Challenges in forensic toxicology

References

• Osselton MD, Moffat AC, Widdop B. Forensic toxicology. In: Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J, editors. Clarke’s analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 160.
   Google Scholar
• The Forensic Toxicology Council. Briefing: what is forensic toxicology? 2010 [cited: Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.abft.org/files/WHAT%20IS%20FORENSIC%20TOXICOLOGY.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Logan BK, Ropero-Miller JD. Forensic toxicology: scope, challenges, future directions and needs. In: Ubelaker DH, editor. Forensic science. 1st ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012. p. 160–178.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan DA. Drug testing in human sport. In: Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J, editors. Clarke’s analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 127–137.
   Google Scholar
• Teale P. Drug testing in animal sport. In: Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J, editors. Clarke’s analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 138–146.
   Google Scholar
• Kintz P. Hair analysis. In: Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J, editors. Clarke’s analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 323–333.
   Google Scholar
• UNODC. World Drug Report. In: Illicit drug markets: situation and trends. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; 2016. p. 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• UNODC. What are NPS?; 2018 [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: https://www.unodc.org/LSS/Page/NPS
   Google Scholar
• Chung H, Lee J, Kim E. Trends of novel psychoactive substances (NPSs) and their fatal cases. Forensic Toxicol. 2016;34(1):1–11. doi:10.1007/s11419-015-0286-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ifeagwu SC, Raithelhuber M, Crean C, Gerostamoulos D, Chung H, Tettey JN. Toxicology in international drug control-Prioritizing the most harmful, persistent and prevalent substances. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;274:2–6. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.11.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNODC. World Drug Report. In Ranking opioids. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC); 2016. p. 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• FENTANYL 101, the partnership for SAFEMEDICINE.org; 2018 [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.safemedicines.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Fentanyl101-infographic-4p.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Drummer OH. Fatalities caused by novel opioids: a review. Forensic Sci Res. 2018;7:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States, 2009. In: Strengthening oversight of forensic science practice: a path forward. Washington: National Academies Press; 2009. p. 193–208.
   Google Scholar
• LeBeau M. Measuring and reporting uncertainty. In: Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J, editors. Clarke’s analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 371–387.
   Google Scholar
• ASCLD. The American society of crime laboratory director; [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.ascld.org/
   Google Scholar
• SOFT/AAFS. Forensic toxicology laboratory guidelines −2006. [ Cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.soft-tox.org/files/Guidelines_2006_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health and Human Service. Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. Maryland: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2001. p. 43876–43882.
   Google Scholar
• EWDTS. European laboratory guidelines for legally defensible workplace drug testing; c2018 [ cited 2018 Mar]. Available from: http://www.ewdts.org/ewdts-guidelines.html
   Google Scholar
• The government of the Hong Kong special administrative region: scene of crime and quality management section; c2013–2018 [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.govtlab.gov.hk/english/abt_fsd_sq.htm
   Google Scholar
• HSA. Health sciences authority: applied sciences/toxicology/overview; c2017 [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.hsa.gov.sg/content/hsa/en/Applied_Sciences/Toxicology/Overview.html
   Google Scholar
• NFS. National forensic services: achievements/major achievements; [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.nfs.go.kr/engPR/achievements.action
   Google Scholar
• Meyer MR, Peters FT, Maurer HH. Automated mass spectral deconvolution and identification system for GC-MS screening for drugs, poisons, and metabolites in urine. Clin Chem. 2010;56(4):575–584. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2009.135517
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madej KA. Analysis of meconium, nails and tears for determination of medicines and drugs of abuse. TrAC Trends Anal Chem. 2010;29(3):246–259. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2010.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim JY, Cheong JC, Lee JI, Son JH, In MK. Rapid and simple GC–MS method for determination of psychotropic phenylalkylamine derivatives in nails using micro‐pulverized extraction. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57:228–233. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01913.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu I, Jones J, Jones M, Lewis D, Negrusz A. Detection of drugs in nails: three year experience. J Anal Toxicol. 2015;39(8):624–628. doi:10.1093/jat/bkv067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strano-Rossi S, Castrignanò E, Anzillotti L, Serpelloni G, Mollica R, Tagliaro F, Pascali JP, Di Stefano D, Sgalla R, Chiarotti M. Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;221:70–76. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunkel F, Fey E, Borg D, Stripp R, Getto C. Assessment of the use of oral fluid as a matrix for drug monitoring in patients undergoing treatment for opioid addiction. J Opioid Manag. 2014;11(5):435–442.
   Google Scholar
• Bynum N, Moore K, Grabenauer M, Brown AD. Dried blood spot analysis as an emerging technology for application in forensic toxicology. In: The U.S. Department of justice. 2016. Available from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250172.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lee H, Park Y, Jo J, In S, Park Y, Kim E, Pyo J, Choe S. Analysis of benzodiazepines and their metabolites using DBS cards and LC-MS/MS. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;255:137–145. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.05.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Déglon J, Thomas A, Daali Y, Lauer E, Samer C, Desmeules J, Dayer P, Mangin P, Staub C. Automated system for on-line desorption of dried blood spots applied to LC/MS/MS pharmacokinetic study of flurbiprofen and its metabolite. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2011;54(2):359–367. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2010.08.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummer OH, Karch S. Interpretation of toxicological data. In: Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J, editors. Clarke’s analysis of drugs and poisons. 4th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. p. 417–428.
   Google Scholar
• TIAFT. The international association of forensic toxicologists; [ cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://www.tiaft.org
   Google Scholar
• Butzbach DM. The influence of putrefaction and sample storage on post-mortem toxicology results. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2010;6(1):35–45. doi:10.1007/s12024-009-9130-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy M. Interpreting postmortem drug analysis and redistribution in determining cause of death: a review. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2015;7:55–62. doi:10.2147/PLMI.S65245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pounder DJ, Jones GR. Post-mortem drug redistribution–a toxicological nightmare. Forensic Sci Int. 1990;45(3):253–263. doi:10.1016/0379-0738(90)90182-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pélissier-Alicot A-L, Gaulier J-M, Champsaur P, Marquet P. Mechanisms underlying postmortem redistribution of drugs: a review. J Anal Toxicol. 2003;27(8):533–544. doi:10.1093/jat/27.8.533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntyre IM, Sherrard J, Lucas J. Postmortem carisoprodol and meprobamate concentrations in blood and liver: lack of significant redistribution. J Anal Toxicol. 2012;36(3):177–181. doi:10.1093/jat/bks011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore KA, Cina SJ, Jones R, Selby DM, Levine B, Smith ML. Tissue distribution of tramadol and metabolites in an overdose fatality. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1999;20(1):98–100. doi:10.1097/00000433-199903000-00023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson DT, Fritz KL. Quetiapine (Seroquel) concentrations in seven postmortem cases. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24(4):300–304. doi:10.1093/jat/24.4.300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkton C, McIntyre IM. Therapeutic and toxic concentrations of mirtazapine. J Anal Toxicol. 2006;30:687–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vance C, McIntyre IM. Postmortem tissue concentrations of olanzapine. J Anal Toxicol. 2009;33:15–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarema MC, Becker CE. Key concepts in postmortem drug redistribution. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2005;43(4):235–241. doi:10.1081/CLT-58950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung H. Postmortem redistribution of drugs in blood from different sites. National Institute of Scientific Investigation; 2004. p. 27–31. Annual Report of N.I.S.I.
   Google Scholar
• Rhee J, Jung J, Yeom H, Lee H, Lee S, Park Y, Chung H. Distribution of cyanide in heart blood, peripheral blood and gastric contents in 21 cyanide related fatalities. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;210(1–3):e12–5. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.04.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones GR. Interpretation of postmortem drug level. In: Karch SB, editor. Postmortem toxicology of abused drugs. 1st ed. California: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006. p. 113–130.
   Google Scholar