No abstract

No abstract

The combination of all the analytical techniques employed allowed the characterization of the seized psychoactive substance, in spite of the lack of a reference standard.

Among the phencyclidine (PCP) and synthetic cathinone analogs present on the street market, 3-methoxyphencyclidine (3-MeO-PCP) is one of the most popular dissociative hallucinogen drugs, while 3-methylmethcathinone (3-MMC) is a commonly encountered psychostimulant. Numerous 3-MeO-PCP- and 3-MMC-related intoxication cases have been reported worldwide. Identification of the positional isomers of MeO-PCP and MMC families are particularly challenging for clinical and forensic laboratories; this is mostly due to their difficult chromatographic separation (particularly when using liquid chromatography–LC) and similar mass spectrometric behaviors. 3-MeO-PCP and 3-MMC were identified in two powders, detained by two subjects and seized by the police, by different analytical techniques, including liquid chromatography-high-resolution accurate-mass Orbitrap mass spectrometry (LC-HRAM-Orbitrap-MS), and solid deposition gas chromatography-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (sd-GC-FTIR). LC-HRAM-Orbitrap-MS allowed us to assign the elemental formulae C18H27NO (MeO-PCP) and C11H15NO (MMC) through accurate mass measurement of the two MH+ ions, and the comparison of experimental and calculated MH+ isotopic patterns. However, MH+ collision-induced product ions spectra were not conclusive in discriminating between the positional isomers [(3-MeO-PCP vs. 4-MeO-PCP) and (3-MMC vs. 4-MMC and 2-MMC)]. Likewise, sd-GC-FTIR easily allowed us to differentiate between the MeO-PCP and MMC positional isomers unambiguously, confirming the presence of 3-MeO-PCP and 3-MMC, due to the high-quality match factor of the experimental FTIR spectra against the target FTIR spectra of MeO-PCP and MMC isomers in a dedicated library. 3-MeO-PCP (in contrast to 3-MMC) was also detected in blood and urine samples of both subjects and analyzed in the context of routine forensic casework by LC-HRAM-Orbitrap-MS following a simple deproteinization step. In addition, this untargeted approach allowed us to detect dozens of phase I and phase II 3-MeO-PCP metabolites in all biological specimens. Analysis of the extracted samples by sd-GC-FTIR revealed the presence of 3-MeO-PCP, thus confirming the intake of such specific methoxy-PCP isomer in both cases. These results highlight the effectiveness of LC-HRAM-Orbitrap-MS and sd-GC-FTIR data in attaining full structural characterization of the psychoactive drugs, even in absence of reference standards, in both non-biological and biological specimens.

The measurement of blood-alcohol content (BAC) is a crucial analytical determination required to assess if an offence (e.g. driving under the influence of alcohol) has been committed. For various reasons, results of forensic alcohol analysis are often challenged by the defence. As a consequence, measurement uncertainty becomes a critical topic when assessing compliance with specification limits for forensic purposes. The aims of this study were: (1) to investigate major sources of variability for BAC determinations; (2) to estimate measurement uncertainty for routine BAC determinations; (3) to discuss the role of measurement uncertainty in compliance assessment; (4) to set decision rules for a multiple BAC threshold law, as provided in the Italian Highway Code; (5) to address the topic of the zero-alcohol limit from the forensic toxicology point of view; and (6) to discuss the role of significant figures and rounding errors on measurement uncertainty and compliance assessment. Measurement variability was investigated by the analysis of data collected from real cases and internal quality control. The contribution of both pre-analytical and analytical processes to measurement variability was considered. The resulting expanded measurement uncertainty was 8.0%. Decision rules for the multiple BAC threshold Italian law were set by adopting a guard-banding approach. 0.1 g/L was chosen as cut-off level to assess compliance with the zero-alcohol limit. The role of significant figures and rounding errors in compliance assessment was discussed by providing examples which stressed the importance of these topics for forensic purposes.

No abstract

The analysis of cannabinoids in whole blood is usually done by traditional mass spectrometry (MS) techniques, after offline cleanup or derivatization steps which can be lengthy, laborious, and expensive. We present a simple, fast, highly specific, and sensitive method for the determination of Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), 11‐hydroxy‐Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (11‐OH‐THC), and 11‐nor‐9‐carboxy‐Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC‐COOH) in 50 μL whole blood samples. After the addition of deuterated internal standards (IS) and a simple protein precipitation step, an online extraction of sample supernatants using turbulent flow chromatography (TurboFlow—Thermo Scientific) was carried out. Analytes were separated on a C18 analytical column and detected by LC‐HRAM‐Orbitrap‐MS using a Thermo Scientific Q Exactive Focus MS system. MS detection was performed in polarity switching and selected ion monitoring (SIM) modes using five specific acquisition windows, at a resolution of 70,000 (FWHM). Total run time was about 10 min including preanalytical steps. Method validation was carried out by determining limit of detection (LOD), lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ), linearity range, analytical accuracy, intra‐assay and interassay precision, carry‐over, matrix effect, extraction recovery, and selectivity, for all analytes. Measurement uncertainties were also evaluated, and a decision rule was set with confidence for forensic purposes. The method may become suitable for clinical and forensic toxicology applications, taking advantage of the small matrix volume required, the simple and cost‐effective sample preparation procedure, and the fast analytical run time. Performances were monitored over a long‐term period and tested on 7620 driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) samples, including 641 positive samples.