Eccrine glands are distributed over the entire body and are the only glands found on the fingertips.
However, this does not include external sources of hand contamination such as food and cosmetics. In this case, a significant and relevant body of forensic research can be used to help inform the former group.įingermark residue is composed of water-soluble and insoluble materials that roughly equate to eccrine and sebaceous secretions, respectively. As Houck and Smith stated, cultural heritage chemistry is very similar to forensic science in both mindset and approach. Research into the chemical nature of fingermarks has predominantly been driven by the need to understand the fundamental science behind fingermark detection methods. There is a significant body of forensic related research exploring the chemistry of latent fingermarks that demonstrates their complex and variable composition. Moreover, due to human behaviors involving their hands: such as eating, unconscious grooming, and working it does not follow that the components of a fingermark deposited on a surface are equivalent to sweat as these behaviors are likely to transfer other contaminates to hands. Kent (2016) dispells the myth that fingerprints are purely sweat, explaining that the residue on fingertips is far more complex and more closely approximates 20% water. They support this conclusion by misinterpreting Hurley, who states, “It (eccrine sweat) is composed of 99.0–99.5% water … ". Initially, however, Baker and Silverman's supporting statements - that the composition of fingermarks are predominantly water and that gloves do not offer protection from sweat permeation - can be questioned based on current forensic literature.īaker and Silverman state that fingermarks left by ungloved hands are composed mainly of water, which would be harmless if deposited on a paper substrate. If fingermark deposition from clean hands can be established for paper artifact surrogates, an understanding of fingermark composition could then inform decisions on whether cumulative damage to the object is possible from these fingermark residues. The approach adopts a forensic mindset and employs forensic methods to assess whether ungloved contact with cleaned hands leave detectable traces on porous materials like paper. The purpose of this research is to inform the debate on glove-wearing and glove alternatives so that conservators and curators can make an informed decision on their handling practices. The research presented here seeks to address the unproven assumption that clean hands do not contaminate objects in a meaningful way. In Baker and Silverman's own words, “Given the widespread belief that routine handling of paper with bare hands chemically damages it, it is telling that our research uncovered no scientific evidence supporting this notion.” However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and an exploration of any potential impacts is warranted to support science-based collection handling guidelines. Despite the significant anecdotal evidence among collection staff that handwashing is sufficient to reduce visible grime on objects, no published scientific evidence exists to support their conclusion that handling paper artifacts with washed hands leaves minimal non-damaging contamination. Changes in some cultural heritage institutions' recommended handling practices resulting from these arguments, ,, ,, , ] include the use of handwashing rather than glove use when handling paper artifacts, and to a lesser extent the introduction of antibacterial gels. Baker and Silverman concluded that simple handwashing with soap and water before handling paper-based collections provides adequate protection against soiling, without dulling the valuable sense of touch. They also note that paper objects will have already been handled significantly by bare human hands before their collection. Arguments presented by Baker and Silverman against the use of gloves included concerns around the loss of tactile response of users when handling fragile documents and some evidence that cotton gloves are not sufficient to protect against sweat permeation when handling objects.
Baker and Silverman's 2005 paper “Misperceptions about White Gloves”, has led to widespread reviews of handling procedures in such organisations. There is significant debate concerning the wearing of gloves while handling paper-based cultural heritage objects within museums, archives, and conservation laboratories.
0 kommentar(er)
