Would anyone like to offer suggestions on how to process a Fed Ex envelope that says it is water and tear resistant ? I would like to treat it as porous, but I am not sure if it will work.
I would appreciate some advice.
Thanks. Happy Friday !
Processing question
-
josher89
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:32 pm
- Location: NE USA
Re: Processing question
Anna,
Is it Tyvek? If it is, porous processing wouldn't work very well. I'd try ALS, RUVIS, superglue, dye stain (Ardrox or Basic Yellow), and then maybe powder. If you can get one [envelope] like it from the FedEx folks, that would be a better way to try the processing techniques.
Good Luck,
Josh
Is it Tyvek? If it is, porous processing wouldn't work very well. I'd try ALS, RUVIS, superglue, dye stain (Ardrox or Basic Yellow), and then maybe powder. If you can get one [envelope] like it from the FedEx folks, that would be a better way to try the processing techniques.
Good Luck,
Josh
"...he wrapped himself in quotations—as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." - R. Kipling, 1893
-
antonroland
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:20 am
- Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Re: Processing question
Hi therejosher89 wrote:Anna,
Is it Tyvek? If it is, porous processing wouldn't work very well. I'd try ALS, RUVIS, superglue, dye stain (Ardrox or Basic Yellow), and then maybe powder. If you can get one [envelope] like it from the FedEx folks, that would be a better way to try the processing techniques.
Good Luck,
Josh
Not to go O/T but I would like to know how you folks choose between dyes...we mostly use Rhodamine 6g...how does it compare with Basic Yellow or Ardrox?
Does anyone use mixes such as RAM or RAY?
Thanx!
Make a difference day by day, case by case. If you don't make a difference you don't count.
-
Anna
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 4:09 am
- Location: Miami, FL
Re: Processing question
Hey,
Thank you so much for responding........yes, I guess it is similar to Tyvek. Never gave that a thought. I appreciate your thoughts !
Thank you so much for responding........yes, I guess it is similar to Tyvek. Never gave that a thought. I appreciate your thoughts !
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Re: Processing question
When faced with a new surface like that, I run out and buy a similar item, cut it into pieces, and experiment with all the different techniques that I think might work. For example, once I had a Cheerios box with $100,000 cash stuffed into it. The manner in which it recovered indicated very "fresh" prints. So I ran down to the supermarked and picked up an "identical" box of Cheerios. I cut it into 8 or 10 pieces, put fingerprints on it, and used all the various techniques to develop them. To my surprise, the best technique for the "fresh" prints on a Cheerios box was hot breath and magnetic powder. I used that on the evidence and developed absolutely beautiful latents.
Run down to the FedEx office and pick up a couple of envelopes like the one you have. Run your tests. Then you can proceed with confidence.
Good luck!
Run down to the FedEx office and pick up a couple of envelopes like the one you have. Run your tests. Then you can proceed with confidence.
Good luck!
Pat A. Wertheim
P. O. Box 150492
Arlington, TX 76015
P. O. Box 150492
Arlington, TX 76015
-
areitnau
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 4:27 pm
Re: Processing question
Hello,
Much like the others, I would proceed with a non-porous sequence. If indeed the surface is similar to Tyvek, my sequence here would be Visual/ALS/CA/MBD. If the surface was the laminated cardboard-type envelope, I would proceed with Visual/ALS/CA/Mag powder. I agree with what Pat said, I too would test out a known material in order to determine the best course of action. When in doubt, I always test a small corner of the substrate in order to determine absorbance (meaning porous).
As for the message concering which dye stain to choose. I often base that decision on the color of the substrate and the type of surface the substrate may have. I have worked for 2 different latent print laboratories and have been forunate enough to use a large number of dye stains (Basic Yellow, MBD, R6G water and methanol based, Ardrox water and methanol based, RAM, and RAY). Often if your surface has a light laminate that could be prone to absorption of the dye stain carrier, I choose a stain with a quick evaporation time (currently MBD, or an alcohol carrier). Tape adhesives tend to turn into a sticky mess if an alcohol carrier is used, so in that instance I choose an aqueous base. As for the substrate, if the surface is in the yellow family, I tend to stay away from Ardrox and go with R6G. If the surface is in the magenta range, I'd avoid R6G and go with a "yellow" stain. When using a multi-colored surface, I tend to use ardrox under a low range UV (350) with a yellow filter to attempt to maximize contrast. Also, if a carrier may dissolve the surface of the substrate or cause some kind of chemical reaction, you would want to avoid those situations as well. Just my 2 cents.....
Andy
Much like the others, I would proceed with a non-porous sequence. If indeed the surface is similar to Tyvek, my sequence here would be Visual/ALS/CA/MBD. If the surface was the laminated cardboard-type envelope, I would proceed with Visual/ALS/CA/Mag powder. I agree with what Pat said, I too would test out a known material in order to determine the best course of action. When in doubt, I always test a small corner of the substrate in order to determine absorbance (meaning porous).
As for the message concering which dye stain to choose. I often base that decision on the color of the substrate and the type of surface the substrate may have. I have worked for 2 different latent print laboratories and have been forunate enough to use a large number of dye stains (Basic Yellow, MBD, R6G water and methanol based, Ardrox water and methanol based, RAM, and RAY). Often if your surface has a light laminate that could be prone to absorption of the dye stain carrier, I choose a stain with a quick evaporation time (currently MBD, or an alcohol carrier). Tape adhesives tend to turn into a sticky mess if an alcohol carrier is used, so in that instance I choose an aqueous base. As for the substrate, if the surface is in the yellow family, I tend to stay away from Ardrox and go with R6G. If the surface is in the magenta range, I'd avoid R6G and go with a "yellow" stain. When using a multi-colored surface, I tend to use ardrox under a low range UV (350) with a yellow filter to attempt to maximize contrast. Also, if a carrier may dissolve the surface of the substrate or cause some kind of chemical reaction, you would want to avoid those situations as well. Just my 2 cents.....
Andy
Andrew Reitnauer MSFE, CSCSA, CPO, F.F.S.
Technical Lead Scientist
Washington DC DFS
Owner, Delta Forensics
www.delta-forensics.com
Technical Lead Scientist
Washington DC DFS
Owner, Delta Forensics
www.delta-forensics.com
-
Anna
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 4:09 am
- Location: Miami, FL
Re: Processing question
I would like to thank you all for responding to my question. Thank you to Josh for pointing out the obvious to me. I did not realize how similar the Fed Ex envelope was to Tyvek. So, I did take the advice from Josh and Andy to use the non porous processing route. And, yes, I would have experimented if there had been time. The evidence was rush and had to be done on Friday, unfortunately.
Believe me, I appreciate the quick responses. Thanks again !
Anna Z
Believe me, I appreciate the quick responses. Thanks again !
Anna Z
-
Ian Fleming
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:37 pm
- Location: Tasmania - Australia
Re: Processing question
I am interested in the use of Ardrox as a post-superglue stain but have little information about its use and how it compares with other common fluorescent stains. What would be the best resource guide?
-
Anna
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 4:09 am
- Location: Miami, FL
Re: Processing question
Ian,
There is an article on Ardrox in the Journal of Forensic Identification. Volume 40, No.2, March/April 1990.
There is an article on Ardrox in the Journal of Forensic Identification. Volume 40, No.2, March/April 1990.
-
areitnau
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 4:27 pm
Re: Processing question
You could also check the Table of Reagents on the Chesapeake Division of the IAI's website, www.cbdiai.org.
Andrew Reitnauer MSFE, CSCSA, CPO, F.F.S.
Technical Lead Scientist
Washington DC DFS
Owner, Delta Forensics
www.delta-forensics.com
Technical Lead Scientist
Washington DC DFS
Owner, Delta Forensics
www.delta-forensics.com
-
bficken
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:39 am
Re: Processing question
Not sure how many of you are still reading this thread, but here has been my experience with some of these issues...
I've used both Ardrox and Basic Yellow 40 independently of each other. The main difference I have seen is that Ardrox fluoresces more than Basic Yellow. This means that Ardrox is better for faint prints, but the trade off is that it has the potential to stain the background a bit more than Basic Yellow does. Of course, you can always remedy this a bit by rinsing it with water. Out of all the dye stains, I still find that Rhodamine 6G yields the best - or most consistent - results.
As for RAM and RAY, I have had experience with those as well. Also throw in MRM. I've used them all individually, and also in sequence after Basic Yellow 40, Ardox and Rhodamine 6G. With all of the 'combo' dye stains, I've found the same pros and cons. One pro was that using the combos eliminated the steps of doing the dye stains individually in sequence, therefore saving time. Another bonus was that the combos usually contained stains that fluoresced different colors (i.e. Rhodamine 6G is an orange color, Ardrox is yellow, etc). This made them great for difficult multi-colored backgrounds. However, the con was that they did not cover as evenly as when I used the dye stains seperately. They were spotty and did not fluoresce in as even of a tone, and therefore made it harder to conduct comparisons.
Layering the dye stains individually in sequence worked just as well on multi-colored backgrounds as using one of the combo stains did. And, it gave a much better result for comparisons. So I decided to stick with that method rather than using RAY, RAM or MRM as a replacement. If anything, I use them after all of the individuals, just to cover my bases.
As for the processing of something like a FedEx envelope, or other papers that are glossy or only semi-porous, I agree with everyone's suggestions about going out and finding a similar material to test/play with. Rule of thumb I usually follow is that if the dye stain does NOT soak into the item, then do the non-porous techniques followed by the porous. If the dye stain DOES soak in, skip the non-porous techniques, as they will end up hindering results from soaked in prints that you could obtain with the porous techniques.
Anyway, I know all of this is a little late, but I hope it helps anyone who is still curious. I'm also new to cplex and this is my first post, so go easy on me, ha.
Brianne Ficken
Forensic Specialist
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Forensic Laboratory
I've used both Ardrox and Basic Yellow 40 independently of each other. The main difference I have seen is that Ardrox fluoresces more than Basic Yellow. This means that Ardrox is better for faint prints, but the trade off is that it has the potential to stain the background a bit more than Basic Yellow does. Of course, you can always remedy this a bit by rinsing it with water. Out of all the dye stains, I still find that Rhodamine 6G yields the best - or most consistent - results.
As for RAM and RAY, I have had experience with those as well. Also throw in MRM. I've used them all individually, and also in sequence after Basic Yellow 40, Ardox and Rhodamine 6G. With all of the 'combo' dye stains, I've found the same pros and cons. One pro was that using the combos eliminated the steps of doing the dye stains individually in sequence, therefore saving time. Another bonus was that the combos usually contained stains that fluoresced different colors (i.e. Rhodamine 6G is an orange color, Ardrox is yellow, etc). This made them great for difficult multi-colored backgrounds. However, the con was that they did not cover as evenly as when I used the dye stains seperately. They were spotty and did not fluoresce in as even of a tone, and therefore made it harder to conduct comparisons.
Layering the dye stains individually in sequence worked just as well on multi-colored backgrounds as using one of the combo stains did. And, it gave a much better result for comparisons. So I decided to stick with that method rather than using RAY, RAM or MRM as a replacement. If anything, I use them after all of the individuals, just to cover my bases.
As for the processing of something like a FedEx envelope, or other papers that are glossy or only semi-porous, I agree with everyone's suggestions about going out and finding a similar material to test/play with. Rule of thumb I usually follow is that if the dye stain does NOT soak into the item, then do the non-porous techniques followed by the porous. If the dye stain DOES soak in, skip the non-porous techniques, as they will end up hindering results from soaked in prints that you could obtain with the porous techniques.
Anyway, I know all of this is a little late, but I hope it helps anyone who is still curious. I'm also new to cplex and this is my first post, so go easy on me, ha.
Brianne Ficken
Forensic Specialist
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Forensic Laboratory