Fig. 1. Performance comparison of the spray, tissue, and dry contact method on the enhancement of footwear impressions in urine on white tiles. (a) Control (b) Spray method (c) Tissue method (d) Dry contact method
Fig. 2. Variation of the average grading when the footwear impressions in urine on white and black tiles were enhanced by spray, tissue and dry contact method.
Fig. 3. The enhancement results of footwear impressions in diluted urine deposited on the surface of white (top) and black (bottom) tiles. (A) Ninhydrin, (B) DFO, (C) 1,2-IND/Zn, (D) DMAC
Fig. 4. Comparison of sensitivity of urine sensitive reagents for the enhancement of footwear impression in urine.
Fig. 5. Changes in the grading of the footwear impressions in urine over time.
Table 1. The grading system to determine the degree of enhancement of footwear impressions in urine
Table 2. The number of footwear impressions in urine recovered from the floor tiles in men's and women' bathroom