Hilal, M., Abdullah, E., El Sayed, R., Salman, H. (2018). Review on Collection , Preservation and Fowarding of Biological Samples for Toxicological Analysis. test, 22(1), 431-438. doi: 10.21608/smj.2018.42520
Maha Abd-Elhamed Hilal; Essam M. Abdullah; Reda M El Sayed; Hend M. Salman. "Review on Collection , Preservation and Fowarding of Biological Samples for Toxicological Analysis". test, 22, 1, 2018, 431-438. doi: 10.21608/smj.2018.42520
Hilal, M., Abdullah, E., El Sayed, R., Salman, H. (2018). 'Review on Collection , Preservation and Fowarding of Biological Samples for Toxicological Analysis', test, 22(1), pp. 431-438. doi: 10.21608/smj.2018.42520
Hilal, M., Abdullah, E., El Sayed, R., Salman, H. Review on Collection , Preservation and Fowarding of Biological Samples for Toxicological Analysis. test, 2018; 22(1): 431-438. doi: 10.21608/smj.2018.42520

Review on Collection , Preservation and Fowarding of Biological Samples for Toxicological Analysis

Sohag Medical Journal
Article 59, Volume 22, Issue 1, January 2018, Pages 431-438    PDF (81.5 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/smj.2018.42520
Authors
Maha Abd-Elhamed Hilal1; Essam M. Abdullah2; Reda M El Sayed3; Hend M. Salman4
1Department of Forensic Medicine & Clinical Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag, University.
2Lecturer of Forensic Medicine & Clinical Toxicoogy, Faculty of Medicine - Sohag University.
3Department of, Forensic Medicine & Clinical Toxicology Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Egypt.
4Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine & Clinical Toxicoogy, Faculty of Medicine - Sohag University.
Abstract
Forensic Toxicology is the study and practice of the application of toxicology to the purposes of the law. The relevance of any finding is determined, in the first instance, by the nature and integrity of the specimen(s) submitted for analysis. This means that there are several specific challenges to select and collect specimens for ante-mortem
and post-mortem toxicology investigation. Post-mortem specimens may be numerous and can endow some special difficulties compared to clinical specimens, namely those resulting from autolytic and putrefactive changes. Storage stability is also an important issue to be considered during the pre-analytic phase, since its consideration should facilitate the assessment of sample quality and the analytical result obtained from that sample. The knowledge on degradation mechanisms and methods to increase storage stability may enable the forensic toxicologist to circumvent possible difficulties. Therefore, advantages and limitations of specimen preservation procedures are thoroughly discussed in this review. Presently, harmonized protocols for sampling in suspected intoxications would have obvious utility. In the present review an overview is given on sampling procedures for routinely collected specimens as well as on alternative specimens that may provide additional information on the route and timing of exposure to a specific xenobiotic. Last, but not least, how to forward a correct report and how to interpret a toxicological results is provided. This comprehensive review article is intented as a significant help for forensic toxicologists to accomplish their frequently overwhelming mission.
Keywords
sampling; collection; Preservation; toxicological analysis
Supplementary Files
References
  1.  A White Paper of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) (2013): Drug testing in addiction treatment. Current Applications of Drug Testing and Promising New Opportunities. Vol.IV:46-55.
  2. Baselt,  R.C. (2008): Peripherally-acting drugs and common toxic chemicals. Disposition of Drugs and Toxic Chemicals in Man. 8th ed. Vol.2. Foster City, CA: Biomedical Publications: 560-1690.
  3. Casavant, M.J.(2002):  Urine drug screening in adolescents. Pediatr. Clin. North Am.,49: 317-327.
  4. Coe, J.L. (1993): Postmortem chemistry update. Emphasis on forensic application. Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol., 14:91–117.
  5. Cooper, G.A.A.; Sue Paterson and Osselton, M.D.(2010): The United Kingdom and Ireland Association of Forensic Toxicologists . Forensic toxicology laboratory guidelines. Science and Justice. 50:166–176.
  6. Daniel, C.R.;  Piraccini, B.M. and Tosti, A. (2004): The nail and hair in forensic science. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol., 50:258–261.
  7. Dinis-Oliveira, R.J.; Carvalho, F.; Duarte, J. A.; Remião, F., Marques, A.; Santos, A. and  Magalhães, T. (2010): Collection of biological samples in forensic toxicology, Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 20 (7): 363-414.
  8. Drummer, O.H. and Gerostamoulos, J. (2002): Postmortem drug analysis: analytical and toxicological aspects. Ther Drug Monit., 24:199–209.
  9. Flanagan, R.J. and Connally G. (2005): Interpretation of analytical toxicology results in life and at postmortem. J. Toxicol Rev., 24(1):63-71.
  10. Flanagan, R.J.; Taylor, A.; Watson, I.D. and Whelpton, R. (2007): Sample collection, transport and storage. Fundamentals of Analytical Toxicology.Ch.2, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 21-47.
  11. Gallardo, E. and Queiroz, J.A. (2008): The role of alternative specimens in toxicological analysis. Biomed. Chromatogr., 22:795–821.
  12. Gourlay, D. L. and  Heit,   H. A. (2009): Commentary on unexpected urine drug testing results in a hospice patient on high dose morphine therapy. Clinical Chemistry, 55(10), 1767-1769.
  13. Gronewold, A.; Dettling, A.; Haffner, H.T. and Skopp, G. (2009): Doxepin and nordoxepin concentrations in body fluids and tissues in doxepin associated deaths. Forensic Sci. Int., 190:74–79.
  14. Health and Human Service /Medical Review Officer (HHS. MRO.), (2004): Urine drug testing. Medical Review Officer Manual for Federal Agency Workplace Drug Testing Programs. Ch.3. 6-19.
  15. Helper, B.R. and  Isenschmid, D.S. (2008): Specimen selection,collection,preservation and security. In: Karch, S.B. Editor. Postmortem Toxicology of Abused Drugs. 1st edition.Ch.2, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press:13-31.
  16. Henderson, GL. (1993): Mechanisms of drug incorporation into hair. Forensic Sci Int., 63:19–29.
  17. Jickells, S. and Negrusz, A.; Moffat, A.C.; Osselton, M.D.; Widdop, B.; (2008): Introduction to forensic toxicology. In: Jickells, S. and Negrusz, A. (eds.). Clarke's Analytical Forensic Toxicology,3rd. edition. Ch.1. London:Pharmaceutical Press. Vol.1: 1-11.
  18. Karinen, R.; Oiestad,  EL.;  Andresen, W.;  Wethe, G.; Smith-Kielland, A. and Christophersen,  A. (2010): Comparison of ethanol and other drugs of abuse concentrations in whole blood stored in Venoject glass and plastic and Venosafe plastic evacuated tubes. J. Anal. Toxicol., 34: 420–428.
  19. Kellermann, A.L.;  Fihn, S.D.; Logerfo,J.P. and Copass, M.K.(1988):  Utilization and yield of drug screening in the emergency department. American Journal of Emergency Medicine.  6 (1): 14-20.
  20. Kerrigan, S. (2008) : Sampling, storage and stability. In : Jickells, S.  and Negrusz, A. (eds.). Clarke’s Analytical Forensic Toxicology, 1st edition. vol. 1. ch.13. London , Pharmaceutical Press: 335-356.
  21. Leikin, JB. and Watson, WA. (2003): Post-mortem toxicology: what the dead can and cannot tell us. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol., 41:47–56.
  22. Levine, B. and Jufer, R. (2008): Drugs of abuse testing in vitreous humor. In: Jenkins, A.J. and Caplan, Y.H. (eds.). Drug Testing in Alternate Biological Specimens. ch.7.USA, Humana Press: 117-128.
  23. Malamud, D. and  Tabak, L. (1993):  Saliva as a diagnostic fluid. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci., 694:11–12.
  24. Moffat, A.C.; Osselton, M.D. and Widdop, B. (2013):  Introduction to forensic toxicology. In: Negrusz, A. and Cooper, G. Clarke’s Analytical Forensic Toxicology. 2nd  edition. vol.1. ch.1. London: Pharmaceutical Press:1-10.
  25. Pesce,  A.; West,  C.; Egan,  C.K. and Strickland, J.( 2012): Interpretation of urine drug testing in pain patients. Pain Med.,13:868-885.
  26. Politi, L. ; Groppi, A.; Polettini, A. and Montagna M.(2004): A rapid screening procedure for drugs and poisons in gastric contents by direct injection-HPLC analysis. Forensic Science International, 141 : 115–120
  27. Skopp, G.(2004): preanalytic aspect in postmortem toxicologicy Forensic Sci. Int.; 142:75-100.
  28. Society of Forensic Toxicologists/American Academy of Forensic Sciences (SOFT/AAFS) (2006):Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Guidelines.1-24 . www.soft-tox.org.
  29. Stimpfl, T.;  Muller, K.;  Gergov, M.; LeBeau, M.;  Polettini, A.; Sporkert, F. and Weinmann W.(2007): Recommendations on Sample  Preparation of Biological Specimens for  Systematic Toxicological Analysis. TIAFT – The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists . TIAFT-Bulletin 41 (2): 1-11.
  30. Swiss Committee for Drugs of Abuse Testing(SCDAT)(2012):  Guidelines for Drugs of Abuse Testing., 1-62.
  31. Tominaga, M.; Michiue, T.; Ishikawa, T.; Inamori-Kawamoto, O.;  Oritani, Sh. and Maeda, H. (2015): Evaluation of postmortem drug concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid compared with blood and pericardial fluid. Forensic Science International, 254 : 118–125.
  32. Triunfante, P.; Soares, M.E.; Santos, A.; Tavares, S.; Carmo, H. and Bastos Mde, L. (2009): Mercury fatal intoxication: two case reports. Forensic Sci. Int., 184:1-6.
  33. University of California (UC) Davis analytical laboratory(2010):  Introduction and over view. Quality Manual. Rev.0004.02: 3-18
  34. World Health Organization (1995): International program in chemicalsafty,BasicAnalyticalToxicology,http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/training_poisons/ _toxicology.
Statistics
Article View: 969
PDF Download: 663