEMISTRY OF FINGERPRINT AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCES: A REVIEW Chitrakara Hegde and Chandni Pathak